July 9, 2020 — The Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted an urgency ordinance at a special meeting on July 8, making it an infraction not to wear a facial covering in accordance with the public health officer’s covid-19 orders.
In addition to peace officers with jurisdiction in the county, like the sheriff, the special investigations unit within HHSA, and code enforcement, the health officer and the county CEO have broad discretion to designate people to enforce the order.
Sheriff Matt Kendall argued for treating the violation of the facial covering order as an infraction, enforceable by an administrative citation, rather than a misdemeanor, because misdemeanor offenses require review by the District Attorney and can result in a jury trial. “Looking at the backlog in the court cases that are coming in the near future, I’m certain that we don’t want to add more to that queue,” he told the board.
There’s a detailed list of exceptions to the requirement to wear a mask, like people who are incarcerated or have a medical condition, but in general, adults who venture into a building other than the one where they live, or if they’re outdoors and cannot maintain a six-foot distance, must cover their faces. Anyone claiming a medical exemption to wearing a mask will have to prove it, and the enforcement officer has to tell people that they are in violation before writing them up for it. Civil penalties range from $100 for the first infraction of not wearing a mask to $10,000 for a business violating other provisions of the health order.
District Attorney David Eyster said he’s satisfied with the language about willfully or negligently refusing to wear a facial covering. “You’re either intentionally or negligently doing the act,” he said. “So from my standpoint, this is a street discretion thing. Normally, I suspect that the good people of Mendocino County, when they’re told they need to put their mask on, they will, and the officer at that point moves on.”
Code Enforcement Manager Trent Taylor reported that his department’s work at enforcement has had results ranging from compliance in most cases, to a business closing down.
In addition to enforcement, a big worry for business owners as they reopen is lawsuits. Several business interests, including the Farm Bureau, the Mendocino WineGrowers, the Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce, and the Greater Ukiah Business and Tourism Alliance, expressed dismay at a line in the self-certification, which they feared would expose businesses to liability. The self-certification is a vital document that each business owner must complete in order to reopen. Bernadette Byrne, the Executive Director of the Mendocino WineGrowers, summed up the concerns.
“We find this language to be problematic,” she said, quoting the line: “‘In particular, any business that violates the Health Officer’s orders risks committing negligence per se, may expose itself to civil liability for all damages created by any viral transmission that occurs at their place of business.’ She wants the language to be removed, saying “The current language adds unnecessary risk and liability for our businesses. We are concerned that the certification language goes beyond applicable law and in doing so may invite litigation.”
County Counsel Christian Curtis tried to explain the intent of the document, saying that Dr. Doohan had “asked for some language that we could potentially insert into the form that would put the businesses on notice that there was a risk of civil liability, in particular the risk of civil liability because of the fact that early on in this process, we had seen indications that there had been some businesses that simply would be willing to pay a fine. Or that wouldn’t be complying with any of the requirements that might impact their bottom line unless and until enforcement actually showed up. And so by mentioning the possibility of civil liability, it was to try and impress upon them the importance that even if there wasn’t someone looking over their shoulder, there was a need for them to be complying with these safety requirements, and that there could be consequences for failing to do so.”
The sentence was stricken.