At the February 23, 2021 Board Meeting trustee-elect Teresa Holmes gave an extended report of the ad hoc committee on education.
During her report from her seat, she did not wear a face covering.
When you read Policy ADD, it is written so that face coverings must be worn "at any time when physical distancing is not possible or optimal and while conducting business on behalf of the district..."
This Policy is carelessly worded by use of the word "and". What if "physical distancing" is possible, such as at board meetings? Does this mean no mask need be worn at all at board meetings, by any board member, superintendent, staff or visitor?
But then "while conducting business" is part of the policy. Does the word "and" make it unnecessary or impossible to comply with the policy?
If the board is conducting business at a meeting and physical distancing is possible, no masks need be worn.
Or does the Policy mean that, whether or not physical distancing is possible, then face coverings must be worn "while conducting business on behalf of the district" while in indoor common (school property) areas?
All the board members and the superintendent wear masks, EXCEPT TERESA HOLMES. She refuses and, instead, wears a face shield. If she sneezes or coughs, will she infect everyone?
A face shield is allowed as an accommodation. Did she request an accommodation in writing? And was her request approved? By whom? Was there a board vote? Only the board (majority) can permit an exception to the board policy. One member (ex., the Chair) cannot; the superintendent cannot.
The exceptions to the Policy "may include, but are not limited to," 1) eating/drinking; 2) working alone in a classroom/office/workspace; 3) administration of medication.
Are there unstated exceptions? There shouldn't be.
Clearly, Holmes did not meet any of the exceptions at the Board meeting, so she should have been wearing a face covering. Why was she not admonished? What are the consequences for violating a Board Policy?