County challenges state mask rules

Teal, Laydon vote for resolution that leaves implications unclear


In a 2-1 vote in a May 11 business meeting, the Douglas County commissioners approved a resolution attempting to reject a state mask mandate.

Since that vote by commissioners, the state’s mandate has been lifted to match new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Masks are no longer required in the state except for unvaccinated people inside jails, childcare settings, assisted-living facilities and emergency health care facilities, said Gov. Jared Polis in a May 14 press conference. School districts will decide on if they allow vaccinated students to go unmasked. The state suggests that those who are unvaccinated continue wearing masks inside.

The county’s now-obsolete resolution stated that the board would “not require masks or mandate proof of vaccination for the use of any board controlled indoor space,” according to the resolution.

Gov. Jared Polis’ previous mask order, which was put in place May 2 and has now been removed, stated that masks could be removed indoors in select situations, including if 80% of people present were vaccinated. That rule appeared to be based on an “honor code” system where customers would volunteer their status without necessarily showing a proof of vaccination card, said Dr. John Douglas, head of Tri-County Health Department.

Commissioner Lora Thomas was the dissenting vote in the resolution. In her public comments, she stated that while she doesn’t like masks, she doesn’t think it’s a good idea for the county to tell residents they didn’t need to follow a state mandate.

“There is going to be even more confusion in Douglas County about when someone does need to wear a mask and when they don’t,” she said. “Commissioners do not have the ability to legally override that of the governor.”

Commissioners George Teal and Abe Laydon, who approved the resolution, focused on the improving COVID-19 metrics in the county, such as high vaccination rates and low hospitalizations, in their public comments.

“Enough is enough, the pandemic is over,” Laydon said.

Laydon added that the 80% rule from Polis would create confusion and difficulties for businesses, who would be charged with determining how many people in their space have been vaccinated.

“I really believe it is time for us to take this stand,” Teal said.

One part of the resolution clarifies that the resolution only refers to masking enforcement by the county.

“The board does not wish to mislead any person or business with regard to how the state may wish to enforce or not enforce its Mask Order and that repercussions from the state could ensue,” according to the resolution.

County officials speak out

Thomas also expressed concern for the implications of this resolution for county departments and local businesses who wish to follow the state mandate. Some county officials, who reached out to the board expressing concern over the resolution, said they hadn’t been aware of the commissioners vote until very recently, Thomas said.

Merlin Klotz, the county clerk and recorder, was one of those officials. After the resolution was passed Klotz said that while believed that, based on the local COVID-19 data, there was minimal need for mask-wearing, he would still require it for his approximate 100 employees and “strongly encourage” it for the public, he said in an interview with Colorado Community Media.

“From my perspective as a department head (and) as an elected official, my people and the public do not know that data,” he said. “The public doesn’t know these facts so to put this out as a policy is too abrupt.”

Klotz could not be reached following the Governor’s removal of the mask mandate.

In the business meeting, Laydon proposed an amendment to the initial resolution, which originally said that the entire county no longer required mask wearing. Instead, the board decided to change the language to say the board would not require masks in any of the indoor spaces they operate.

When the commissioners resolution was announced, the assessor’s office planned to continue requiring masks but after the governor’s announcement, the office decided to just recommend that customers wear masks. Their staff will also wear masks through at least May.

“I will continue to follow state law,” said Lisa Frizell, the county assessor, in a statement through a county spokesperson. “I am committed to the safety of my employees who are public servants working directly with customers just as I’m committed to the safety of our customers transacting business with the Assessor’s Office.”

Teal added in his public comments that the idea behind the resolution is to give residents and businesses the freedom to choose for themselves.

“If you believe that is what is needed for you to look after your own health, by all means, please wear a mask,” he said. “If you do not wish to wear a mask, don’t wear a mask.”

Tri-County’s role

Douglas of Tri-County said his concern was that the county’s resolution would confuse residents about an already confusing situation.

The mask mandate was a state public health order, which was not a discretionary thing that the county could opt out of, Douglas said.

“If residents of the county have been confused, I don’t think this helps that confusion,” Douglas said.

Douglas agreed that the state’s last mask order with the 80% rule was extremely confusing and that masks were never heavily-enforced, he said.

During the mandate, Tri-County, which was charged with that enforcement, would take complaints they heard from the public and contact entities to ask if they have enforced mask-wearing and try to remedy any situation where it hasn’t taken place, Douglas said.

Barring complaints from the public on the county’s earlier decision not to enforce mask wearing, Tri-County planned to discuss “appropriate steps” with the state health department before considering any action against the county, Douglas said.

“I think we ought to be talking about vaccines,” Douglas said. “And how to get as many people vaccinated as possible.”


Our Papers

Ad blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.

The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.