No formal vote: County supervisors make no recommendation on a local mask mandate

OROVILLE » After a lengthy public hearing, the Board of Supervisors left the question of a mask mandate for Butte County at the discretion of the public health officer.

That actually has always been the case under state law, but the Public Health Department had asked the board for direction. While board members expressed opposition to a mask mandate by a 3-2 margin, the idea of a formal vote was ultimately seen as irrelevant.

“We’re not enabled by law to make a mask mandate,” said Chairman Bill Connelly of Oroville. He asked if the board wanted to go through a series of motions and 3-2 votes that wouldn’t change anything, and there was little interest in doing so.

The decision followed a report by Public Health Director Danette York on the current COVID-19 situation in the county, and an hour or so of public testimony.

Most of those who spoke Tuesday opposed mask mandates, in some cases with an excess of passion. One speaker had to be removed from the room. Several verbally abused York, and Chico Supervisor Debra Lucero as a promoter of mandates.

Those opposed to masks cited reports and statistics saying masks weren’t effective. Those supporting masks had their own reports and statistics that masks were effective. Opponents said masks blocked oxygen flow and damaged children’s brains. Proponents said that wasn’t the case.

But the primary arguments were about liberty and personal choice, versus what was good for the

community at large.

“It’s about power and control, not a virus,” said one speaker.

Another told of having police called on him for refusing to wear a mask in businesses. “I tell them ‘I’m not sick, you’re not a doctor … you have no right to make me wear a mask’.”

On the other hand, a woman said, “We older people feel threatened,” pointing out just six of the 25 people in the audience were wearing masks.

“We are not honoring each other as human beings,” said another. “Wearing a mask isn’t that hard.”

When it came to board discussion, Lucero began by saying, “None of us has a huge appetite for doing this.”

But she went on to cite cases like Humboldt County, where a COVID-19 surge was stemmed by a mask mandate. She said Butte County’s case rate was double that of counties that have the mandates.

As she spoke, people in the audience could be heard mocking her.

Paradise Supervisor Doug Teeter followed with a bit of a dissertation on microns and the size of oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules, the size of the virus, and the size of the pores in an N-95 mask.

“Is a mask effective at catching the virus? Yes. But telling others what to do is not appropriate.”

He said if someone asked him to wear a mask, he’d do so gladly, but that he opposed a mandate.

Connelly also opposed a mandate. He and Teeter were unmasked during the hearing, although sheets of plexiglass separated the supervisors, staff and the audience.

Connelly said he wouldn’t go into a store that requires masks. “I think there’s been a general overreaction on both sides. I won’t mandate, but if a business wants to do it, that’s their right.”

Supervisor Tod Kimmelshue of Durham also did not support a mandate. “I believe in masks and vaccines, but I don’t believe we can force it.”

Chico Supervisor Tami

Ritter commented that, “I think we’re getting caught in the weeds.”

She pointed out the county hires experts to run its departments and didn’t understand why the board was undercutting and second-guessing them.

“My recommendation is that we direct our public health officer to do what’s best for our community’s health. Leave it to the experts we hire to do their jobs.”

In the case of a mask mandate, that’s also the law. The supervisors cannot issue such a rule. That is strictly within the authority of the public health officer.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the board agenda also included approving a contract with Dr. David Canton to serve as interim public health officer for the county. It was approved after the board took a lunch break.

As the hearing came to an end, Connelly thanked the audience for “being mostly very nice today.”

Tuscan Water District

Tuesday the board also held a long public hearing on whether to support the proposed Tuscan Water District. After three hours of testimony, they voted 3-1 to recommend to the Local Agency Formation Commission that the district be approved.

LAFCO is the agency that would actually approve or reject the district; the board vote was just advisory.

Connelly, Teeter and Kimmelshue voted yes; Lucero voted no. Ritter had left the meeting by the time the item came up.

A full report on that action will be included in Thursday’s newspaper.