Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates draft resolution on weapons for county employees; seeks clearer criteria
Summary
Board members discussed a draft resolution to regulate employee possession and use of weapons while on duty, raised liability and exception concerns, and asked staff to return with more objective criteria and input from other stakeholders.
Madison County commissioners discussed a draft resolution that would regulate employees— possession and use of weapons on county property and while acting in the scope of their employment. The draft, modeled in part on other counties— language, would prohibit non-law-enforcement employees from carrying or using weapons on duty except under specified exceptions.
The board—s discussion centered on liability, insurance coverage, and how exceptions would be identified and managed. One commissioner noted past advice that liability coverage historically applied only to law-enforcement officers and said the county—s insurer (ACCG) may have broader potential coverage but that this should be confirmed. Commissioners raised concerns about who would be authorized (the draft allowed the chairman discretion to authorize "other employees") and asked for objective criteria to govern such authorizations. ‘‘If you—re going to allow people other than POST-certified officers to carry weapons, how are you going to control, regulate, and that liability?’’ a commissioner asked.
Several commissioners said they had constitutional or policy reservations and emphasized that facility regulation (for example, courthouse security, which the sheriff controls) is a separate question from employee-on-duty conduct. The board also discussed positions that might require non-firearm tools or protective devices (animal control, code enforcement) and whether those positions should be explicitly addressed.
Commissioners requested additional work and suggested including other board members and the sheriff in follow-up conversations. They asked staff to draft objective criteria for exceptions, to clarify scope language (on duty/in scope of employment), and to consult with legal counsel and insurance carriers before returning the resolution for further consideration. No formal vote was held.
