PHD stands by in-person prohibition

When protesters came to the front doors of Panhandle Health’s Hayden offices Thursday, they were met with an abrupt about-face that kept their anti-mask chants outside: No in-person testimony would be allowed at the health district’s board meeting.

“They're not going to let anyone in for public testimony,” one senior protester informed her adult son.

“Of course not,” the son replied in skeptical resignation.

Less than an hour later, the health board voted 4-3 to extend the districtwide mask mandate an additional 90 days, something both mother and son — along with about 50 like-minded protesters — came to Panhandle Health to try to stop.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities like the PHD have been grappling with how to balance the inalienable rights of citizens to participate in their own governance with the dangers a potentially deadly disease that health officials say spreads more easily in close quarters.

As of noon Friday, the World Health Organization reports the novel coronavirus has killed over 2.2 million people, 1,729 of whom called Idaho their home. Gov. Brad Little called a proactive emergency declaration on March 13, before the virus struck the Gem State. Five days later, Little amended his proclamation to include a suspension of parts of Idaho Code 74-203, the law that essentially establishes how open meetings can be conducted.

In the more than 10 months since that proclamation, maintaining open government meetings has added wrinkles most managers and clerks have planned for, and they have figured out how to allow for in-person public comment.

“I don’t know if this exact scenario was ever discussed,” Hayden city clerk Abbi Sanchez said. “But there were always discussions about the different ways we could accommodate people if we needed to.”

Little’s modified Stage Two order, which caps room capacity to 10 people, presents simple mathematics that, by definition, discourages groups. At least someone from the governing body has to be physically present. At least someone has to be there to distribute documents, manage virtual tools like Zoom or audio recording. And with council and board members numbering from five to seven — mayors and chairs included — room for the public to participate shrinks quickly.

Sanchez — who has spent 10 years in the clerk’s office in Hayden and the last five as clerk — said the Hayden council has adapted through some pretty creative ways to accommodate the public.

“Some of our council members are attending virtually on a regular basis,” she said. “Others are always here at city hall, just because it’s a better way for them to attend the meetings. Our staff members: We try to have them attend virtually, as well, unless it’s something they really have to be present for, for a presentation or to deliver information.”

Cities and commissions across Kootenai County explain on outgoing agendas the attendance limitations while advocating for virtual comment, either through email or by joining the now-web-friendly meetings remotely. But they also allow in-person public comment.

Staffs accommodate with back-up waiting rooms for those that want to enter their in-person comment into the public record.

When asked about the challenges presenting a meeting that have arisen during the pandemic, Sanchez led her answer with a laugh.

“It’s been quite interesting. The virtual meeting is something that was new to us. We didn’t really ever do that. We always recorded our meetings, audio and visually, but we never provided them virtually. We just didn’t have that capability or the need, so that’s something we’ve been working through the last year.”

When asked the same question about challenges, Shannon Howard, city clerk for Post Falls, gave an identical, retrospective laugh.

“You never know how many people are going to show up,” she said. “You plan for a ton of people, and nobody shows, or you’ll plan for nobody, and 16 people will show. You can only have 10 people, and six of those spots are usually taken, so it can be a challenge.”

But even the advent and proliferation of tools used to enable smoother meetings in a virtual world — Zoom and similar web-shared meeting spaces — haven’t always overcome the century-old open meeting requirements, and many of those issues are out of clerks’ hands. Poor internet speeds from residents looking to join the meeting from home, audio delays, self-muted participants and presentation glitches have left municipalities scrambling to keep meetings moving, often improvising as computer technicians on the fly.

But those technical problems can sometimes change or delay a government’s plans, tiny glitches that end up changing schedules and slowing timelines. The most recent example — though certainly not the only example since the pandemic began — came Thursday night in Dalton Gardens, when a file containing a presentation for the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission couldn’t be uploaded or shared, requiring a decision on local 5G laws to wait another month.

Technical problems haven’t plagued Panhandle Health’s board meetings in quite some time; the last was an audio issue that forced the health district to borrow a feed from a local news station to broadcast. That was July 23, the day Panhandle Health’s board voted to install a mask mandate across Kootenai County, which led to eruptions of protests outside the Kootenai County Courthouse, which facilitated that particular meeting in order to broadcast the decision.

But not every technical problem is a glitch. Some, instead, are intentional. Before the July 23 audio issue, the most recent technical problem came a week before — July 18 — when health experts presenting their case for a mask mandate had their screens hijacked by a hacker who wrote “No masks” across bar graphs detailing infection rates in Kootenai County.

As for Thursday’s meeting, no such hack occurred. But then again, neither did any in-person comment. When asked why the agenda item was removed, Panhandle Health cited Nov. 14, when Little’s six-month-long “recommendation” to limit gatherings to under 10 people transitioned to a straight-up prohibition. Every meeting afterward — Thursday’s included — requires, in the health district’s eyes, strict adherence to the governor’s orders.

“Prior to the 10-person maximum order the governor gave, we would allow as many people into the room as we could,” said Katherine Hoyer, PHD spokeswoman, “so long as we were still adhering to six feet for social distancing.”

The Nov. 19 meeting fell under the same prohibitions as Thursday’s. Its original agenda allowed for public comment, though that agenda was posted before Little’s recommendation became a requirement. The amended Panhandle Health board meeting agenda, not unlike Thursday’s, also had no spot for in-person comment.

Hoyer said she understands the public’s frustration but added people still have ample opportunities to relay their concerns to board members, most notably through the email address boardofhealth@phd1.idaho.gov.

“Actually, we’ve been asking for public comment via email for the past few board meetings,” Hoyer said, “due to the pandemic limiting the number of people we can have in the room and adhering to the physical distancing guidelines.”

When the Press asked "what efforts would Panhandle consider to accommodate in-person testimony? (such as a larger room, remote closed-circuit)," Hoyer's response was: "Again, we are limited by the Governor’s 10 person max order."

Little’s gathering restriction has been a source of consternation for many in the five northernmost counties, so much so that the Idaho Legislature has targeted the executive order with a bill slinking through the House that hopes to overturn the restriction altogether. But until that gathering restriction is lifted, Hoyer said, email will likely be the most effective way for the people to have their voices heard.

“The governor has a 10-person max limit on gatherings and meetings, so we are adhering to that order,” Hoyer said. “After the board members that were at the meeting in-person and the PHD staff that need to be in the room, we had room for two to three members of the public to attend the meeting in person. In order for us to equitably allow public comment, we set up the email system so the public would not be limited on public comment.”

Whether they would have been enough to sway the protesters is anyone’s guess.

“Come on,” the son told his mother Thursday as the two made their way from the Panhandle Health parking lot back to Atlas Road, protest signs in hand. “We’ll do more good out on here on the street anyway.”