By SHANNON HAUGLAND
Sentinel Staff Writer
The Assembly passed a face covering mandate at an emergency meeting Thursday night.
Sitkans wait to testify at an emergency Assembly meeting held to consider three ordinances related to COVID-19 Thursday at Harrigan Centennial Hall. An ordinance requiring masks to be worn in public indoor settings and communal spaces passed. (Sentinel Photo by James Poulson)
The emergency ordinance, which went into effect immediately after passage, requires everyone in Sitka to wear a face covering over nose and mouth indoors in public settings and in communal spaces outside the home.
The vote in favor was 6-0, with Thor Christianson, Crystal Duncan, Kevin Knox, Kevin Mosher, Rebecca Himschoot and Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz in favor. Valorie Nelson was absent.
Since it was an emergency ordinance it was passed in one motion, with at least five votes needed to pass.
It was one of three emergency ordinances proposed at the emergency meeting, and the only one to pass. One of the ordinances that didn’t pass would have required the city to make lodging available for travelers who test positive and need to quarantine, although the travelers would need to pay for the lodging. The other one would have provided a $1,000 grant to Sitkans who were required to isolate for 10 days after testing positive for COVID, The grants were intended to offset lost wages.
The mask mandate requires face coverings to be worn in such areas as grocery and retail stores, buses and taxis, childcare facilities, personal care facilities, and communal areas of offices. The list also includes restaurants, bars and cafes, with a “limited exception for customers while they are actively eating or drinking in one of these settings.”
Co-sponsors built the ordinance from the mandate in place in Juneau, and modified it to fit Sitka, said Christianson, who co-sponsored the ordinance with Duncan and Himschoot.
There are a number of exceptions, including children under 2; those with certain medical conditions or impairments; and some performers, who have to follow other precautions.
The Assembly heard a number of arguments on both sides of the issue before casting their votes.
“I was pleasantly surprised that it passed 6-0,” Christianson said today, “I hope it makes a difference and only the next month will tell if it makes a difference.”
The emergency ordinances were proposed after several weeks in which Sitka’s infection rate became the highest per capita in the entire United States. Sitka’s rolling case rate is 20.64 per day, and 19 new cases were reported on the day of the meeting. There are 191 current active cases on the dashboard today.
Numerous public comments were made at the meeting, and Assembly members said they had received dozens of emails.
This is the first full day the mask mandate is in force, and City Clerk Sara Peterson said today she has received a number of requests for a copy of the ordinance, mostly from businesses, and a few individuals.
Melissa Henshaw, city public and government relations director, said plans are in the works to publicize the new regulation on the city website. The Chamber of Commerce is distributing information to business owners, including examples of signs posted in other communities with mask regulations.
Assembly members said Thursday night that the majority of emails they received were in favor of a mask requirement. The vote came after about an hour of public testimony on both sides of the issue, with about 9 in favor and about 11 opposed.
Christianson said the goal of the ordinance is to get the public to “take it seriously.”
“Right now we’re at 20 times the high rate,” he said. “(Sitka’s) average of one case a day is high. We are averaging over 20 cases a day. Our hospitalizations have shot up ... This is not the same disease as we had in November. It’s worse, it’s definitely more contagious.”
Himschoot said she was concerned about Sitka’s high infection rate and parents’ concerns about the safety of their children, particularly those too young to be vaccinated.
Duncan provided a timeline of events leading her to believe “it’s wholly necessary at this time,” including U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s video emphasizing vaccinations as a path toward no longer requiring masks.
“We’re not here to tell you to get vaccinated we’re here to encourage you to do so,” she said. “And mask wearing: this is a byproduct of what we’re seeing because we’re not vaccinated at the rates that our community wants or needs ...”
Sitka’s vaccination rate for those 12 and up is currently at 75.75 percent “partially vaccinated,” and 70.4 percent “fully vaccinated.”
Duncan said she received some 66 emails, including 53 “strongly supporting” a temporary mask mandate.
Mosher said he carefully weighed both sides of the debate and in the end decided in favor of the mandate, but still had concerns about implementation and enforcement.
“The biggest decider for me,” he said today, “is that the kids can’t be vaccinated until they’re 12... we have to protect those that are most vulnerable.”
On Mosher’s questions about implementation, City Attorney Brian Hanson said there are many code provisions “that set up violations of minor offenses that the police department are obligated to enforce.”
“We don’t set the policies for how the police enforce those, and rightfully so,” Hanson said, “because the police department and police chief need to look at resources and weigh (that) against other things that are happening. I discourage you from trying to basically micromanage the enforcement of this with the police department and let them do their job in deciding if and when - and what resources - to apply if you decide to pass this emergency ordinance.”
Eisenbeisz said he supports the mandate “in spirit,” but knows it might not change people’s behavior or their minds.
“What I do think this will help,” said Eisenbeisz, “is give visitors something to lean on when they come to town.”
Knox said today he was influenced by the persuasive and passionate support for the mandate that was expressed through more than 80 phone calls and emails.
“I was also swayed by the plea of the medical professionals that contacted us: Dr. Bruhl, Dr. Hunter, Dr. Anne Zink, who told us to do as much as we could,” he said.
Members of the public arguing in favor testified about new CDC recommendations for masks for both vaccinated and unvaccinated indoors, which will help the community “get back to normal,” protect those not old enough or otherwise not able to be vaccinated, community elders and the medically vulnerable, as well as workers.
“We know masks work, and are effective in preventing transmission and in ... protecting us from receiving or transmitting to others,” said Dr. Robert Hunter, who’s practiced medicine for more than 40 years. “By going forward with a mask mandate we’re protecting those who are likely to become very ill: the elderly, children under 12, any unvaccinated people.”
Dr. Elliot Bruhl said he was speaking as a physician in his comments to the Assembly.
Bruhl is also chief medical officer at SEARHC.
“This is not at all the same situation we were in last summer and fall,” he said. “This is a serious public health crisis; it’s not a theoretical circumstance. Many, many people are very, very sick ... Masks have been scientifically and medically proven to reduce spread. In my opinion as a physician they should be required indoors in public spaces by all in this circumstance. It’s consistent with guidance. It’s the medically correct thing to do at this time.”
He mentioned Wrangell’s new requirement for testing of unvaccinated people entering the community.
From the public Tory O’Connell Curran said it’s the role of government to take action in the interest of protecting “the whole.” She hopes this will be flexible enough so that masks won’t be required when the community goes back down to “low” risk. She noted that a third of the 20 most recent cases were those too young to be vaccinated.
“This is about community, it’s about protecting others,” she said. “Let’s protect our kids, let’s protect our schools, let’s protect elders.”
Others weighing favoring a mask mandate were the city Health Needs and Human Services Commission and the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, which passed a resolution in favor of requiring masks.
Those arguing against all or part of it stressed their rights as individuals or business owners, questioned the effectiveness of masks and presented their own information and sources in support of their position. Many said it was an example of government going too far, and that the enforceability would be a problem.
“Contemplate what will happen next when the next variant strikes Sitka,” said Jaylene Owen. “Will every citizen be mandated to get a booster shot? Or other future promises that government mandates can end and life can return back to normal? Are you prepared for the psychological damage long-term mask usage will have on our children because they will be deprived of critical social interactions? While this disease is real and not going away, we as a community do not need more restrictions and mandates that cause division. I ask that you decline this ordinance.”
“The ordinance appears to be legally unenforceable,” said Amy Bethune. “If no proof of exemption is required, how can you legally prove (or) enforce a violation in order to issue a civil fine? For that matter, how much time and money will it cost the city when non-mask-wearers avoid downtown and other businesses, or when legal challenges arise from unjust fines and unprovable violations?”
“Do we want to become a police state?” asked Mary Todd Andersen, who argued that masks are not effective and could lead to neighbors turning in neighbors for not wearing a mask. “Where do we go next, folks?”
Business owner Shirley Robards said she was against the fine, and said enforcement is a problem as well.
“It’s just wrong that you’re going to charge $50,” she said. “How are you going to catch them, how are you going to do it. ... I’m against it, I know you’ve gotten a lot of people (speaking) against it.”
The ordinance that would have the city reserve lodging space for those who test positive and need to quarantine – with the lodger paying the cost – failed with Himschoot, Christianson and Mosher in favor; Duncan, Eisenbeisz and Knox opposed.
See related story on this page about the third proposed emergency ordinance.
