“We've always followed County guidance,” Ward 3 Alderman Jacob Huff said. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t now.” Pending further Council discussion and the decision that mask wearing at …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
“We've always followed County guidance,” Ward 3 Alderman Jacob Huff said. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t now.” Pending further Council discussion and the decision that mask wearing at public meetings be rendered a personal choice, 12 of the 17 present took the mask off.
Noteable among those who did not were Police Chief Lance Weiland and Council member Holly Kitchell, with Weiland previously asking clarification for questions from staff.
The specific county guidance as sourced online at the meeting was quoted as “15 people inside with physical distancing” and 30 outside, with similar stipulation. As to local governments that may choose otherwise on masks, the legal principle in question allows for either the higher authority or else stricter ordinance to win out in terms of local law. A similar principle allows for dry counties to exist in the post-Prohibition age.
For the present, though, the wearing of masks at City Council meetings has been declared a personal issue. Federal employees, however, enjoy no such leeway.
Pursuant to an executive order issued January 20, 2021, those heads of executive departments and agencies of the federal government, have been tasked to require compliance consistent with CDC guideliens for law for federal employees, federal buidings, and federal lands (defined as under executive branch control).