Plainfield Schools forced by State to mandate Masks, Vaccines

PLAINFIELD, IL - There is no doubt that there is considerable division in the community when it comes to health and safety guidelines in schools. None of the decisions made in this area should be taken lightly especially by those making the decisions or refusing to. The truth is that it's hard to believe that the community at large actually want their children to go back to school with masks, when they currently do not utilize masks in other public or private venues. However, local School Boards’ of Education in Illinois are struggling to reject mask mandates imposed by the State government because they are being threatened with funding cuts by the State authorities. This issue is exacerbated by the Association of Plainfield Teachers (APT), the local Teacher’s Union and their umbrella organization, the Illinois Education Association (IEA). These Union organizations typically line up with State guidelines and have had a history of refusing to not only challenge those guidelines, but also by lobbying aggressively for them. Of course it allows them more negotiating leverage and more political power.

Meanwhile, our School Boards are being attacked by the communities they represent with a plea to do what's right for its children. School Board members still need to decide whether they will stand with the community or follow the State guidelines unchallenged. One thing is for sure. The community will support them IF they stand up for our children. We as a community need to encourage them to fight with us, rather than against us. Unfortunately many communities like ours are fighting only their School Boards and School Boards are placed in the position to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the State authorities and Unions who we should be fighting together, are free to enact policies and laws that harm our children. Why not unite and fight the harmful policies together? We are fighting the wrong enemy. Yes, we do elect the School Board, but it is not easy to be in their shoes right now when they are being pulled in different directions. Unity with a call to the same action to fight our State, is indeed better than unity in fighting against our own local establishment. We may not all agree with our School Board's decisions, but they are still our School Board and they are the only ones standing between a good future for our children and further harm.

2021 - 2022 School Re-opening plans

Mrs. Mina Griffith, Assistant Superintendent of School Services heads up the health and safety function for Public School District 202 (PSD 202), a Unit school district with approximately 25,000 students in the areas of Plainfield, Joliet, Romeoville, Bolingbrook and a small portion of Naperville. It is the 5th largest School District in the State.

During the PSD 202 Board of Education Meeting this past Monday, July 28, the District's Back to School plan for this fall named “Instructional Model Health and Safety and Testing” was presented. Health guidelines provided by both the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) contained within that document were in turn explained by Mrs. Griffith. Masks will be required as of now but mask restrictions will be lifted if children are vaccinated. Additionally, the IDPH is slated to provide COVID-19 testing on site. Mrs. Griffith presented in a checklist format of what the ISBE guidelines currently are, and many times referred to them as “requirements" rather than guidelines that are currently being challenged, or should be based on all available information. There was, however, a letter from LUDA (Large Unit District Association), an organization of Superintendents who wrote to the ISBE to challenge certain guidelines (excluding masks and vaccinations). School District Superintendent Dr. Abrell signed this letter in addition to many other Superintendents. This has been the only known communication from any District officials challenging the guidelines from the ISBE. It is a start but there is more that needs to be done.

Mrs. Griffith in the past, before reopening schools for the 2020 school year, also cited Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines with a plea to consider all information. However, while pleading as such, she herself did not cite the portion of the CDC guidelines that clearly state that that in-person learning is the best option for children. This is in addition to a clear public statement, from the Director of the CDC expressing that the CDC did not recommend schools be closed since keeping them open actually benefits children. This statement was also not cited by Mrs. Griffith. It therefore appeared at the time that Mrs. Griffith was unfortunately attempting to justify the shutdown narrative and that it was also likely coerced at the time by the same ISBE and its Union affiliates. It's a pattern. Those school shutdowns already caused considerable contention in the community this past year and resulted in significant division between parents and parent groups. As a matter of fact, certain groups emerged to fight the School District and reopen schools, which only furthered the division that exists and continues to this day. Mrs. Griffith as well as Administrators and Teacher’s Union officials hopefully can understand now that there are consequences as a result of their messaging. Both Mrs. Griffith and the District Administration should acknowledge that their collective roles have evolved further from just messengers for the ISBE. They now have the additional responsibility to challenge the guidelines as well as consider community input. The community was not as involved before the pandemic, whereas now they are highly involved and active. So while it made sense to exclude input from community members before, it makes no more sense to do so any more.

To provide some recent historical context on community input, a survey taken and released before the start of the 2020 school year indicated that over 70% of parents wanted some form of in person learning. This was a case where community input was actually beginning to be considered. However, the survey results were minimized and neither Mrs. Griffith, nor the Administration substantially discussed the underlying results before their decision to restrict in-person learning. State guidelines were instead followed similar to the current pattern with no challenges. Meanwhile, many other districts nearby as well as elsewhere in Illinois challenged those very same guidelines and either kept schools open or opened them earlier than PSD 202. Private schools of course were far less restrictive. Mrs. Griffith's role is critical in the current situation we are in because the community is divided and presenting all considerations is imperative in order to allow Superintendents and School Board Members to make less contentious and more supportive decisions. We simply cannot continue missing opportunities to bring together such a divided community. We are at a point where it places the District and School Board at considerable risk of not only continued attacks from a growing number of parents, but also the very real potential of lawsuits.

Mrs. Griffith was presented the Neihus award for her leadership during the pandemic at this very School Board meeting. She was nominated by many coworkers within the District Administration for this award. While there may be substantive and legitimate opinions favoring her qualifications for the award, its presentation and timing were premature at best, given that we are going through another obvious period of divided opinions in the community, as well as the real controversy behind State guidelines. The award should have waited until some of the controversy was cleared. Otherwise, it will just exacerbate that existing division. A better understanding of how the community feels would ease tensions considerably.

Public Comments on Health and Safety guidelines

The June 28, 2022 PSD 202 School Board meeting was likely the most well attended in a while, even if you ignore the Plainfield East Baseball team which was present for an award ceremony. Common sense implies that the crowd of parents who want to advocate against masks and vaccinations will only increase.

During the Public Comment portion of the Board meeting, community member Raj Pillai asked for the Board to stand with the community in rejecting any guidelines that restrict our children's learning. Other community members took a more aggressive stance with the Board. One young man, Kyle Clare, who recently graduated from Plainfield East High School, stated students “only wear masks in school,” and that he would just “take it off” as he leaves. He also stated that is what other students also do while they go on vacations and do other activities maskless, concluding that the policy is abusive at worst. Mr. Clare’s public comment reflects the more than obvious fact that students don’t benefit much from wearing masks in school, when they are not wearing it elsewhere. Community member Tim Conrad issued a “Notice of non-compliance and discrimination” to the School Board. While this notice is not legally binding, it made a strong symbolic statement that may foreshadow actual lawsuits in the future. The last community member to speak, Debbie (last name inaudible) is a dental hygienist that outlined the damage to children from bacteria collected through continuous mask wearing. Debbie also outlined the legal risk of mandating vaccinations that are not fully approved (discussed later).

There is also some contention regarding the limitation of public comments to two minutes and total of 20 minutes. Board President Kevin Kirberg was kind enough to allow a little more time, However, as a policy, it would go a long way if more people are allowed to speak longer on an ongoing basis. These are unique times and it will serve only to ease tensions.

Inconsistency within ISBE/IDPH guidelines

In a letter dated June 28, 2021 from Lake Zurich CUSD #95, both its Superintendent and Board Members wrote to State officials, including the ISBE, IDPH and the Governor. They highlighted many inconsistencies in the ISBE and IDPH guidance thus far. Given the clarity of the presentation in this letter, aspects within it are presented below as they also apply to PSD 202.

There are several current guidelines in place that significantly impact school operations (as outlined below), limit the options of those families and students who are ready to move forward toward more pre-pandemic conditions in school and are inconsistent with other guidelines established for extra-curricular activities. Illinois school district guidance should be reviewed urgently — especially related to quarantining, masking, and social distancing — and issue immediate expectations for the 2021-22 school year, so the community, including parents and school districts may appropriately and successfully plan for our students' return to school.

• Quarantine Requirements - Current guidelines have resulted in many students being quarantined, without having ever experienced a single outbreak in the district. The disruption to the student, families, teacher, and classroom is immeasurable and certainly does not benefit the educational and social wellbeing of our students. In the past year there were remote learning options in place for these students. For next year, as the district goes in to full in-person learning, these remote learning opportunities will be far more restrictive. Quarantine guidance needs to be re-evaluated at this stage of the pandemic.
• Mask Requirements – The IDPH should issue immediate guidance to help us understand any masking requirements that will be required at the beginning of the new school year (which for school districts is July 1, 2021). It is imperative that such guidance considers the needs of all students, but also addresses any unique needs applicable to our Early Childhood through 8th grade students.

Other recent developments:

• The IDPH just released guidance related to sports activities indicating that student athletes, regardless of vaccination status, do not need to wear masks while playing sports outside. Additionally, the current guidance now states that those who are vaccinated may participate in athletics indoors (inside school buildings) without masks — which is taking place concurrent to summer school programming where students are required by the State to be fully masked. Student athletes who are not vaccinated are advised that they should continue to wear masks when playing sports indoors. o
• Businesses across the state are no longer requiring fully-vaccinated people to wear masks - in both indoor and outdoor settings. As we look outside of our school system, we see that we are allowed to gather together again - and that we are also allowed to venture out without masks, if vaccinated.

These inconsistent practices, coupled with understanding of the definition of a close contact to a confirmed COVID case (regardless of whether an individual was masked OR unmasked they are still considered a close contact), seems to indicate that masking may be best implemented as a choice, as it is across the State under Phase 5 of the Governor's Plan, unless there is a health necessity that requires schools to follow different protocols.

Inconsistency between ISBE/IDPH guidelines and the Law

Recently Red Hill CUSD #10 passed a resolution allowing the wearing of masks by students and staff to be reduced to recommended versus mandatory. This fails to adhere to the requirement for universal masking in Schools as outlined in the IDPH guidance. In turn, the ISBE sent a letter dated May 26, 2021 to CUSD #10 that they may take action against the district’s recognition status should the district fail to adhere to the IDPH guidance. The following facts were obtained from a letter dated June 25, 2021 sent by Senator Darren Bailey, Illinois Senator in the 55th District, where CUSD #10 is located.

At the same time this was happening, the Illinois Legislature was considering HB2789, which would add the following provisions (currently nonexistent) to the Illinois School Code:

• ISBE may revoke recognition status for schools that fail to comply with IDPH guidelines when a Public Health Emergency is declared by the Governor.
• Prohibits a school board from passing any resolution that is in contravention of any requirement established by the IDPH during a Public Health Emergency.
• Requires that schools comply with all public health requirements issued by the IDPH during a Public Health Emergency
• Provides that the State Superintendent of Education may require a school to operate fully remotely if the public health requirements are not followed

The ISBE letter dated May 26, 2021 threatened to revoke the recognition status of CUSD #10 since a Public Health Emergency was declared by the Governor. The issue here is that the bill which would have given ISBE to revoke the district’s recognition status, did not pass the legislature! Approximately 16,000 witness slips were submitted against the bill, which is very unusual. In the ISBE’s letter, the organization claimed authority under Section 2-3.25 of the Illinois School Code. However, since HB2789 did not pass, such authority does not exist, and any demands and threats to revoke recognition from school districts is premature at best and frivolous at worst.

Furthermore, as the result of a lawsuit (Bailey v. Pritzker), a decision was issued in July 2020 by a Clay County Illinois court, which deemed the Illinois Governor had no Constitutional nor legal authority to issue any Executive Orders after April, 2020, pursuant to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act (IEMAA) and as such any Executive Orders issued were unconstitutional and “void ab initio”. This Illinois Court Order continues to be valid and is currently applicable. However, interpretation of this order has been varied, with some sources claiming that it is only applicable to Clay county and others claiming that the order may not be applicable to the pandemic. Hence, inconsistency and confusion exists here as well. A logical person may, however, think about how an Executive Order is deemed invalid in one county within the State, but not valid in other counties. You would think that the concept of legal "precedent" has to exist here at some level. It is interesting, although not surprising that the media has not focused on this aspect as heavily as it should.

The following districts have also decided not to follow the ISBE mandate: Warsaw School District #316, Dunlap School District #323, Patoka Unit SD #100.

The State's argument for health and safety is made weaker by other issues of legal authority and challenges outlined below.

Legal Authority and Challenges

ISBE AUTHORITY - The Illinois State Board of Education, School Superintendents, School Boards, teachers or any other Illinois educational personnel are not medical nor health care professionals, licensed in the State of Illinois to perform medical diagnosis or prescribe remedies, medical interventions, etc. and therefore have no lawful or legal authority to require any individual or student in a school, a school classroom or any school property to wear a medical device otherwise generally known as a face mask in order to prevent any illness, including but not limited to any contagious or infectious disease, virus, etc. pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/2, Illinois School Code, State Board of Education - Powers and Duties.

IDPH AUTHORITY

• The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) does not have the lawful and legal authority to mandate, require or force any individual to wear a medical device otherwise generally known as a face mask in order to prevent any illness, including but not limited to any contagious or infectious disease, virus, etc. and to do so is unlawful and acting outside their statutory authority pursuant to 20 ILCS 2310-15.
• Further, any and all IDPH guidance, suggestions, orders or directions provided or or given to Illinois Schools, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) or Illinois School officials, Boards or Superintendents regarding school health care policy, measures or safety precautions, school attendance procedures, or face mask or facial covering requirements is 100%, unequivocally, without question or contemplation, unlawful and illegal. In 1897, in Potts v. Breen, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that: "While school directors and boards of education are invested with power to establish, provide for, govern and regulate public schools, they are in these respects nowise subject to the direction or control of the State Board of Health.” Let’s be clear. No Administrators or School Board officials have the authority to force anyone or their children to wear masks or obtain vaccinations.

CDC AUTHORITY - The CDC (Centers For Disease Control) is an advisory agency to the Executive Branch of the United States Government; it is an advisory agency only and possesses no rule making authority, federally or within the 50 states of the United States of America, and has no authority to lawfully or legally to mandate or require any individual, including students, to wear a medical device otherwise generally known as a face mask in order to prevent any illness, including but not limited to any contagious or infectious disease, virus, etc.

COVID VACCINE STATUS/FDA AUTHORITY - The COVID vaccine is an experimental, FDA unapproved medical treatment and is only authorized for use pursuant to the Emergency Use Act (21 USC 564(b)(1)(C) ). Therefore, the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3, regulates the use and the administration of that experimental, unapproved treatment and states: “. . . the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.” Therefore, every individual has the right to refuse any vaccine authorized under the EUA. Think about the logic. Parents are responsible for their children. If they suffer as a result of these vaccines, they are still responsible, not the government, because parental consent would have been coerced from them rather than expressly received.

VACCINATION ID CARDS or DOCUMENTATION - Vaccine Identification cards issued by local health care personnel, or any such document, electronic or otherwise, as the result of being administered a vaccine that is not lawfully mandatory are not a legal document and have no legal or authoritative value. As well, these vaccine ID cards contain personal and private health information protected by federal law pursuant to the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164, and specifically Rules number 1 and 18; that personal identification information is private by federal definition and protected pursuant to federal law and not required to be disclosed unless by voluntary consent. For example, this is why it is extremely difficult, or downright impossible for business establishments to ask us to “prove” that we are vaccinated. Schools should not be able to do it either, but they will if you let them.

ILLINOIS HEALTH CARE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE ACT - Pursuant to 745 ILCS 70/1, Sections 2,5 and 7, the Health Care Right of Conscience Act, states:

“Sec. 2. Findings and policy. The General Assembly finds and declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of health care services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions in refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care.”

“Sec. 5. Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or public official to discriminate against any person in any manner, including but not limited to, licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital, managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person's conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.”

“Sec. 7 Discrimination by employers or institutions. It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer, entity, agency, institution, official or person, including but not limited to, a medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to deny admission because of, to place any reference in its application form concerning, to orally question about, to impose any burdens in terms or conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participation in any programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant's refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of health care services contrary to his or her conscience” A citizen’s Individual Medical Choice to refuse to wear a facial covering or face mask, to refuse or reject an experimental and FDA unapproved and untested medical treatment by way of vaccine, or a parent or guardian’s choice to exercise the same for a minor child or children is a protected individual medical and conscience choice and right and is protected by Illinois law and shall not be violated or infringed.

With as many laws against a mask mandate, and especially against discrimination of students on the basis of masks and vaccinations, it is more than obvious that legal challenges are on their way. Some School Districts are starting to understand this already (see below).

Current Community Efforts and Progress against Mandates

Many groups have emerged at the Statewide level and some at the local level. The “Illinois Parents Union,” a Statewide group, has seen an increase in activity. This group was created to fill the gap between parents and Illinois schools that widened as a result of efforts from the Teacher's Unions to support State guidelines rather than the parent community's needs. The "202 Parents for Choice" was a local Plainfield group that emerged as a result of inconsistent messaging and increasing mental strife of children due to school shutdowns. This group endorsed 4 candidates who are district parents with professional qualifications, including a Child Psychiatrist and a CPA. They ran an aggressive campaign for the recent School Board elections. However, there was heavy involvement from the union resources of the IEA, which purposefully appeared to have spent a significant amount of resources towards the opposition candidates in order to beat these "reformist" candidates across not only PSD 202 but also other surrounding areas. The candidates ultimately lost due to loose mail-in voting laws in Illinois and the IEA's focused efforts, only exacerbated by voter apathy from most voters that simply do not care to vote in local elections or simply didn't pay attention. The "202 Parents for Choice" group's website is now inactive but there has been a flurry in activity on the Facebook Social Media platform from members in that group.

One of the reformist candidates who ran for the nearby Public School District 204 in Naperville, Shannon Adcock, started a 501(c)4 non-profit Social Welfare organization called AWAKE Illinois. At the June 28 School Board meeting, a Plainfield Chapter was announced and this chapter plans to advocate against mask mandates and vaccinations.

A School District, Warsaw CUSD #316 previously made a statement:

• “Pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/2-3.25, the law duly legislated, along with following all the relevant scientific data concerning masks on school children and natural immunity to respiratory viruses, the Warsaw CUSD #316 Board of Education will determine to start school for the 2021-2022 school year with masks optional for all students and staff. There shall be no discrimination of students and staff regarding vaccination status and quarantine of healthy persons. The Warsaw CUSD #316 School Board, the legally elected governing body for the district, maintains the right to make decisions concerning staff members’ and students’ health and welfare.”

In a FOIA obtained by AWAKE Illinois, it was discovered that Superintendent Talley of Indian Prairie PSD 204 States in an email to Superintendent Bridges (PSD 203) and Superintendent Schuler (PSD 200), that:

• “Once districts start doing what [warsaw district] has done [mask optional, no discrimination by vaxx status], creates a problem for all of us.”

It would clearly appear that Superintendents across our area are taking notice that the ISBE and IDPH are overstepping their boundaries, and some have challenged them directly. It is imperative for community members, Administrators and School Board members follow in their footsteps.

We also have to speak about the elephant in the room - Teacher's Unions. The local APT and the their IEA umbrella have been silent about the negative effects on student grades this past year due to remote learning. Their silence is also often reflected on to teachers who do not speak up for fear of retaliation from those unions which are supposed to represent them. For example, D and F grades skyrocketed this past year, with many students requiring additional help to fill the gap. The unions seem to have a singular focus on masking and vaccinating our children, when no other institution is. Meanwhile, there is no specific focus on learning loss recovery and mental health that have been real issues. Yes, sure schools have employed additional social counselors, but that is like putting a band-aid on a running wound. Recently the National Education Association (NEA), the largest Teacher's Union in the nation, vowed to mandate vaccinations and COVID-19 testing in schools. In their annual meeting, this was an item that was put to vote, and ultimately failed to pass. There should be a clear message reflected here that even teachers do not support such aggressive restrictions. It should also be a message to Unions that they are becoming more and more unpopular by the day. They have done more damage to the unwavering reputation of teachers this year than anyone else has by not speaking up for the students who their members serve. It would serve them well to fight with the community for their own teachers and districts rather than team up with the State against them.

In addition to these efforts, concerned parents are reported to be targeted by Homeschooling professionals who are holding workshops in the area and also fighting against the State guidelines. This does not bode well for Teacher's Unions or our School District in the long run. Sure, funding will be largely unaffected if school districts follow the State's regressive guidelines, but that may change drastically if public schools continue to become more unpopular. There may be less need for certain teachers with enrollment numbers declining significantly. All the unions are doing is hurting their own teachers in this respect because they are not able to see what's against them.

Next Steps

It is crucial that we have next steps to follow. Again, while School Boards have to decide if they will stand up against restrictive State mandates, community members should not only encourage them to do so, but also write and call their local representatives as well as the ISBE. They should join the groups above and get in the fight against the State. In return, before the next School Board meeting, maybe some Board members will take the first step and speak out against the guidelines more explicitly. They need to keep in mind that HB2789 is still being considered and it shamelessly targets local School Board power and therefore, community representation directly. We all need to know that this is OUR fight.

AWAKE Illinois can provide templates to use or feel free to use portions of this article. The School Board can be reached through President Kevin Kirberg at kkirberg@psd202.org. Comments can also be directed to Tom Hernandez, Director of Communications at tahernan@psd202.org for purposes of clarity and more information about the District's stance on these issues. There are also several community members who are active on Facebook and Nextdoor on these issues who are not hard to find. Just search "School Board" and you will likely find many resources. It is, however, imperative that we start reaching out soon because the ISBE and IDPH will be issuing guidelines soon before schools open next month!

You can reach out to Dawn Bullock, President of the APT at aptpres@aptiea.org.

The next School Board Meeting is on Monday, July 19, 2021, at 6:30 pm, around two weeks from today in the District Administration Building, 15732 S Howard St, Plainfield, IL. You must arrive earlier to sign in for Public Comments. It is crucial that as many community members as possible show up and stand together to ask the School Board to reject ISBE and IDPH guidelines and stand with the community.

If you have questions, concerns or comments, please reach out at Ray96PSD202@gmail.com.