The Hancock-Henderson Quill, Inc.



IW School Board Meeting:

Do We or Do We Not

Have To Wear A Mask?

Face masks will be optional at Illini West High School this fall.

Joy Swearingen, J-P Correspondent

At a special meeting Aug. 11, the board voted against a change to the Return to School Plan that would have required universal mask wearing at the high school. Betsy Wujek and John Huston voted in favor of the change, with Wyatt Green, Darcy Stonger, Jesse Palmer and Tracy Anders voting no. Beth Newton was absent.

Since the change was not approved, the board continues with the Return to School Plan that was approved at their July meeting.

That plan creates risk levels of low, moderate and substantial/high. In all three tiers, face coverings are not required for vaccinated persons, strongly recommended but not required for unvaccinated individuals. Masks are required during school transportation for all students and staff.

The complete Return to School Plan is available on the district's website, illiniwest.org.

The plan calls for Superintendent Jay Harnack to monitor local positivity rates each week to determine if the district remains in the current low risk level, or increases to moderate or substantial risk. The plan outlines a number of protocols for social distancing, hand washing, cleaning, quarantining, activities, and more.

Six people spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting Wednesday night, Michelle Merritt, parent; former student Morgan Broadwell; current student Madi Cole; Jeff Ferguson of Niota; Dillan Vancil of the West Central School Board, and Steve Lucie of Warsaw.

Also present was the school attorney, Scott Brunton of Peoria.

After the vote, Harnack said, "I will fully comply with and enforce the board's directive."

Earlier in the week, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) had written to school officials, saying that districts that did not comply with the mask mandate executive order could be placed on recognition probation.

Additionally they could face potential loss of recognition making diplomas invalid, lose recognition status from IHSA, lose state funding, lose tort immunity for school districts and individual board members and administrators, lose insurance coverage, and face potential civil and criminal charges.

Brunton provided the board a summary on how the district would be affected by these directives if the governor's order for Pre-K to 12 masking is not followed.

Wyatt Green asked about these possible consequences, specifically the loss of tort immunity and loss of insurance.

Huston, a retired insurance agent, explained that insurance policies include an "Intentional Act Exclusion." If what gives rise to a claim is an intentional act, the company has the option not to pay.

"If the board votes to not follow the mask mandate, that is an ‘intentional act' by this board," Huston said. "Someone gets sick and dies, they sue this board or superintendent, our insurance would use that intentional act exclusion. They are not going to pay."

Loss of insurance would only relate to Covid claims, and not to any other coverage for the district.

Green spoke about the issue in general terms.

"People are talking about Covid and masks. But this is more about governance," Green said. He noted that while the CDC, IDPH and American Academy of Pediatrics "recommended" masks in schools, the governor went a step further to require masking.

"Everything we do here is for the kids," Green said. "I am not worried about us as board members. I am worried about the people who work here. They are in an absolutely terrible position."

He mentioned resignations of board members, the principal, teachers and the superintendent, and the difficulty to hire teachers and bus drivers.

"My fear is what if they get burned out after a year of constantly having to enforce a mandate that is absolutely lose-lose. They are no longer administrators. They are no longer faculty members. They have turned into Covid police. They are just put in a terrible position, due to this mandate."

Darcy Stonger quoted the following: "What is right for you may not be right for me. What is right for me may not be right for you. But what is not right for either of us is to be stripped of the freedom to chose what is right for ourselves."

John Huston summed up where the board stands.

"We have spent a year and a half living with and battling a severe virus that has caused great harm. The psychological damage and loss of just living that has been brought about by government restrictions have decimated our daily lives," Huston said.

"Those who attend our meetings are simply asking for some ray of hope to return to a nearer normal life. I see that as a reasonable request.

"Your school board must weigh the disruption and distress imposed on our staff and families if we choose to follow the mask mandate against the real and dire consequences threatened daily by our state leaders with ever increasing levels of pressure and stress if we choose mask optional."

He concluded, "It has been mentioned many times that the citizens have elected this board to weigh all these options and make the decision that is best for everyone. The problem -- that decision does not exist."