The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is providing tips to employers in an effort to use the fact that businesses in many communities are often seen as “trusted sources of information” who can persuade employees and customers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
“This is especially important right now given the state of the pandemic and the hesitation some people have about receiving one of the approved COVID-19 vaccines,” according to the chamber’s website. “Vaccination is a personal decision, so it’s logical that when employers show a personal willingness to be vaccinated, they are more likely to increase the willingness of their employees—across all demographic groups – to follow their lead and get the shot.”
The website also provides links for employers on how to talk to employees about getting vaccinated, and provides information on business-sponsored “get vaccinated” events.
Through its website, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation has highlighted the efforts of dozens of national employers who promote vaccine events and are encouraging vaccinations for their employees. The foundation is also sponsoring free events for employers, business owners, and community leaders.
On May 27, the Chamber is sponsoring a free broadcast with CDC Director Rochelle Walensky about the current state of the pandemic, where things stand with vaccination efforts, what to expect short term, and what businesses should do to prepare for the next phase.
Questions remain in the aftermath of the U.S. Census Bureau’s release last month of the 2020 Decennial Census which put Arizona’s official population at nearly 7.16 million.
That figure, up more than 746,000 from a decade earlier, represented the eighth largest increase by number and the ninth fast growth rate in the country. But census officials determined it was not enough to earn Arizona its 10th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
There was much finger pointing at the time of the announcement that Arizona’s population fell 250,000 short of estimates even though Gov. Doug Ducey’s AZ Census 2020 Taskforce reported that census enumerators and volunteers attempted to reach 99.9 percent of all households in the state despite COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing challenges.
But according to a theory by a former official who served in the Trump Administration’s Commerce Department, the reason some states ended up with unexpected results might have more to do with how the Census Bureau calculates the number of people who live in known households that did not fill out a census questionnaire.
Adam Korzeniewski is a Marine Corps combat veteran who specializes in fiscal and economic policy as well as national security topics. In an article published earlier this month in The American Mind, he cites the Census Bureau’s reliance on estimates as cause for concern for some states, including Arizona.
Federal law does not allow the Secretary of Commerce to rely on statistical sampling to fill in the blanks for households that do not respond to the census. But other methods are allowed, and Korzeniewski believes some of those need to be questioned.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, demographic characteristics about the people who live in every verified residence is necessary to obtain “a complete and accurate census. Unfortunately, not all households respond to the census questionnaire. When that happens, a census taker first turns to administrative records from the IRS and other government agencies to fill in the blanks about who likely lives in that household.
If a reliable administrative record is not available and the local census taker is unable to contact the household after three visits, information can be obtained from a neighbor, landlord or building manager. This is referred to as a proxy response.
The last method the Census Bureau uses is imputation, a statistical technique officials say makes the overall dataset “more accurate than leaving the gaps blank” by using what data is known to filling in what data is not known.
“We recognize that using information from these three techniques — imputation, using administrative records, and proxies — may not always match the reality of an address’s occupancy status or the characteristics of the people who live there,” the Census Bureau says. “However, these techniques are widely used in statistics because they have been proven to be more accurate than leaving the information blank.
Public records show about 1,172,000 “people” were imputed nationwide in 2000 and 1,163,000 in 2010. The 2020 figure has not been released yet although it is expected to be higher due to COVID-19 related difficulties.
But Korzeniewski, who also served in Trump’s Treasury Department, wrote in his article that the Census Bureau used another form of imputation in 2020 which he contends is based on statistical sampling. This occurred when census officials decided to utilize a “Group Quarters Imputation” due to problems gaining access to “households” located in places like colleges and residential healthcare facilities.
The greater reliance on such imputation was not part of the 2020 Decennial testing phases nor did state census officials have any input on the decision, Korzeniewski wrote. That could be the basis for Arizona officials to acquire state-by-state imputations records from the Census Bureau with details of the types of imputation used.
“To my knowledge, the Census does not normally produce such documentation and it takes years for the Census to publish studies on itself,” Korzeniewski wrote, adding that states would also need to ask for records pertaining to the decision-making processes around the data calculation processes in order to determine whether it has grounds to challenge the Census outcomes.
“Successfully challenging the Census results would affect appropriation and could affect apportionment,” he wrote. “The Census typically takes years to officially release information on the Decennial, making it impossible for states to seek redress if action is not taken quickly.”
Business owners thinking of requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment may want to consider the latest advisory from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
According to OSHA, an employee’s adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine is recordable on the company’s OSHA recordkeeping log if the reaction stems from a work-related, mandated vaccination and the incident meets at least one other recording criteria, such as time away from work, medical treatment beyond basic first aid, or restricted work duties or job transfer.
Despite the advisory to employers, OSHA and other federal agencies have announced efforts to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace. That is why OSHA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Labor, does not require employers to report an employee’s adverse reaction to a recommended vaccination, even if the employer pays for or arranges for the vaccination.
“OSHA is exercising its enforcement discretion to only require the recording of adverse effects to required vaccines at this time,” the website reads, adding that the vaccination “must be truly voluntary. For example, an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot affect their performance rating or professional advancement. An employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice.”
In a related matter, OSHA has weighed in on employers requiring employees to sign liability waivers in the event of exposure in the workplace to the SARS virus which causes COVID-19. While the agency does not take a position for or against waivers, its website makes clear that the existence of a waiver does not preclude an employee’s right to file an Occupational Safety and Health Act complaint.
“The worker continues to have the right to file a safety or health complaint under section 8(f) and/or a retaliation complaint under section 11(c), regardless of any language contained in the waiver.”
The OSHA website also provides employers and employees with information about the requirement for reporting in-patient COVID-19 hospitalizations stemming from workplace exposure. Such reporting is only required if the hospitalization occurs within 24 hours of the exposure, according to the website.
The Arizona Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next month in a case that involves whether the Cochise County Board of Supervisors violated one or more state laws in appointing one of their own to a coveted court position in 2019 without asking if anyone else was interested in the job.
During the June 3 hearing, the justices must decide whether the legal challenge of then-supervisor Pat Call’s appointment to the Sierra Vista Justice was brought forth by someone who had standing to do so. An appointment that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has described in two legal briefs as “unlawful.”
The case centers on the February 2019 appointment of Call as justice of the peace for Cochise County’s busiest justice court, where more than half of the county’s felony prosecutions start. On the day of his appointment, Call took part in public discussions about how to fill the position and even suggested the board forego forming a committee to seek candidates.
He also took part in a non-public, executive session after which the other two supervisors – Ann English and Peggy Judd- immediately voted Call in as justice of the peace. There was no advance notice of Call’s interest in the position nor that he was being considered for appointment. There was also no opportunity for public comments.
Call served as justice of the peace from March 1, 2019 through Dec. 31, 2020. He did not stand for election in last November.
Brnovich has been harsh in his criticism of the supervisors’ actions and he has argued in legal briefings that a judge could still impose sanctions on Call, English, and/or Judd. He has also weighed in on who has standing to bring complaints involving Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest statute.
One of those people with standing, Brnovich argues, is David Welch, a Sierra Vista resident who had a misdemeanor case pending in the justice court in February 2019. Welch sued in Cochise County Superior Court just days after the supervisors’ vote in an attempt to void Calls’ appointment due to alleged open meeting and conflict of interest violations.
Welch’s lawsuit was dismissed by an out-of-county judge for a lack of standing to bring the challenge. The judge also said that even if a private citizen had standing, any errors or liability connected to the February 2019 vote were resolved when English and Judd ratified Call’s appointment the next month.
Ratification is a legal process allowing a public body to reaffirm an earlier vote that may have run afoul of Open Meeting Law. But as Brnovich pointed out to the Arizona Court of Appeals, there is nothing in the ratification process which automatically indemnifies a public official from a violation of state law.
He also pointed out there is no ratification process in Arizona’s Conflict of Interest statute, under which public officers like Call are required to announce “a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency” and then refrain from participating in such decision “in any manner.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the lower court judge’s ruling on standing, finding that Welch, as a taxpayer within the legal boundaries of the Sierra Vista Justice Court, could challenge the appointment. The court of appeals also found Welch had “sufficiently pleaded violations of Arizona’s open-meeting and conflict-of-interest statutes.”
Normally that would have sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings on the merits of Welch’s case. However, Cochise County officials sought review from the Supreme Court and on May 17 the attorney general filed his second amicus brief about the “unlawful” appointment, the remedies available to a court, and his concern with a taxpayer status threshold for determining standing.
Brnovich points out that standing is already defined in Open Meeting Law as any person “affected by” an alleged violation. Utilizing taxpayer status for status would likely preclude some individuals affected by a violation from being able to assert a claim, he argues. An example is Arizona’s open enrollment policy which allows students to attend a school in one district even if they live in another district’s legal boundaries.
“If a school board were to engage in secret decision-making or other alleged OML or conflict of interest violations, out-of-district parents could be left without standing—even though they would be affected by such violations—because they are not taxpayers of the district,” the brief states.
Four members of the U.S. Congress -including two from Arizona- sent a letter this week to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) criticizing one of its deputies for “unnecessarily” weighing in on the Arizona State Senate’s ongoing audit of Maricopa County’s election process.
Representatives Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, both Republicans from Arizona, and Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) call a May 5 letter from DOJ attorney Pamela Karlan to Senate President Karen Fann “an attempt at intimidation, with the goal of convoluting this important audit.”
Fann is one of two state senators who signed a subpoena in January which led to Maricopa County officials being required to turn over election department records, hundreds of voting machines, and the nearly 2.1 million ballots cast by Maricopa County voters in the 2020 General Election. Karlan’s letter suggested either the Senate or the auditors may be in noncompliance with federal law, and that the elections records and the ballots “are at risk of damage or loss.”
According to Biggs, Gaetz, Gosar, and Taylor Greene, many of Karlan’s comments were previously expressed by what the four representatives call “three left-leaning organizations,” suggesting the DOJ is “more concerns with your political fellow-travelers than election integrity.” The May 17 letter signed by the four representatives also told Karlan they are “confident in the integrity” of the ongoing audit which is set to run through the end of June.
“In a constitutional republic, the most important thing you can do is make sure the integrity of our election system is protected, free, transparent, and open,” their letter states.
That letter to Fann is not the first received by the senate president in connection to Karlan’s concerns about the audit. On May 7, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) sent a letter to Fann urging her to push back on Karlan’s concerns, which PILF President J. Christian Adams and PILF Litigation Counsel Maureen Riordan characterize as threats.
Adams and Riordan told Fann that Karlan “is doing the bidding of, and acting as a surrogate for, the Democratic Party, not as an objective law enforcement official and representative of the U.S. Department of Justice.” They added that Karlan “is engaging in a partisan abuse of power well outside the traditions of the Department as well as the delegation of power under federal statutes and the controlling legal authority governing those statutes.”
PIFL, a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm, urged the Senate President to resist responding to Karlan’s “inappropriate and unjustified letter” and offered to share additional insights into the DOJ’s alleged politically motivated effort if Fann is interested. As of press time Fann had not replied to the PIFL letter, according to the group’s spokesperson.
