SWAMPSCOTT — Controversy is swirling in Swampscott over the town’s new mask mandate following a heated exchange between a public health official and resident.
In dispute is a new order, unanimously approved by the Board of Health earlier this month, that requires face masks for anyone in the town’s four locations that attract the most foot traffic, which is aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19.
Under the mandate, which went into effect on Sunday, Sept. 13, people are required to wear face masks outdoors while they are on Humphrey Street, from Shelton Road to the Lynn line; Puritan Road, from the beginning of the street near the Fish House to Puritan Lane; the regions surrounding the MBTA train station; and the Vinnin Square shopping district.
Although the order has drawn overwhelming support from some of the town’s top officials, Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald, Select Board Chair Peter Spellios, Police Chief Ronald Madigan and Fire Chief Graham Archer, some have taken issue with the town’s mandate exceeding state and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
For example, while Gov. Charlie Baker’s order, which went into effect on May 6, requires cloth face coverings in public places where social distancing is not possible, Swampscott’s new mandate requires people to wear their face coverings at all times when outdoors in those four hot spots.
That was the complaint of one resident, David Emmerich, who emailed the Board of Health following its vote to inquire about the rationale for implementing a measure that was “more restrictive” than what is currently outlined by the state and CDC.
“What factual information and under what legal authority empowers you to exceed the governor’s order and now make us one of the most restrictive towns in the country?” Emmerich wrote to the board. “In my view, your action as a board on these two issues are irresponsible and an overreach of power.
“This is a town form of government and should be respected as such especially in these difficult and unprecedented times. I don’t believe you all have proven yourselves qualified to be making such extreme and highly sensitive decisions and should take into account all of our residents. Please bear in mind that you are elected officials, and you were elected to represent everyone’s interests and not make arbitrary and capricious decisions which take away their freedoms and liberties.”
Emmerich’s email drew a heated response from Board of Health chairwoman Marianne Hartmann, who chose to respond to his challenges to her and other board members’ qualifications on making their decision, rather than providing context on what factored into approving the order.
“Wow, you seem to believe that you are owed a lot because public servants who have been volunteering thousands of hours of our lives to the health and safety of our town over the past seven months made a decision you disagree with,” said Hartmann, who pointed out her qualifications, such as her multiple medical degrees.
In regards to what gives the board the legal authority to implement the mandate, she wrote that she could refer Emmerich to the town being in a state of emergency and educate him on what true public health is, in regards to being preventative rather than reactionary.
“I could tell you that zero decisions we have made have been ‘arbitrary or capricious’ and that asking people to wear a mask during a historic pandemic that has killed 200,000 people so far is, in my view, not taking anyone’s liberties away — it is asking them to protect their neighbors,” Hartmann wrote. “We follow science and make fact-based decisions.
“I could say all those things, but instead I will just say that there is an election in April and you can feel free to put your name on the ballot if you feel that you are not being adequately represented, are more qualified, are willing to volunteer your time, and can do better.”
Another Board of Health member, Stephanie Goodman, responded by saying that she was looking forward to Emmerich’s regular attendance at their meetings, so “that you can get all of your facts straight and have your concerns heard.”
Emmerich said he reached out to the board because he wanted to know what scientific data it had based its decision on. He feels that the decision was made based on the members’ professional opinions, rather than proven scientific data, and that the order should be rescinded if that data cannot be provided.
“I don’t think they have authority to overreach beyond what was put in place by the governor and the CDC,” said Emmerich. “Then you put the attitude and tone of the communication on top of it and it was just really poorly handled.”
On Wednesday, Hartmann told The Item the Board of Health had been considering the new mask mandate for a long time, explaining that it had been looking at other municipalities — Salem and Newburyport — that have implemented similar measures for areas with high foot traffic.
In addition to looking to those types of areas in Swampscott, Hartmann said the board also considered its location near high-risk communities, or those that have been designated as “red” coronavirus hot spots by the state, such as Lynn.
Many residents from those surrounding communities come to Swampscott to work, shop or recreate in the four zones where face masks are now mandated, she said. In addition, she said the board also considered how people are becoming more “lax” when it comes to wearing face masks.
“Public health in general should not be reactive, it should be proactive,” said Hartmann. “This is not about politics for any of us like I think some people would like to make it out to be. It is pure and simple public health. Masks protect us from COVID. It’s a fact and we are trying our best to protect people.”
Select Board member Donald Hause said he was not necessarily in favor of the new order when it was discussed during one of their recent meetings. He questioned what data the mandate was being based on, since it was more restrictive than state and CDC guidelines.
While Hause praised the Board of Health for “going above and beyond” to keep people safe from the pandemic, he said how the two board members chose to respond to Emmerich’s email was “inappropriate.”
“I think the challenge for all of us in public office is (that) you’re accountable to the public, like it or not,” said Hause. “Sometimes the public doesn’t express questions or comments in a manner you’d like them to. At the end of the day, we’re required to respond. They didn’t answer the question and they had a condescending tone, and I don’t think the response was appropriate and (it) could have been handled differently.”
Fitzgerald praised the Board of Health for its work during the pandemic. Before the order was approved, he said the town heard from numerous residents who expressed concern about people who were not wearing face masks in public.
The extra precautions make sense, Fitzgerald said, as the town looks to sustain the reopening of schools and community programs as a busy flu season combined with the current pandemic approaches.
“We have a lot of work to do to ensure we keep our community safe during this crisis,” said Fitzgerald. “It’s my hope that folks can work out their concerns in a respectful and thoughtful manner.”
