While communication between the Law Enforcement Center where the Pierce County Board was located and the Curthouse Annex conference room where many residents gathered to oppose the ordinance, Journal Editor John McLoone took notes on some of the topics that people intended to address at the meeting. Pierce County Public Health Director AZ Snyder reached out to the Journal last week to see if the reporter needed further information from her. She offered to answer any questions. Questions on the topic were e-mailed, and below are Snyder’s responses. ***

1. What is the genesis of this ordinance?

The Palm court decision did not impact local health officer powers authorized by state statute 252.03. The issue is that some legal interpretations of the Palm decision suggest that local civil penalties are needed to replace the criminal penalties outlined in 252. I am interested in putting this ordinance in place to maintain existing public health authority, just with a civil forfeiture vs. a more severe criminal penalty. This local ordinance does not increase the local health officer’s authority.

2. It was said during the Finance and Personnel committee meeting that these powers already exist under state statute. So why the local ordinance?

We need to assign local, civil penalties (basically, a forfeiture) so we don't have to rely on criminal penalties outlined in state statute 252.

3. The comment was made multiple times (by citizens at the meeting) that this measure is an initiative of the state Department of Health because their orders were overturned by the Supreme Court. Has their been such communication with the state?

No. The WI Department of Health Services has not had a role in assisting or encouraging me to introduce a local ordinance related to communicable disease control. There is no payment or financial incentive from the state associated with passing local ordinances.

4. What would be considered a communicable disease: seasonal flu, colds, or is there a standard to what could be enforced?

It's important to understand that local health officers have worked under this existing authority for decades to stop disease from spreading in our communities. Examples of this work include closing a public swimming pool where e-coli was spreading or temporarily closing a daycare with a measles case. Health Officers have applied this authority based on public health science and with great discretion for decades, and only now that this pandemic has become incredibly politicized has our authority come under additional scrutiny.

State code outlines a list of communicable diseases that are considered reportable conditions, which must be reported to their local health departments. This list includes pathogens like pertussis, anthrax, TB, e-coli and rabies. The list also includes outbreaks related to food or water, or 'Any detection of, or illness caused by, an agent that is foreign, exotic or unusual to Wisconsin, and that has public health implications.' Local health departments are responsible for investigating where these diseases might have come from and stopping further spread of disease. State statute assigns the local health officer the responsibility for taking measures to protect my community from communicable diseases of public health significance. Health Officers are highly qualified public health professionals, trained to use science and data to make decisions about how to combat communicable diseases in their community. I, for instance, am an epidemiologist with over a decade of experience in communicable disease programs in the US and globally. People choose careers in public health because we love educating, engaging and empowering our communities to be healthy. Enforcement is usually the last tool in our toolbox we go for, but it is an important one to have available during outbreaks.

5.Does this give the Health Director authority to change how elections are run?

Health Officers likely don't have the authority to stop elections, even during an outbreak. Many counties and cities already have local communicable disease ordinances in place, and these were not used to stop local elections this year. Local health agencies worked closely with municipalities to implement best practices to make elections as safe as possible for both voters and workers.

6. Will this ordinance come back before the county board?

I can't comment on that at this time. I suggest items to the county Board, but I do not set the agenda.

John, I want to add, there is a lot of confusion out there about these types of ordinances. The water is being muddied by groups that have historically resisted public health measures. I urge the public to think carefully about the sources of information they're using related to COVID-19. We will use science and data to make public health decisions that will protect both lives and livelihoods.