Memorandum

To: Sara Clark Pierson, President, Grand Ledge Public Schools Board of Education

From: Ben Cwayna, Trustee

Re: Mandatory Mask Policy

Date: August 17, 2021

______________________________________________________________________________

I write to request that the issue of the mandatory mask requirement be placed on the board’s agenda
for all the upcoming meetings as a discussion/action item. As you know, I believe the board erred
in requiring the use of masks during the 2021-2022 school year.

I ask that you consider the following rational for changing the board’s policy.

***

An emergency does not exist

The onset of the Coronavirus in the country occurred nearly eighteen months ago. Regardless of
where one stands on the various political slants of the Coronavirus issue, it cannot be argued that
we are still in an “emergency” situation. An emergency is defined as: “a serious, unexpected, and
often dangerous situation requiring immediate action” or in legal terms, “An emergency is an
urgent, sudden, and serious event or an unforeseen change in circumstances that necessitates
immediate action to remedy harm or avert imminent danger to life, health, or property; an
exigency.1 The fact that the MDHHS is not promulgating additional “emergency” orders is
evidence of this. In fact, on June 22, 2021, the MDHSS rescinded all of its “emergency” orders.2
Why? Because we, as a state, are no longer in an emergency. The ebbs and flows of this virus are
now foreseeable and not unexpected; similar in nature to those of flu season.3 The Coronavirus is
now a way of life.

Likewise, we are not in an emergency in Grand Ledge Public Schools as it relates to Coronavirus.
We may be at some point, but we are certainly not now. If we were in an emergency, the board
would not have voted unanimously to end the mask mandate in late June. If we were in an
emergency situation in our state or county now, our zealous MDHSS and local health department
would require the citizenry to take additional precautions. They would mandate the closure of

1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emergency.
2
See “Recission of Emergency Orders” located at https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-
98178_98455_98456_103043-562057--,00.html. This included the use of mandatory face mask coverings.
3
As a medical novice, I do not intend to compare the Coronovirus to the flu; but merely stating that the virus’s ebbs
and flows are now going to correlate in a like fashion as the flu.

1
restaurants; require the use of masks in stores; limit gatherings and install clear cut social distance
requirements as they did last year and well into this year. The fact that they are not is telling.

The lack of action tells me that one, two or both rationales are in play: 1) that that the virus is now
foreseeable and it is accepted that there are now probable ebbs and flows to the numbers of those
infected and/or 2) that the powers that be understand and realize that the infringement on personal
liberties with regard to assembly, running a business, and yes, mask wearing, has worn thin on the
citizenry. Irrespective of the reason, our “health leaders” are not requiring additional mandates.
With the loosening of restrictions, the “power” or “discretion” to make these decisions now falls
upon us as a board since we are not bound to state or health department mandates which are issued
allegedly under color of “law.”

***

The lack of health orders/mandates place ordinary medical decisions back in the hands of
parents, not the Grand Ledge Public Schools Board of Education

Whether the individual board members philosophically agree with their sentiments or not; there
was a sizeable majority of parents last school year that demanded a choice for a five day a week
in person learning model. This choice was fully sanctioned by state government which allowed
school to be in session and many schools of similar size and scope and near to Grand Ledge found
a way to make it work.

I submit that the board’s steadfast refusal to reconsider that decision for months on end created a
chasm within our school community that will take years to repair.

Not giving parents a choice when one was allowed equaled STRIKE ONE.

Whether you agree with their sentiments or not; there is a sizeable number (probable majority) of
parents this year that demand a choice for whether their student wears a medical device (face
covering). I estimate that the number of parents requesting this is about the same as those that
wanted an in person learning model last year. With any sampling of people speaking at a board
meeting it is hard to tell what the actual ratios are, but suffice it to say, the public comment has
been overwhelmingly in favor of a choice with the email traffic tracking nearly equal.

Regardless of the raw number or percentage, it is self-evident that a sizeable number of parents
demand a choice, and it is not up to us to question or replace the individual board member’s
feelings for those of the parents as it relates to the medical care of their children.

When the board voted on Monday to re-instate the mask mandate, this equaled STRIKE TWO.

A likely counter-argument is that there are an equal or nearly equal number of parents who want a
strict mask mandate and that the board is in fact listening to those concerns and that the recently
voted on mandate echoes and reflects those concerns. Another counter-argument is summarized
simply as, “what are you giving up if we offer a choice?”

2
My response is that the board should default to choice on such health matters when faced with
such a divided populace. The “give” is allowing a choice at all when compared with making masks
a requirement or saying that masks can’t be worn at all. The two extreme positions are: 1) Masks
for everyone or 2) Masks for no one. Logical, freedom loving individuals would never advocate
for a mandate that masks are strictly prohibited; especially if a parent desired to have their child
wear one at school. Yet, parents and board members advocating for a mask mandate care not what
their fellow parents desire, but are bent on enforcing their own health values and decisions upon
others.

To put it another way: in theory, this board could make a motion forbidding mask usage in schools.
Masks cover critical non-verbal expression and may well lead to long-term physical and
psychological problems in kids. They get dirty and could be considered more of a liability health
wise than their potential benefit. Masks could be considered even dangerous as students
vandalizing school property or bullying children in the playground cannot be identified on camera
due to the covering.

Perhaps the board should consider making masks illegal in Grand Ledge Public Schools. This
position rightly sounds crazy to those parents who wish to have the option to have their child wear
a mask. Forcing some parents to put their children in masks is equally crazy.

Hence, the true, fair compromise is allowing for a choice on the subject of health.

***

Free choice as it relates to the care of children in public schools is mandated by law

Our board, regardless of our political or personal viewpoints, has an obligation to follow the
constitution and laws of the state. Inherent in the public-school philosophy in our state is the
concept of mutual support and cooperation between the schools and parents, and this especially
applies to the healthcare choices parents make. In fact, it is codified in state law that a parent’s
right in determining and directing their child’s “care” in public schools is a “fundamental right”
and requires the elected board of education acquiesce to the choices of parents:

“It is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal

guardians to determine4 and direct5 the care, teaching, and
education of their children. The public schools of this state serve
the needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents
and legal guardians to develop the pupil's intellectual
capabilities and vocational skills in a safe and positive
environment.

MCL 380.10 (emphasis added).

4
“to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities” https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/determine.
5
“to regulate the activities or course of” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direct.

3
The fundamental right of parents to direct the care of their children is fundamental and natural. It
does not stem from rights given, granted, or negotiated by the edicts of a board of education, but
actually passes through the board and bestows that right upon the parents and parents only. The
board, in its supervisory and policy making role has not only a moral right but a legal obligation
to listen and cooperate with parents on all issues attendant to the care of students. In this, the board
has been entrusted with a special, unique confidence and trust. Spelled out in the statute is the
mandate that parents (not the board) determine and define what a “safe and positive” environment
consists of and that the parent’s right supersedes that of the board as it relates to their child’s care.

In short, the Board should consider the unique circumstances we are in and be a partner with
parents in these decisions, not an arbitrator.

This “natural” and “fundamental” right is akin to the unalienable rights spelled out in the
Declaration of Independence (ie: that those rights are not negotiable through an elected form of
government (in this instance, the board), but through natural law:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed.

***

A year of ignoring a sizeable number of parents has eliminated equilibrium and balance in the
district

The board is not listening nor cooperating with parents attendant to its established role and the
law. In its quest to blindly focus on a virus which is now a way of life, it has inhibited in person
learning now for a year and is now requiring children in kindergarten to wear a face mask for
nearly eight hours a day. This is absurd. “Requiring” anything as it relates to health (absent state
law or health order), whether it be masking or brushing one’s teeth takes away fundamental
parental choice. The board’s recent mandate has taken the fundamental right of parents to
determine and direct the care of their children and fully and unequivocally assumes that role. In
this, the board has usurped the rights of parents granted to them by law and broken a sacred trust
inherent in the public-school philosophy of close coordination and cooperation.

I submit that in an ever-changing world, trust is all that we have left. Using that sacred trust to
violate the principals of our black letter and natural law in a way that directly contradicts the
consent of the governed (in this case, parents) is nothing short of tyranny regardless of the motives
or rationale behind the choice. That trust now has already been violated twice; once last year when

4
we did not return to school (or even try) and now this year when the board is mandating how
children should be taking care of their own health and bodies.

Similarly, Michigan law protects parents’ rights to avoid having vaccinations administered as well:

“Sections 333.9208 and 333.9211 of the Michigan Public Health Code require that a parent or
legal guardian applying to have a child registered for the first time in a Michigan school shall
present to school officials at the time of registration, or not later than the first day of school, a
certificate of immunization verifying that the child has been vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus,
pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, poliomyelitis, and Hepatitis B. Beginning in the 2002-2003
school year, the parent or legal guardian shall present to school officials the immunization status
for a child entering the sixth grade. In addition, a varicella (chicken pox) vaccination is required
for children entering a new school district on or after January 1, 2002. A parent or legal guardian
wishing to exempt his or her child from a particular vaccination must provide a written statement
indicating the religious or philosophical objections to the vaccination(s). A child who has been
exempted from a vaccination is considered susceptible to the disease or diseases for which the
vaccination offers protection. That child will be subject to exclusion from the school if an outbreak
of a vaccine-preventable disease occurs.”6

The very same logic for allowing parents to opt out of a vaccination or immunization is at the heart
of the school-parent cooperative model. State law does not require parents to take a course of
action with regard to their child’s health with regard to vaccinations or immunizations. Parents
may opt out even if they have philosophical objections. The reason for this is self-evident: parents,
more than anyone else are the responsible parties for their children’s health, welfare and care. We
as board members are not, regardless of our good intentions.

***

Conclusion

In the absence of state health requirements/orders which mandate the use of a health apparatus
such as a mask or a vaccination shot, the requirement for parents who have philosophical
objections to the wearing of a mask is, I believe, probably unlawful and unconstitutional. At a
minimum, it is not in keeping with the concept of mutual support and cooperation outlined in the
Michigan School Code for parents to “determine and direct” the care of their children while in
school.

It troubles me as an elected board member that we, as a board, have completely and utterly
disregarded the opinions of a sizeable (probably majority) of parents who entrusted us to cooperate
and support them. The community has, in large, supported our schools for many years; recently
passed a sizeable bond and yet, many in the community are entirely disenchanted and even
indifferent now to having their children be a part of our school system. Hundreds have disenrolled
in favor of private schools, home schooling, or other public schools. This number includes my
own son. As a parent, I no longer have the confidence that this board is listening and a true

6
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/parental_rights_122553_7.pdf

5
cooperative partner with parents. As a board member, my duty is to those parents whose voices
are not being heard.

It troubles me that parents are calling me in tears at their wits’ end. It troubles me that parents are
so angry that they are showing up to meetings and yelling at the board. It troubles me lawsuits are
being filed against the district and that there is no end in site as the board continues to make the
same mistakes it made a year ago. It troubles me that that parents are unenrolling their children
from our schools. These are signs that the board is not doing a proper job and that things are not
in equilibrium.

And yes, true equilibrium means different groups of parents will be discouraged and disappointed
at different times. What we have seen thus far since the onset of Coronavirus is that the same
subsect of parents are not having their voices heard. This is a problem and needs to be rectified.
Only the Board can rectify the issue.

It is not in either the schools’ or the parents’ best interest for there to be this much animosity for
this prolonged amount of time. Recall when the board rescinded the mask mandate in June.
Teachers, parents, and board members ceremoniously removed their masks in a rare moment of
unity. Why? Because a true choice was being allowed—the board was placing the power back
into the hands of the real drivers of our schools; the parents. I was hopeful that the dual motions
to go back to school and remove the mask mandate were harbingers of things to come.
Unfortunately, with the recent reversal, we stand to lose some of the good will gained back.

Being a cooperative partner with parents and not a preacher; mutually supporting parents and not
mandating requirements; and losing the “we know better than you” attitude will, I believe bring
about a more equalized and equitable outcome for our students and parents. At a minimum, it will
be a different direction than the board has taken the last year and will do much to restore the trust
between our parents and the school system. Ultimately, it will benefit the students themselves.

I fear our district cannot take much more. It is at a breaking point.

I therefore ask that we reconsider the mask mandate. Thank you.