Oak Grove School District #68 Board of Education met Feb. 11

By Kristine Gonzales-Abella

Mar 16, 2022

Oak Grove School District #68 Board of Education met Feb. 11.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

I. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum

President, Krysia Ressler, called the Special Meeting of the Oak Grove School District # 68 Board of Education to order at 5:02 pm. Tony Giamis called the role.

MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT

Krysia Ressler, President

Tony Giamis, Secretary

Cathie DeMoon, Vice-President

Henry Liu

Emily Savino

Raabia Khan

Kim Rihman

ADMINISTRATION PRESENT ADMINISTRATION ABSENT

Allison Sherman, Superintendent

Scott Blumberg, Business Manager

Leslie Weber, Asst. Superintendent of Teaching and Learning

Jennifer Barnabee, Principal

Written Communication

19 posted letters posted to Boardbooks

∙ Silverman Letter

∙ Nicole Gas Letter

∙ K Byers Letter

∙ Debbie Whie Letter

∙ Arbuckle Letter

∙ Jennifer Tippett Letter

∙ Nicole Gas 2nd Letter

∙ Brooke Schamber Letter

∙ Daiva Deegan Letter

∙ O’Neil Letter

∙ Rhiannon Schmidt Letter

∙ Gotlund Letter

∙ Ford Letter

∙ Jacqui Melius Letter

∙ Bennett Letter

∙ Brian Tippett Letter

∙ Mary Haas Letter

∙ Cory Kelly Letter

∙ Stacey Buell Letter

Public Comment – 14 cards

∙ Katie DuClos ➢ Change in COVID Mitigations – prefer to keep masking on

∙ Staci Jones ➢ Masks / Know the plan

∙ Cullen Schmidt ➢ optional Masking (7th grader)

∙ *Elizabeth O’Neil ➢ Mitigations – cautions against removing mitigations

∙ *Jennifer Tippett ➢ Choice and options

∙ *Nicole Gas ➢ Disappointed at Board and Administration regarding communication

∙ Kristin Sorensen ➢ Masks – encourage the Board to make the best choice possible

∙ *Daiva Deegan ➢ Transparency and also disappointed with the Administration and Board

∙ Selime Senalan ➢ Masks

∙ Bethany Williams ➢ Parent, 3 kids now with COVID, demands masking continue

∙ Ismail Ramirez ➢ Get rid of masking (2nd grader)

∙ *Bennett Family ➢ read letter submitted to Board (Mrs Ramirez)

∙ Carla Braus ➢ Masks Bullying at school, SEL, time to move forward

∙ Kelly Kelton ➢ 4 children @ OGS, Thanks for all we do, prefer mask optional

*Also submitted letters

Discussion and Guidance on Health Mitigation

Slide presentation by Superintendent Allison Sherman

∙ What is Austin v Pritzker?

∙ Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued

o Ruling footnotes

o What does this decision mean to OGS?

∙ Recommended Options:

o Option 1 – Remain compliant to Governor’s Extended Executive orders, despite TRO. Await appellate ruling. Address non-compliance. Determine risk tolerance.

o Option 2 – No longer maintain three mandates from the case. Shift to optional masking, drop unvaccinated staff testing requirement. Continue with social distancing. Continue with optional weekly PCR testing, maintain contact tracing program, drop Test-to-Stay program, and update quarantine policy.

∙ Decision Making: concerns and priorities

∙ Communications from the Community Meeting

Questions from the members to Administration:

∙ Henry Liu: What are the high-risk procedures for students?

∙ Raabia Khan: How will we continue to track close contacts?

∙ Kim Rihman: Communication this week, what happened? (Tabled to Tuesday (2/15) CoW mtg)

∙ Emily Savino: Asked to review options presented to Administration by lead Counsel

∙ Tony Giamis: Legal pathways take time, if current appeal reinstates emergency orders, what is our plan if we choose option 2?

Statements from the Board Members:

∙ Emily Savino (Option 1): Emily Savino was of the opinion that the board should wait for an appellate court decision on the validity of the executive orders before voting not to follow them. As Oak Grove D68 was not a named party in the Sangamon County decision, Savino questioned the reliance on the decision. Savino noted that attorneys do not customarily rely on lower court decisions, but rather appellate and Supreme Court decisions. When pressed on a footnote from the Sangamon County decision, she replied that if the decision is overturned so too is the footnote and the appellate court decision could have its own footnotes and parameters. At the end of the meeting, she thanked the community for its civility.

∙ Cathie DeMoon (Option 2): I am grateful for everyone’s point of view and do not take this decision lightly. We’ve given countless hours of thought, research and discussions to this topic. While I appreciate the points brought up by other member of the board regarding the litigation piece, I feel that the time is here to give the health decisions of the students back to their parents. It’s possible that the cases can drag on for months and we need to address the mental toll masks have taken on students. We’ve seen that the majority of students who do get COVID-19 recover quickly with no long-term issues. We are now seeing the mental health of students suffer as well as their ability to read non-verbal cues. I’m a rule follower so this is not an easy position to take but I do believe given that other states have moved on and that the Governor is on his way to terminating the indoor mask mandate for all other buildings BUT schools, it is time to return the decisions surrounding students’ health back to their parents.

∙ Henry Liu (Option 2): I am in favor of proceeding with Option 2. The recent court decision has raised the question of how to continue to enforce Governor Pritzker's emergency mandates without the infringement of individual rights and due process. Upon re-evaluation of our masking practices, there are notable differences from six months ago. Previous opposition to optional masking at Oak Grove school was partly based on vaccinations not being available for the 5-12 year-old age group. Vaccines are now widely available for students ages 5 and up. Also noteworthy is that our staff has a 95% vaccination rate. Furthermore, Illinois is now one of only a handful of states still instituting a school mask mandate. I believe that America as a whole is changing their Covid-related practices as the pandemic transitions to an endemic. Due to possible future variants, there may never be a perfect time to remove mitigations. But in light of current statewide decreases in infections and hospitalizations, as well as the overall improvement of medical treatment, this may be an opportune time to start our return to normalcy.

∙ Tony Giamis (Option 2): We have, from the start of the COVID-19 era, focused on how to deliver on our mission while instituting protections and best practices within the scope of our role. We opened our doors wen most schools were closed. We stayed in session when others could barely function. As we enter year three, we need to look at what works and what doesn’t. Illinois is an island if masking against the backdrop of the mid-west. If making worked, why are the cases and deaths due to COVID-19 higher than nearly every other state nearby (reference to Kaiser Family and IDPH data). I suggest that it is masking that is not effective. Besides the SEL and behavior issues associated with wearing masks, I believe over the next few years, academic research will show that masking in the schools has caused more damage and prevented more learning than the safety benefit will measure. Why? Well the N95 class masks are 95% effective when fitted and worn properly. Unfortunately, the N95s are rarely used properly, very few have been trained in proper fitting, and they still have a pore size to virus size that is roughly 3:1. We use either surgical or cloth masks. Surgical masks, though cheap, do not fit well. They leave gaps and have a large pore size. Cloth masks are worse, rarely washed and have even larger pores. What does this mean? The average pore size in a surgical mask is 100 micron whereas the Corona Virus is 78 nm across. This is comparable to placing a bb (4.5 mm) against a 28-foot-long sailboat. Cloth masks have 400 micron pores. This is four time larger than the surgical masks. The masks we use are not replaced when dirty. We touch and move them so often they become traps to the virus and other bacteria and common vectors into ourselves. This is theater. We think this helps, while the science does not support it. We need to acknowledge the masks are distractions and ineffective. We should get N95s to the most vulnerable among us as we return to our mission, to Ignite a passion for learning in pursuit of excellence. Know that we have always been responsive to the data, agile and able to adapt to all that we see within the district.

∙ Kim Rihman (Option 1): Thanked the community for the nice and balanced comments tonight. Wanted to remind us that we are all neighbors. I acknowledge that some will leave unhappy tonight, but we will continue to focus on the safety and mission of the District. I am a rule follower, thus I advise we wait for legal decision in the Sangamon County decision.

∙ Raabia Khan (Option 1): This is not a debate about masks. This is a conversation about procedure. As Oak Grove school district 68 was not named in the ruling we were advised by district leadership and legal counsel to maintain our current status on the mask mandate. This is what was in the best interest of the school and students to not create disruption. Unfortunately, due to poor communication by district leadership we sit here today in a special board meeting asked to make a decision that may not be upheld for more than a week. This goes against the initial reasoning to avoid disruption. Nothing has changed since the initial decision to continue abiding by the mask mandate. My opinion is that we are not at a point where we can have or make decision on making masks optional yet. Therefore, my opinion is to continue with the mask mandate.

∙ Krysia Ressler (Option 2): If we take a narrow view to the ruling, where OGS is not a named defendant, we will not need to change anything. If we take a broad view, we must realize that students due process has been violated. The day is coming when mitigations will be over. We need to think our way out of here. We need to remember our students come first.

Guidance from Board members enable the OGS Administration to update policies and practices. Additional updates from appellate court, the State Supreme Court, ISBE, and IDPH will also guide the Administration and Board of Education.

Adjournment

On a motion by Cathie DeMoon seconded by Tony Giamis, the Oak Grove School District #68 Board of Education adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.

On a roll call vote:

Ayes: 7 Nays: _0_ Absent: _0_

Raabia Khan

Henry Liu

Kim Rihman

Tony Giamis

Krysia Ressler

Cathie DeMoon

Emily Savino

MOTION CARRIED