The Saint Clair County Advisory Board of Health voted to endorse a confidential physician-issued exemption letter to help a local family whose children were removed from school after the district required use of the state’s certified vaccine-waiver process.

Andrew Everly told the board he submitted the statutory written exemption permitted under Michigan law but that Armada School District removed his son on Nov. 1, 2024, citing the district’s interpretation of state administrative “rule 12.” Medical director Dr. Remington Nevin told board members he believes the rule requires only that schools acknowledge a parent’s exemption and that the state’s certified-waiver process imposes additional, unnecessary steps on families. “From my perspective as medical director, it serves no valid public health purpose to remove Mister Eberly’s children when the substantive education requirements of rule 12 have clearly been met,” Nevin said in presenting a draft memorandum.

Nevin asked the advisory board to endorse a confidential letter he would send to school officials certifying that, on medical and ethical appropriateness grounds, the children should be treated the same as students with physician exemptions. Board members debated legal exposure for the county and asked for counsel to review the broader policy change; several members said they supported helping the family while reserving judgment on wider adoption of a standing exemption. A motion to endorse Nevin’s letter in the Eberly case passed by voice vote.

The board also heard and discussed a longer proposal from Nevin to create a streamlined, largely online rule-12 process that would allow most parents to complete the state-required education remotely and would provide a standing “physician appropriateness” exemption in limited cases. That broader proposal was tabled for legal review and follow-up with county counsel.

The medical director repeatedly cited Michigan statutory authority (MCL citations provided in his memo) and argued that pending litigation may ultimately clarify the state’s interpretation. Board members who supported the endorsement emphasized the immediate harm to children denied access to school; opponents warned of county liability and questioned jurisdiction where school districts or neighboring county health departments are involved.

The board directed staff to produce a formal, nonpublic letter for the Eberly family and to route the proposed broader waiver changes to legal counsel for analysis and possible revision before any formal policy adoption.