Should local health officials have the option to reject Ohio's mask mandate, other state orders?

COLUMBUS - If local Ohio health officials don't like a state order requiring masks or closing schools, they could vote to ignore it under a new proposal from GOP lawmakers. 

Senate Bill 348, introduced Tuesday, would allow a local health board – with approval from two-thirds of its members after consultation with state health officials – to reject an Ohio Department of Health order during a health crisis. 

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, and Sen. Kristina Roegner, R-Hudson, is the latest from GOP lawmakers to limit the power of the Ohio Department of Health.

"There is a serious erosion of trust and communication between government authorities and locals," Schaffer said. He hopes this proposed legislation will restore some of that trust by giving more decisions to local health officials. 

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has opposed legislation that weakens the state's ability to issue orders during a pandemic.

"In the midst of this pandemic, now is not the time to change tactics and impede local health officials’ ability to protect all Ohioans," DeWine wrote in a message accompanying his veto of a bill that would have reduced the penalty for violating a health order.

What happens now if local health officials disagree with the Ohio Department of Health's direction? Under current law, Ohio's 113 local health departments would need to fall in line. They can impose more restrictions than the state but not fewer. 

Senate Bill 348 would change that. But Beth Bickford, executive director of the Association of Ohio Health Commissioners, said she doubted many local health officials would reject state orders if given the option. 

"We try to stay in lockstep with the state health department," Bickford said. "I don’t know how often that would even come into play."

More health professionals on board

Under current law, each local board of health must include a doctor. The proposed law would require one registered nurse, one licensed health care professional and one person representing the interest of businesses, as well. That health care professional could be a physician or a podiatrist, pharmacist, dentist, chiropractor or optometrist.

"It takes the politics and the politicians out of public health and puts it in the hands of experts in that local economy," Schaffer said. Those who participate could earn continuing education credit. 

Bickford said that's a great goal, but it can be difficult to recruit physicians to participate on local health boards, especially in rural areas. The maximum payment per meeting is $80. 

Senate Bill 348 would also prohibit local health departments from using certain "threatening words" in their public notices. For example, local health departments could say that a person "may" be prosecuted for violating a health order – not "will" or "shall" be prosecuted. 

Schaffer said he's received complaints about some notices using "the heavy-handed threat of the law" – "that’s not how you get compliance."

The current penalty for violating a state health order is a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine. However, many local officials aren't enforcing the state's mask requirement.

Local control?

This bill brings up the oft-debated topic of whether local leaders should have more control. GOP lawmakers, including Schaffer, have opposed local control when it involved oil and gas wells or gun restrictions.  

But Schaffer said he supports local control of public health decisions. Residents' lives and livelihoods are on the line when there's a global pandemic. Local doctors and nurses, he said, would be more accessible than state officials. 

"This enhances local control because it enhances constitutional rights," Schaffer said. "This bill follows the constitutional guidelines wherever it lands, this time it lands in the local boards of health."