Arts and self-care classes coming up in Silver Creek

IRVING — While the first school board meeting of 2020 began with new changes to the board, the first half of the meeting was spent discussing old business from December that has become a sensitive topic among some district residents.

The beginning of the meeting, which took place off site at the Seneca Nation of Indians Early Childhood Learning Center, began with the appointment and swearing in of student board members Christian Cook and William Sylvia. Though the students are not voting members and cannot be present during executive session, they serve the important role of speaking on behalf of the student body. Board President Mark Nephew sought their input regarding agenda item New York State Senate Bill 298–B: “An act to amend the public health law, in relation to requiring immunization against human papillomavirus (HPV).”

Last month, Gowanda parents Megan Cook and Mary Habermehl spoke out against the proposed mandate, which would require all parents/guardians to children entering or having entered seventh grade on or after Sept. 1, 2021 to ensure their child receives the HPV vaccine in order to attend public school. Both parents argued that the choice to vaccinate for HPV should be left to parents and their child’s physician — not the state — and that requiring such a vaccine would create more administrative tasks and costs for schools. Habermehl shared research regarding the risks of the vaccine and questioned its effectiveness. Both parents asked the board to send letters of opposition to their state representatives and to Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

During the most recent board meeting, Gowanda School Nurse Charity Pawlak shared an informational presentation on HPV and the proposed mandate. Pawlak explained that HPV is the most common sexually-transmitted infection and that in most cases, “it goes away on its own.” However, in other cases, the disease “can cause genital warts and an estimated 35,000 cancers annually…in men and women.”

Pawlak explained that the vaccine is recommended and endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics and others because it is believed to be the most effective method to prevent HPV-related cancers.

“The prospective cost to the district would be time,” she noted, “such as additional hours to track and log for vaccines, as well as enforce compliance.”

Pawlak shared a letter from the school’s physician in support of the mandate. While she agrees with the letter, she added, “I don’t believe that HPV is easily transmitted in school. It’s not like measles, mumps or rubella. It doesn’t create a risk to the student population because it’s not airborne spread; it’s spread through intimate contact.”

Board member Ronald Cook weighed in on the issue by comparing it to insurance. “It’s like buying auto insurance,” he said. “It’s not because you’re a bad driver. It’s to protect from the other driver that’s reckless. When you don’t put insurance on that, based on (Pawlak) saying what it’s going to cost, what is the overall cost of of the cancer once they get it?”

Nephew raised two questions related to the proposed bill: “Is the vaccine effective and should the state mandate that school participation is based on whether or not you get the vaccination?”

Board member Janet Vogtli expressed concern over future implications should the district send a letter in opposition to the bill. “Parents and those who don’t think that ‘big government’ should be handling this need to be contacting their legislators,” she stated. “I don’t think the school should because I think we’re setting a precedent by sending a letter, because anything that comes down the pike that people don’t like, they’re going to say, ‘Will you send a letter? You did it for this; why don’t you do it for that?'”

Board member Lynn Guzzetta agreed. “I think if we feel strongly about it, we should send letters as individuals,” she said. “We want the school to stay out of it.”

Nephew and board member Dana Szalay-Delaney disagreed. “I think it’s a personal decision for parents to make about whether or not to get it,” Nephew said. “I think it’s a serious reach of the state to mandate it. It’s a public health issue, but it’s not a contagion issue for a school setting. I’d be in favor of sending the letter.”

Nephew consulted the new student board members on their thoughts regarding the issue. While Cook took a neutral stance, Sylvia agreed that it could set an unreasonable precedent and that mandating the vaccine could actually help students have more control over their health. “There are people who would be in support of this bill because students want to be vaccinated for certain things but can’t get it done because their parents refuse for various reasons,” he said. “Having the state mandate it would be very helpful to those students in that situation.”

Superintendent Dr. Robert Anderson said that he would support the board’s decision either way. Nephew then called for a vote: he and Delaney voted in favor of sending the letter opposing the mandate, while David Barnes, Cook, Guzzetta, Vogtli and Barb Weston voted against it.