After over five hours of contentious deliberation the Saucon Valley School Board managed to approve, subsequently rescind and replace, and approve again an update to the district’s 2021-22 Health and Safety Plan.

With the lack of action at the previous week’s regularly-scheduled meeting leaving administrators, board members and residents unhappy and frustrated, a special meeting was held on the evening of Aug. 16 for the sole purpose of debating – and hopefully, agreeing on – modifications in light of a recent drastic nationwide uptick in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, particularly among children.

The initial version of the plan, which was drafted earlier this summer and adopted at the July 27 meeting with board member Sandra Miller casting the lone ‘no’ vote, simply made masking optional for students, teachers and staff across all grades and buildings, with only a few exceptions when masks would be required such as on district transportation.

However, by the following meeting Aug. 10, even Superintendent Dr. Craig Butler – who at the earlier meeting was proudly touting the district’s 2020-21 success in keeping schools open while many other local districts were holding all classes online – was urging the board to reconsider its decision, citing input from district staff and consultants from St. Luke’s University Health Network. The board then had a robust two-hour debate but took no action.

The following week, parents and other concerned parties jam-packed the high school Audion to share their views on the issue. Butler, who joined the prior two meetings from his home via Zoom, was in attendance in-person. Board Vice President Dr. Shamim Pakzad joined remotely after the meeting began, as he said he was experiencing technical difficulties.

Prior to the public comment segment which opened the meeting, board President Susan Baxter addressed the crowd. “I understand we have a very difficult decision in front of us,” she said, acknowledging the polarizing nature of the topic. “I just remind both the board as well as everyone in the audience that we need to be respectful of each other… I’d also ask if we refrain from clapping and/or boos,” she added. Comments were also limited to three minutes each.

Although the meeting did not resemble the chaotic scenes in other districts across the country, a small number of attendees made somewhat spurious claims with no backing evidence. “The Delta variant is not real,” said borough resident David Cancelliere. He continued somewhat confusingly about a supposed lawsuit in Canada “for locking down the country,” he said, adding “Keeping our kids masked is like keeping our kids muzzled.”

Another speaker, Blair Patterson, echoed Cancelliere, referring to masks as “freedom muzzle(s).” He continued to claim “the vast majority of parents in this district do not fear their children being harmed by the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’.”

Andrea Wittchen expressed was upset at the board for not erring on the side of caution in July. “I’ve been a little disappointed in what I’ve been reading about the inability of this board to make what should be the simplest decision of your lives – and that’s to require masks,” she said. She urged the board to mandate masking in order to help stop the “vicious cycle” of COVID transmission, saying, “Your primary job is to make sure our children are safe.”

Lower Saucon Township Council Vice President Jason Banonis, who spoke at the previous meeting, reiterated his desire for masks to remain fully optional. “We know that masks are not effective,” he said, “because if they were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.” He also referred to a study published by the Morning Call earlier in the month which he said showed that COVID has been detected in 43 percent of white-tailed deer found in the wild. It was not clear what conclusion(s) he drew from the study.

Emma Szydlo, an incoming senior at the high school, encouraged the board to ask her and her fellow classmates for their input on the issue. “The student body are the ones being affected by these decisions and (we) have virtually no input,” she said. She suggested a survey be distributed among students and to “use majority rule to make the final decision.” Another student, Hunter Gress, spoke later and echoed her sentiments.

Jennifer Sanchez described her bout with the virus, saying eight months into her recovery it has left her with a permanently-elevated heart rate, along with other complications. She also mentioned her 38-year-old brother who she said was fully-vaccinated, yet still required intubation and suffered a stroke due to the lingering effects of the disease. “He’s not dead, he doesn’t count as a ‘dead person from COVID,’ but this is going to affect him the rest of his life,” she said.

Catherine Beke reminded attendees of current struggles in southern states, which typically begin school earlier in August and many of which reside in states whose governors have explicitly banned mask mandates. She pointed to thousands of students in Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia who have already been forced to quarantine, transition to virtual learning or pause classes altogether because of outbreaks and contact tracing in unmasked schools. “Let’s learn from the data from the other schools who have already started the year unmasked (or) masks optional,” she said.

After roughly an hour of in-person public comments, it was advised that a total of 27 comments were sent via email. Since the emails were provided to board members earlier in the day, board member Bryan Eichfeld suggested foregoing the public reading of the emails to save time. But board member Edward Andres pushed back against the suggestion, saying he had not had a chance to do anything but skim them due to work commitments. Business Manager David Bonenberger then read the emails, which mostly reflected opinions already shared.

Following a brief recess at about the two-hour mark, Assistant to the Superintendent Jaime Vlasaty presented a chart which she said represented “all that has been discussed and debated.” The chart displayed the current plan along with four more ‘options,’ which ranged from a slightly-modified version of the plan as it was approved to completely-revised versions, one of which was based on recommendations from Butler at the previous meeting.

Eichfeld kicked off what was a nearly three-hour debate defending the board’s initial decision, saying, “I know we’re not medical experts, but again, the rate of injury to students is very minimal with COVID… I know that’s not nice when you say 300 lives (were) lost, but when you do it statistically, it’s just not warranting all that we’re doing.”

Despite Eichfeld’s stated opinion, he added that he felt the best likely choice, due to CDC-recommended quarantine guidelines which were putting districts in an “untenable situation,” he said, was going to be ‘Option 5,’ which features tiered masking options. The option calls for masking only being required in grades K-6 for both students and staff once Northampton County transmission levels are declared at least substantial. Grades 7 and above would only require masks when transmission levels reach the highest level, which has been the case for the last several weeks.

Board member Michael Karabin asked about concerns over the possibility of legal ramifications depending on how the board voted to proceed. An interim solicitor identified as ‘Steven,’ who joined the meeting remotely in place of Mark Fitzgerald, indicated that while the possibility of liability in a lawsuit filed due to COVID exposure is remote, he added, “I think that the closer you stay and comply with (CDC) guidelines, the safer you are from a legal perspective.”

Cedric Dettmar expressed his frustration with the situation and asserted that his most important priority is to keep schools open for students, saying, “there’s just no decision that we can make that’s going to make everybody even remotely or partly happy. No matter what we do, a lot of people are going to be really, really unhappy.” He added that he also thought that ‘Option 5’ was likely going to be the best, most practical choice.

Pakzad echoed Dettmar’s sentiments and called for a pragmatic approach. “We’re not going to resolve the national debate here tonight.” He also reminded the board that it was a possibility to resort to simply modifying quarantining protocols, but urged against it, essentially saying that such decisions were beyond the board’s scope.

Board member Shawn Welch shared thoughts regarding the government’s power, ‘individual liberty’ and, he said, “protecting the rights of the minority.” He stressed the evolving nature of CDC guidance, describing it as “whiplash.” He also questioned the CDC’s choice of studies to cite when referring to masks’ efficacy, citing other studies which he said drew conclusions not supporting any type of mask aside from medical-grade N95s.

However, due to what he characterized as an inconsistent and unpredictable case data collection process by the CDC, he said he agreed that ‘Option 5,’ with “some tweaks around the edges,” would be the best option. “I hate to say it, but if we turn around and totally snub (the) CDC, we’re out there flailing in the wind,” he said.

Welch went on to urge his peers to consider revising contact tracing protocols within the option, which he claimed discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. He also went on to share anecdotal claims of folks near to him suffering severe injuries due to the COVID vaccines and to reiterate their lack of full approval from the FDA, although he acknowledged it was likely coming soon.

Board member Edward Andres resisted the others’ deference to the CDC, as he claimed that some of their guidance over the pandemic has been unlawful. “As late as this past Friday, Governor [Tom] Wolf’s education secretary... said that our masking decision is a local decision. School boards are empowered to make this decision,” he said, as he referred to prior concerns about potential liability for districts.

Board President Susan Baxter said that although she agreed that ‘Option 5’ is “a reasonable option,” she didn’t understand why simply grouping masked students in classrooms together and unmasked students in separate classrooms wasn’t being discussed. “My preference is to… keep (the plan) the way it is. I think parents should have the choice for their children,” she said. She also asked for a biweekly update from administration at meetings regarding cases to revisit.

There was also some discussion regarding physical distancing in classrooms, which Eichfeld said was reasonable. Butler affirmed that in some rooms across all buildings, six feet distancing in all directions would not be practical, but that going with that setup where possible would be beneficial, even if, as Eichfeld hypothesized, it could reduce the number of ‘close contacts’ in the event of an exposure from four students to two.

Board member Sandra Miller said, “The bottom line is that we have guidance, we need to follow the guidance that was given to us… they believe that being masked at three feet is acceptable for kids to be in school. I just want us to appreciate that Option 5... at least allows the parent option to kick in when we go to ‘low’ and ‘moderate’.”

Debate continued for a few hours before the board could reach a degree of consensus. Much of the discussion – and confusion – continued around the subject of whether vaccinated and non-vaccinated students would follow the same quarantine protocols, particularly for unmasked students.

A motion was made to pass Option 5, but Pakzad had left the meeting and the vote was tied at four-apiece. For the school board’s purposes, a majority is required to pass a motion, so the option failed. Shortly after, a motion was made to vote on Option 3. The option, which essentially was the original plan with several ‘discrimination’-related amendments proposed by Andres attached, was then passed by a 5-3 vote. Dettmar, Miller and Tracy Magnotta voted ‘no.’

Magnotta raised the question as to whether the initial plan, as passed, tied the protocols to Pennsylvania Department of Health, and by extension, CDC guidelines. Andres’ amendments were meant to protect unmasked, unvaccinated students from “discrimination” by requiring the same procedures for all students, he said, but Magnotta argued that by homogenizing the protocols, masked and vaccinated students who otherwise would not be subjected to the same length of out-of-school isolation would essentially be discriminated against.

After considerable consternation by several of the board members on both sides of the initial vote, it was admitted by Welch that when they voted on Option 3, they “didn’t really understand what they hell (they) voted on.”

Karabin added, “Because we’re getting quite a bit discombobulated here, I’m going to rescind my (yes) vote.” This meant that Option 3 ultimately did not pass and debate would continue.

The board then quickly shot down a vote on Option 4, and it was suggested that Option 5 be brought back to the floor for a vote. Due to Robert’s Rules of Order, it could only be proposed by somebody who voted ‘no’ during the original vote, so Welch somewhat surprisingly brought a motion for a vote.

Ultimately, Welch’s motion passed by a 5-3 vote, with Andres, Baxter and Eichfeld voting ‘no.’ This means that all people across all buildings will have to wear masks for at least the first few weeks of school, as it was agreed that the decision would be revisited by the first meeting in September.