Health director responds to county board’s action

“I was not given the chance by the board to respond to the misinformation that was presented,” Trempealeau County Health Director Barb Barczak said in a statement that followed the county board’s decision to reject an ordinance change that would give her department the authority to issue citations to people who refuse to wear face coverings in public. 

Last week Monday the Trempealeau County Board of Supervisors accepted comments from the public for more than two hours, but did not ask Barczak why she thought the measure was important or to respond to the claims being made before rejecting the measure 15-1.

“I do not flip a coin or have a magic dart board that I use for making decisions,” Barczak said. “They are formed with a lot of input from multiple agencies, organizations and individuals both within the county, the western region, the state of Wisconsin and the federal government. I understand the concerns that were expressed, but many of them were based on incorrect information.”

In the statement, Barczak said she is a registered nurse with a bachelor’s degree and that her focus is public health.

“I would not pretend to tell a hospital or clinical nurse that I have more knowledge in their field than them,” Barczak said. “We saw this situation at the federal level where multiple doctors were put on TV supporting alternate ideas on COVID-19.”

While the ordinance change was rejected, Barczak said much of what was in it is already state law.

“The wording came directly from the state statute 252.03(2),” Barczak said. “It applies to only certain situations that are considered emergencies. What was added by our ordinance was the ability to fine offenders who are more worried about their rights than care about the health of our community to follow any of the recommended practices which data tells us makes us safer.”

She also noted that she already has the authority noted in the ordinance change the board of health approved and passed on to the full county board.

“Many of the comments Monday evening expressed concern for overreach of my authority. State law already gives me that authority,” Barczak said. “What was missed in the comments is that the actions need to be ‘reasonable and necessary for the prevention and suppression of disease.’ State statutes also require any orders from the health officer be the ‘least restrictive’ possible. Many of the concerns expressed were for actions that are neither reasonable nor necessary, and definitely not least restrictive.”

Trempealeau County Corporation Counsel Rick Niemeier noted that other unelected county officials have issued citations with little complaint, specifically mentioning citations for zoning ordinance violations.

“If this ordinance had passed, this would be similar power granted to the local health officer to enforce the ordinance and local health related orders,” Niemeier said. “The health department already has the authority to issue citations/forfeitures for human health hazards and commercial food safety violations, among other issues, so there is some existing authority to issue citations and orders already.”

Niemeier also pushed back against those saying the ordinance change would be unconstitutional.

“All laws are presumed constitutional until a court determines otherwise…An individual simply saying that a law is unconstitutional certainly does not make it so, that is the job of the court system,” Niemeier said. “The specific topic that a law governs will determine the level of scrutiny that a court will apply when looking at its constitutionality if challenged in court.  As it stands now, the laws cited by individuals in this situation are presumed constitutional.”

While some concerns were expressed during the comments, Barczak’s statement noted that the health department would not take away children, invade homes, approaching people on the street or in businesses or raiding restaurants or bars. She wrote in the statement that she doesn’t have the staff or the budget to raid homes or businesses.  

Barczak she would never issue an order that requires anybody to receive any vaccine.

 “We all have different cultural and religious beliefs, not to mention a wide variety of health conditions which may be a contraindication to a particular vaccine,” Barczak said. 

While the ordinance change was rejected, Barczak said restrictions could be issued, as they were at the federal level for recent epidemics including H1N1, measles and Ebola. “During each of these, Federal and State agencies issued restrictions.”

“It is my legal opinion that state law already allows local health officers to issue orders to address a public health situation, we simply do not have much guidance on the parameters of such authority,” Niemeier said. “Until we do have some guidance from the court system if certain regulations are challenged, health departments are left to do what they think is best for the public when it comes to a public health emergency.”

Barczak also cautioned that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services could step in, citing state statute 252.03 (3): “If the local authorities fail to enforce the communicable disease statutes and rules, the department shall take charge, and expenses thus incurred shall be paid by the county or municipality.”

“I suspect that if (the DHS) took charge, the cost impact to our taxpayers would be greater that our local health department,” Barczak said. “I personally would rather a local authority, who is familiar with local conditions, make local decisions.”