Long Beach City College’s Board of Trustees voted 5-0 in support of the resolution mandating professors and students be vaccinated for in-person instruction this spring semester.
Marlene Drinkwine, Vice President of Business Services at LBCC, later went over the details regarding the new COVID-19 resolution plan.
The meeting commenced with public comments sent via email and voice memo being read aloud or played for viewers to hear-out during the extended 40 minute time frame.
LBCC professor Robyn Arias declared her support of the vaccine mandate with a voice message to the Board of Trustees, stating, “I am pro any scientifically effective method to get us all back to campus next semester in a safe manner. To my fellow colleagues that proclaim how we as a college can extend our online offerings for those students that faculty who wish not to get vaccinated, I wish the answer were that simple.”
She continued, “Our life science course offerings cannot remain 100% online, almost all of our courses have labs associated with them and our articulation agreements are based on labs being conducted in person.”
In his letter to the Board of Trustees, Long Beach resident John Paul stated, “I am writing to express my opposition to agenda item 5.7. While I’m grateful to everyone who has done so much to get us through this COVID-19 pandemic, the very nature of this proposed mandate applies undue pressure which can be severe to an individuals employment or their ability to further their education is jeopardized.”
A presentation then addressed concerns surrounding the ambiguity of whether students would be mandated to be vaccinated, even if they chose to remain fully online.
Drinkwine stated, “The plan would require that vaccinations be uploaded by Mon, Jan 3, 2022 for all employees, and by Mon Jan 24, 2022 for all in-person on campus students.”
“This means that fully online students, including those students accessing online classes and online services or events would not be required to submit proof of vaccination, and that they would also not be allowed on campus,” continued Drinkwine.
Additionally, LBCC’s weekly testing option is being discontinued in place of student mandated vaccines for those choosing in-person instruction.
Drinkwine also emphasized how the resolution would align with the spring semester registration, providing students a sufficient amount of time to ensure they understand the conditions for in-person on campus instruction.
Moving forward in the presentation, Dr. Heather Van Volkinburg, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness for LBCC, went over the results of the survey responses to student mandated vaccines.
She stated, “485 employees responded, with the majority supporting a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine for employee groups. As can be seen in the tables, the majority of faculty and unidentified individuals responded with the majority supporting a mandatory vaccine for students while classified professionals fell just short of a majority.”
“Students similarly responded with the majority in favor of the mandatory vaccine for both students and employees.”, she continued.
Current compliance as of Oct 18., also reflected the survey responses to student mandated vaccines which showed 68% of the 7,000 students on campus submitted their proof of vaccination.
As for LBCC employees, current compliance showed support for the vaccine mandate with all employees for on-campus assignments submitting proof of vaccination.
Although the survey reflects the support for mandated vaccines, Drinkwine touched on the limitations of the data. There is a possibility of passive withdrawals from students who have not dropped, and part-time faculty who have remained active without assignment.
Vice President of Human Resources, Loy Nashua, was then introduced to discuss the medical and religious exemptions for the vaccine mandate.
“There are a couple processes available to our employees, the first one being the medical side of things which is also commonly known as the Interactive Process under the ADA (American Disabilities Act).”
“It is performed at an individual level. Employers must communicate to employees that there’s a reasonable accommodation, but that process cannot create an undue hardship to the district. It is fact driven and on a case-by-case basis.”, said Nashua.
Through this process, employees are able to submit their accommodation request using a link provided in the updated COVID-19 resolution.
Nashua continued, “An example of something that would be approved could be an underlying medical condition, as described and signed by a physician. An example of that would be an allergy property that is used to create the vaccine, for instance, that would adversely impact the individual.”
Discussing the next option he stated, “The second route is religious and the definition for religious exemption runs on a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance that conflicts with a requirement without creating once again, an undue hardship to the district.
“An example of not granting such a request would be based on Philosophical, political, conscientious or sociological beliefs – and the process is very similar to that of the medical interactive.”
In the case of religious exemption, it should be noted that an HR representative would be engaging with the employee throughout any meetings which would likewise be case specific and viewed through a third party to ensure all requests are being reviewed.
Face masks and other COVID-19 protocols, like classroom sanitization, ventilation and air circulation, essential personnel list and on-campus contact tracing will still be in effect.