By SHANNON HAUGLAND
Sentinel Staff Writer
The Assembly at Tuesday’s meeting narrowly rejected a resolution calling on residents to wear face coverings indoors in public spaces as a measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
The 3-4 vote defeating the proposal came after about 10 comments from the public in favor and 13 against, and comments pro and con by Assembly members.
The resolution called for masks to be worn in indoor public places and communal spaces outside the home. There was a list of places where masks were to be worn (e.g. grocery stores, childcare facilities, elevators) and a number of allowed exceptions.
Questions about enforceability were raised in the debate.
Resolution co-sponsors Kevin Knox and Thor Christianson were joined by Steven Eisenbeisz in voting in favor. Kevin Mosher, Richard Wein, Valorie Nelson and Mayor Gary Paxton voted against, and the resolution failed.
It was one of two items that drew dozens of public comments at the four-hour Assembly meeting. The other one was the question of relocating the Baranof statue. (See separate story, this page.)
Five ordinances relating to CARES Act funds were passed on first reading. A Working Group is still refining the details of how the remainder of Sitka’s $14 million will be distributed to individuals, businesses, nonprofits and programs to offset COVID-related hardships. The ordinances will be up for final reading July 28.
Mask/ Face Covering Resolution
Assembly members listened to more than an hour of testimony on the face-covering resolution, then made a few comments before the vote.
Assembly members who were opposed cited a range of problems with the resolution, but said in the end it should be up to individuals, not the Assembly or city. The language in the resolution to “order” citizens to comply also did not sit well with some. The resolution specifically stated that its terms would not be enforceable as a matter of law, and there were no penalties for noncompliance.
Paxton, who made one of the final comments before the vote, said he wears a mask to the store and church, but not while going out to a restaurant a few times a week with his wife. He said he felt it was up to individuals.
“We’re challenging the basic freedoms of Americans,” the mayor said. “I know this is not an easy discussion. I encourage everybody to wear masks whenever they could, wherever they can and whenever they should.”
Mosher said he thought the resolution would be unenforceable, and that there is science on both sides of the debate. Further, he said he didn’t think it would be fair to interpret a “no” vote as a lack of caring about fellow citizens.
“Voting no does not make one ignorant or stupid, and arguing to that effect is mean and vicious,” Mosher said.
Wein, who also voted against, objected to the appearance of the resolution as a health mandate for citizens, among other concerns.
“I keep hearing there’s overwhelming evidence of community usage of masks’ efficacy, but that is far from the truth,” he said today. “They are not a sinecure, but they are helpful and part of a general strategy.”
Knox, one of the sponsors, said the resolution – based on a similar Anchorage regulation – was not going to stop the virus but he felt it was important to take prevention measures before a spike hits and it’s too late to take action.
“This is just one of the tools we have in our toolbox,” he said.
Christianson said he felt it was important the Assembly at least talk about the resolution, and for the public to think about it.
“We all know masks aren’t perfect but they slow it down,” he said.
The public comments ran the gamut, with a few more members of the public against the resolution than in favor. Several on both sides of the argument cited studies as well as anecdotal information and personal experience and expertise.
Many read prepared statements and others spoke on the spur of the moment. It was clear from the testimony, as well as from audience reactions, that there were strong feelings for and against mandatory face coverings and masks.
Among objections were that the masks aren’t effective, the lack of knowledge on how to properly and safely wear a mask, the lack of scientific evidence supporting masks, and risks to those with respiratory challenges. Objectors also cited personal responsibility, freedom of choice and the lack of enforceability of the resolution.
“I’m against this for everyone because we are not in a high risk scenario,” said Carin Adickes. “We are a population of 8,500-9,000 people. We have new people coming in, they’re being tested and we have a few more cases, but they are isolated and I do not believe masks should be required in our town.”
“People that are sick probably ought to be at home anyway, and when they’re out a mask is a good idea,” said Dr. Dave Lam, who was also against the resolution. “If you’re taking care of a sick person, a mask is a good idea. But to say that it’s a standard thing that everybody has to do - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for this.”
Those in favor generally felt that requiring masks and face coverings in the places listed would protect the public, in particular the most vulnerable citizens. A few noted that there were exceptions, and that it was only one of several steps needed to prevent the spread of the virus.
“The wearing of a face mask has become politicized instead of remaining a public health issue, which is what it is,” said Nancy Furlow. “As a public health issue, it is no different than the bans on cigarette smoking in public spaces ... It is also no different than the laws that keep drunk drivers off our roads.”
“No one likes to wear them but we’re willing to do it to try to have more normal lives and to protect each other,” said Michelle Putz, also arguing in favor of the resolution. “So let common sense and CDC recommendations prevail: please pass this resolution.”
Assembly members weighed in with their opinions before the 3-4 vote against the resolution.
CARES Act Funds
The Assembly approved five ordinances on introduction setting budgets for various categories for distributing the $14 million in Sitka CARES Act funds for businesses, nonprofits, services, residents and projects.
Each of the ordinances was approved 6-0. (Nelson left the meeting early.)
The first $4.5 million was set aside for utility and moorage relief for citizens and businesses, with applications currently available online and due July 31.
Under the five ordinances, which will be up for final approval July 28, the remaining $9.5 million will be distributed as follows:
– $5 million for businesses and nonprofit grants;
– $2.5 million for new programs - childcare, food security, housing, transitional employment;
– $1 million for city impact and mitigation (IT, protection of employees);
– $430,000 to the Sitka School District for computers and iPads and to employ Americorps volunteers to help students;
- $627,653 for contingencies.
Other Business
In other agenda items, the Assembly:
– observed a moment of silence for Gil Truitt, who died last week.
– heard comments from a former employee of the police department and state assistant district attorney’s office about problems in the police department. (Story in a later edition of the Sentinel.)
– honored Dr. Paul Bahna for his service on the Library Commission.
– reappointed Scott Wagner to the Gary Paxton Industrial Park board; Susan Royce to the Animal Hearing Board, and Bert Stedman to the Investment Committee.
– appointed Chuck Miller to the Sitka Historic Preservation Commission in the category of Native Community.
– voted 7-0 to approve a budget ordinance for $86,817 in supplemental appropriations for the airport terminal improvement project.
– voted 7-0 to approve a budget ordinance on final reading for $345,000 in supplemental appropriations for COVID-19 expenses.
