Interim Superintendent Bob Hicks and the nine members of the Bristol Warren Regional School Committee face a big decision that, regardless of their ultimate vote, will result in many unhappy constituents.

On Monday night, the committee heard a presentation from Mr. Hicks regarding the still-developing plan to re-open schools in just a couple weeks on Sept. 8. It included details like how distancing requirements have dropped from six feet to three, how rapid COVID testing will remain available to staff and students, and how protocols have changed to require only one custodial cleaning per day at each school, unless somebody becomes ill.

But the issue that brought out dozens of parents, students, teachers and medical professionals from the community to speak at a public comment period that stretched well beyond the usual 15-minute time limit was whether the district will mandate masks for everyone in the schools.

Data-driven mask policy

The writing on the wall, as could be felt through the tenor of Mr. Hicks’s presentation and the ferocity with which those opposed to mask mandates made their plea at the podium throughout the evening, was that a mask mandate is all but official. The school committee will deliberate and vote on the ultimate recommendations from Mr. Hicks during its next meeting on Monday, Aug. 23.

Mr. Hicks confirmed the likelihood of a data-driven mask mandate on Tuesday morning.

“We’re looking at bringing to the school committee a tiered policy that would have our protocols based upon the infection rates in the community, which is what the CDC has called for,” he said. “So as the infection rates fall down, we can release from the masks.”

CDC guidance strongly recommends mask wearing indoors regardless of vaccination status where infection rates exceed 50 cases per 100,000 residents. The current infection rate in Warren is 104.7 per 100,000 and 45.6 in Bristol. When combining the two for the regional district, it becomes 64.5 — meaning that at least for the time being, universal masking seems to be the future.

However, Mr. Hicks said the district will likely review the data and make adjustments on a quarterly basis. Both he and School Committee Chairperson Marjorie McBride, along with Vice Chairperson Tara Thibaudeau, said it is was important for any potential mask mandate policy to identify a threshold to end those requirements.

“My thinking is that infection rates are the way out of it,” Mr. Hicks answered. “As the positivity rate goes down, the need for masking goes away.”

No more remote learning

For Mr. Hicks, who just recently entered the district as the new interim superintendent following the resignation of Dr. Jonathan Brice in July, the impetus is to keep kids in school buildings. He announced during his presentation that providing a dedicated distance learning program is no longer be a required responsibility of the district, and that any parents who wish to utilize distance learning must do so on their own accord and at their own expense — except in the case of medically fragile students or students with medically fragile family members.

“Our focus is, how do we keep kids in school? I think having kids out of school for distance learning was not great, and we don’t want to go back to that,” Mr. Hicks said, adding that he is supportive of a new remote learning program that is now available through the East Bay Education Collaborative.

However, Mr. Hicks said there is not yet a finalized, in-district policy regarding the kind of distance learning that will be available to students who need to utilize it during the upcoming year. “That is not set in stone yet,” he said, adding that it would be difficult for classroom teachers to try and replicate an in-classroom method for those unable to be physically in the classroom.

“What we really want to focus on is making sure kids can stay in school,” he said.

Opponents demand mask choice

Members of the public came out in large numbers to either support or denounce any type of mask mandate. Some wore shirts with phrases like “My child, my choice” and “Let my kids breathe.” At least a dozen students were in the audience — all unmasked — holding up protest signs with variations of the same message regarding wanting a choice over decisions affecting their own bodies and health decisions.

Many spoke of their concerns regarding physical and mental damage caused to students by prolonged mask wearing, and that the associated risk of illness from COVID is not enough to warrant a mask mandate.

“We are barely spreading or getting COVID. The burden of the COVID virus with all of its variants cannot continue to fall on the shoulders of us children. We are the least affected by COVID yet the most affected by masks,” said Olivia Park, an incoming senior who questioned whether there is any valid data that shows masking children for prolonged periods of time is not detrimental to their physical and emotional health.

“I urge you to prioritize us by making masks optional this year. Optional masking would not bar anyone from wearing a mask, but it would allow us as well as families to make choices based on our individual circumstances and needs.”

Others were more pointed in their denouncing of what they deem to be inconsistent and incorrect scientific data.

“The reality of this is we get painted as selfish because people think we want to make other people sick,” said Daryl Gould. “What’s selfish is forcing other people to do things in defiance of science, logic and reason because it makes you feel better. It’s morally reprehensible, and people shouldn’t be doing it.”

Others proclaimed outright and imminent defiance if a mask mandate were to be enacted.

“Parental choice is not extremism, but forced masking of children over a virus that poses little to no threat to them, certainly is,” said John Fennessy, a Warren resident. “This doesn’t end with this body voting to mandate masks. That’s where it begins. We will not comply. We will not back down. Tread carefully on our parental rights.”

Others demand masks

A smaller but universally masked contingent sitting at the front of the room, which included parents, multiple medical professionals and one Mt. Hope High School student, represented many of the perspectives advocating for a mask mandate.

“The question here is, is there a risk to not wearing masks, and is there a risk to wearing masks?” said Dr. Jeff Berg, a primary care internist with more than 50 years of experience in the medical field. “I would say there’s virtually no risk to wearing a mask. Asians do it all across Asia nearly all winter long without any kind of a problem. There is a real possible risk that the school attendees who you oversee are going to be potentially at risk through a rise of the incidents in vaccinated and unvaccinated adults among the children.”

Dr. Alane Torf, who practices at the Bristol Medical Center, sought to dispel the testimony of multiple speakers who indicated that masks were not an adequate form of protection. While masks are not purported to be able to indefinitely prevent an infection, she said, masks have been consistently proven to be effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 through airborne droplets of body fluids. She cited data that 15 percent of all new COVID cases in August thus far have been in children.

“While complications of COVID in children are less common, when they do occur, they are devastating. Among children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19, one out of three required intensive care and 5 percent required mechanical ventilation — they were put on a breathing machine,” Dr. Torf said. “Our jobs as adults, and parents, and leaders of this community, is to protect our children. Their health and their lives are in your hands. A simple mask will save lives. Do not allow one of our children to become a statistic.”

Incoming sophomore student Victor Bullard spoke of a friend who was rendered immunocompromised due to surviving cancer as a young child. That friend is unable to get vaccinated due to an allergen within the available Pfizer vaccine. It is for students like this that Bullard believes wearing a mask goes beyond an individual’s own personal comfort.

“This whole pandemic, he has had to wear masks everywhere. He has not gotten the opportunity to choose whether to do so or not,” Bullard said. “For some, it is not the choice between being free and being a kid and wearing a mask, it is a choice between being alive, and not wearing a mask … If I’m being honest, I don’t like wearing masks either. But my personal discomfort with them, that happens on occasion, does not go above other peoples’ lives.”

Frustration with the state

Another common thread throughout the evening was a sense of exasperation that it was up to Mr. Hicks and nine people, none of whom are health professionals, to make a decision regarding the health and protection of an entire school district of children and educators.

“There’s not one person within this nine who is medically qualified to make this crazy decision,” said school committee member Sheila Ellsworth, who sent an email to parents (acquired by the Phoenix) indicating that she is against a universal mask mandate. “I just feel like being a parent, and I understand both sides and I’ve probably gotten 200 emails on both sides … I just think this is completely insane, even to put it on you (Superintendent Hicks).”

Mr. Hicks said he wishes there were more guidance from the state during an interview Tuesday morning.

“It is frustrating to see communities tearing themselves apart over this. I think it would be much better and desirable if we did have clear statewide leadership on it. You see what happened in Bristol-Warren last night happening in community after community after community, sometimes in less civil ways,” he said. “Statewide leaders can help alleviate that, and should.”

In a way, Mr. Hicks understands that his hands are somewhat tied by the reality of the situation. If the district were to go against federal guidelines, legitimate questions about the district’s insurance liability should a student get sick (or worse) could be raised. The state may also hold leverage when it comes to school funding and adherence to the Basic Education Plan. All of these questions make going against a federal recommendation a difficult sell.

But for Mr. Hicks, the liability he puts on himself for the safety of the student body is stronger than any external influencing factor.

“I know if I had recommended to you not to follow CDC guidance, and there were adverse consequences due to that, I don’t know how I could sleep at night,” he told the committee on Monday night. “I feel a responsibility for every child who comes to school here. That is one of the things that weighs heavy on me.”