May 11, 2026
By TIM HUNDT
VIROQUA Wis. – Local government leaders in Vernon County are still working on clarifying a county policy regarding carrying firearms at work after passing a countywide ordinance last month banning the general public from carrying guns inside county facilities. The General Government Committee spent its May 6 meeting debating how to clean up a confusing internal policy language regarding county employees.
The county board passed the Vernon County Buildings Firearms Ordinance on April 21. That ordinance strictly prohibits the public from bringing firearms into county buildings but includes a specific exemption for county employees who hold a valid concealed carry license. However that exemption created a new problem because the existing employee handbook policy is vague and confusing.
The committee was forced to navigate these tricky legal definitions without the help of their top legal advisor. Corporation Counsel Nikki Swayne was not present and that drew criticism from some county Supervisors and staff. Swayne who recently submitted her resignation instead provided a written memo to the committee.
Human Resources Director and Interim Administrative Coordinator Trisha Lepke brought the issue back to the General Government Committee on May 6 asking for clear direction on how to rewrite the employee rules.
“The current ordinance makes employees exempt as you are all probably aware,” said Lepke. “It is a matter of what you decide on whether or not you want to allow staff or you do not want to allow staff, and then I will draft it accordingly.”
County Clerk Jerry Pedretti questioned whether a new policy was even necessary since the county board had just passed an ordinance exempting the staff. Pedretti also asked if an internal human resources policy could actually overrule a county ordinance.
Lepke noted that navigating those exact legal technicalities without their attorney in the room was difficult.
“That is why it would be great to have legal here right now,” said Lepke.
Lepke clarified that the county insurance company recommended creating a clear policy to limit liability if an incident were to occur.
Supervisor Wilson compared the insurance company’s advice on concealed carry to the way insurers dislike certain risk factors at a home. He argued that the county should recognize this as risk-avoidance guidance rather than a mandatory rule, and that personal responsibility remains central.
“Some owners, they would prefer if you didn’t have an in‑ground pool or your kids didn’t have a trampoline, right?” said Wilson. “It’s personal responsibility, it falls back on them. But as far as the county, there’s immunities for the county. If we want to nitpick it apart and just keep going, there’s immunities for the county, regardless.”
Supervisor Wayde Lawler who attended the meeting from the audience explained that the current workplace violence policy is an unclear and that leaves employees guessing whether they are actually allowed to carry a weapon or not.
“The impetus for developing a policy to address employee employees sort of separate from whether or not public can carry in buildings it was to address a lack of clarity in the existing policy,” said Lawler. “That has some staff saying well, yeah, clearly I can carry and other staff saying clearly this prohibits carrying. So that really is the kernel of what needs to be dealt with.”
During previous meetings the committee reviewed the existing policy which only briefly mentions that state law allows employees to keep weapons in their locked vehicles while parked on county property. Former committee chair Alycann Taylor stressed that the lack of clarity was a major problem that had to be fixed regardless of the new ordinance.
“You do have to clean up that policy because even in our committee level we interpreted the current policy differently,” said Taylor.
The committee then debated whether the human resources department should maintain a registry of employees who choose to carry a concealed weapon at work. Supervisor Bruce Kilmer argued that tracking the weapons was a matter of basic security and liability.
“I believe it is important that we know who has a gun in their possession on our grounds,” said Kilmer. “My only comment would be as we are allowing county employees to have a firearm on our premises but they are not really trained to use them.”
Supervisor Paul Wilson pushed back against the idea that concealed carry permit holders lack training and rely on the county for oversight.
“Taking your concealed (permit training) you do train and accept responsibility,” said Wilson.
County Board Chair Lorn Goede agreed that keeping a list of employees with permits would not actually provide useful real time security information for law enforcement.
“I do not know what good it would do to have a list,” said Goede. “Just because you have a concealed carry and you have a list of the people that have concealed carry does not mean that they are actually going to have their gun on them at that day.”
Taylor also pointed out that maintaining a secure list would place an unnecessary administrative burden on the county. Pedretti reminded the group that the committee had already reached a consensus last month not to mandate a list of armed employees.
“Last month you agreed that you were not going to have a list,” said Pedretti.
The committee ultimately agreed to abandon the idea of a registry and directed Lepke to draft a new policy with safety and storage expectations that mirrors the rules used in Kenosha County.
“It would just be to update the policy and include with the new ordinance,” said Lepke. “So that at least we have a guideline I would have a guideline for them to follow.”
Lepke said she would bring back a draft policy at a later meeting.
Add comment