Jan. 22—The Post Bulletin's editorial board tries to reach a consensus for every "Our View" piece that appears on the Opinions page. Sometimes such accord comes quite easily, while other times we struggle to reach agreement among our half-dozen members.

Rochester's current mask mandate, which requires face masks in all indoor spaces accessible to the public, definitely falls into the latter category.

While some board members strongly support Mayor Kim Norton's emergency order as an important step to slow the spread of COVID-19 and help overwhelmed medical workers, others view it as both impractical and ineffective — and as a government intrusion into private businesses, as well as a violation of individual rights.

Middle ground? We could find none.

Well, almost none.

As the mask mandate took effect last weekend, questions arose about enforcement. Businesses and employees weren't sure what was expected of them, and the Rochester Athletic Club reported that it canceled three memberships on the first day of the mandate after unmasked people verbally abused staff who asked them to comply.

The city has now clarified the emergency order, stating that while violation of the mandate is not a criminal offense, businesses that make no attempt to comply could face some sort of administrative penalty related to city licenses.

The Post Bulletin's editorial board is unanimous in its belief that the bar for "compliance" should be very low indeed.

For starters, businesses should require their employees to wear masks for the duration of the order. Open, persistent defiance of the mandate is not acceptable and might indeed warrant some sort of administrative penalty.

Furthermore, it's not too much to ask for businesses to display some sort of signage regarding the mask mandate. Rochester hosts hundreds of thousands of visitors every year, and we can't expect them to be aware of local, short-term rules. A gentle reminder on the front door isn't too much to ask.

But beyond setting the required example and posting signs, business owners and employees shouldn't be tasked with enforcing this mandate, nor should businesses be penalized in any way if customers ignore the rules.

After all, it's tough enough to find employees these days, and we don't want to give workers another reason to stay home. Nor do we want this rule to spur even one confrontation that at best would be bad for business and at worst could end in violence.

Some people simply aren't going to wear masks, and no amount of reminding or nudging will change their minds. Furthermore, given that restaurants and bars remain open, with people allowed to unmask as they eat, drink, chat and laugh, the anti-maskers can make a strong argument that the order is just another example of symbolic-but-ultimately-meaningless government overreach.

But one could also argue that somewhere between the anti-maskers and the always-masked is a sizable population of people who will willingly — albeit grudgingly — don masks for the duration of the emergency order. While we can't say with any certainty that their compliance will translate into fewer COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths in Rochester, we are quite certain it won't make things worse.

If things are better in Rochester by Feb. 7, some people will credit the emergency order, while others will say that the omicron variant has simply run its course and would have declined regardless of the local mask mandate.

That's a debate we very much look forward to having.