On Friday the Rockville Chamber invited the other Montgomery County chambers to have a discussion with Dr. Earl Stoddard and Jake Weissmann regarding the Vaccine Passport. Here are the Q&A responses.
Executive Branch’s Response to County Council Vaccine Requirement Regulation Questions
1. Why are workers/employees not included under the regulation? Do other jurisdictions have passport regulations that include workers? How are residents safe in a situation where fellow patrons must be vaccinated but the employees serving them, and with whom they actually interact, may not be vaccinated?
DC and Chicago don’t require employees to be vaccinated. NYC, Boston, Honolulu, LA, and Philadelphia require employees to be vaccinated. There was great concern among the business sector that if Montgomery County requires employees to be vaccinated then it could exacerbate staffing shortages because DC does not require employees to be vaccinated.
2. How does this requirement apply to individuals entering government buildings? There is an exemption for private meeting spaces and for facilities “relating to governmental regulation”. Does this mean that all County buildings and facilities are exempt (EOB, COB, Libraries, Rec Centers, Senior Centers, etc.)?
The public has a constitutional right to petition government and access certain critical services. With that said, as drafted this would not apply to EOB, COB, Senior Centers, Shelters, DHHS clinics, rental assistance, permitting and licensing, etc.
3. If government buildings are exempt, why are we imposing a greater requirement on businesses than we’re imposing on ourselves?
The public has a constitutional right to petition government and access certain critical services.
4. How are businesses going to administer individuals’ exemption requests for sincerely held religious beliefs or medical necessity? Is failing to grant an exemption that should be granted, considered a violation of the regulation? Will businesses be subject to discrimination claims for failing to grant needed exemptions?
Businesses should apply the same process currently used when patrons seek exception to the face covering requirement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
101 Monroe Street • Rockville, Maryland 20850
240-777-2500 • 240-777-2544 TTY • 240-777-2518 FAX
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
Executive Branch Responses to County Council Vaccine Required Regulation Questions January 14, 2022
Page 2 of 4
To briefly describe this process – If a patron indicates that they are
exempt, businesses should engage in a good faith discussion (a.k.a. the “interactive process”) to determine if there is a reasonable accommodation that would enable the patron to access the goods and services without posing an undue hardship to the business or a direct threat to other persons inside the business. Whether to grant the accommodation would be in the sole discretion of the business.
Failure to grant would not be a violation of this regulation.
5. What happens if someone loses their vaccine card?
They can provide a copy of their vaccination card, picture of their vaccination card, if an individual is vaccinated in the State of Maryland; they can obtain proof of vaccination from MyIR which permits downloading or printing of proof of vaccination. If they were vaccinated out-of-state, they can contact their original provider/State for a replacement card.
6. What if any outreach has been done with businesses, business groups, nonprofits, arts and entertainment venues?
Outreach started in August 2021, with a Town Hall on this topic.
Conversations continued before and after introduction of the bill, with the Restaurant Association, Chambers of Commerce, business leaders and others.
7. Was this vaccine passport proposed by the Health Officer and Public Health Team or by the County Executive?
The Public Health Team worked with the Public Health Advisory Committee on this initiative and brought it to the County Executive.
8. Is there specific evidence that the Executive Branch can point to, that demonstrates how vaccine passports implemented in other, similar jurisdictions have reduced the spread of Covid 19 and/or increased the number of residents getting vaccinated?
As noted in the Council’s Resolution packet prepared by staff – NYC experienced a vaccine rate increase of 9% overall and 13% in ages 18-34.
Additionally, a CDC report from November shows the benefits of vaccination status in reducing spread, symptoms, and risk of death.
The linked Lancet Journal article shows how vaccine requirements resulted in increased vaccination rates.
9. What specific public health metrics and guidance were used to determine whether to include certain business and activities and exclude others?
Executive Branch Responses to County Council Vaccine Required Regulation Questions January 14, 2022
Page 3 of 4
Establishments included those that meet a series of criteria that placed them at the top of the Contact Tracing data provided by the Maryland COVID link system.
Typically, environments where face coverings must be removed or frequently become askew during activities.
10. At this stage of the pandemic and in light of all we know with the current variant, is the requirement of a first dose in what is now generally seen as a 3-dose vaccine sufficient enough to have a meaningful impact?
The benefits of any level of vaccine dosing are beneficial, particularly against Omicron. The draft proposal is structured to be similar to DC’s requirement. Given the high rate of vaccination in the County, starting with a two dose requirement might be reasonable.
11. In light of the percentage of County residents 12+ who have already received a 1st dose, what impact would a vaccine passport requirement that only requires one dose and only includes those 12 and over actually have?
Same answer as above–The benefits of any level of vaccine dosing are beneficial, particularly against Omicron. The draft proposal is structured to be similar to DC’s requirement. Given the high rate of vaccination in the County, starting with a two dose requirement might be reasonable.
12. What enforcement tools does the Executive Branch intend to deploy in order to implement this, especially in light of all the staff shortages throughout county government and the broader workforce?
We anticipate a similar enforcement mechanism used for enforcement of the indoor face covering requirement. This is largely a complaint-based enforcement through DHHS’ Licensing and Regulation Services. We will continue to provide education to business owners and patrons of the efficacy of vaccines and why the regulation is in effect.
13. What if any technology will the County be deploying to implement this requirement and how will businesses and residents access it?
There is no technology requirement. There will not be any technology unless MDH changes its position on software systems accessing the Immunet database.
14. What coordination, if any, is happening with DC government to make it easy for residents and patrons to move back and forth between jurisdictions? Will the two systems operate in separate silos?
As drafted, the resolution closely mirrors DC’s vaccine requirements.
Executive Branch Responses to County Council Vaccine Required Regulation Questions January 14, 2022
Page 4 of 4
Ongoing Conversations occur with D.C. Dept. of Health about implementation to inform our policies and procedures.
Consistency with DC’s program will reduce confusion for residents, visitors, and businesses.
15. Has there been a cost/benefit analysis done to determine how much this will cost in county dollars to implement and enforce, and to private entities to carry out, versus the real-life public health benefits? What financial resources does the County plan to provide impacted businesses and nonprofit organizations to support this initiative, and how is it proposed to be funded? How many FTEs do you estimate to administer the passport program and what departments will provide staffing? Will you be contracting out any of this work?
No formal cost/benefit analysis was done on this proposal. But reports from other jurisdictions that implemented similar programs were reviewed to identify potential financial impacts.
We know that the cost of unfettered COVID spread in the community is significant. The potential impact of additional requirements (e.g. capacity limits, outdoor dining only, etc.) on business is also significant.
Existing County resources will be used for enforcement and is part of the routine inspection process.
Many COVID related enforcement requirements are reimbursed by Federal funds. E.g. signage for enforcement of this proposal is anticipated to be reimbursed.
16. How long does the Executive Branch recommend that this passport requirement remain in place, what are its specific objectives, and what metrics will be used to determine its effectiveness?
This program is intended to curb the spread of COVID that is less deleterious than previous measures. The key to living with COVID-19 is increasing vaccination and booster rates. We believe this proposed regulation helps toward meeting those objectives.
Therefore, metrics around this regulation should be based upon the above goals.
Some metrics to consider are transmission and vaccination rates. A reevaluation period like the indoor face covering regulation is also suggested.