City Councilors seek answers to why Boston remains in state of emergency

COVID

“We haven’t been kept in the loop,” said Councilor Frank Baker.

Boston City Councilors Frank Baker and Erin Murphy say their legislative body has been left in the dark on the status of the city’s nearly two-year-long COVID-related state of emergency.

And there’s one particular question they want an answer to: Why exactly are we still here?

“This is just a plea to give people an opportunity to ask what is going on here,” Baker said Wednesday, as he filed a hearing order seeking insight on the matter alongside Murphy. “It looks political to me. It doesn’t look like we’re really paying attention to business needs, to what people are saying about their situations.”

Like cities nationwide, Boston entered a state of emergency when the pandemic first hit a boiling point in March 2020, granting the government special authority to take actions, as needed, to safeguard public health.

Gov. Charlie Baker issued a statewide declaration, although as cases dwindled last summer, the Republican lifted the order, leaving cities and towns to decide on their own whether to return to business as usual.

Boston’s declaration remained in place.

Frank Baker is especially concerned about how continuing the emergency order impacts collective bargaining with city employees and puts city businesses “at a disadvantage” under the ongoing indoor vaccine mandate, which requires patrons to show proof of vaccination at establishments like restaurants and bars.

“I mean, God forbid if we ever showed an ID when we were voting, what would people do? What would most of this council do if we asked for that?” he asked. “But yet going into a restaurant, we need to show our IDs. I think that we need to really get serious about this.”

‘We need to hold people accountable’

Councilor Michael Flaherty said issues pertaining to matters of public health, local business, public safety, and public schools are within the council’s purview.

“The decisions are being made, and not within consultation with the Boston City Council. That’s not how the (city) charter works,” Flaherty said. “So any self-respecting member of this body who wants to be in the game and who wants to get involved and have some say over these decisions, I would suggest not only sign on, but participate at the hearing.”

Councilors, for a while, had received regular updates on the status of the city’s pandemic response under the former administrations of Mayor Marty Walsh and acting Mayor Kim Janey, Frank Baker said.

But Mayor Michelle Wu’s administration has not followed that approach, he said.

“We haven’t been kept in the loop,” the councilor said. “I mean, the new city councilors, they’re totally in the dark. … We need to hold people accountable for the decisions that are being made.”

Wu, in December, unveiled the indoor vaccine mandate, which requires proof of vaccination for entrance to certain spaces and venues.

Wu has also pursued a mandate for city employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or else face termination — a controversial proposal that has been met with public outcry and fierce opposition from the city’s public safety unions.

Last week, city officials met with several of those unions for nine hours but made little progress, even with an updated proposal from City Hall, Wu said. (The Boston Teachers Union, however, has reached an agreement with the Wu administration, Wu announced Thursday.)

Days earlier, Murphy filed a hearing order to discuss changes to the memorandum of agreement under the employee vaccine mandate — a hearing now slated for Friday morning.

“Why are we allowing this administration to just take those contracts and throw them out without discussions?” Frank Baker asked last week.

‘When will we move out of a state of emergency into a state of recovery?’

Boston has seen a drop in cases following this winter’s omicron surge, as has Massachusetts at-large.

But some key pandemic metrics remain higher than the thresholds set by the Boston Public Health Commission.

As of Feb. 5, the most recent data available from the BPHC, the city’s seven-day moving average positivity rate hung at 7.3 percent, above the threshold of 5 percent and the city’s preferred goal of 4 percent.

Daily hospitalizations, as of Feb. 7, averaged around 390 patients, higher than the 220 per day threshold.

Notably, the number of occupied number of ICU beds has continued to drop, with 88.8 percent of them full as of Feb. 7 — below the threshold of 95 percent.

Wu, on Tuesday, said she will lift the city’s indoor vaccine mandate if and when Boston reaches or falls below all three thresholds.

“We’re definitely going into a good place, if we’re not there already,” Murphy said Wednesday.

“As we’ve seen in the news, Salem, Worcester, other surrounding towns and cities, are meeting with their Board of Health and their selectmen and their councilors and they’re voting and looking at the data together,” Murphy continued. “My question and hope to get answered out of this (hearing) is when will we move out of a state of emergency into a state of recovery?”

According to the hearing order, councilors want to discuss what data city officials should use to determine whether continuing the state of emergency is necessary.

Asked on Thursday if the hearing order indicates an erosion of trust between her office and the council, Wu said she does not feel that way.

“I truly value their partnership, their representation of the people of Boston, and it is up to each councilor to choose which issues they want to prioritize in the time that they’re spending representing their constituents,” Wu said during an unrelated press conference. “And it’s up to the administration to be responsive to that wherever we can, as well as to create opportunities to partner proactively.”

Speaking after Wu, Murphy, chair of the council’s public health committee, told reporters she called the hearing “so that we weren’t having these conversations in silos.”

“I’m hoping that this gives us an opportunity for the mayor’s office, for the public health [officials], and for those concerned with all of these questions to be at the table at the same time,” Murphy said.

‘Does our Board of Health meet regularly?’

The two councilors, both Democrats, are also looking to get clarity on what role the BPHC is playing in the decision-making when it comes to the city’s continuing pandemic response.

Frank Baker said the BPHC’s Board of Health members “haven’t even met” in months.

“Also, I’m wondering, does our Board of Health meet regularly and vote on these issues?” Murphy asked. “I did see that there are members and that they have had some meetings, but I’m not sure if they’re voting and sharing that out with us.”

Murphy also said she wondered if all of the board’s seven seats are filled.

But according to the BPHC website, the board’s most recent meeting was on Jan. 12, and the previous meeting was held in November.

The next meeting is scheduled for March 9.

“The Board of Health has full membership, and its work is integral to the Boston Public Health Commission’s multilayered, public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the BPHC told Boston.com in a statement responding to the councilors’ remarks on Thursday.

“The Commission is encouraged by lower case numbers spurned in large part by the City’s indoor vaccine mandate, but there is still much work to be done to ensure a full and equitable recovery,” the statement continued. “We must stick with the mitigation and prevention strategies that we know are effective at slowing and preventing the spread of COVID-19 while also improving access to indispensable COVID-19 resources like vaccines and boosters, testing, and PPE for our most vulnerable residents and communities.”

Councilor and state Sen. Lydia Edwards said she too wants answers from city departments and the Wu administration. However, she does not want the forthcoming hearing to essentially be a “confrontational invitation” that serves to further tear people apart from one another amid the pandemic.

“I’m not going to lie — I’m concerned that people are seeing this as a rally moment to scream about their frustrations,” Edwards said. “And as you have started this conversation Councilors Baker and Murphy, I look to you and your leadership to make sure this conversation is respectful and kind and actually brings us together.”

Wednesday’s meeting was the third week in a row that council has met virtually rather than in the council chambers.

On Jan. 26, councilors shifted mid-meeting to the online format after protesters at City Hall interrupted council business and refused to wear masks, defying the city’s COVID-19 protocols.

The demonstrators, in video from that meeting, could be heard saying, “The emergency is over.”