Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Sheriffs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask Vernon County committee to disavow 'constitutional sheriff' movement
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Vernon County Public Safety Committee to oppose the Constitutional Sheriffs movement and to monitor any local activity tied to it; no formal county action was recorded during the meeting.
Multiple Vernon County residents used the public-comment portion of a Public Safety Committee meeting to urge local leaders to disavow and monitor the Constitutional Sheriffs movement and related seminars that have been circulated in the county.
The speakers said the movement, often tied to a literal reading of the Tenth Amendment and organizations such as the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, promotes an outside view of law enforcement authority that some residents called “extra-constitutional.” “A group that holds themselves above the law has sought to bring their ideas about there being a category of law enforcement named constitutional sheriff to our county,” said Barbara Richards, a Vernon County resident. “I ask you as leaders of our public safety community to disavow and monitor the activities of this group.”
Why it matters: speakers argued the movement could change how local law is interpreted and enforced by the sheriff’s office, and several residents said they worry about ties between movement speakers and anti-government militias.
James John, a Vernon County resident, said he was concerned that a seminar featuring Richard Mack and Brad Rogers — identified in public comment as former sheriffs with ties to the Oath Keepers — could bring “dangerous ideas” to the county and asked the committee to “reflect on their opinions of this group and bring it to discussion at the next meeting.”
Other commenters pressed related questions about the sheriff’s role and cooperation with federal authorities. Ron McGuire asked whether the sheriff’s office would host partisan group meetings and whether the sheriff would cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in schools, saying: “Will children be safe in schools?” He listed several specific questions for county officials and asked for assurances about meeting locations and policy.
Not all commenters opposed the movement. Monica Matos, who said she recently moved to Viroqua, described seeing Richard Mack’s presentation and said it was “not at all a meeting of far right extremists,” adding that sheriffs who understand the Tenth Amendment play a role in defending liberties. “Because the government is not a pillar of moral integrity, that's precisely the reason why we need sheriffs who have a deep understanding of the Tenth Amendment,” Matos said.
No formal committee action was recorded during public comment. A committee member asked whether the topic could be placed on a future agenda for discussion and clarification of the law; the transcript records discussion of possibly adding the topic to a future meeting but no formal motion or vote to disavow the movement.
Speakers who addressed this topic at the meeting included Barbara Richards; James John; Jillian Ritchie; Daniel Arnold; Ron McGuire; Debbie Dudek; Monica Matos; and the committee chair (unnamed). Sheriff Torgerson was referenced repeatedly by speakers and was present in the meeting room, but the transcript does not record a formal policy statement or vote by the sheriff during the public-comment period.
The committee moved on after public comment; later in the meeting members discussed whether to place an item on a future agenda to clarify legal responsibilities and local policy regarding outside groups.
