Kenosha County board approves ordinance allowing hires as young as 19 for sheriff's department

Kenosha County's Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance 28, an amendment to Chapter 4 of the Kenosha County Municipal Code governing the Sheriff's Department, to allow the county to hire deputy sheriffs who are 19 years old subject to the ordinance's screening and education requirements.

The ordinance passed on a roll-call vote of 17 yes and 5 no after more than an hour of public comment and supervisor debate. Two proposed amendments to change the age requirements'one by Supervisor Kirby to revert to a 20/21 framework with exceptions for Explorer or military candidates, and one by Supervisor Nudo to lower hiring and application ages to 18'were both defeated before the final ordinance vote.

Supporters of the ordinance, including Chief Deputy Miller and the sheriff's office, told the board hiring flexibility would help recruit candidates who complete the department's training track and college-credit requirements. Chief Deputy Miller said the department's hiring process includes a civil service interview, additional interviews with command staff, a job-traits analysis conducted by a psychiatrist, medical and physical-readiness exams and background checks. "We have checks and balances to our system," Miller said, describing the multi-step screening as a safeguard for hiring younger applicants.

Opponents and members of the public raised developmental and public-safety concerns. Robin Cullen, a licensed clinical counselor, urged supervisors to "vote no on the proposal to lower the hiring age for deputies to 19," citing research on frontal-lobe development, judgment, emotional regulation and the heightened trauma risk for younger people repeatedly exposed to violence. Citizen Erin Anzac made a parallel argument about the gravity of state-authorized policing powers: "Signing up teenagers isn't the answer. We need people who are ready and more developmentally mature."

Supervisor Kirby proposed an amendment to require applicants be at least 20 at application and 21 at hire except for those who completed a county Sheriff's Explorer program or served in the military (in which case 18/19 would apply). That amendment was seconded by Supervisor Gama and failed 5 yes to 17 no on roll call. Supervisor Nudo then moved to set application and hiring ages at 18 (while keeping the college-credit and training requirements). That amendment was seconded by Supervisor Meadows and failed (recorded in the proceedings as 9 yes, 13 no). Following a motion to end debate, the original ordinance as presented was adopted 17 yes, 5 no.

Several supervisors who opposed the amendments nonetheless said they trusted the sheriff's office and human resources to apply rigorous screening. Supervisor Franco said age is an imperfect proxy for maturity and noted the department's psychological testing and civil service review. Supervisor Gens and others said only a small number of potential hires would be affected and emphasized the county did not intend to broadly recruit 19-year-olds but to retain exceptional candidates who meet screening and educational standards.

Clarifying details discussed on the record included references to college-credit thresholds cited by the sheriff's office and HR (examples discussed: 40 and 60 college credits as alternate qualification tracks), the presence of civil service oversight in hiring, the Sheriff's Explorer program (BSA-affiliated) and the department's use of third-party vendors for psychological and medical screening. HR director Clara Tappa clarified that Law Enforcement Standards Board (LESB) minimums apply at time of hire and that changing application-age language to 18 at hire would be feasible if LESB standards were met.

The board's action modifies the county code to allow the hiring flexibility described in Ordinance 28; any further changes to the age thresholds would require future ordinance amendments. Supervisors and county staff repeatedly noted the hiring process remains multi-step and includes psychological, physical and background screening.

Ending: The ordinance was the most contested item at the meeting, drawing multiple speakers during the public-comment period and extended floor debate; the change goes into the county code as adopted and remains subject to Civil Service and LESB standards that apply at time of hire.