— by Minor Lile, Orcas Issues reporter —
The May 15 special meeting of the San Juan County Board of Health was called so that the Board of Health and County Council could review the letter of request for a variance from the Governor’s phased opening approach that Public Health Officer Dr. Frank James had promised earlier in the week (see previous story).
The meeting began with an extended public comment period. With only one or two exceptions, the comments were notable for their expression of respectful appreciation for the difficult decisions that public officials are having to make at this unique and challenging time. In all, more than 30 public comments were offered. While a significant majority of the comments were from County residents opposed to moving more quickly into Phase 2 of the reopening process, the interests and concerns of local businesses and citizens in favor of the variance request were also well represented.
After the initial public comment period, the tone of the meeting shifted considerably when Dr. James informed the Board of Health that he hadn’t yet completed the letter and that it probably wouldn’t be available until sometime next week. “I’d hoped,” Dr. James said, “to come before you today to say we’re ready to go to phase 2, but we’re not.”
Council member Jamie Stephens seemed particularly frustrated by this, saying that he was ‘highly disappointed’ and adding “I don’t know what changed between Monday and today, but we’ve got an awful lot of horse power sitting here twiddling our thumbs”.
Dr. James was apologetic, but also firm in his view that the County was ‘not quite there yet’ in terms of being ready to proceed with the variance request. As the basis for his reasoning, he cited the need for letters from regional hospitals affirming their ability to provide for Covid-19 patients from the County, the need for adequate testing supplies, which he said should be available by the weekend and the need for more fully trained nursing staff in the County to provide contact tracing and other support services.
Dr. James also affirmed that as an aspect of the process of ‘getting there,’ he intends to issue an order requiring facial coverings in public spaces and businesses during phase 2. Dr. James said that he expected to issue the order in time to take effect just before midnight on Friday, May 15.
While it was apparent that the members of the Board of Health had received the Public Health Officer’s pending order prior to the meeting, it was not available for public review at the time of the meeting. Nor, as of Sunday morning (May 17), had it yet been posted on the County website.
Given that the order has not yet been made public it is difficult to describe its contents, as there were several elements that were unclear during the discussion. However, one clear obstacle is that Sheriff Ron Krebs has advised Dr. James that the Sheriff’s department does not have the available personnel and other resources needed to enforce the order. According to Dr. James, it is therefore likely that business owners and their employees will be held responsible for enforcement and will also be subject to a misdemeanor charge if the order is not enforced. But this also presents difficulties. As Jamie Stephens asked, “Who’s going to issue the misdemeanor if the Sheriff isn’t able to devote the resources needed to enforce the rule?”
Ultimately, both the Board of Health and the County Council, with Mr. Stephens dissenting, voted to support the issuance of the facial covering order.
There was also discussion on the topic of re-opening transient accommodations. During this part of the meeting, much of the discussion was focused on the timing of reopening for general use. Jamie Stevens kept attempting to establish that the transient accommodations are not expected to more fully open until Phase 3 and that owners of these properties need to have as much advance notice of this as possible. The exact timing of Phase 3 has some flexibility depending on how the situation in the State and County develop. The earliest date envisioned would be in mid-June.
Dr James’s initial response to the point being raised by Mr. Stephens was framed in terms of waiting to see how effective the pending facial covering order turns out to be. Eventually, assisted by a re-statement of the question by Bill Watson, Dr. James did seem to see the point Mr. Stephens was making and agreed that providing notice prior to the end of May was appropriate. Although this issue was not fully resolved at the meeting, Dr. James also expressed his interest in talking further with Mr. Stephens to come up with a workable solution.
The meeting was afflicted by an ongoing series of technical glitches, most of which had to do with people who had dialed in by Skype not muting the speaker on their phone or computer. For this reporter, these interruptions had both a comedic and a patience-testing aspect. In the later half of the two-hour meeting, the proceedings at one point ground to a complete halt as an un-muted caller began recounting nearly all that had happened up to that point in the meeting to another person in the room with them. Eventually, this sidebar report came to an end and the Board of Health meeting started back up.
For future reference, for those who do dial in to an upcoming meeting, “*6″(star 6) both mutes and unmutes your microphone. The appropriate protocol is to leave the microphone muted unless speaking.
At the end of the meeting, the review of the Public Health Officer’s letter was postponed until at least the week of May 18. A motion offered by Rick Hughes that “the Board of Health accepts Dr. James recommendation to request a variance, if given” failed for lack of a second. Mr. Hughes had offered a similar motion at the May 11 meeting that failed by a vote of 4-3.
Asked about this afterwards, Mr. Hughes said that in his view it is time for the County to move as quickly as possible to the ‘soft opening’ that is allowed in Phase 2. Noting that non-essential travel and the availability of transient accommodations are not allowed under Phase 2, Mr. Hughes said “we need to get the local economy going again. If some ‘essential’ businesses are allowed to be open, then other businesses should also have the ability to open safely. And we’ll see how it goes. If we need to shut things back down we can, but people who are out of work need to be able to get back on their feet.”
The next regular meeting of the Board of Health is scheduled for Wednesday, May 20. That meeting may or may not be held, depending on the status of the variance request letter being prepared by Dr. James.
This is an excellent report, Minor. Thank you very much for the detail.
Wonderful summary. Thanks muchly.
Personally I don’t think requiring businesses to enforce the mandatory mask order is fair to the business community. It places then in a difficult position. Will each business decide how heavy-handed to be with noncompliers? Will they he trained to deal with aggressive pushback? Serious opportunities for unforeseen consequences.
I found the Skype technology for the meeting extremely unsatisfactory, and was unable to be heard when I tried to comment after the moderator invited that, despite repeatedly punching *6 . Zoom is a far more user-friendly system which I’ve enjoyed in a dozen of so virtual meetings; besides being easy to use, it has the huge advantage of showing you who is talking on your screen. I strongly request that we switch to Zoom for future meetings.
Paula, just to add to your warning about “unforeseen consequences”, what about those who cannot safely wear a mask due to a medical condition? This issue has been discussed elsewhere at OI, but it’s important to keep in mind due to the legal ramifications for the county and businesses if it’s not handled correctly.
In it’s own directive on face coverings, King County neutered the issue by choosing to not enforce the order or impose any penalties for noncompliance (https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/care/masks.aspx), noting that “Enforcement is not expected or appropriate for law enforcement or members of the public” specifically in regard to those with medical conditions (https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/care/masks/FAQ.aspx). I would suggest that out of respect for the dignity of those in such a situation, and an abundance of caution to avoid any incidents of discrimination that could result in legal action, San Juan County should do the same.
Re: face covering or not: I think we’re making this a little too complicated. We’ve already figured out how to shape the behaviors we need e.g. “no shirt no shoes no service.” So “no shirt no shoes no face-covering no service”…at the market, school, church, doctors’ office, wherever, whenever it’s needed. No big deal. Covering our faces, well, it’s just the latest way we look out for each other around here.
as Laurie Gallo wrote: “the latest way we look out for each other around here” is behind the unenforced recommendation for wearing face masks. Opportunities for being rude to storekeepers and/or for not wearing face masks due to medical conditions can be addressed by the many offers I’ve read about for other community members to shop or bring supplies to people. Just ask, and say thank you!
The issuance of a County-mandated mask order is critically important to the effort to move on to reopening. The County mandate gives the business owner cover of a uniform rule for handling those sad creatures who think that being forced to wear a mask violates their Constitutional rights. (It doesn’t.)
The matter can be handled just as described elsewhere here: no shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service. That is entirely within the right of any business owner to demand, and frankly, I fail to see why the Sheriff could not be called if a person refuses to leave private property. (I don’t expect that many violations would occur. Most people I have encountered have been reasonable about compliance.)
As for the notion that requiring a mask somehow how discriminates against those with respiratory diseases, the answer is simple–it does not. The business community has provided reasonable accommodation for those who don’t wear masks to obtain the goods and services they need, offering telephone pre-order and no-touch pickup for anyone who prefers it. Moreover, our community has provided its own voluntary accommodation by offering to run errands and do shopping for those at risk.
I am not sure what medical conditions would prevent the wearing of a simple cloth mask for errands, especially since you generally need not wear one in the car or in the open air if social distancing. If you do have such a condition, however, use the options for no-touch pickup. In any event, it would be bizarre to insist on unmasked entry if you have a respiratory disease; those with such diseases are likely at greatest risk of contracting the coronavirus.
Peg, “respiratory diseases” are not the only conditions that may be affected by a face covering. Going back to King County’s directive, they elaborate: “Anyone with a disability that makes it hard for them to wear or remove a face covering.
Anyone who is deaf and moves their face and mouth to communicate.
Anyone who has been advised by a medical professional to not wear a face covering because of personal health issues.
Anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, or unable to remove the face covering without help.”
Also, while the option of no-touch pickup or a personal shopper may work for some, it may not for all. That’s why the Americans With Disabilities Act exists. It IS discrimination to deny services due to a medical condition, no matter the circumstances. Are we as a supposedly tolerant community, free of ableism and fear of the unseen, really going to advocate for the county and businesses to openly harass and discriminate? If so, then civil society is truly lost.
D’anna, using your criteria, as C19 is a health issue, is it not then technically discrimination to ask people actually infected with C19 to stay out of stores to protect the greater community?
D’Anna Lewis raises interesting legal questions. I would have thought that under the ADA and similar state law, a person with a relevant physical disability would simply need to make that disability known, and at that point the merchant can/should arrange “reasonable” accommodation instead of denying service. Am I wrong??
I see no ADA issues with requiring masks in County businesses. It’s not discrimination against anyone to require them to wear a mask. If there’s an issue, medical or otherwise, the solution is obvious, and it is NOT allowing someone without a mask to enter a business and heighten the risk of exposure for him or herself or others. It’s to have a volunteer do the errands or use the online/phone ordering and no-touch handoff.
The end of civilization as we know it? Hardly.
(What would our WWII and Great Depression surviving parents make of these ridiculous disputes, I wonder?)
It’s a misunderstanding of the law. Asking someone who is unwilling or unable to wear a mask in an island business due to health concerns is hardly harassment or discrimination. (Indeed, many people choose those options out of an abundance of caution.). No services are being denied. You can currently obtain any items or services available to citizens under this reopening phase through telephone order/no-touch pickup or volunteer shopper programs.
I think the idea is that the masks required order “could” be enforced. While most Orcas locals are covering up there are plenty who are not. Will repeat offenders really remain obstinate once informed it’s no longer an option?
How about the councilmen put their official name tags on and stand outside their islands’ grocery store and kindly enlighten those who need it. Hand out your snappy new sign.
In all seriousness, it would make for good headlines. Helps law enforcement stay focused. Will garner respect from business owners and all of us who are complying. And it will likely heighten your appreciation for the risk of exposure service industry employees face.
As Dr. James has repeated, the criteria are clear. We have to do this right. Count your blessings all who are fortunate to be able to work from home.
Despite words like empathy and kindness Order 2020-4 falls like a hammer blow with no accommodation of special needs. I would invite those who see our freedoms erode to join me in exploring legal and political remedies. To that end I will be contacting a civil rights public interest law firm and the Federal Department of Justice. In addition we have an election in 6 months, Inslee must go!
If we don’t take a stand now our rights are gone! Please consider sharing your contact information with me in confidence at PO Box 124, Orcas, WA 98280 so that we can effectively resist.
We shall overcome!
PS. Ms. Manning, with respect, lawyers argue, it’s what you do. “Separate but equal” is not all right. Only when DOJ or private counsel says I have no case will I believe I have no case.
Be well everyone!
Phil, is that red hat on too tight buddy? Exactly which of your civil rights are gone now? Inslee already relaxed restrictions for construction so I would think the finish carpentry for your new “dream house” should be well under way. This is so reminiscent of the fits people had when seatbelt and helmet laws were initially passed, yet they still stand.
Phil,
We shall overcome what, exactly? The desire to care about our neighbors? The need to be mindful of others in our community who may be at greater risk, and not just ourselves? I’m fairly certain that most people I know on Orcas will never be overcome by willful selfishness and self-absorption, but I may be wrong. Time will tell.
Hi Donna,
My sentiments exactly, but from a broader perspective. My “caring” is not confined to the Covid risk group who selfishly put their interests before other cohorts and needs. My posts have expressed concern for workers forced not to work; Gen X, Millennials; impaired neighbors who can’t wear a mask but still want to squeeze the avocado and make their own choices as noted above by Ms. Lewis. Is that self-absorption?
You know me, you know I’m in the high risk group, I have a target on my back, so how can you look me in the eye and say that my concern is not for others? Nothing I’ve written has been about me personally, but about impacts on those around me that my own cohort appears happy to sacrifice for their own security.
But enough, to answer Ms. Manning. Our parents were told that “the only thing we had to fear was fear itself.” Now clearly the only thing we have is fear.
Mask or don’t mask but spare me the crocodile tears for the beleaguered workers who are desperate for dough and don’t know what to do with themselves otherwise. There will be no ‘normalcy’ of choice when this thing subsides and don’t fool yourself into thinking that everything will be peachy keen post COVID. It was bad before and when this thing subsides through whatever means it will be worse.
And since, “inslee must go” I guess that means voting for Tim Eyman? The ironies in such a choice are overwhelming.
Given Inslee’s polling (eg. yesterday’s WaPo “The Fix”), I don’t think he has a thing to worry about.
Thank g*d a backclick erased my diatribe.
You’re welcome.