- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On
Board of Supervisors approves final reading of COVID-19 health order enforcement ordinance
The board’s vote on the final reading Tuesday was the same as it was last week – 3-2.
Supervisor EJ Crandell, who brought the ordinance to the board, was joined by Board Chair Moke Simon and Supervisor Tina Scott in passing the ordinance, with Rob Brown and Bruno Sabatier voting no.
The ordinance, which goes into effect 30 days from Tuesday’s approval, will sunset on Oct. 1, 2021, unless the board takes action to extend it.
Under its guidelines, the county’s Health Services director and Community Development director or their designees, and any official designated by the Board of Supervisors would be responsible for enforcement of violations including failure to adhere to masking, social distancing and mandated hygiene requirements, and failure to close specific business sectors when required.
While Crandell has said it emphasizes training and information to gain compliance, it includes administrative fines: up to $100 for a first violation, up to $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation and not more than $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
Sabatier clarified during the discussion that he was not against masking. It’s his opinion that the issue is not whether the masking mandate is right or wrong, it’s about how to enforce it.
“I do not believe that adding a fine will change the behavior,” said Sabatier, who has favored taking an approach that rewards those who follow the mandate rather than being punitive.
He and Brown were the only two board members in the chambers during the meeting; Sabatier was wearing a mask, Brown was not, and they were sitting several seats apart, with each seat on the dais separated by plexiglass dividers.
When members of the public rose to speak at the podium, it was Sabatier who took on the duty of wiping the equipment down between speakers.
The process explained
Crandell said it’s been pointed out to him that people are concerned that officials will come to their homes to enforce the ordinance, which he said wasn’t intended.
Brown asked for an explanation of the process, including who ultimately would be responsible for enforcing it and how. “There’s been no discussion about that although there’s been a lot of assumptions.”
County Counsel Anita Grant explained that the enforcement officers – the directors of Health Services and Community Development, their employees or anyone the board appoints – would contact a violator and work with them, giving them not less than five days to come into compliance.
If compliance occurs, Grant said nothing further happens and the matter won’t even be on file as it will be considered an informal action.
However, if that informal action is unsuccessful, then the enforcement officer would issue a notice of citation giving another 10 days to correct that violation, Grant said. If compliance still doesn’t happen, fines could occur, but they’re not required.
“The administrative fine is permissive, it’s not a mandate. It says the enforcement officer may impose a fine,” said Grant.
There also is an appeal process in which the person receiving a notice of violation can go to the Board of Supervisors, who Grant said ultimately would decide whether to uphold, modify or dismiss the notice.
Considering budgeting and hiring, Brown said it’s likely that enforcement would start in the middle or end of October at the earliest. Simon agreed with that estimated timeline, adding that education for those not complying with the orders would still be taking place until then.
Brown questioned if people would have to worry about large gatherings like weddings being broken up. Crandell said he didn’t see anything in the ordinance that specifies that.
“It’s a legitimate fear that people have,” Brown replied.
Grant said nothing in the ordinance allows someone to go onto property without permission.
Sabatier said the county’s No. 1 issue with passing the virus is large gatherings. “We’re saying that we’re not going to do anything about that,” he said, adding he’s not sure why there is an emphasis on businesses when a small number of cases are correlated to them.
“There were changes that your board made to make clear that this was not limited to business,” Grant said, referring to actions taken last week.
Sabatier said a trigger to stop using the ordinance – like a drop in the positivity rate or number of new cases – made sense to him in showing the ordinance isn’t necessary. He said the October 2021 sunset date is very far off.
“The state has a trigger point before they take certain actions, we should have trigger points before we take certain actions,” he said.
Sabatier again offered his colleagues a tiered system to approach compliance which they again rejected, although they agreed with his request that the ordinance be brought back on Dec. 1 for review.
Brown asked Grant if the board could add Sabatier’s trigger proposal without having to hold the ordinance over again for another reading. Grant’s opinion was that the changes would be significant enough that new first and second readings would be necessary.
Public remains divided
During public comment, the board heard from several community members who were again split over the ordinance.
Haji Warf of Upper Lake spoke to the board via Zoom, noting she had been in the board chambers last week but decided not to return because half of the people in the room the last time were not wearing masks. “I did not feel safe. That statement alone should give you pause.”
She quoted a July poll that found that three out of four Americans support wearing masks to stop the coronavirus. “The silent majority will no longer allow the belligerent minority to drown out our voices,” she said.
“This conflict between science versus perceived injury to personal liberty is a very American struggle,” Warf added, noting the same battle has been fought perpetually over other issues, like seat belts.
Some of the speakers once again challenged the science used to support masking, or raised issue with discrimination against those who can’t wear them due to medical issues.
Michael Green of Lakeport offered strong support. “The delays have gone on quite enough.”
He said the ordinance is featherweight in its touch and is meant to be another tool in the Public Health officers’ toolbox. Green also questioned why people were trying to relitigate the masking policy, adding the only ones driving fear are those against the ordinance.
Green pointed out that an item on the board’s consent agenda – the county’s Wildfire Smoke Protection Policy that includes mask-wearing as a precaution – passed with “zero controversy.”
Frank Dollosso of Lakeport said people not wearing masks are being discriminated against and that the governor’s mandates didn’t appear to him to be actual laws.
Val Lancaster of Lakeport said she was met at the front door of the courthouse by a security employee who grilled her for two minutes on why she wasn’t wearing a mask. She has stated she has a medical exemption.
The ordinance and masking “is a bunch of crap,” said Lancaster.
She told the board not to be surprised if they saw a bunch of God-fearing, law-abiding citizens become God-fearing, law-abiding patriots who won’t hesitate to stand up for their Fourth Amendment right – the right against unreasonable searches – by using their Second Amendment right, referring to keeping and bearing arms.
“You three should be ashamed of yourselves,” Lancaster said, addressing Crandell, Scott and Simon.
Crandell moved the approval of the ordinance’s second reading, which ended in a 3-2 vote, with Brown and Sabatier voting no.
Crandell also moved to reassess and discuss the ordinance on Dec. 1. That motion passed 4-1, with Brown the lone dissenter.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
