Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 1/5/2022
HADLEY – The Hadley Board of Health began their Dec. 30 meeting quickly notifying those in attendance over Zoom that the discussion of a possible vaccine mandate would be pushed to a later date and the only item on the agenda being voted on would be a vaccine mandate for the Senior Center.
Discussion for a general vaccine mandate for businesses in Hadley will be conducted at a later date as the Board of Health felt it was better to wait and see how some of the surrounding towns handle the issue first.
Public comment was open for discussion on the mandate of the Senior Center. Many residents, including some of those who also virtually attended the Amherst meeting regarding a mandate of their own for businesses which was not approved, had a lot to say against any type of mandate.
The majority of public comment saw people express disapproval of any type of mandate, even though the discussion of the Senior Center having a mandate was the only item on the agenda. There were some residents who felt that a mandate was appropriate for the Senior Center due to the age of those who frequent the building, but discussion often shifted to mandates all together.
The Board of Health eventually voted 2-0 with one member absent to approve a vaccine mandate at the Senior Center, but a vote at a Selectboard meeting will be needed as well to make it official.
Rorie Woods of Hadley said she was deeply concerned of “discrimination” of those with natural immunity. Sarah Strong said she was in full support of the resolution the Board of Health read out regarding the Senior Center.
Deb Palmer, a Hadley resident with a background in public health, fully supported the idea that the Senior Center should have a mandate.
“Me and my husband frequent there and see no reason why we shouldn’t have this mandate,” Palmer said. “The elderly deserve a place where they don’t have to fear becoming sick.”
Selectboard member Amy Parsons shared with those in attendance that if this mandate was put in place, it was enough for the town to be sued by someone and the significant costs that would come from that should be noted in the discussion.
A wide variety of public comments reflected placing a mandate in place like this would lead to a slippery slope of enforcements of mandates with discriminatory purposes to have no end. The conversation was only focused on the Senior Center decision, but the feeling from those opposed was this was just the beginning.
Mark Dunn, a Planning Board member, said he felt many of the passionate voices against the Senior Center mandate were coming from politically charged bad faithed arguments.
“I fear that a lot of people speaking out against this are politically driven and don’t know how many of them would even go to the Senior Center,” Dunn said.
Jennifer Axon said during the public comment period that she felt the Board of health was not listening to the people and added that the mandates are illegal and are discriminatory.
Andy Morris-Freedman of Hadley felt calls of discrimination were overboard and this was not a civil rights issue but a public safety decision.
“I reject the language of the slippery slope-ism, that if we put this in place at the Senior Center, we will have no civil rights and will be living in a totalitarian dictatorship,” Morris-Freedman said. “If this is what the Board of Health feels is for the safety of the general population of Hadley, I support.”
The public comment period became contentious and saw some in attendance interrupt speakers who were opposing to their views, and one person who would play sound bites to indicate approval or disapproval with a handful of speakers.
Bobbie Kamen, a Hadley resident made a comment on the civility of the discussion and tried to tone down the hostility that was arising.
“I am concerned about the tone of this discussion and want to keep it civil. If the Senior Center wants a mandate, they should be able to do it. This is not a common cold, this is a pandemic,” Kamen said.
Melinda Nielsen, a Hadley resident, spoke against the mandate as a user of the senior center.
“I am opposed to this motion. People can sincerely and intelligently differ on what is best for everyone. I am terrified of the thought to take the jab to use one of my town’s resources,” Nielsen said.
Before the official vote on the Senior Center mandate, which was approved, both Board of Health members in attendance, Susan Mosler and Margaret Mastrangelo, gave a few comments following an hour-long public hearing period that saw many contentious moments.
“Over 822,000 people died in this country because of COVID so it is a very serious concern. I do read the data and yes, we certainly do know that receiving the vaccine helps lower the risk of serious disease. I want to be on the record supporting that,” Mastrangelo said. “In regard to someone’s accusation that the Board of Health has been telling people what people’s vaccination status is, is wrong. It has never come from me or anyone on the board. That was an insulting accusation to me.”
Mosler added the board was an elected body, and they look to do their work collaboratively. She also mentioned that the board has authority to vote on decisions such as this one from the state. Mosler then read the opinion the board received from the town attorney that suggested the Board of Health has a broad authority to implement policy and procedures to stop the spread of infectious disease. But, in order for the Board of Health to close or limit the use of a town owned building the Select Board would need to approve the move as well.
Following the vote and decision many in virtual attendance began shouting in disapproval at both Mosler and Mastrngelo, calling them “traitors” and threats of voting them out for not listening to them.
“We look to the Select Board to endorse this policy at its next meeting as a demonstration to use all possible care to promote public safety,” Mosler said as the discussion closed.