Adams Selectmen Lift Mask Requirement for Town Buildings

By Brian RhodesiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

ADAMS, Mass. — Nearly two years after the first positive COVID-19 case in Berkshire County and as COVID-19 case numbers continue to decline, the Board of Selectmen unanimously voted to lift mask requirements for municipal buildings. 

 

"Based on the CDC guidance, based on the rapid steep decline of the coronavirus virus numbers, both nationally and regionally," said Town Administrator Jay Green on retracting the mask rules at Wednesday's board meeting. "At this point, I would say if the board just wanted to say that the town buildings will be governed accordingly based on the CDC and be consistent CDC guidelines, that would adequately suffice to protect the safety of the public and staff." 

 

Green thanked visitors and town staff for complying with the rule when it was in effect and said those who wish to continue wearing masks should.

 

"I've said that to the staff as well," he said. "That if you feel compelled, based on your personal situation, you're more than happy to wear masks. No one is going to ask you not to."  

 

Between Feb. 19 and Feb. 25, Adams recorded seven new COVID-19 cases, and Berkshire County is now considered moderate risk for transmission rather than high risk. Board of Health Chair David Rhoads said it is crucial to respect those who choose to or need to continue wearing masks. 

 

"We're dropping off the peak as we did last spring. So I think we're in good shape," Rhoads said at the Board of Health's meeting on Wednesday, explaining recently updated state mask guidelines now recommend vulnerable individuals need to wear a mask indoors.

 

As of Feb. 22, 71 percent of Adams residents are fully vaccinated, with 38 percent received a booster shot. Rhoads urged residents to continue to get vaccinated and boosted and hopes the town can soon reach 80 percent vaccinated. 

 

Green said the mask rule was effective while it was in place and allowed Adams' public buildings to operate with few issues throughout the pandemic. 

 

"Our public buildings have been consistently open five days a week for quite a long time, even in the middle of the surge," he said. "So we were able to safely conduct the people's business open even in the middle of that because we have really good compliance with our masking mandate." 

 

Selectman Joe Nowak said Wednesday's meeting was the first in-person meeting since the pandemic that he did not wear a mask. 

 

"This is the first meeting that I haven't had a mask on; I feel quite comfortable with what I've been seeing with COVID cases," he said. "And I've seen big cities like Boston allowing masks to be taken off in public places. I think it's time." 

 

Chair John Duval also reiterated that those who want to wear a mask are welcome to continue to do so. 

 

"Immunocompromised individuals, please continue to wear a mask if that is what you want to do. That is up to you," he said. 

 

"We believe it's time, and it's a good time to do it," Green said.


Tags: COVID-19,   masks,   


More Coronavirus Updates

Keep up to date on the latest COVID-19 news:


If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Adams Planning Board Cited for Open Meeting Law Violation

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
ADAMS, Mass. — The state Attorney General's Office has determined that the Planning Board violated Open Meeting Law by continuing to deliberate on a matter after adjournment.
 
According to the determination, the violation occurred after adjourning the Jan. 27, 2025, meeting when three board members stayed to discuss permitting concerns for Aisling Mountain Farm, a 22-acre equestrian facility on West Road owned by Kathryn Foley.
 
The board was ordered to amend its meeting minutes within the next 30 days, to include a summary of the discussion that occurred after the meeting was adjourned, to certify to to the AG's Office that it has done so, and to comply with the Open Meeting Law going forward.
 
The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Catherine Foster on Aug. 22, 2025, alleging that the board violated the Open Meeting Law during and after its Jan. 27 meeting.
 
Although filed nearly seven months after the January meeting, the Attorney General's Office said it met the 30-day filing deadline because Foster did not become aware of the situation until it was raised at a July 23 Select Board meeting.
 
"The Open Meeting Law requires that complaints be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation, or if the alleged violation could not reasonably have been known at the time it occurred, then within 30 days of the date it should reasonably have been discovered," Assistant Attorney General Matthew Lindberg said in the determination.
 
"The complainant could not reasonably have discovered that the Board deliberated after adjournment of the January 27 meeting until the issue was raised during public comment at the July 23 Select Board meeting. Because the complaint was filed within 30 days of the July 23 Select Board meeting, the complaint was filed timely as to this allegation"
 
View Full Story

More Adams Stories