June 9, 2022 | Ryan Feyre rfeyre@thereminder.com

NORTHAMPTON – During a special meeting on May 27, the Northampton School Committee voted 6-2 in favor of ending the temporary mask mandate that Superintendent John Provost implemented on May 10.

The vote came after Provost read a letter from Northampton Public Health Commissioner Merridith O’Leary, which recommended a mask-optional policy in schools. The Superintendent’s Health Advisory Committee (SHAC) also met before the special School Committee meeting to talk about recommendations.

On May 9, Provost instituted a temporary mask mandate in Northampton Public Schools after the number of cases reported to school or detected through their pool testing program increased from 64 to 139, and around 37 percent of teachers had been absent in the early part of May.

According to O’Leary’s letter, the decision to move toward a mask-optional policy was based off the fact that COVID-19 cases and clusters have dropped by 68 percent, and student and staff COVID-19-related absences also dipped.

“There is no longer an immediate concern that classrooms or schools may need to close as a result of staffing shortages driven by COVID[-19]-related absences,” read the letter. “Masks should be encouraged, but optional at this time.”

Even with the vote, questions remain about who has the authority to transfer to a mask-optional policy and under what circumstances. During the meeting, Ward 4 School Committee member Michael Stein expressed frustration about the procedure involving the rescindment and implementation of mask mandates in schools, arguing that the masking policies must go before the Rules & Policy Subcommittee before going to the School Committee. He continued by saying that these “infuriating” procedural issues have created uncertainty among the public and School Committee.

“This just seems extremely bizarre from a procedural standpoint,” said Stein, during the meeting. Stein also argued that the recent drop of cases in schools reported by O’Leary is showing that masks are indeed working. “I don’t know how to begin to untangle this knot of procedural dysfunction,” he continued.

In response, Provost said his intent with the special School Committee meeting on May 27 was to address the confusion about who has the authority to rescind a mask mandate, especially because the written face covering policy sets specific standards that must be met before mandating a mask again, while there is nothing about rescinding the mandate.

“The new policy clearly gives you the authority to mask if you feel for health and safety needs that’s necessary, but I’m not sure if you have the authority to unmask if you no longer think it’s necessary,” Provost told the School Committee. “This is a meeting that allows the committee to give me that direction if they so choose.”

Ward 1 School Committee member Meg Robbins also stated confusion about the procedures, as well as the need to dissolve a mask mandate right before a holiday weekend. She said that she did not receive enough information prior to this meeting to decide and offered a motion to table the discussion until the following week. Only she and Stein voted against rescinding the mandate.

Ward 5 School Committee member Dina Levi also believes that the current face covering policy should be revisited but argued in the meantime the committee should follow the recommendations of SHAC, which is to implement a mask-optional policy.

At-Large Vice Chair Gwen Agna agreed with Levi, saying it would “trouble her deeply” to not go with the recommendations laid out by the city’s public health department. “I agree that this sounds like the Rules & Policy needs to roll up their sleeves and figure this out, but we are operating … on a practice so far … that we have adhered to what the recommendations of our public health department have been,” said Agna. “I think we need to respect our public health people.”

The Rules & Policy Subcommittee was scheduled to meet on June 2 to discuss and revise the face covering policy to help streamline the process.