Health officials outline mask mandate enforcement process

County officials detailed how they handle enforcement of the governor’s controversial mask mandate after coming under pressure from health board members last week.

At least 14 complaints have been filed about business establishments in Eureka, a dozen in Libby and two in Troy since Gov. Steve Bullock implemented the mask directive. Kathi Hooper, director of county health department, said the figures did not represent all of the mask-related complaints her staff has received.

Bullock announced the directive requiring residents in counties with more than four active cases of COVID-19 to wear face coverings in indoor public places in mid-July. It also applies to outdoor gatherings with more than 50 people where social distancing is either unfeasible or ignored.

The mandate has quickly become a flashpoint locally. In Libby, shoppers in masks or other coverings are a frequent sight. Still, business owners have reported instances of would-be patrons flouting the mandate or berating employees who request they follow the governor’s directive. On social media, users have pledged to ignore or resist the mandate.

Local law enforcement officials repeatedly described the mandate as a civil matter and not one that they plan to enforce via tickets or arrests. But health department officials can potentially close businesses that violate the order.

Hooper said the department takes a multi-step approach to complaints. After receiving word of an infraction, staffers contact the business in question and explain the governor’s mandate, she said. Upon further complaints, a written notice is sent. Additional complaints merit a warning letter with potential legal action to follow, she said.

“When we first started [with the mandate], we only had a two-step process,” Hooper said. “Now we have a three-step process.”

So far, the department has issued two written notices and two warning letters, she said.

Hooper gave the update after the board’s Eureka representative, Debra Armstrong, pushed officials for more clarity on enforcement.

“Maybe it’s just me, I don’t recall ever talking about that at a board meeting,” Armstrong said. “I have no idea what that protocol is exactly.”

The inquiry was initially greeted with silence, prompting Armstrong to ask whether health department officials had left the Aug. 12 meeting.

That led Jinnifer Mariman, who represents the board in legal matters, to remind members that enforcement fell under the purview of department staff. And the board has limited oversight of the department, she said.

“To the extent that there are questions about that process or anything, frankly, involving the governor’s directive or health officer’s order, those would be more properly directed to the health department,” she said.

Mariman said she expected board members were fielding questions from the public regarding the mask mandate. Were that the case, they ought to be directing those residents to the department and refrain from speaking on behalf of either the board or county staff, she said.

“You guys, as individual board members, do not have authority to act on behalf of the board or department unless authorized to do so,” Mariman said. “There seems to be a blurring of the roles and authorities between what the health department does and what the health board does.”