L.V. school community remains divided on mask mandate lawsuit

The Locust Valley School District’s lawsuit against New York state in response to its school mask mandate continued to take center stage at the district’s Oct. 19 Board of Education meeting. Board Vice President Margaret Marchand did not wear a mask, and Trustee Lauren Themis wore one intermittently, defying the state Department of Health’s mandate that masks be worn in schools by students, faculty, staff and visitors. Many meeting attendees were mask-less as well, which one parent said was permitted, because the policy was only a mandate, not a law.

During the public session, Amy Pryhocki-Hartnett, of Bayville, said that after submitting a Freedom of Information Law request, she had learned that the district retained the law firm Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe, & Martingale in August, to challenge the mandate. The district paid the firm just over $7,600 for two days’ work — half of what the firm was owed, Pryhocki-Hartnett said, because the Massapequa School District, which joined the lawsuit, paid the other half.

“That is $3,807.63 per day that we spent to fight a losing battle against the state,” Pryhocki-Hartnett said. “I find myself without the language to adequately express my disgust and outrage that monies that could enrich the educational experiences of our children are being squandered at a rate of almost $4,000 per day.”

The contract between the district and Hamburger, a copy of which was obtained by the Herald, was sent to school board President Brian Nolan and the board on Aug. 30. It stated that LVSD would be billed for work done on the lawsuit at $325 per hour for firm partners and $250 per hour for associates. The district was also responsible for “costs and disbursements, which include photocopies, postage, Federal Express, court fees, expert fees.” LVSD is receiving a monthly bill from Hamburger.

One of Pryhocki-Hartnett’s concerns, she said, was that she could not find a termination-of-contract clause in the document. She asked the board whether that meant that the district, even under a different board, would be unable to drop the lawsuit. District attorney Christopher Venator said that because he did not have the contract on hand, he could not answer Pryhocki-Hartnett’s question.

When Nolan told her that her time to speak was up, Pryhocki-Hartnett  refused to leave the podium. “I will not relinquish this platform,” she said. “[Marchand and Themis] don’t wear a mask, which is the law. . . . I won’t relinquish to a [time limit] policy by a board who don’t follow the law. So you can take out your cameras and watch them drag me out of here. I am not giving up this podium.”

Nolan said he wanted to make a motion to go into executive session. But the district clerk, Susan Hammerschmidt, said that Nolan had to state a reason. “I’d like to enter executive session to have a meeting with counsel,” Nolan said. When no one made a motion to do so, Nolan asked again for a motion, prompting Trustee George Vasiliou to do so. But no one would second it, which is required before a vote can be taken. So Nolan seconded the motion himself and then asked who was in favor. When no one raised a hand except Nolan, he redirected his attention to Pryhocki-Hartnett.

“Miss Hartnett, your time is up for public comment,” he said again.

“You took an oath that you would follow the law,” Pryhocki-Hartnett responded.

“It’s now the next person’s turn,” Nolan said.

When Pryhocki-Hartnett refused, Nolan said she could sign up for the second public comment session at the end of the meeting.

“No, thank you,” Pryhocki-Hartnett said.

Nolan moved the meeting forward. He invited student government Co-presidents Caitlin Bianco and Gia Villella and Vice President Elisabeth Dunne to share their student report. Pryhocki-Harnett stepped aside until they were finished, and then stood at the microphone again.

Nolan could be heard quietly saying that he needed the “support of the board now” to go into executive session, directing his comment to Marchand. He also suggested adjourning the meeting.

Pryhocki-Hartnett asked once again if the district could dismiss the lawsuit absent such a clause in the contract. When Venator answered yes, she returned to her seat.

Her husband, Michael Hartnett, a teacher in the Jericho School District, said there was much discussion about the lawsuit among educators and administrators outside the LVSD. In Jericho, he said, everyone wears masks, and it has never been an issue.

“What I have heard in education circles around Long Island are questions about just what Locust Valley is thinking by pursuing a lawsuit about the masks mandate,” Hartnett said. “As one educator from a neighboring district said to me, ‘That’s a pretty bad use of educational resources,’ and a parent in Jericho asked, ‘It can’t be great for property values, can it?’”

He asked that the board focus on the “right priorities” and drop the lawsuit.

Another parent, Tara Jewell, asked why parents were told that if children were masked, they would not have to quarantine if a student had been exposed to the coronavirus. She wanted to know why that policy wasn’t followed.

“Why was the entire fifth grade at [Locust Valley Intermediate School] placed on remote learning if they were wearing masks in school?” she asked. “Especially when only 13 kids in the whole grade tested positive from an outside-school exposure?”

Jewell also wanted to know why some teachers were threatening children who were not complying with mask wearing with disciplinary action when “all these kids want to do is breath.”

The children are being harassed and bullied, Jewell said. “The lawsuit is not just about masks. It’s about choice, and bringing the decisions back to the local level.”

Theresa Malouf, another parent, said she was fearful of sharing her home address, which is customarily announced before someone speaks during the public session. When she and her husband spoke at previous board meetings they were “booed, laughed at and mocked,” Malouf said. She accused the board trustees of violating their code of conduct, which states that they must address issues of harassment.

When another attendee, Katie Henry, of Bayville, spoke, she began by saying she supported parental choice. Then she asked if somehow everyone could be united as a community for the children’s sake, something that other parents mentioned, too.