New Carlisle council votes to put firearms policy for city workers on November ballot; keeps no‑guns signage at city building

The New Carlisle City Council voted to place a measure on the November ballot asking voters whether city employees should be permitted to carry firearms while performing city duties, and agreed to keep the city building’s no‑guns signage in place.

The measure, which council members advanced during a Feb. 3 meeting after a prolonged public comment period and legal briefing, passed by a 6-1 vote. Council members who voted in favor were Councilwoman Wright, Councilman Lindsay, Mayor Cook, Councilwoman Grove, Councilman Bond and Councilman Sheen; Vice Mayor Eggleston voted no.

Council members said they were responding to employee safety concerns voiced at the meeting and to questions about legal exposure and insurance costs. Law Director Drew Blanco briefed the council on liability and indemnification: "You do have a broad immunity, qualified immunity," Blanco said, adding that if a lawsuit were filed the city’s insurance carrier would typically provide defense and, if necessary, payment of any judgment.

Public commenters urged different outcomes. "I don't want guns allowed into that office," said Victoria Portner, a resident, describing concerns for clerks who interact with upset residents. Water Superintendent Bob O'Keefe and others described confrontations at the service-window that they said made staff feel vulnerable; union representative David Coleman urged spending priorities on infrastructure instead of anticipated defense costs.

Council discussion covered two separate points: (1) whether to change city policy to allow employees to carry firearms in the course of duty, and (2) whether the city building itself should remain posted as off‑limits to firearms. Council chose to (a) ask voters in November whether city employees may carry firearms while on duty and (b) keep the existing signage on the city building stating weapons are not allowed inside.

The council did not adopt a new employee policy at the meeting; instead it directed that the question be placed before voters. Blanco and other council members noted that insurance costs and potential liability were factors to consider; a figure of $25,000 was cited during discussion as an illustrative cost the city might face to defend claims, but Blanco emphasized indemnification would normally be provided through the city’s insurance carrier and that individual circumstances would affect any final cost.

Next steps: the measure will be prepared for the November ballot, and the law director and city staff will coordinate with the Board of Elections on ballot language and procedure.