April 5, 2026
By TIM HUNDT
VIROQUA Wis. – The Vernon County General Government Committee tackled a number of hot button issues during its April 1 meeting, which is typical for a committee tasked with overseeing human resources and county legal policy. The meeting became charged with emotion at times with supervisors and staff openly disagreeing on a number of complex areas like the hiring process to replace the administrative coordinator, weapons on county property and resolutions opposing a large transmission line.
The debate over weapons policies has been working its way through the committee for months following an incident where a member of the public openly carried a weapon into a county department. The issue has divided the public, elected officials and county staff and centers on two distinct areas whether the public is allowed to carry firearms on county property and whether county employees can conceal carry while at work.
The ordinance is a work in progress and Corporation Counsel Nikki Swayne presented her latest version that the committee refined as the meeting went on, and asked her to bring back another version with the changes from the meeting incorporated.
The meeting opened with public comment where county resident Mark Joseph argued that any ban on firearms in public spaces is a direct violation of his constitutional and natural rights.
“Any form of prohibiting firearms in public spaces is directly interfering a constitutional right,” said Joseph. “The county has no lawful authority to infringe on the people rights and this also includes face covering policy as well.”
Following the public comments Swayne presented the latest draft of the new weapons ordinance. Swayne explained that state law allows the county to prohibit the public from carrying firearms in county buildings if they post proper signage.
“The state law does permit counties through an ordinance prohibit the carrying of firearms in county buildings with proper signage,” said Swayne. “Separate category employees, you could prohibit and or permit employees to carry within county building.”
The drafted ordinance bans the general public from carrying firearms but specifically exempts law enforcement military personnel and county employees who hold a valid concealed carry license.
General Government Committee Chair Alycann Taylor reminded the room of why the county was pursuing the ban.
“I think somehow this came to us to create an ordinance for the general public,” said Taylor. “That is where this originally stemmed from.”
County Board Chair Lorn Goede had previously championed the effort to get the ordinance drafted during the March committee meeting to ensure county staff were protected from armed individuals entering their workspaces.
Sheriff Roy Torgerson raised some technical issues regarding how the ordinance would be enforced and reminded the committee to carefully consider their legal bounds.
“We just got to make sure we all raised our right hand we all took the same oath,” said Torgerson. “Is it constitutional and that is the test.”
Torgerson also noted that the county had debated this exact issue several years ago under previous board leadership and ultimately decided not to move forward with a ban.
Supervisor Wayde Lawler pushed back on the constitutional concerns by pointing out that state statute explicitly gives the county the authority to restrict firearms in its buildings.
“We all did take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the state and of the country,” said Lawler. “None of us either are constitutional scholars, and so when we make decisions like this that touch on potentially divisive and constitutional issues, we do so with to the best of our ability, to the best of our understanding of the law, with corp counsel, with other legal counsel informing us. And if we are found to be wrong on those matters, there is a process for correction. Clearly there are different interpretations of the Constitution, and we have a system of laws in this country that allows for petition and remediation of those kinds of disputes. So we’re going to make a decision today, one way or the other, that is going to tell some people that, we disagree with them, however we decide and the proper channel for that is. Yes, bring your public comments, and if and when you feel like your constitutional rights have been infringed, follow that procedure. So I just want to put that out there for the record that we’re doing our honest best here as public servants.”
“Staff should not have to decide are you open carry are you concealed carry,” said Jacobson. “If you delay either enable the shooter or maybe it is fine, but I would rather err on caution and take away the stress for staff.”
Supervisor Charles Jacobson, who is also a former sheriff’s department employee who raised the issue following that department incident, argued that the policy is fundamentally about protecting county staff. He noted that employees should not be forced to evaluate the legality or intent of a person walking into a government office with a gun.
Supervisor Mary Henry agreed and shared that she asked her husband, who is a former law enforcement investigator, to review the proposal. She said he strongly supported the ban especially for departments like Human Services that frequently deal with agitated individuals.
“Unfortunately this is our society now,” said Henry. “And this is what we are dealing with.”
Corporation Counsel Nikki Swayne explained the legal difference between enacting the ban through an ordinance versus a simple resolution. Swayne told the committee that while a resolution or internal policy could technically work an ordinance is the recommended approach because it provides a practical way to enforce the rules. She noted that an ordinance allows the county to issue local citations which serves as an alternative to seeking criminal charges through the district attorney.
“You do not technically need the ordinance if it is in resolution or otherwise in policy but it is best practice and it makes it also enforceable by ordinance which is a totally separate enforcement path than a criminal charge by the state hired district attorney,” said Swayne. “This ordinance gives added teeth to the principles you are trying to enforce by giving a totally separate enforcement path through ordinance based citations”.
Sheriff Roy Torgerson supported the ordinance approach because it equips his deputies with better options for dealing with violators locally rather than relying on higher courts.
“The ordinance allows for it gives us a lot more tools than having to resort to a state prosecution,” said Torgerson.
Supervisor Wayde Lawler agreed with the strategy and compared the local ordinance to the way the county manages truancy cases. He pointed out that having a county ordinance provides a valuable enforcement option before escalating a situation to state level criminal charges.
“We discussed that with truancy right,” said Lawler. “Like an intermediate step that allows us to intervene earlier and more quickly and more definitely”.
The discussion then shifted to the risks of advertising that a building is gun free. At previous meetings Coon Valley Police Chief Phillip Welch who spoke as a citizen warned the committee that posting prohibition signs simply turns the courthouse and annex into a soft target for bad actors. Welch strongly advocated for allowing trained county employees to be armed to protect themselves and their coworkers.
Supervisor Dave Eggen agreed with Welch and suggested a unique approach to the required building signage.
“I still like my original proposal to put a signage that says caution employees in this building are armed,” said Eggen.
County Clerk Jerry Pedretti supported the idea of adding language to the signs to let the public know that employees are exempt from the ban as a further deterrent.
The committee unanimously approved a motion to advance the ordinance banning public firearms with a few minor wording changes regarding enforcement. However the committee still needed to finalize exactly how they will manage the employee concealed carry exception.
Swayne and Human Resources Director Trisha Lepke asked the committee for guidance on updating the internal employee handbook known as Policy 707. Swayne explained her working draft removed any general prohibition of weapons for employees but maintained strict policies against violence in the workplace.
Swayne then proposed a process where employees would be required to register their concealed carry permits with human resources.
“I have right now drafted that the employee has to register with the HR department by completing a registration form,” said Swayne. “They have to include or provide a copy of their actual concealed carry license and then HR would keep that on file.”
Pedretti questioned the process and initially asked why the sheriff would not hold those records rather than human resources. The discussion quickly shifted when Pedretti strongly opposed creating a registry of armed employees at all. He argued that the onus should be on the employee to follow the law and county policy.
“You are not requiring me to carry a gun to be an employee,” said Pedretti. “I am exercising a right to carry the gun and you are giving me permission to exercise the right to carry.”
Administrative Coordinator Cassandra Hanan argued that tracking the permits is a basic liability and compliance issue for the county.
“From a liability standpoint I think it also is confirming through HR that they do have the permit,” said Hanan. “They have gone through the necessary training and procedures to get that permit.”
Swayne agreed and added that a registry helps the county know who is permitted in case a license expires or is revoked.
Lawler sided with Pedretti and pushed back against creating an administrative burden just for the sake of having it on paper. Lawler argued the county could simply outline the responsibilities in the policy and hold employees accountable if they violate the rules without keeping an active list.
“I think it would be quite possible quite doable to delineate the responsibility like Jerry was just talking about,” said Lawler. “Outline the responsibilities without the administration of a list.”
Eggen agreed that the county should not require registration.
“I have a concealed carry permit,” said Eggen. “The Department of Justice says I have permission to carry without telling anyone.”
Taylor confirmed that the committee reached a consensus to eliminate the registration requirement. The committee decided that the new policy will clearly define the permissions that allow an employee to have a firearm in the building and outline safety and storage expectations but the county will not proactively track who is armed. Swayne will bring the drafted employee policy back to the next General Government Committee meeting for review before both the public ordinance and the employee policy are sent to the full Vernon County Board of Supervisors for final approval.
Add comment