McHenry County Department of Health disputes State’s Attorney’s press release not enforcing dine in ban
MCHENRY COUNTY – The McHenry County Department of Health (MCDH) held a special meeting on December 14 to discuss their concerns regarding the recent press release issued by McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally stating his office will not enforce the rule regarding the ban on indoor dining.
According to McHenry County Board member and treasurer Cindy Gaffney, the primary reason for the meeting, involved discussing the argument that MCDH Board members felt that their messaging about COVID-19 concerns were not being accurately portrayed by the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office. Norm Vinton, from the State’s Attorney’s Office was included in the meeting to represent their stance on the matter as well as answer any questions from the Board.
Gaffney opened the heated discussion by stating, “based on our discussions at our last meeting we were concerned about the press release from the State’s Attorney’s Office that they weren’t going to enforce. They will enforce certain parts of the administrative rule, but not enforcing the executive order banning indoor dining and Norm, I guess our opinion is that, I think as the Board as a whole, we’re disappointed that there wasn’t any kind of communication to the Board of Health.”
“This meeting was called, [because] at the time that we had the discussion at the executive meeting there was some concern that we weren’t being represented as the Board of Health in the way, the manner, that we wanted to be and things were being said on our behalf that we’re not in agreement with, the Board of Health, or we were unaware of. Since that meeting, I sent a letter to Mike Buehler which you guys all got a copy of it, talking about outside counsel,” Gaffney said addressing the other Board members.
She continued, “Obviously, we got the opinion from the State’s Attorney’s Office on that and I don’t know if anyone’s had a chance to read it because we just got it today, but I think the concern, Norm, is I know you work very well with Patty [Nomm] (director of Environmental Health) and her department but…since COVID is one of the main focuses of the Health Department right now we feel that we need the support of the State’s Attorney’s Office to enforce this. Whether or not they may agree with the governor or not, to go out there and publicly state that you’re not going to enforce things really puts a burden on Patty’s department and the Public Health Department, of what is enforceable. Because the public doesn’t distinguish that. You may from the administrative rules, but the public says well he’s saying he’s not going to enforce that and they blanket that with masking, social distancing and everything else.”
Gaffney concluded her statement by emphasizing the importance of open dialog between the two agencies on any statement the State’s Attorney’s Office makes, moving forward. She mentioned that was MCDH’s reason for seeking counsel from an external attorney, feeling that violators of the indoor dining ban would not be prosecuted by the State’s Attorney’s Office and that the Health Department felt exasperated.
Vinton jumped in to clarify that Kenneally’s press release goes into great detail to explain why the indoor dining ban cannot be enforced, but also clearly stated that other provisions of the administrative rules, such as social distancing and masking were going to be continued to be prosecuted. He explained that Kenneally got a lot of negative backlash from the public due to his decision on the matter.
MCDH Board member David Faccone agreed with Vinton’s statement saying that there are no clear penalties within the executive order to ban indoor dining and therefore there is nothing the State’s Attorney’s Office can do to enforce the rule because of the lack of penalty.
Board member Juliana Morawski on the other hand, sided with Gaffney, faulting the county for not putting out a united front and neglecting to send a message to the public, based on the Health Department’s scientific recommendations. She argued that had the State’s Attorney’s Office spoken with the Board of Health prior to the press release, that the press release could have been more concomitant to MCDH’s mission to public safety during the pandemic.
Later in the meeting, Board member Joseph Clarke made a comment that a judge should be the one to decide what the fate of restaurants who violate the ban would be.
He stated, “We should be working as a team to try to mitigate the COVID virus and if the higher authorities, the Illinois Department of Public Health, etc., are telling us that the method that this virus is spreading is through people gathering in larger numbers in open restaurants and our health officials inspect that and refer it to [the State’s Attorney’s Office], we should be working together to get that to a judge so that the judge can decide whether or not any court action needs to be taken. Whether or not to dismiss it as supported by legislature.”
MCDH Board president Dr. William Stinson, voiced his opposition to enforcing the dine in ban, claiming that he sees no specific evidence of restaurants increasing the likelihood of the virus spreading compared to grocery stores like Meyers or other major retailers like Home Depot. He also commented how signaling out restaurants specifically would sour the long-term relationship between restaurants and the Health Department.
“I’m surprised at the desire for so many people on this Board to really stick it to the restaurants. I think there needs to be some compassion. I think we need to be very cautious when we come to decisions regarding how to get around a decision by the State’s Attorney’s Office to not enforce it and we got to find a way around the State’s Attorney’s Office and really stick it to these businesses. I think that’s folly. There are already multiple reasons to move out of Illinois. There’s already an exodus of people having the Department of Health, having cause problems for local businesses. It’s another reason to go to Florida, go to Wisconsin or go somewhere else where you don’t get hassled,” Stinson said. “So, my opinion is that lately, a vaccine is right here and hopefully there’s light at the end of the tunnel very soon. I certainly am not going to support any further actions that will impair these businesses any further.”
Gaffney pointed out that their goal was not to penalize restaurants as a whole, but instead they were seeking legal options that MCDH could take, in the event that there are egregious violators that make no effort to follow any administrative rules.
Nomm and Vinton agreed to get together at a later date to discuss an updated plan of action when addressing restaurants who have complaints brought against them. They will make attempts to outline any Public Health ordinances currently in place that MCDH could possibly use in the future to make attempts to penalize violators of the executive order and administrative rules.
The meeting ended just as heated as it started. No concrete solutions or agreements were brought forward as the Board members even disagreed on the motion to bring the meeting to conclusion.
