Questions about enforcement, liability surround Municipal Mask Mandate bill

Drawing credit Health Choice Vermont newsletter

The following update on the Special Session of the Vermont Legislature was published by Health Choice Vermont. – Editor

In response to publicized calls for mask mandates, Vermont Governor Phil Scott has enabled a special session on Monday November 22, 2021 so the Vermont legislature can potentially enable the Vermont League of Cities and Towns to work to impose mask mandates on the People.

In a letter to Senate Pro-Tem Balint and House Speaker Krowinsky offering the Special Session, Scott says he is “willing to support legislation that is clearly and narrowly crafted to do the following”:

1- the legislation must be limited to facial covering requirements indoors within a municipality’s jurisdiction (except schools, which shall remain governed by the policies set forth by the local school board) for the specific, and exclusive, purpose of addressing COVID-19.

2-the legislation must allow each municipality to enact, by action of the municipality’s governing body, a mask mandate beginning Monday, November 29, 2021, or upon passage, whichever is earlier.

3-the legislation and authority to impose a local mask mandate shall sunset on April 30, 2022.

4-the statute passed in special session must require the governing body of the municipality to reevaluate and vote to extend or rescind the policy on a month-to-month basis.

Highly vaccinated and mask-compliant Vermont (where all schoolkids are masked regardless of harms), Vermont has one of the highest case rates in the country. 

This Special Session will occur the Monday of Thanksgiving week – while normal folks are working to pay high taxes and handling winter heating bills. If passed, the provision being advertised would put power in the hands of Selectboards (who will will have to debate, take Public Comments and have to enforce local mask mandates…)

Here are some concerns:

– how will local mandates be enforced?

– who will be held responsible if and when the mandates hurt people?

– state police power should be reserved only for the most dire public health emergencies and adequately debated which is not happening here – why not? 

– we are no longer in an emergency so – why now?

There are many other good reasons why mask mandates should never be enabled. See: “Vote NO on Local Mask Mandates!” for more.

You know what a special session really should be for?? Passing decent health & medical freedom legislation that would stop mandates, and protect people’s rights!!

Use the one-click form right now to send a personalized letter to those who were elected to represent YOU. 

You can even edit the letter to add your own perspectives. 

Go to: https://www.votervoice.net/HealthChoiceVT/campaigns/87498/respond.

10 replies »

  1. Re: “In response to publicized calls for mask mandates, Vermont Governor Phil Scott has ….”

    Why is there never a response to what are, arguably, a majority of Vermonter’s calls for no mandates? Just read the comments here on VT Chronicle and True North Reports.

    The only reasons these conservative comments aren’t published on VT Digger, Seven Days, VT Public Radio, and the like, is because these progressive media outlets discontinued their commentary sections months ago in the face of the increasingly conservative remarks submitted to them – comments that were not in line with their progressive narrative.

    It seems that Gov. Scott only reads Digger and just listens to VPR.

    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    • It’s little wonder masking is being promoted in Vermont. The vaccines are proving to be less and less effective.

      Just yesterday, 11-19-21, according to VT Digger, 52% of November Covid deaths to date have been vaccinated people.

      “Twenty-five people have died from Covid-19 so far in November, … 13 new deaths among vaccinated people.”

      This follows vaccinated people accounting for 57% of Covid deaths in October and 76% of Covid deaths in September.

      And even the CDC says: “The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate.”

      Nonetheless, in Vermont, damned the torpedoes, full steam ahead.

      • There are as many studies that promote masking as there are that show masking’s ineffectiveness. There isn’t as yet smoking gun evidence that masks work. Masks do however promise a sense of control over the populace- and that seems to be the goal. This is but another act in the liberal toolbox to appear relevant.
        Perhaps, those that are demanding masks had ought to ask why there is a delay in bureaucratic approval of “Pfizermectin” and molnupiravir from Merck. If, as the pharmaceutical manufacturers state are as effective as claimed- EUA approval should have happened already(a reminder that the “vaccines” were also touted with high efficacy) Approval of these two wonder drugs would render the masking mandates moot. Then again- and I will point directly at politicians that claim their medical backgrounds make their opinions superior- That there are treatment programs available, using drugs prescribed off-label that have proven effective- so much so that members of the US House and Senate are claimed to have used them. If the goal is to prevent illness and death, every Vermont legislator meeting tomorrow has a “personal responsibility” to investigate my claims and allow Off-Label drugs to be prescribed in Vermont, without threat of legal retribution.
        “If masking saves just one life”….well, how many lives were lost because of political inaction and adherence to CDC dogma?

  2. I sent three emails to my Legislators. I received one reply and I’m sure he will vote in the affirmative because he is a decrepit, old liberal facing the end of his days. They don’t care. They want to enforce compliance – you must obey them! They want to destroy our lives, take our property, murder us slowly, but surely to depopulate the planet. They are evil, demonic, nihilists.

  3. Talk about abdicating your responsibilities…The Gov. could have just said to the authoritative Dem’s that this quackery needs to stop. The vaccines are a farce and mask do nothing…But no, for being the consummate wet finger in the air politician that he most definitely is, he passes of responsibility to the municipalities who will have a mish-mash of responses…Today’s woke science at work and on full display in good ole draft-dodger Vermont, USA.

  4. As noted above, the current statistics for November (through to the 19th), state that 13 of the 25 Vermont Covid deaths in November so far (52%), were vaccinated individuals. This is surely relevant given that 76% of Covid deaths in September, and 56% in October, were vaccinated people too.

    Furthermore, there have been zero Covid deaths and only 6 hospitalizations of Vermont’s children 18 years old and younger throughout the entire pandemic – from its beginning.


    Question #1: Why the push to vaccinate these children when they are already at such low risk?

    Question #2: Why does VBM not include this information in its reporting?

    Please watch this interview with Dr. Paul Alexander.

    • Clarification: My question #2 was first posted to Vermont Business Magazine in its report on this subject.

  5. There’s a simple out to this Mask Mandate. (Applicable Part of Mandate Copied Below)
    Let’s be really HONEST. The absurdity is: EVERYONE has difficulty breathing in a mask.

    Have courage and don’t wear a mask. Carry a copy of the Mandate with you. Show and use the breathing exception (D. anyone who has difficulty breathing) in the Mandate if you are challenged. They cannot require any proof or documentation.

    Nothing in the rules of a town or city shall require the use of a mask or cloth facial
    covering when:

    A. someone is engaged in strenuous exercise or activity;
    B. for anyone under the age of 2;
    C. any child or adult with a medical or developmental issue or challenge that
    is complicated or irritated by a facial covering;
    D. anyone with difficulty breathing; or
    E. or as further set forth in guidance issued by the Vermont Department of

    A person who declines to wear a mask or cloth face covering because of a medical or
    developmental issue, or difficulty breathing, shall not be required to produce
    documentation, or other evidence, verifying the condition.


Leave a Reply