Prosecutor Says He Doesn’t Want Public Opposition to Masks by County Officials to Slow Reopening

Since Gov. Jay Inslee and Washington state Secretary of Health John Wiesman announced a statewide face covering mandate on Tuesday, Lewis County public officials have publicly objected to the order, most notably Sheriff Rob Snaza and Lewis County Commissioner Bobby Jackson.  

Those objections have caused some problems with mask requirements at the Lewis County Law and Justice Center, Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer told the Chronicle.

Last week, regarding the requirement to wear masks in public, Snaza told a crowd in Napavine, “Don’t be a sheep.”

Meyer said Superior Court Administrator Susie Palmateer called him last week to inform him people were showing up at the Law and Justice Center, refusing to wear masks because they believed Snaza told them they didn’t have to wear one. 

According to Palmateer, most people have been receptive to the mask requirements at the Law and Justice Center, even saying they were appreciative before the pushback by visitors on Thursday. 

“It made it difficult, not only for our bailiffs trying to explain that they need to be wearing it, but also raised some security concerns,” Palmateer said. “There were always a couple people that were unhappy about it, but willing to put it on to come into the building … yesterday was a different story.” 

She said most of the people with issues cited what Snaza had said on June 23. After the response Palmateer said Meyer was asked to draft a letter to help explain the law that requires residents to wear masks. 

“The Superior Court asked that I write a letter, to have posted at the front door and also be handed out to people who are refusing to wear masks,” Meyer said. “So, I did write that letter.” 

The letter, dated June 24, states that according to state law and recent court precedent, the governor’s mandate is “lawful and violation could expose the violator to criminal sanctions.”

Violations can be forwarded to the prosecutor’s office and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, the letter states. 

“Some statements, specifically those made by other elected officials, have advocated disobeying the law handed down by the governor,” the letter states. “By advocating unlawful behavior, those elected officials are acting outside the scope of their official duties.”

Jackson also took to Facebook following the governor’s announcement, stating he would remove himself from meetings and work remotely due to his personal choice to not wear a mask. 

“I have watched many of my staff struggle to breathe in meetings because they are wearing masks, and it breaks my heart,” Jackson said in his post. “I can’t do anything about it because the governor has been given broad powers in a state of emergency and his mandates carry the weight of law with them.”

The next day, Jackson cited a conversation he had with Meyer in which he informed Jackson he would be breaking the law if he were to enter or exit the courthouse without a mask on. 

He said he didn’t agree with Meyer’s position but still agreed to adjust his stance slightly on Wednesday evening.

“Beginning Friday morning, whenever I enter the county courthouse, I will do so with a face shield on until I reach my office,” Jackson said in his post. “I will not knowingly break the law, whether I agree with it or not. I will protect our county by doing the right thing.”

In terms of the objection from Jackson, Meyer said his department offers legal interpretation and it’s up to the individual to utilize the feedback, or not. 

“His agreement or disagreement isn’t really an issue for me,” Meyer said. “Whether he follows it or not is going to be a decision he’ll have to make.” 

On Friday, Jackson issued further explanation concerning his issue with the mask mandate and what he believes it represents. 

“A leader has to set the example, no doubt. At times, he has to do things that he completely disagrees with in order to accomplish a greater good,” Jackson said in the post. “If I’ve witnessed anything this week, it has been how divided we’ve become over face masks and whether we should or shouldn’t wear them, whether it’s a law or it isn’t. I will not change my position on this, any more than any of you would no matter where you stand.”

From Meyer’s perspective, it’s important for county officials to model the behavior that has been required by Inslee, due to his ability to control where each county moves throughout his “Safe Start” phased reopening plan. 

During one of his press conferences, Inslee acknowledged Snaza’s claim and expressed his disappointment. 

“I think that people who are law-abiding, those who are wearing their seatbelts because it’s law and it’s safe, those who are wearing face masks because it is both the law and is safe, I just don’t agree calling those folks, somehow, barnyard animals,” Inslee said. “They’re protecting other people.” 

To Meyer, Inlee’s comments reinforced the notion that he continues to monitor the counties. 

“If he, for some reason, gets the indication that we’re not taking it seriously, that could weigh into whether or not he’s going to allow us to stay or advance,” Meyer said. “What I certainly don’t want, as the prosecutor and as a citizen of Lewis County, is I don’t want to see our businesses, our business owners, our employees, our community, damaged any further.”

He continued by saying the response of the elected officials in Lewis County could ultimately slow the county as it looks to progress through the phase reopening. 

“He, in essence, shut down our community for a couple of months,” Meyer said. “I don’t want to see him say, ‘well, the elected officials aren’t taking it seriously … they’re not even abiding by it, so why would they necessarily monitor other people’s compliance.’ I don’t necessarily think that would be an accurate conclusion for him to reach, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that went into his reasoning.”