By Pepper Fisher

SEQUIM – Sequim’s City Council passed a resolution Monday night by a 4-3 vote that could be interpreted as trying to make the case that the County’s current vaccine mandate for restaurant customers is unconstitutional.

By Tuesday, many people were on social media declaring that the resolution is a call to reject and even flout the mandate.

City Councilman Keith Larkin, the author of the resolution, says it is not.

“No, I really don’t want it left up to interpretation. My true intent with this was to let people know that they’re being heard. It’s not to tell them to go out and to, you know, act against what’s going on, especially when it comes to any type of conduct in the restaurants. I want there to be complete cooperation with these folks who are still trying to maintain their livelihood. So no, I’m not telling anyone to go against what’s going on. What I’m saying is, there needs to be good measured responses, and decisions, when we move forward with dealing with this type of a pandemic.”

You might be forgiven, after reading the Resolution R2021-012 (here), for thinking Larkin is claiming the restaurant mandate is unconstitutional. He says that would be a narrow reading of his messaging.

“But I think people continue to understand and want to understand that they have rights, and when it comes to the essential workers, that’s where I’m more concerned about the constitutional issues, and people having a choice in whether they want to be vaccinated or not. So that’s the constitutional component of it. There’s no constitutional issue with the restaurants. I see it up to people to decide whether or not they want to go into a restaurant now, or they want to sit outside based on the vaccination status.”

There also seems to be some confusion about whether the proclamation has any legal effect, like an ordinance.

City Attorney Kristina Nelson-Gross told us via email it does not, saying of the resolution, “…there is nothing contradicting State and local laws. It is a mere position statement and as such has no legal effect.”

We also reached out to City Clerk Sara McMillon for a statement on the City’s interpretation of a resolution vs. a proclamation. She wrote the following.

“Resolutions are not laws, but some can have the effect of law, such as a fee resolution. Often resolutions are used for internal, administrative purposes or are passed to express policy positions or opinions. So that’s where the line is blurred, because sometimes Councils pass resolutions containing political statements like legislative agendas or statements on things they feel strongly about. Resolutions carry a little more weight than proclamations.”