June 4, 2026
By Tim Hundt
VIROQUA, Wis. — Vernon County supervisors say they’re not done yet with questions about weapons in the workplace.
At a Tuesday meeting, the General Government Committee took another pass at whether to update the county’s internal employee policy after the County Board last month approved rules governing how the public can carry firearms in county buildings.
While the county has banned the public from carrying weapons on county property they have expressed they will allow employees with a concealed carry permit to have guns on county property, but they are trying to revise the county policy to cover all weapons and be consistent with state law.
Committee members agreed the employee policy should clarify what is expected of employees on the issue and told staff to keep working with department heads and the county’s insurer to draft clearer language — and to come back with something more concrete.
They also want to make sure signs at county buildings match whatever rules are ultimately adopted.
Still sorting out what applies to whom
The issue has been building for months.
In April and May, supervisors wrestled with how an older workplace policy — known as Policy 707 on workplace violence — fits alongside the county’s newly adopted concealed carry ordinance. The distinction matters. The ordinance applies to visitors and the general public, while Policy 707 governs employees. But there’s a gap.
Human Resources reported the policy hasn’t been updated in roughly a decade and refers generally to “weapons,” without clearly addressing firearms. That leaves room for confusion — something county officials say they want to fix.
At the same time, county staff have been consulting with legal counsel and their insurer to make sure any rewrite is compliant and doesn’t expose the county to liability.
Department heads have also been reviewing drafts, an effort aimed at avoiding repeated revisions and getting broader agreement before anything returns for approval.
“Why do we keep going around?”
Supervisor Paul Wilson made it clear he’s frustrated with how often the issue has resurfaced.
He said the County Board already set direction when it passed the public ordinance — and questioned why the committee continues to revisit the topic without a final draft in hand.
“Department heads, we selectively use their input if it goes along with what we want, or if it contradicts, then we won’t use department head feedback,” Wilson said. “Why do we keep going around and around? It just keeps getting brought up, keep exposing vulnerabilities of the county to the public that’s already passed.”
Wilson argued the committee risks reopening settled questions and unnecessarily drawing attention to areas where policy language is still unsettled.
HR: policy and ordinance aren’t the same
Interim HR and Administrative Coordinator Trisha Lepke pushed back on the idea that the work is redundant.
She said staff are following the committee’s earlier direction: update the employee policy so it matches the ordinance and gives workers clear guidance on what’s allowed.
“A policy is what is implemented so that staff know how to follow it. The ordinance was set for the public,” Lepke said. “If you are telling me today that you don’t want me to do anything with this policy and leave it as is, that is your decision, and I will stop. But that is not what was recommended from our insurance company.”
Lepke said the county’s insurer specifically advised updating the policy to reflect the ordinance and maintain proper coverage.
“It would be beneficial for it to at least be mentioned for the staff,” she said. “They did say that it should be updated to include the ordinance, and it does need to be updated.”
Focus shifts to consistency — and signage
After some back-and-forth, committee members appeared to settle on a middle ground. They agreed the ordinance and employee policy need to be consistent and clearly written so they don’t conflict. They also pointed to a practical next step: making sure building signage reflects the rules.
“They need to be consistent with each other,” one committee member said. “I think we need to meld our ordinance with our policy and make them agree with each other, and have the chair put on the signage for the next agenda.”
What happens next
For now, the committee isn’t taking a final vote.
Instead, members directed staff to:
- Keep revising Policy 707 to reflect the concealed carry ordinance and insurer guidance.
- Bring back updated draft language that aligns policy and ordinance.
- Put signage standards on a future agenda so posted rules match county law.
The discussion also touched on related concerns, including employee use of personal property in county buildings — another policy area still under review.
Bigger picture
The extended debate highlights a broader challenge county officials are trying to address: making sure internal rules match real-world operations — and that employees and the public aren’t getting mixed messages. The committee has said that aligning policies now, even if it takes longer, could prevent confusion — and potential legal risk — down the road.
Editor’s note
The June 3 General Government Committee meeting lasted more than three hours and covered a wide range of topics, including facilities planning, IT, health department updates and legal services. This story focuses on the discussion around the county’s weapons policy and its relationship to the newly adopted public ordinance.
.
Add comment