On 08/11/2021 the Board of Health took up and voted on Resolution 12-R-21.
The discussion started out with Chairperson Cathy Spears asking, “Can I have a motion to get it on the table for discussion?” and another board member saying, “So moved.” [Normally when an item is brought to the table the motion tends to be, “Move to approve,” or perhaps occasionally “Move to deny.” It wasn’t exactly clear to me what the motion in this case was; it sounded like it was essentially, “Move to discuss this item,” which seemed out of the ordinary to me, and was a very early indication that this resolution was probably in for some changes.]
As soon as it was brought to the table, Mayor Woodford said, “Chair, with respect to the Board, I’ll be abstaining from this discussion and vote, but I’ll be in the room for questions if the Board has any.”
Chairperson Spears noted that she saw his name on the resolution [which I took to be the reason he was abstaining from the discussion and vote.]
She then asked Human Resources Director Jay Ratchman to go over his memo to the Board and explain to the Board and the public the steps the city has taken to replace our recently retired health officer.
Director Ratchman began by saying, “I want to start out by reassuring this Board as well as the entire Council that this position has been and will continue to be a priority. This is a unique position and we have treated our strategy to fill the vacancy as unique as well. We’ve provided weekly updates to our alderpersons through our recruitment status report….I know I’ve had conversations with a number of alderpersons, and we’ve talked about this at the HRIT committee, so I’m an open book. Would love to talk with any of our Council members regarding this recruitment process.”
He then went on to summarize the timeline and steps they had taken to fill the position. They had originally started looking at this position in early 2020 when then Health Officer Eggebrecht had first announced his retirement, but then the pandemic set in so filling that vacancy was suspended while the City of Appleton as an organization was focused on responding to the pandemic.
In 2021, Health Officer Eggebrecht again announced his intent to retire with a retirement date of June 4, 2021. The Human Resources Department, the Mayor’s Office, the Health Department, and Health Officer Eggebrecht all sat down in March of 2021 and talked about the strategy to fill this position. Their choice of starting in March was to try to have a timeline that would coincide with that June 4 retirement date.
They treated the position as unique. They looked at advertising through traditional means, such as through careerbuilder.com and indeed.com as a way to get the word out on a national level. They also looked at trying to specifically reach health officers and those who are qualified to be health officers.
Director Ratchman again stated that it is a unique position and there are a lot of qualifications required, so the applicant pool is going to be very different. Some of those non-traditional means they used to get the word out included networking which involved the mayor and the Health Officer reaching out to the University of Wisconsin system as well as local health systems. They also advertised or reached out to the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, the Wisconsin Public Health Association, the State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Association of City and County Health Officers. They were trying to broadcast a wide message to get a diverse audience to apply for the position.
They then screened applications as they came in. They conducted screening interviews and also in-depth interviews with candidates. At least the first round of all those interviews were completed prior to Health Officer Eggebrecht retiring. There were some people with good qualifications in that applicant pool and the city went into the interviews excited and optimistic, but for a variety of reasons they did not find a suitable replacement.
Once they determined that they didn’t have a successor Health Officer, they switched gears and consulted with the State of Wisconsin to let them know what their interim staffing plan was. They also talked through with the State a little about their recruitment efforts. Per Director Ratchman, because Appleton has Level III health department, there “is a requirement that not only you have a qualified health officer or someone on an interim but really that you are showing that you are—have a good faith effort to fill your vacancy. And they were very satisfied with what we are doing. In follow up conversations they continue to be satisfied with what we’re doing.”
[Although it is certainly clear that the State is satisfied with the interim leadership of Appleton’s Health Department, it wasn’t clear to me either from the Board of Health meeting or the Human Resources and Technology Committee meeting where the hiring of a health officer was also discussed, whether Interim Health Officer Sonja Jensen does actually meet the full requirements to head a Level III health department or if the State is simply satisfied because she holds this position on an interim basis while the city is actively seeking a fully credentialled permanent replacement. I do have an email into Director Ratchman to get this question clarified.
Interim Health Officer Jensen does seem to be carrying out her responsibilities competently. During the Human Resources and Information Technology Committee meeting where this was discussed, Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) asked if there was any problem or deficiency with how the Interim Health Officer was fulfilling the duties of the Health Officer, to which Director Ratchman responded, “Not that I’m aware of. In fact, I would say that our interim director is doing an outstanding job.” Given that she’s doing a great job, already has experience here in Appleton, and is a current employee, I’m curious why we don’t just take the “interim” off her title and keep her on as the official replacement.]
When the initial round of applications and interviews yielded no replacement candidate, they immediately turned around and rebroadcast the message that Appleton is looking for a health officer. They have not sat on applications and have reached out to candidates as soon as they received an application. They have done some screening interviews and they have a panel interview date set up for August 26.
Director Ratchman felt that they had the tools to fill the vacancy and if they need something additional, they will not hesitate to reach out to the Board of Health or the Common Council to ask for resources to get the job done.
He finished by saying that some position can be really simple to fill. An advertisement can result in hundreds of applications within two weeks. This is not one of those positions. It’s very unique. He said he’s been through situations where they just had to stay the course, never settle, and strive to get it right. He wanted to stress that they were working on this and he wanted them to have confidence in what they were doing.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) didn’t have a question but spoke in her role as the chairperson of the Human Resources and Technology Committee. She had seen that the HR Director and the HR Department as a whole had been wholly transparent with the committee and the council regarding the search efforts. Director Ratchman had provided updates in addition to the recruitment status report as well as the full background on the appointment of the Interim Health Officer. She understood the unique difficulties of filling such an important position, especially given that there are very specific attributes and qualifications needed in order to meet the city Health Department’s Level III status. She was very satisfied with their efforts.
Board member Dr. Lee Vogel also did not have a question but thought it was important to share that, as a medical advisor to the Board of Health and to the Appleton Health Officer, she had been personally involved in reviewing applications and interviewing applicants. She said it was difficult to attract very capable people to public health at this particular time. She said there was a lot of politicization and there have been health officers in a number of communities who have exited rather than sign on. Beyond that, they were dealing with the level of qualifications and expectations Appleton had for the position. She also thought one aspect was to even get someone to look. Appleton is a wonderful city, but sometimes it really takes getting people here in order for them to even consider a position. She was hopeful and saw this hiring effort as having been and continuing to be well organized.
Chairperson Spears said she reached out to the Wisconsin Public Health Association and the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards to find out what the status was statewide and learned that Appleton is not alone. There are currently 5 interim health officers within the state. Several local health officers have been hired, and there’s a program they [I took “they” to refer to WALHDAB] offer to train and mentor them; however, that training was not for Level III health officers, so that made Appleton unique. Right now, Appleton is competing with 4 other health departments to find a qualified Level III health officer, so she thought they needed to keep that in mind as they moved forward. She then asked the sponsors of the resolution if they had anything they wanted to say.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) said that, with respect to the resolution, he as well as the co-authors who couldn’t be there that day, very much appreciated the work that the Health Department and the HR Department have done since March and also over the last year and a half. None of the co-authors believed that the city was not giving maximum effort in those arenas and they appreciated the work that staff had done under difficult circumstances. He then stated that “as elected officials, we represent everybody in our community and to—with respect to the resolution, I think it’s important to note that there are a number of people in our community who think that putting back in place more mandates are something that they don’t want to see, and so I think it’s important that we represent those views as well.”
He noted that there were two aspects to the resolution—the hiring of the health officer and how the city handles Covid-related mandates. He thought the health officer discussion was more appropriate for the HR committee.
In regards to the part of the resolution related to the mandates for city facilities, he said, “I think a lot of the concern relates to the fact that this puts us out of step with what other municipalities around us are doing. I think we’re still seeing lower counts and lower rates of transmission than a lot of the other communities who are even smaller than Appleton are and I think it’s important that our role as government is to be supportive of our community, but at the same time to be as minimally intrusive to our residents as we can be.” He thought that the decision to implement a mask mandate on city property was premature particularly without having the Health Officer position filled.
Chairperson Spears said that the night before the Board of Health meeting, the Outagamie County Board of Supervisors ratified masking on their facilities, so she didn’t think Appleton was out of step with anyone.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), who was one of the other co-sponsors of the resolution said, “I believe that what Appleton did began a snowball effect and I–I’m not certain whether we’ve all equally decided that.” She was under the impression that the Outagamie County order applied only to staff and volunteers, but Chairperson Spears said it applied to anyone who enters county facilities. Alderperson Hartzheim appreciated the clarification.
[There are some differences between the two orders. The Outagamie County order was voted on by the Board of Supervisors, whereas the Appleton order was not. The Outagamie County order has an actual clearly laid out document behind it whereas the only documentation I’ve been able to find for the Appleton order is an info graphic on their Facebook post about the mandate. The Outagamie County order includes exemptions whereas the Appleton order does not seem to.]
Dr. Vogel asked if she could question the authors of the resolution and Chairperson Spears told her she could.
Dr. Vogel said that she wanted to point out that the measures taken by the Outagamie County Board and Mayor Woodford regarding wearing masks on city facilities were pretty consistent with CDC and DHS recommendations. She said “I do think it’s always difficult when you’re talking about something where people feel some sort of personal experience that is different than what they want, and as I teach our young physicians and all of our health care workers in our clinic is that we in health care actually adopt these things earlier because of our responsibility for the safety of each other, as a workforce, for keeping our community safe and our patients safe, but also around evidence as well. And we recently returned to even our vaccinated, internally, wearing masks at all times and that’s, I think, prudent in light of what’s happening with Delta. We often err on the side of caution. So, nevertheless, I do understand that you do represent the whole public.”
She disagreed with the idea of reserving the conversation around the health officer for the HR Committee because she felt really strongly that whoever the Board of Health was working with as the health officer and interim health officer had to have the qualifications, experience, and demonstrated capacity and ability to function in that position adequately.
I found her final statement a little rambling and confusing so I’ll transcribe it, “And I think that–I speak for myself, I–and I have a lot of contact with Officer Jensen just as much as I had with Officer Eggebrecht, who in the middle of a pandemic was quite reassuring about the skillset he brought to the table, and I have equal confidence in Officer Jensen and also believe the documents that demonstrated, and was part of understanding the discussion with the former health officer, about what happened actually to secure the state approval and sanction. So I think it’s important to have that here so it would be good to hear those concerns if you’re willing.” [Basically, it sounded to me like she thought Health Officer Eggebrecht was great, was equally pleased with Interim Health Officer Jensen, was satisfied with the documentation regarding the hiring process, and wanted to know what concerns the authors of the resolution had. But what confused me then is that neither Alderperson Doran nor Hartzheim were given an opportunity to answer that question. So I’m not sure if Dr. Vogel did actually ask them what their concerns were which is how I had interpreted her statement or if she was just making a statement that didn’t require an answer.]
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) wanted to know what made something a mandate vs simply a policy of an institution in regards to the city or a business requiring people to wear masks for entry.
The attorney [not Attorney Behrens; possibly Attorney Glad] said that the mayor’s specific authority is granted in WI statute section 62.09 subsection 8 and basically allows or grants the mayor the position of the city’s chief executive officer. The Wisconsin league of Municipalities has opined that this essentially gives the mayor the power to direct city staff, oversee day to day operations at city hall, and essentially determine how these operations and services are delivered to the public. In regard to Alderperson Meltzer’s specific question, the authority granted to the mayor allows him to determine policies regarding city staff and those that enter city run businesses or city run facilities.
Alderperson Meltzer said, “I take the spirit of this resolution to be supportive of the hiring of a new health officer but a lot of the language throughout the resolution really concerns me. I do feel that the most efficient way to handle a resolution like this, especially since we’ve heard the reports from staff that this position has consistently been prioritized–hiring for this position has been consistently prioritized. I feel the most efficient way to handle this would be to make a motion to receive and file, however, I am choosing not to do that. I think that since the hiring of a new health officer is a top priority right now, it’s very important to have an open discussion about this in order to achieve maximum transparency and clarity for our community. I think it’s also important to clarify that our interim health officer Sonja Jensen has been authorized and supported and their–the implication that mandates have been passed while the position is vacant–that is not technically true because we have a qualified interim health officer and the mayor is also endowed with this authority by virtue of being the mayor. Thank you.”
Chairperson Spears agreed with Alderperson Meltzer and said that when she read this resolution, she saw many misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what was going on in the city as related to the hiring of a Health Officer and the fact that the city does have an Interim Health Officer. She said she drafted some potential amendments. She thought that a person who was considering applying for the Health Officer position would be looking at the Board of Health minutes and going through the archives to see if this was the type of department they wanted to align themselves with. There were aspects of the resolution that she wanted to “tweak” to present a more positive message.
[I’m curious how founded that concern is. I can well believe that it’s hard to find health officers right now, and anyone who is applying for that job must be aware that there’s going to be a portion of any city’s population that is fed up with mandates and control and perhaps views health officials with suspicion. Appleton is no different, and I’m not sure it’s helpful to try to paper over that vs. just being open about the social dynamics within our municipality (which any reasonable health officer would already be aware of). That is not to say that the resolution should not have been amended but I’m also not convinced that amending it or filing it away without a vote or voting it down will do much one way or the other to attract a health officer to our city. At any rate…]
Chairperson Spears offered her first amendment.
The original language of the first paragraph read:
“WHEREAS, on August 4, 2021, City of Appleton Mayor Jacob A Woodford put forth new guidance in the City requiring masking in indoor public City facilities; and”
Chairperson Spears amendment altered it to read:
“WHEREAS, on August 4, 2021, City of Appleton Mayor Jacob A Woodford in consultation with Interim Health Officer Jensen, affirmed the CDC Guidance on the use of masks and required masking in indoor public City facilities; and”
Dr. Vogel said that when she saw the resolution she was surprised and thought it probably came from a lack of communication or awareness of what had been shared earlier in the meeting regarding the recruitment process and also what happened in terms of the mayor’s actions in consultation with Interim Health Officer Jensen. She didn’t know about amendments and all that sort of stuff but she wanted to ask, “with that information that we just provided here, and the rich discussion that happened that seemed so positive, is there ever an opportunity where the authors of a resolution decide to say ‘oh, okay, this is really helpful information, now in light of that I might withdraw resolution or change a resolution myself to be more positive’ at an upcoming Council meeting?” She said she didn’t know about those things and, before the Board of Health acted, wanted to ask that.
Chairperson Spears asked if someone would like to answer.
Alderperson Doran said that certainly, as council members, they have the ability to do that, but he wouldn’t offer that at this point given that there were other authors of the resolution who were not able to participate in the discussion before the Board of Health. But he confirmed again that they had the ability to do that.
Chairperson Spears said, “Could I ask the authors, if we held it here, would you like to communicate that, or would you like to bring this to the floor of the Council?”
Alderperson Hartzheim answered that it would depend on what the Board of Health decided to do in terms of an amendment.
The Board had no further discussion on the proposed amendment and it was approved unanimously.
Chairperson Spears moved onto her amendment for the second paragraph of the resolution.
The original language had read:
“WHEREAS, the permanent position of Health Officer for the City of Appleton has been vacant since early June, 2021, and the Mayor and city staff were aware of the pending retirement of the previous Health Officer since prior to the first COVID-19 cases in Appleton in early 2020;”
The amended language read:
“WHEREAS, the permanent position of Health Officer for the City of Appleton has been vacant since early June, 2021, and the Mayor and city staff were aware of the pending retirement of the previous Health Officer since prior to the first COVID-19 cases in Appleton in early 2020, resulting in Health Officer Eggebrecht serving the city of an additional year, a nationwide search was initiated in March of 2021 for a Health Officer who meets the City’s expectations for quality and qualifications;”
Chairperson Spears said that what she tried to do through this amendment was to indicate to the public that this was not a situation where the city had somehow not tried to get a new health officer.
Alderperson Meltzer appreciated the amendment and thought that it was important to recognize the hard work that the city had been doing to maintain its Level III classification by hiring a new health officer with the best qualifications. This amendment really put that into context within the resolution.
Dr. Vogel said she wasn’t an alderperson but saw what the Board of Health was doing with this resolution as adding accuracy because it matters for the public to know exactly what was happening. Had the Board of Health not addressed this, it would have been erroneous, so, one by one, they were clarifying.
There was no further discussion and the amendment was approved unanimously.
Chairperson Spears then moved on to her third amendment.
The third paragraph of the resolution originally read:
“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Members of the City of Appleton Common Council hereby express their concern that the City has undertaken health initiatives and enacted a public health mandate while the position of Health Officer remains vacant; and”
The amended version read:
“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Members of the City of Appleton Common Council and Board of Health hereby express their appreciation of the outstanding job that Interim Director Jensen and the Appleton Health Department do as they continue to perform at the high level serving the citizens of Appleton; and”
Dr. Vogel said, “I guess you know I’m always wearing the hat of trying to help the public understand because it is this real heartfelt tension between our personal feelings and opinions about certain mitigation measures compared with evidence and science, and the Board of Health and the Health Officer and leaders at multiple levels in municipalities and government have a responsibility to really use the science to protect people. When we work from the knowledge of where we are now, where we have been, and where we’re going to and apply the science, we’re on the side of protecting and preventing death and disease and chronic illness and so this is reflective of this Board of Health, the current health officer, and the previous health officer and leadership doing what’s consistent with recommended science.”
Chairperson Spears said part of her reasoning for adding this amendment was that she felt “the initial resolution did not reflect our expression of appreciation to our Health Department, and, frankly, to all the workers within the City of Appleton.“ She encouraged the public to read the Health Department report for 2020 which detailed the things staff had gone through and the number of hours that they worked, dedicating themselves to the community and the health of the community.
Board member Kathleen Fuchs made some sort of statement. Her microphone was supposedly turned on but her voice was not picked up and could not be heard on the video.
Alderperson Meltzer supported the striking of that part of the third paragraph and would not have been able to support the resolution without that change.
The amendment was approved unanimously.
Chairperson Spears then moved onto her fourth and final resolution.
The fourth resolution had originally read:
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Members of the City of Appleton Common Council urge the Mayor to prioritize and expedite the hiring of a Health Officer as quickly and as practicably as possible and prior to enacting or implementing any further COVID-19 guidance or mandates in the City.”
The amended version read:
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Members of the City of Appleton Common Council and the Board of Health express their support of the Mayor to prioritize and expedite the hiring of a Health Officer as quickly and as practicably as possible who meets the qualifications required the lead a Levell III Health Department.”
Alderperson Meltzer appreciated adding the language about meeting the qualifications required to lead a Level III health department and thought it really helped put into contex why the city still has not completed that hiring process. Even though it had been prioritized there are challenges to filling this type of position which the amended language made clear.
Alderperson Meltzer was also in favor of striking the line about enacting further Covid-19 guidance or mandates in the city and stated, “I think that since the position is not vacant, striking this is again correcting something erroneous in the language of the resolution, and I think also as we move forward in this process whatever guidance comes forward from the CDC, whatever guidance we are affirming we certainly wouldn’t want to tie our hands and say just because we have a hiring process going on that that’s an excuse to stop doing the work of this department. I think that that would be very inappropriate so I appreciate striking that language.”
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) said that usually resolution really come down to the “Be It Further Resolved” clause and what action it calls for. He thought that the authors’ intention for the resolution was essentially just removed. The Board had clarified for the public the Board of Health and the Health Department felt and made some clarifications, but they essentially stripped away the intent of the resolution. What they did from here was up to the authors, but he thought they may be rethinking their action moving forward. He felt like what the Board of Health had done significantly changed the resolution and they would have to see where it went from here. He did appreciate the work to clarify and clean up the resolution and make it more positive and highlight the efforts that the city and the health department had undertaken to fill this challenging position.
There was no further discussion on the amendment and it was approved unanimously.
They then moved back to discussion the resolution as amended.
Dr. Vogel said that she was naïve regarding process and as Alderperson Schultz had pointed out, the resolution now wasn’t the intention of the authors. She didn’t understand why they didn’t just starte out by asking questions of the mayor and the HR Director for clarification. She hoped that the Board of Health discussion had helped them be pleased with the health officer hiring process.
Chairperson Spears said that the resolution, if approved by the Board of Health, would go back to the Common Council and at the time the authors of the resolution could amend it on the floor or withdraw it if they wished. The fact that, given title of the resolution was “Health Officer Hiring”, the amended resolution truly reflected the feelings of the Board of Health, even if that was not the intent of the author. The Board of Health had to present back to Council what they felt comfortable saying they agreed with.
Alderperson Hartzheim said that the “Health Officer Hiring” caption at the top of the resolution was not part of the originally submitted resolution and had been added by Clerk Kami Lynch.
Chairperson Spears apologized and said she was just reading what she had and thanked Alderperson Hartzheim for the clarification. [Chairperson Spears had been an alderperson for several terms so should have been familiar with the resolution process and how they are titled.]
Alderperson Meltzer said, “I just would like to say that I think that we all owe each other the good faith of giving each other–taking for granted that we all come here with the best intentions. We do our work on Council, we craft and submitted resolutions to support the city, to support our community, to make people’s lives better, to basically work together to do the right things in our community. So I don’t want to speculate about the authors’ intentions outside of what’s in the resolution here but I think that with the amendments clarifying the erroneous misinformation I think that what we come away with is something very positive and something that–following from the concerns about how challenging it is to fill this position. I do think that this seems like a very reasonable resolution and if there are ways in which this changes the intention, I certainly would hope that to be part of the discussion on council floor. Thank you.”
Alderperson Schultz said he’d like to direct a question to the authors, some of whom weren’t present. Because the nature of the resolution had changed significantly, he wondered if they would reconsider and prefer to have the item held so that they would have an opportunity to regroup before taking it to Council. He felt like the Board was pushing it forward for discussion when those other authors haven’t had a chance to regroup and get a sense of where they were now that the resolution had been changed so significantly. His preference was to hold the item at committee for a couple weeks and give the authors a chance to regroup.
[Although he said he wanted to direct a question to the authors, neither Alderperson Doran nor Hartzheim were given an opportunity to respond and state a preference. Rather…]
Chairperson Spears said there was a motion to hold and asked if there was a second.
There was a brief discussion about procedures and after they clarified that they went back to the discussion about the motion. There was no second to hold the item, so that motion did not even get voted on.
The Board of Health then voted unanimously to approve the resolution as amended.
The final amended language read:
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2021, City of Appleton Mayor Jacob A Woodford in consultation with Interim Health Officer Jensen, affirmed the CDC Guidance on the use of masks and required masking in indoor public City facilities; and
WHEREAS, the permanent position of Health Officer for the City of Appleton has been vacant since early June, 2021, and the Mayor and city staff were aware of the pending retirement of the previous Health Officer since prior to the first COVID-19 cases in Appleton in early 2020, resulting in Health Officer Eggebrecht serving the city of an additional year, a nationwide search was initiated in March of 2021 for a Health Officer who meets the City’s expectations for quality and qualifications;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Members of the City of Appleton Common Council and Board of Health hereby express their appreciation of the outstanding job that Interim Director Jensen and the Appleton Health Department do as they continue to perform at the high level serving the citizens of Appleton; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Members of the City of Appleton Common Council and the Board of Health express their support of the Mayor to prioritize and expedite the hiring of a Health Officer as quickly and as practicably as possible who meets the qualifications required the lead a Levell III Health Department.”
[All in all, it was a very interesting discussion. I thought it was particularly interesting to contrast how the Board of Health handled this resolution as compared to how the Safety and Licensing committee handled the AAPI resolution.
The Board of Health used the committee process to correct errors, inform the public, and try to keep the City of Appleton and its health department from looking bad in order to hopefully attract a standout new Health Officer.
The Safety and Licensing committee on the other hand did not opt to make any amendment to the AAPI resolution that would have educated the public on Appleton’s low crime rate and low rate of hate crimes, and there was no attempt made to correct within the resolution some of the very negative comments that were made about Appleton during the public comment portion of the meetings.
It was also interesting to see how freely this resolution was amended to the point that it no longer resembled the original draft vs how amendments to the AAPI resolution were viewed as being verboten.
I also would have appreciated a larger discussion about the portion of the original resolution that called for no more mandates to be implemented until a Health Officer was hired. As I mentioned earlier, it wasn’t clear to me from either this discussion or the Human Resources and Information Technology Discussion whether Interim Health Officer Jensen meets the qualifications to head a Level III Health Department outside of serving on an interim basis. I do have an email in to Director Ratchman in the hopes of clarifying that, but the public would have benefited by having it stated very clearly, “Officer Jensen meets the qualifications to head a Level III health department” as opposed to the more vague statement that was given that the State is satisfied with what Appleton is doing, particularly given that it was reiterated multiple times throughout the meeting that this was a hard position to fill that required specific, high-level qualifications. It’s not unreasonable to expect at least a portion of the public to be concerned about the city implementing mandates when we only have an interim health officer in place. I would also expect that, given how the city Health Department interfaces with the Appleton Area School District and provides health guidance to them, that AASD parents might have some concerns about the fact that Appleton currently only has an interim health officer.
In some respects, it would have been interesting if the resolution had dealt specifically with mandates and clarifying the boundaries around allowable future mandates instead of, as it did, trying to speak both to mandates and the hiring of a health officer, because it’s not clear to the public whether the requirement to wear masks indoors at city-owned facilities is a precursor to future, more strict mandates. Nor is it clear to the public whether future mandates would come before the Common Council for a vote (as Outagamie County’s mandate came before the Board of Supervisors for a vote), or if they would originate from the Department of Health and be implemented via some sort of mayoral proclamation, a process the public has no say in.
Obviously, there’s a lot that goes into public health and fostering well-being. Physical well-being in the face of Covid is one issue, but physical health outside of Covid-related concerns are also important, as is mental health, individual economic stability, and general community cohesion. And there is also, as Alderperson Doran alluded to, the component of what the appropriate place and purpose of government is and how the local government can foster well-being while being as unobtrusive in people’s lives as possible. One hopes that whatever health officer Appleton ends up with is able to take all of those various concerns into account and consideration.]
View full Board of Health meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=869341&GUID=54AE7EA9-23B2-4603-8800-FA61DC63F965&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply