Aug. 27, 2026
By Tim Hundt
VERNON COUNTY, Wis.– The Vernon County Board of Supervisors has finalized a months long effort to overhaul its building security and workplace guidelines. At its August 20 meeting, the board voted to approve revised employee weapons regulations and a new personal property policy, marking the end of a debate that began last winter.
The discussion represents the final step in a policy revision process that was originally triggered when a member of the public walked into a county building with a visible firearm. In response, the county board passed the Vernon County Buildings Firearms Ordinance in April, which prohibited the public from carrying concealed weapons in county owned facilities. That ordinance exempted county staff but left the specific rules for employees to be hammered out by the General Government Committee.
Board approves workplace violence updates
The board began its security discussion with Resolution 2026 49, which proposed revisions to Policy 707 regarding workplace violence. Human Resources Director Trisha Lepke explained that the existing policy needed an update to align with the new firearms ordinance.
Lepke noted that the changes focus on maintaining a safe environment for all workers.
“Policy 707 is the workplace violence policy,” said Lepke. “What has been updated is to include the Vernon County Buildings and Firearms Ordinance, and then also just some verbiage that needed to be updated as well.”
The board approved the revisions to Policy 707 without dissent.
The debate over employee carry rules
The most significant debate of the morning centered on Resolution 2026 50, which proposed Policy 708 to regulate employee firearms and weapons. Lepke explained that the new policy establishes clear rules for employees who wish to carry concealed weapons while working or on county property.
Lepke noted that the guidelines are designed to help workers understand their legal rights and county responsibilities.
“Policy 708 like was mentioned is a new policy it is employee firearms and weapons,” said Lepke. “This policy was solely introduced due to the ordinance that was also introduced to Vernon County.”
Supervisor Alycann Taylor questioned how the legal department and county insurance carriers viewed the employee exemption.
“I’m curious what Corp Counsel has says about that exemption, and what our liability or insurance has said about that exemption,” said Taylor. “Or if they’ve said nothing.”
Lepke responded that the county insurance carrier had initially recommended keeping a registry of armed employees. She explained that the insurer felt a list would help administrators verify if a weapon was authorized.
“To have a list of those that had a concealed carry license,” said Lepke. “So that if there were a potential violation, that someone would know that they, if say a shirt was lifted up, you saw an item that it was that we were aware that they did have that.”
Taylor noted that the General Government Committee chose not to implement a registry and asked committee members to explain that decision.
“I think if we’re going to pass something like this because it is new, this body should be able to defend it and speak to it,” said Taylor. “So that’s why I’m asking the questions.”
Board Chair Lorn Goede explained that a physical list could compromise security if it fell into the wrong hands.
“As far as the list goes, it was discussed that if there was a list, then that would be public knowledge,” said Goede. “And some nefarious guy that wanted to come in here, he could, you know, get the list and say, okay, this guy’s got concealed carry.”
Supervisor Wayde Lawler agreed that a list was unnecessary and pointed to the administrative burden of maintaining it.
“Wayde explained it pretty well,” said Supervisor Paul Wilson, referencing the committee discussions. “The list, and also there’s a part, it is conceal carry. We did our part for conceal. It is none of your business.”
Corporation Counsel Brian Weber clarified that the presence of a list is legally irrelevant to the county’s liability.
“I obviously have not read the entire liability policy for the county,” said Weber. “But if this type of activity would be a covered activity and there is not an exclusion, this list would be irrelevant.”
Supervisor Scott Champion asked if state officials maintain a database that local departments can access.
“Is when you apply for a concealed carry permit and is granted one by the state, is that information recorded anywhere?” asked Champion. “So, for example, would the sheriff’s department know who in Vernon County is licensed for concealed carry.”
Sheriff Roy Torgerson clarified that law enforcement officers are not allowed to search for permit holders without cause.
“The only reason we can inquire if someone has a concealed permit is if we have contact with them or there is a call involving them,” said Torgerson. “So we can’t just run people to see.”
Champion questioned if the policy essentially relies on an honor system when a weapon is spotted.
“Tricia, presumably you or Nate (county administrative coordinator Nate Torres) talks with them, and they say, oh, I’ve got concealed carry,” said Champion. “Is that on the honor system?”
Torres responded that the policy is built on state statutes.
“We really predicated a lot of the language on using state statutes as sort of the guiding core force behind this,” said Torres. “And that everything state statutes lays out regarding the concealed carry permit we just cited referenced and will move forward as such.”
Torgerson confirmed that lying about possessing a permit carries serious legal consequences.
“And then there’s a law that says you can’t carry a concealed weapon without a permit,” said Torgerson.
Supervisor Charles Jacobson asked how the county would ensure all employees are fully aware of the new rules.
“How does this roll out to staff to make sure that they’re all aware of the new policy and the requirements,” said Jacobson.
Lepke responded that she would notify department heads and email all staff members.
County Clerk Jerry Pedretti reminded the board that the policy will not take effect until proper security signs are posted.
“And none of this would take effect until we get signage, the proper legal signage for the doors,” said Pedretti.
The board voted to approve Policy 708.
Personal property policy approved with amendments
The board then turned to Resolution 2026 51, which proposed Policy 829 regarding employee personal property in the workplace. Lepke explained that the policy was designed to protect both staff and the county from disputes over valuable personal items brought into county buildings.
Lepke noted that the rules create a clear baseline for property ownership.
“This is a new policy, and this was created and intended to protect employees by clearly documenting ownership of valuable personal items that are brought into the workplace,” said Lepke. “It narrows its focus to personal property that could impact counties’ facilities, technology, or operations.”
The personal property policy was originally scheduled for a vote in April, but the board voted to send it back to committee after department heads expressed concerns about a lack of clarity.
Lawler pointed out that the draft still contained ambiguous wording in the scope section.
“Employees are asked to receive approval,” said Lawler. “Asked to me seems pretty ambiguous about the level of requirement.”
Torres clarified that the county needs the authority to block items before they arrive and remove them if they cause operational problems later.
“So it is just, Vernon County reserves the right to deny any request or to remove any item,” said Torres. “One is, do they actually go through the process and request before it even shows up in the office? The second basically states, you brought this into the office, it is causing a problem, we’re going to ask that you remove it.”
Lepke read the revised language to incorporate the board’s suggestions.
“Employees are required to receive approval from the following prior to bringing personal property into the workplace,” said Lepke. “Vernon County reserves the right to deny any request or remove any item that presents operational safety, security, or policy concerns.”
The board approved the amendment and subsequently voted to adopt Policy 829 as amended.
Add comment