Kansas City Business Session: Employee COVID Testing and Pay Equity - January 13, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Kansas City Business Session: Employee COVID Testing and Pay Equity - January 13, 2022
This Business Session of the Kansas City Council, held on January 13, 2022, at approximately 8:15 PM, focused on a presentation by Councilman Ellington concerning city employee COVID-19 testing policies, alleged retaliatory actions, and broader issues of pay equity and discrimination. Numerous city employees from multiple departments testified about the financial burden of weekly testing, denied religious exemptions, and inadequate wages. The council discussed potential resolutions to address payroll deductions, align policies with the fire department, and audit COVID-related spending.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Mr. Silvers (union representative) criticized the city manager for bargaining in bad faith, noting that fire department vaccination numbers were misrepresented (76% vaccinated but treated differently). He highlighted pay disparities: the city spends $7.9 million per month on management salaries (1,400 management vs. 800 labor employees).
- Brian Malcolm (plant operator, Wastewater) stated that critical infrastructure employees were “forgotten” from May 2020 to April 2021, with only one testing opportunity. He argued that since vaccinated employees can also transmit COVID, a universal testing protocol with paid time off is needed.
- Eugene Jackson (Science & Marketing) cited stage three kidney failure and said his doctor refused to sign an exemption; he objected to being pushed toward vaccination and noted the penalty of three missed tests leads to termination.
- An unnamed employee noted that contractors hired by the city are not required to test or be vaccinated, yet are paid three times more than city employees doing the same work.
- Jeremy Ritter (assistant operations manager, downtown airport) compared the city’s policy to the recent Supreme Court decision (SCOTUS) and called it medical discrimination and coercion. He pointed out that fire and police are exempt from the policy.
- Tonika Evans (Water Services, vaccinated) spoke against mandates, stating that medical decisions should be between patient and doctor. She noted her own pay is insufficient to qualify for two-times rent, relying on her federal annuity.
- David Morgan (fired after 20 years) said he was terminated for refusing a saliva test, not for refusing testing altogether. He emphasized he would have taken an alternative test, and his termination paperwork falsely stated he violated AR-133 by denying a COVID test.
- Another attendee (unidentified) raised three conflicts regarding AR-133: employees were fired before being offered alternative tests, testing and vaccination did not prevent transmission, and some terminated employees have fraudulent termination reasons.
- Multiple employees from Public Works, Water Services, Parks, and Fleet reported pay issues: inadequate wages for experienced workers, missing overtime/holiday pay for snow plowing, and lack of proper training.
- Norris Mann (Public Works) said employees were told they would not be paid the next day after snow plowing overnight and had to use personal time.
- Jermaine Humanist (Water, 19 years) stated his religious accommodation was denied, his appeal took months, and he was told accommodations were denied even though termination was not pursued.
- Claude Harris (Wastewater) noted that experienced employees are leaving, leaving little institutional knowledge; his starting pay is around $16/hour.
- Several other employees echoed frustration over the $97 weekly test cost (estimated $4,800/year), which represents a significant portion of salary (about $20,000 net for a $15/hour worker).
Discussion Items
- Councilman Ellington presented a detailed timeline of his inquiries starting December 27, 2021, concerning a $97 test fee and denials of religious/health exemptions. He read from a policy (AR-33) requiring employees to sign a payroll deduction for $97. He argued the city changed testing frequency from monthly to weekly after stopping funding, appearing retaliatory. He cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling against a federal vaccine mandate and stated the city’s policy likely violates OSHA. He also noted that some employees were terminated for refusing saliva tests (citing DNA privacy concerns). He called for a forensic audit of COVID spending and policies.
- Councilwoman Hall supported employees, stating she is against mandates and wants transparency on exemption requests: total number, approvals, and denials. She noted the financial impact: $97/week amounts to $4,800/year, a large portion of a $15/hour salary.
- Councilwoman Robinson asked the city manager to respond to payroll deductions. City Manager Platt stated that as of that morning, HR informed him there were no payroll deductions and that free testing options exist. He offered to verify. Robinson introduced a resolution for same-day adoption to align COVID testing policies with the fire department’s policy (which does not require payroll deductions) and to ensure fairness. Councilman Ellington asked to amend the resolution to include reimbursement for any deducted fees and a forensic audit of policies and spending.
- Councilwoman Parks-Shaw inquired about several employees missing double pay or holiday pay for snow plowing; the city manager said he would check. She expressed gratitude to employees.
Key Outcomes
- Councilwoman Robinson requested that the city attorney prepare a resolution for same-day adoption to align COVID testing policies for Local 500 employees with the fire department’s policy (ensuring no payroll deductions for testing). Councilman Ellington asked to amend to include reimbursement for any payroll deductions already taken and a forensic audit of COVID-related policies and expenditures.
- The council did not take a final vote on the resolution during this session; further action was anticipated.
- Councilman Ellington noted that a resolution to re-evaluate contracted services and potentially replace contractors with city employees passed out of committee and is on the floor.
- The city manager committed to checking on payroll deductions and missing pay for snow plow work.
- Councilwoman Hall requested from HR the total number of exemption requests, approvals, and denials (without names).
Meeting Transcript
Two is there a motion? So moving second. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. The motion passes. Our first item is uh city employee presentation brought to us by councilman Allington. Councilman, if you'd like to uh kick us off, thank you. I appreciate you, Mr. Mayor. I'm gonna be as concept and concise as I can be. As I did in committee, though, I'm just gonna uh read the uh part of section 1.8 and again ask for uh protection for anybody that talks. Section 1.8 deals with employee testimony before the city council. Uh individual employees who have views or opinions about an issue, project, court case, pending ordinance, resolution, or other enabling legislation, city programs, etc. that are deviant or conflicting with those of the city's officials, representatives shall not use city work time to present their views, identify themselves to city employees while presenting their views, where city issue uniforms, badges, or any other items that might identify themselves to city employees, drive a city vehicle to a meeting, make statements that would lead a person to believe that they are speaking on behalf of the city. So I'm asking again that for anybody that speaks, they're being protected. And since I got the city manager and the mayor in here, I want to do that in front of you guys. Sir. All right, thank you. So uh this is an extremely serious situation. Extremely serious situation. And I often talk about politics is war without bloodshed and war is bloody politics, and some don't know the extent of that, but my crusade is a little different, and this is one of the reasons why I engaged in this meeting and while I committed to working with the city workers, and I'm committing to do everything that I can. Uh two weeks ago, we had a public meeting, and that public meeting uh I committed to filing two pieces of legislation. Uh one piece came through committee yesterday. I'm looking for the things that I already had up. Okay. One came through committee yesterday, and that was the one dealing with testing and regulating that the city follows state protocols and mandates. Hey, Howard, what happened to the PDF? See here, Dr. Oh, there it is. Okay. This one actually got held in the committee. I just put it up there so the workers know that I kept my word. And again, this one dealt with uh pertaining to state law vaccines, medical mandates, medical procedures, medical practices, uh, etc. And this is extremely important because this is part of the crux of what we're what we're here today. I've redacted all of the names from the emails that I put out, but just creating a factual trail that uh employees can follow or anybody else can follow. On December the 27th, I sent the email to my colleagues and the city manager inquiring about a $97 test fee, uh and also about denials of religious and health exemptions. Uh and also a few other uh inequality issues when it comes to the departments, rules, policies, and what looks like federal abuse. The email was responded to on December the 28th. Uh, and just to read a uh insert to clarify some incorrect information in the email. The city is not requiring employees to pay $100. I never stated $100, I said 97 for tests in uh insulating any sort of weekly fee of employee. We simply are increasing the frequency of testing. Um go to the AR 33. AR33, the option will require that you sign a payroll deduction uh form and 97 dollars will be deducted from your paycheck. And the regional email that I sent to my colleagues, I said that I think there's potential red flags and that we're not getting transparent and honest information in the response email that you all got. It said that I was inaccurate in my information, yet the city sends out a policy that states this option will require that you sign a payroll deduction form, and $97 will be deducted from your paycheck. Third party acknowledgments. I'll put this in here.
openpublica.com