‘Anti-masker’ father sues Dewitt Public Schools over mask mandate

FRIDAY, Oct. 29 — A father of two children at Dewitt Public Schools is suing the district over its policies that require students, staff and visitors to wear face masks while inside school buildings.

Adam Holland — a longtime Dewitt resident, trial attorney and a self-declared “anti-masker” — filed a lawsuit against the district on Tuesday in 29th Circuit Court that asks a judge to immediately overturn the district’s masking requirements, arguing that Superintendent Shanna Spickard lacks the legal authority to issue the mandate. No hearings have yet been scheduled. 

“This is a situation where bureaucrats are searching for some sort of power, knowing full well they don’t have it outright, and they’re trying to fashion these things into legitimate policies,” Holland explained to City Pulse today. “It’s a power grab,  and it wasn’t handled properly at all.”

In August, the school district (like most others across Greater Lansing) issued guidance to families that stated that face masks will be required for all students, faculty and visitors during school hours — including in the classroom. Outside of the school day, like at sporting events and concerts, that mandate instead switches to a “recommendation” at Dewitt Public Schools.

The district also issued another policy this month that requires elementary students to keep their face masks on while eating in the classroom — only removing them to take a bite of food.

And while Holland said he doubts the efficacy of facemasks in preventing the spread of the coronavirus altogether, his chief complaint is instead over the process that led to the policy.

He argued that without a coinciding resolution from the Board of Education to implement a mask mandate, Spickard lacked the statutory authority to require they be worn inside school buildings.

“This case is not about the inefficacy and absurdity of the forced masking of children against their will or the individual harm and disruption to the learning environment that it causes. Those are hotly contested, complex issues that might prove non-justiciable. Which is precisely why they are left to the democratic process — the heart of this case,” Holland wrote.

On Aug. 2, Spickard emailed parents and noted that face masks will be a “personal choice” for students, court records showed. As COVID-19 caseloads continued to rise in Greater Lansing, Spickard reversed course on Aug. 16 with a firm mandate that they be worn while indoors.

The Board of Education never voted on a resolution to specifically authorize that new rule, but this month it issued a statement in retroactive support of Spickard’s ongoing mask protocols.

“Although we understand there is a lot of passion on both sides of this debate, we would not be fulfilling our fiduciary duties by ignoring the recommendations from every federal, state, and local public health organization, which consistently have recommended schools require masks in school at this time,” it reads. “Everyone directly involved in the operation of the district anxiously awaits the day when we can responsibly return to mask less students and staff.”

Holland’s lawsuit contends that the Board of Education must first vote on a policy to require face masks before the superintendent would have the authority to enforce any related school rules. And since that hasn’t happened, he doesn’t think his kids should have to wear masks at school.

“It is plain that the school board, as the democratically accountable governing body corporate of the district, is the sole authority with regard to the issuance of district policy, especially the most hotly contested, complex, and intrusive policy the district has ever implemented,” he wrote. “The superintendent exceeded her authority and issued and implemented her preferred policy without board approval — without a meeting, without notice and comment from the interested public.”

Spickard declined to comment on the case or whether she believes she, as superintendent, has the authority to unilaterally implement a school policy without explicit approval from the board. She noted, however, that the district has no plans to reverse course on its mask mandate.

“Our goal continues to focus on keeping students in school, and our current mask plan has drastically reduced the number of quarantines, keeping students safely in the classrooms, athletes on the field/court, and many events/performances in person,” she told City Pulse.

Unlike the Ingham County Health Department, the Mid-Michigan District Health Department has not issued an emergency order this year that requires face masks be worn in school buildings. While recommended, officials there opted to leave that decision up to individual school districts. And because there’s no other federal, state or local mandate on face masks, Holland argued that the superintendent has no legal grounds  to make those decisions in Dewitt.

Holland said he tried to bring his concerns to the public comment portion of recent school board meetings, but because no action was taken, he had no choice but to file a lawsuit this week. 

“I really tried to state my peace, but when the superintendent made it clear that the board wasn’t involved in this decision, that set off alarm bells for me,” Holland explained. “This is really a deeper dive on whether the superintendent had the ability to even make this type of decision. If this is the plan, then this needs board approval and public input. That’s how the process works.”

Court records show that Holland received a letter from a teacher in September noting that one of his children had repeatedly been wearing his mask below his nose and had refused to pull it up. The teacher called it “unsafe and disrespectful” behavior and asked that Holland intervene.

Holland also labeled that interaction as “bullying, shaming and harassment” against his child.

The lawsuit also contends that without board representation, families were deprived of “vital democratic rights.” It also alleges that the board failed to live up to its legal duties by permitting the superintendent to issue the “unauthorized mask policy” without voting at a public meeting.

Holland wants a judge to declare the policy as null and enforceable, as well as to issue an order that prevents the district from disseminating any new policies without expressed board approval. The lawsuit also looks to recoup legal fees and other punitive cash damages from the district.

“The superintendent and school board would be ashamed of themselves if they were capable. They know full well what they’ve done and why they’ve done it. But even after I stood before them and let them know that I knew what they did, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing and rectify the harm, they dug in their heels and doubled down on their malfeasance,” the complaint reads.“They’ve spat in the faces of the public from whom they derive their authority.”

In August, the Democrat-led Michigan Board of Education voted on a resolution that gave local school districts discretion to make their own decisions on mandates for universal masking. And many public education experts have interpreted that to mean superintendents can call the shots.

Brad Banasik, legal counsel and director of labor relations for the Michigan Association of School Boards, said that state law allows broad latitude for school district administrators — not just local school board members — to implement and enforce safety policies for local students. 

“A district’s administration is exercising its general powers of authority in adopting a face mask rule to provide for the safety and welfare of students,” he said. “This doesn’t require a school board vote, because the legislature has not specifically reserved the authority to implement safety rules for the school board as it has done in other provisions of the Revised School Code.”

Check back for continued coverage as the litigation proceeds.