Peters Township School Board upholds masking requirement
During a special meeting Wednesday evening, Peters Township School Board voted 6-3 to uphold a universal masking requirement.
The action took place nearly five hours after the start of the meeting, following opportunities for audience members to speak. The meeting was held at the high school auditorium to accommodate all who wished to attend in person.
The vote, which occurred after the Observer-Reporter’s deadline, ratifies the district’s health and safety plan, which includes provisions to “maintain universal masking inside district facilities, to be reviewed no later than the end of the first semester,” according to the meeting’s agenda.
In favor were board members Lisa Anderson, Minna Allison, Rebecca Bowman, Ronald Dunleavy, Jennifer Grossman and Daniel Taylor. Rolf Briegel, Joseph Deegan and Thomas McMurray opposed.
The school board’s Aug. 16 vote to amend the health and safety policy to require universal masking has resulted in a lawsuit.
On Tuesday, a complaint was filed in Washington County Court of Common Pleas, with plaintiffs listed as Dominic Batista and more than 100 others who “are adult individuals residing in Peters Township … and are parents or guardians of children currently enrolled in the Peters Township School District, or are concerned citizens or taxpayers.”
Defendants in the suit are Peters Township School Board of Directors, along with district Superintendent Jeannine French and the board members who voted in favor of the requirement, Allison, Bowman, Dunleavy, Grossman and Taylor. Also named is Shelly Belcher, the district’s communications coordinator.
The lawsuit, for which a jury trial is demanded, calls for injunctive relief from the masking mandate and claims violation of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. Also, the complaint notes that although the district provides a remote learning option for children, the deadline for enrolling was July 2, “well before any amendment to the health and safety policy was discussed or adopted.”
The suit contends that because in-person attendance at the Aug. 16 board meeting was limited to 24 members of the public who were issued tickets on a first-come, first-served basis, about 50 to 60 people “were unable to gain entrance.”
The district said it is prepared to “vigorously contest the allegations.”