Richland 2 School District has a policy regarding face "coverings". A covering is a mask. The District can approve an accommodation of a face shield in place of a mask.
At school board meetings Trustee-elect Holmes refuses to wear a face mask. Instead, she sometimes wears a face shield.
So the first question is, did she request an accommodation? The second question is, did the District approve her request? And the next question is, did the Board or the superintendent approve her request, if one was submitted?
Since the Board is superior to the authority of the superintendent, any request should have been considered by the Board, not by the superintendent. Was it? Did I miss that meeting?
Holmes must wear a face mask or face shield. At last night's meeting (3/9/2021) why did she remove it to speak?
Policy ADD reads, in part, "Staff members/School volunteers will wear a face covering while in indoor common areas (e.g. [sic] main office, lobby, hallway, workroom, cafeteria, etc.), at any time when physical distancing is not possible or optimal and while conducting business on behalf of the district ..."
Board members are subject to staff requirements.
The keyword is "and" (and while conducting business). The word "and" is used, not "or".
Since Holmes was conducting business last night, she should have worn her face shield at all times.
Since Trustee Scott (f/k/a Elkins) refuses to attend board meetings in person when Holmes refuses to mask up, it is important to examine Board Policy
Board Policy BEDM governs a board member's teleconferencing. The allowance for attending by telephone (or Zoom) "will be made only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., special medical and/or travel situations, military service, or job constraints."
Scott absents herself for her own health and for that of her mother.
Did Scott request an accommodation of teleconferencing in writing? Did the Board consider and approve it? Are her concerns "exceptional circumstances"? Can "exceptional circumstances" run week and week, month after month, rather than one time only?
If Holmes wore a mask, not just a face shield, presumably Scott (Elkins) would attend board meetings.
Scott (Elkins) was elected to serve on the board, and she needs to be at board meetings.
It is rude, unprofessional and narcissistic for Holmes to refuse to wear a mask. Holmes should be challenged by Board Chair Manning, the other elected trustees, and backed up by the school district's legal counsel. What is her claim for refusing to wear a mask? Holmes should not be allowed to rule the board in this way.
No comments:
Post a Comment