Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 20
Attorney Bolton
This amendment, the proposal will have to go back to the Board of Health. It is such a substantive change.
It doesn’t just change the penalty. It changes substantively what is required. The other thing is that is
doesn’t require to be on the person at the time. Certainly if one were able to s how it to a Police Officer or
whomever, it would probably prevent any summons. But it sets up an affirmative defense, if in fact,
summoned, | expect the Police would deal with that, if you showed up at the station the next day, or if you
showed up in Court and you were summoned to appear and had the documentation, they would dismiss
the case right there. So | am not sure it is as onerous as some might think. But we are trying to do things
in a hurry | gather and | just want everyone to know that this is a change from what the Board of Health
adopted. It will have to go back to the Board of Health before | can take effect.
Alderman Klee
Madam President.
President Wilshire
Alderman Klee.
Alderman Klee
Thank you. | want to make two comments. One is | would have a little bit of anxiety about making this
change anyways. Because the truth is if someone wanted to defy this order, all they have to say is | have
an existing condition. Not that | don’t believe that we should trust everybody who speaks, but that’s the
reality of the world. And | feel like we are setting ourselves up for failure and we are setting up the
restaurants and the retailers and so on who truly do want this. | have heard from a lot of them.
The other thing is, and | don’t know if there is any body here to answer this. But when we talk about the
face coverings of the nose and the mouth, it was brought up at another meeting today and | believe that it
was from someone at the Board of Health, that said when they think about the face covering for the nose
and the mouth, they exclude the check valve mask that some people like the fire fighters and so on had.
That that would not be the same because that expels the vapors and so on and the droplets. So | want to
know, maybe Attorney Bolton can answer this, does this sufficiently exclude those who want to have the
check valve masks. They do cover the nose and the mouth. They are covered in that respect but they
don’t stop the expelling of (inaudible).
Attorney Bolton
There’s a definition provided as to what face covering means for this purpose and it has to be made of
cloth, fabric, or soft permeable material without holes. It covers only the nose, mouth and surrounding
areas of the lower face”. My interpretation is valves of the sort being described would not meet that
definition.
Alderman Klee
That’s perfect, that’s what | just wanted to make sure that it did not — so it does exclude the ones with the
valve in them. And | appreciate that. And | do want to also express my concern if we just said that
basically anyone can walk up and say, “| have a medical condition”. And trust me, as a woman who had a
mother who was severely asthmatic, she would not be able to wear able to wear a mask. So | completely
understand and | know there are a lot of people and some on our Board that would have that issue. But |
don’t want to put that provision in.
