Assembly discusses mask mandate in special meeting

The Wrangell Borough Assembly met last Thursday evening, Nov. 5. This was only a discussion meeting, to take in public opinion and decide whether or not a mask mandate would be worth considering in a formal meeting. This mandate was being considered at the behest of the local Emergency Operations Center, who requested the city look at the possibility.

The potential mandate, outlined in the meeting's agenda packet, would require all individuals to wear a mask or face veering while "indoors in public settings or communal spaces outside the home." This would include places like grocery stores, restaurants, while riding on public transportation, and communal areas where people from multiple households are present, among other locations.

There are exceptions to this rule, such as children under the age of two-years-old, those with medical conditions that a mask would exacerbate, those who are exercising, public speakers or musicians, and others.

Anyone found in violation of this mandate would be subject to a $25 fine. Businesses, under this mandate, would be responsible for making sure employees have access to masks. Businesses would not be subject to fines if a customer refuses to comply with the mandate, so long as they have clearly posted signs informing customers they have to wear a mask. If adopted, this mandate would sunset on Dec. 31, unless the assembly decides to take action.

Captain Dorianne Sprehe, with the fire department and the EOC gave a presentation on why the EOC thinks a mask mandate should be considered. Wrangell saw its first case in several weeks earlier in the week, on Nov. 3.

While Wrangell itself may not be seeing the brunt of the pandemic, she said that factors across the state mean that Wrangell is still at risk. Cases are rising at an accelerated rate across Alaska, she said. Most of the state is considered at a high alert level, while the majority of Southeast Alaska is at an intermediate alert level.

Hospital bed capacity is becoming a concern, she added. According to her presentation, Sprehe said that there are 481 adult inpatient beds available across Alaska, and 28 adult ICU beds. In Southeast Alaska specifically, there are 141 adult inpatient beds available and 8 ICU beds. While Wrangell, and in general Southeast Alaska, is not seeing as dramatic an increase in case numbers as the rest of the state, Sprehe said it would be unwise to think that their community is not still at-risk.

"The EOC brought this request forward to the assembly because we think this is serious, given the situation within the state," she said. "I know there are some that feel this is taking away their freedoms or their life choices. COVID has asked all of us to make life choices. The mask is not about closing your business or taking your freedoms, it's a mitigation measure, and mitigation measures are about keeping people healthy so we can keep businesses open, keep schools open, so we can keep moving forward."

Much of the meeting was devoted to accepting public comments. After taking in these comments, and a brief recess, the assembly got into a discussion about their own thoughts on the potential mask mandate. There was some question amongst assembly members about the legality of a mask mandate. Joseph Levesque, the borough's attorney, was present in the meeting and said that Wrangell would have the legal authority to enact a mask mandate. Wrangell is a home rule municipality. This means, he said, that Wrangell can do just about anything when it comes to local laws, so long as there isn't another law explicitly prohibiting it.

"In Title 29, there's actually a section that, that's section 29.10.200, and it has limitation of home rule powers," Levesque said. "It says only the following provisions of this title apply to home rule municipalities as prohibitions on action otherwise than as provided. None of those provisions that they're saying do apply to home rule municipalities, under Title 29, have anything to do with health powers."

Another topic of concern for city officials was enforcement of this mandate. Police Chief Tom Radke said, in his opinion, his department could enforce this mandate. He could not anticipate how many calls regarding people breaking the mandate they could expect, he said, but he said he believes they have the capacity to handle it. If things became overwhelming, Radke said that he would come back to the assembly to make sure they knew.

Radke was not the only member of the police department to speak in the meeting. Lt. Bruce Smith, during the persons to be heard portion of the meeting, shared some of his concerns. There are very passionate and stubborn people on both sides of the argument when it comes to a mask mandate, he said. Forcing people to wear a mask, he said, will only cause an escalation of tensions. He also said he does still have concerns about the legality of the mandate, despite the city attorney's assurances. The police can enforce this mandate, he said, but he wanted to know how far the city was willing to take that enforcement.

"Your decision here will make some happy, but will alienate and anger many others," Smith said.

On the topic of enforcement, Assembly Member Terry Courson asked what would happen if an individual refused to accept the $25 fine for not wearing a mask. There are a lot of people in Wrangell who would refuse that citation, he said, and he was concerned about a situation escalating. By his understanding, refusing to accept the fine would lead to a mandatory arrest, he said. Radke confirmed that this would be the case, but the arrest would likely not last for very long.

"Under the new COVID regulations we're going to be pushing the person out," he said. "They're not going to let us hold a person for this."

Courson said this potential situation was something he wanted the assembly to consider when thinking about this mask mandate. Mayor Steve Prysunka said that he believed the Wrangell Police Department was good at deescalating situations.

"There's going to be a lot of talking, and education, and working with the public," he said. "The intention's not to be tossing people in jail. The intention is to try and work with the public."

After further discussion, the general consensus amongst the assembly was that the mandate was worth giving formal consideration in a future meeting. They originally planned to put it on the agenda for their meeting on Nov. 10. However, they later decided to push it back to a future special meeting, or their next regular meeting on Dec. 8.