OFFICE OF THE MAYOR erry oF cucaco, LORIE. LIGHTFOOT March 15, 2022 Aldermen Lopez, Gardiner, O’Shea, Curtis, ‘Tabares, Cardona, Burke, Nugent, Napolitano, Sposato, Quinn, Beale Chicago City Couneil Dear Aldermen: Lite in response to a letter I reecived on Friday, March 11, 2022 regarding certain matters pertaining to the City’s vaccine mandate for all city employees, including police and fire department personnel. | find the content and tone of your letter very disappointing, primarily because it contains a surprising level of misinformation and half-truths. Issue 1: “the city’s pursuit of curbing COVID-19 pandemic (sic) is threatening the quality of life in our city.” First, I categorically reject the bold and false statement that “the city’s pursuit of curbing COVID-19 pandemic (sic) is threatening the quality of life in our city.” As we approach the two- year anniversaty of the COVID-19 virus first coming to Chicago, and as we continue to mourn the over 7500 lives lost in our city to COVID-19, it is simply stunning that you would make such an uninformed and false statement. Should we not have worked to educate our residents about COVID, or provided testing resources so that residents would get proper diagnoses and treatment? Or should we not have stood up the most equitable and far-reaching vaccine distribution system in the country? Perhaps you disagree with the fact that we have pushed masking and social distancing all in an effort to equip our residents with resources to protect themselves against this highly contagious virus? I do not recall any of you rejecting the assortment of resources that my Administration made available to each alderman throughout the pandemic. But please let us know in writing if you want to be taken off the list for any future resources intended to help residents all over this city or other future opportunities to bring resources, vaccines or other COVID-19 mitigation efforts to your communities, We will instead work directly with community-based organizations in your ward so that your residents are not left without since you believe our efforts to date are “threatening, the quality of life in our city.”‘The fact is that through my Administration's efforts and those of the health care community, countless numbers of community leaders and ordinary residents, we have saved an untold number of lives in Chicago throughout the pandemic. ‘The pandemic is not over. To be sure, we are seeing some of the lowest case rates, fewest hospitalizations, and positivity levels of any point in the pandemic. And that is directly tied to the selfless sacrifice of many. We did not see our health care system buckle under the weight of skyrocketing cases as happened in communities all over the country. And from day one, we worked night and day to make sure that our health care workers, first responders and our most vulnerable residents were supported as they were experiencing this once in a lifetime pandemi But, we will not forget that every single day, people are still dying of the virus; as of yesterday, we continue to average 10-15 deaths per week, most unvaccinated and most people of color. We have lost over 7500 Chicagoans to date over the course of the pandemic and the only way to stem the tide is increasing the number of people who are fully vaccinated, So, our work to protect the lives of Chicagoans from the ravages of this disease is far from over. Issue 2:_“Many police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and other city workers are in jeopardy of being disciplined and/or terminated for non-compliance (sic) of the city’s vaccine mandate as of ‘The statement regarding mass disciplinary action against city workers is misinformed. As you should be aware, almost seven months ago, in August of 2021, we announced that effective October 15, 2021, all city employees would be required to be fully vaccinated as a condition of employment, unless they were subject to a bona fide religious or medical exemption. As of yesterday’s date, over 88.5% of our employees ate fully vaccinated, that includes over 93% of fire personnel (including civilians), and approximately 80% of police personnel (including civilians). Afier a lengthy negotiation process that did not reach resolution, certain unions took the city to court. All courts in which the mandate was challenged have ruled in the City’s favor. Some unions sought binding arbitration, Here again, the City’s mandate was upheld. Mostly recently, on February 23, 2022, an arbitrator handling the police unions matter upheld the City’s vaccine mandate and as part of his order, held that all unvaccinated swom personnel were required to receive their first shot of vaccine by March 13, and the second shot no later than April 13. After having demanded arbitration, upon the arbitrator’s ruling, the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) and the PBPA then sought to go back into court and have the arbitrator’s ruling overturned. The court denied that FOP/PBPA request. It is our expectation that the vast majority of unvaccinated sworn police personnel will comply with the arbitrator's ruling which upheld the city’s vaccine mandate as a condition of ‘employment. CPD HR immediately communicated with CPD members to explain the arbitrator’s ig from that ruling. Yesterday, CPD sent yet another communication to CPD personnel to address any other concerns and to reiterate members’ obligations under the arbitrator’s ruling. If members simply follow the rules and/or lawful orders given, they should not face any disciplinary issues. To date, out of over 12,000 CPD personnel, only a small percentage of personnel have faced discipline, and most because they acted withinsubordination hy refusing to abide by a direct order to simply register in the vaccine portal. Al currently, there are only 17 sworn personnel in a no pay status arising from issues with the vaccine policy. ‘The experience has been that even most of those that went into a no pay status, quickly came back to work. Despite your suggestion that somehow public safety will be compromised, the Superintendent sees no issue with staffing going forward as a result of the mandate, particularly because so many members are fully vaccinated or will be. Some of you raised these doomsday ‘warnings previously. They did not come to fruition then and there is no reason to believe that they will come to fruition now. Issue 3: “We have seen lopsided numbers in how exemption requests are being approved across departments.” Because your letter does not reveal the facts that underlie the above assertion regarding the processing of exemptions, it is difficult to respond. However, there is nothing “lopsided” about the process by which the Department of Human Resources (“DHR") is processing exemption requests. As has been the case from the beginning of the mandate process as announced months azo, there are two potential exemptions from the vaccine requirement: medical or religious. With both exemptions, DHR provided a straightforward form for cmployces use. Unfortunately, FOP decided to ereate its own form which did not comply with DHR requirements and created significant problems for members who tried fo use that unsanctioned form. Nonetheless, DUR gave everyone who submitted an exemption request on a nonsanctioned form the ability to reapply using the DHR form. Regarding the medical exemption, the application must include certification from a medical provider who is competent in the field of treatment for which the underlying medical condition is asserted. Some employees failed to fully comply with the certification and other requirements, Nonetheless, any deficiencies are flagged by DHR and the employee is given ample opportunity to comply so that their exemption request could be considered. Regarding a religious excmption, DHR provided a specific form with questions for the employee to complete. Like with the medical exemption request, the employee is required to provide a certification from a faith leader Regarding the police department, there were two issues that arose. FOP encouraged members to file a “conscientious objection” exemption which is not a recognized exemption under the law. Thousands of exemptions citing this improper basis were photocopied and sent in. DHR appropriately rejected all of these exemption requests. Another issue with the police department regarding exemptions is that any such exemption request was due by the end of December 2021. Unfortunately, a number of members waited until after the arbitrator's final ruling just a few weeks ago before filing for an exemption. ‘There are now hundreds of pending requests, In faimess to the members, DHR will sort through them individually to make sure that all requests, whether timely or not, are given due consideration,The process is very straightforward and has been explained to all city employees, commissioners, HR liaisons in each department and supervisors multiple times, There are ample opportunities for you or anyone else with questions to have this explained, if there is a since interest to seek information. While DHR would be happy to explain the process if requested through appropriate channels, you should recognize that given the sensitive and confidential nature of the information revealed in the exemption request, DHR is prohibited by law from discussing individual cases with any third parties Issue 4: “Serology testing can be performed to detect the presence of COVID-19 antibodies to determine their presence and possible protection from the viruses associated with COVID- 19. The fact is that many police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and other city workers who are unvaccinated are still protected against this virus.” Here again, you cite no bona fide public health or other evidence for this assertion and it is not supported by the science. Per Dr. Allison Anwady, previous infection with COVID-19 does provide some limited immunity. That is why our mitigation policies already incorporate the best, most current science on natural immunity. For example, the City docs not require testing for unvaceinated employees with approved exemptions who can show proof of COVID-19 diagnosis within the previous 90 days. In addition, quarantine is not required for individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 within the previous 90 days when identified as a close contact of a positive case. But rescarch has shown that the level of protection from natural immunity varies widel based on individual characteristics, is less predictable, and does not last as long as immunity provided by vaccines. One study found that people who did not get vaccinated after recovering from COVID-19 were twice as likely to be reinfected as those who did get vaccinated after recovering, Natural immunity is clearly not a substitute for vaccination in mitigation strategies like ‘our employee vaccination mandate. Some of you have firsthand knowledge with what can happen to an unvaccinated person who gets sick with COVID. Just as importantly, from an operational perspective, there is no existing test (or titer) that can assess an individual's current level of immunity to or protection from COVID-19. Both the FDA and CDC agree that serology or antibody testing are not reliable ways to assess an individual's current level of immunity to COVID-19. Public health experts recommend against using these tests to guide any medical decision-making or policy It is also important to note that over the last to years, the leading cause of death among first responders is COVID-19, and we have specific examples in both our police and fire departments of individuals who died of COVID-19 either because they became sick before a vaccine was available or after the vaccine was available, chose not to get vaccinated. ‘The number of deaths does not account for a cohort of first responders who chose not to get vaccinated or otherwise follow the clear public health guidance and now are on disability and seeking relief from our pension boards. In addition, our residents who call upon our first responders for assistance in their time of need, should not have to worry about whether they will be infected with COVID-19.For all of these reasons and many more based on bona fide scientific research, vaceines are the surest way to protect against COVID-19 and serious health consequences, Issue 5: City Council Member access to Information At several points in your letter, you seemingly decry the lack of information about the topics highlighted in your leucr. ‘There is no shortage of information readily available to you, employees or the general public about the operations of government around our COVID-19 mitigation efforts. As we have consistently throughout the pandemic, we talk about them publicly on a regular basis. For example, Dr. Arwady has been appearing before the City Council Health Committee typically every months or so throughout the pandemic, In fact, she just appeared before the Health Committee on February 28, 2022. Two of the signatories of this letter are on the Health Committee, but yet neither of them asked a single question during that most recent hearing and certainly nothing about a single issue you have raised in this letter. Why not? Also, one of the signatories of the letter who is on the Health Committee did not stay on the Zoom for the hour long hearing. And of course, as is the practice of most, if not all, City Council Committees, all members of the Council are welcome to participate to listen or ask questions and the Health Committee is no exception as several non-members were present during the February 28" hearing. None of the non Health Committee members who are signatories to this letter participated in that February 28" hearing. That failure raises some interesting questions. 1am also struck that given that the Health Committee exists and Dr. Arwady regularly appears that not a single one of you who signed the letter contacted Chairman Sawyer to express your concerns as reflected in the letter or otherwise sought to obtain any information from him or to ask for a committee hearing to address your concems. Again, why not? If you did not want to use the obvious channels available to you through the normal City Couneil processes, then why not just piek up the phone and ask someone about the information you seek? Iam mystified that as members of City Council, you would not avail yourself of the regular channels for obtaining information if there was a genuine interest to gain information for your own edification or that of your constituents, There is no lack of transparency on the part of any one in my Administration and your failure to seck information in the normal course strongly suggests a different objective than a search for the truth. Issue 6 Demand regarding the management of City Employees. In the last part of your letter, you issue a demand to me as Mayor about the management of relations with city employees. The Municipal Code makes elear that management of the City workforce is vested in the Mayor as the Chief Executive and the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. Certainly, the Council can make recommendations for the conduct of city business and that happens as a matter of routine. But, by law, the Mayor is responsible for the management of City employees both exempt and per relevant collective bargaining agreements, union employees. Tbelieve that this letter addresses all of the issues raised in your letter.I would strongly urge you (o use the normal channels available through the City Couneil toaddress your concerns. Threats, veiled or direct, are not productive and itis simply unreasonable to continue down this path of trying to disrupt the functions of the City Council and hold all of us hostage when there are clearly more productive ways to get information if there is a genuine desire to do so. 1 for one, will not participate in any more political stunts, but my Administration will continue to be transparent and collaborative as we have been throughout the pandemic because that it what the public deserves. Sincerely, Miyor ce: Chicago City Council Dr. Allison Arwady Commissioner Christopher Owen Superintendent David O. Brown