Aug. 7, 2026
By Tim Hundt
VIROQUA Wis. – The Vernon County General Government Committee has cleared a major hurdle in its months of work to finalize building security rules, voting at its August 5 meeting to send a revised employee concealed carry policy and building signage guidelines to the full County Board of Supervisors.
The security debate originally arose earlier this year when a department head raised concerns after a member of the public walked into a county building with a visible firearm. While open carry in county buildings is already prohibited by state law and firearms are banned by statute inside the courthouse and sheriff office, the county had no local rules regarding concealed carry by the public in other facilities.
To address the loophole, the county board passed the Vernon County Buildings Firearms Ordinance in April, which banned the public from carrying concealed weapons in all county owned or operated buildings. That decision was met with swift pushback from local residents, resulting in formal written objections, known as remonstrances, from 61 citizens who argued the ban infringed on their constitutional rights.
The April ordinance explicitly exempted county employees, but left the specifics of how to regulate staff carry to be worked out by the General Government Committee. At the August 5 meeting, Human Resources Director Trisha Lepke presented the finalized draft of Policy 707, which governs workplace violence and employee concealed carry.
Lepke noted that the policy sets clear guidelines so workers understand their rights and responsibilities.
“The policy incorporates Wisconsin law, the Vernon County building’s firearm ordinance, and then establishes the expectation for employees who possess a valid concealed carry license,” said Lepke. “It also outlines where firearms remain prohibited, meaning like the courthouse, which has always been the case.”
Administrative Coordinator Nate Torres raised a question about the scope of the policy, which originally included interns, volunteers, and contractors. Torres questioned whether the county should allow any external contractor, such as a pest control worker, to carry a concealed weapon inside county facilities.
Torres pointed out that the definition of a contractor is broad and could include temporary workers from outside entities.
“So the scope of prohibition, I think this is helpful,” said Torres. “Just to point out, like it it the middle of that 1.3 says interns, contractors, and volunteers, right? And so, like I think the word contractor is interesting because if somebody comes in and they’re doing pest control, well, that person’s contracted to come and do pest control.”
County Attorney Brian Weber clarified that the proposed exemption for concealed carry is strictly limited to actual county employees and does not extend to third-party contractors.
Weber explained that the policy exemption applies only to county staff.
“The prohibition applies to people you identified at 1.3,” said Weber. “The exemption number two is different people, and that one is only including County employees.”
The committee also debated whether county board supervisors should be considered employees under the policy. Torres noted that both appointed and elected officials are legally considered employees under the guidelines.
Torres confirmed that all county officials are bound by the same standards under the ordinance and policy.
“The ordinance says employee holds a valid concealed carry weapon’s license issued in pursuant to the Wisconsin state statute, so that language is consistent,” said Torres. “Whether you’re an appointed employee like myself or an elected employee, you’re still an employee.”
Supervisor Sandy Schweiger agreed that adding explicit definitions would help prevent confusion among the public and staff.
Schweiger noted that some people might not automatically view elected supervisors as county employees.
“I do agree with Sandy, though, that I don’t think it would hurt to define it,” said Schweiger. “Because I think there are some that they don’t really see us as employees.”
County Clerk Jerry Pedretti suggested specific wording to explicitly include elected officials in the definition of a county employee.
Pedretti proposed adding a parenthetical statement to ensure all officials are clearly covered.
Lepke agreed to adjust the draft to make the scope of the policy completely transparent.
“I’m just gonna insert elected and appointed officials of Vernon County,” said Lepke.
The committee then turned its attention to the mandatory building signage. Pedretti presented photo options for the signs, noting that state law requires a minimum size of five by seven inches near all public entrances.
In previous meetings, law enforcement officers and some supervisors had warned that posting signs banning firearms could turn county buildings into soft targets for criminals who would know that no one inside is armed. To counter the soft target concern, Pedretti advocated for placing additional language on the signs to let the public know that employees are still allowed to carry weapons.
Pedretti suggested that adding an employee exemption note to the signs would act as a deterrent.
The final draft of Policy 707 also reflects a prior decision by the committee to not maintain a registry of employees who carry. In previous debates, some officials suggested tracking armed employees, but the committee ultimately agreed that because concealed carry means keeping weapons hidden, a list was unnecessary and would create administrative burdens.
Lepke asked the committee for final approval to update the policy wording so it could be forwarded to the full board for a final vote. Lepke asked if the committee was ready to move the policies forward.
Eggen concluded the discussion by calling for a vote to approve the three policies with the requested changes. Eggen asked the committee to send the finalized policies to the county board. The committee voted unanimously to send the policies to the full board, which is expected to take up the matter at its next regular session.
Add comment