Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Isanti City committee debates employee 'permit to carry' language, will seek attorney advice

Isanti City Committee of the Whole · October 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Committee of the Whole meeting, councilors discussed whether to remove local employee-carry language that could be made obsolete by state law. Staff clarified pepper spray is not defined as a weapon in the personnel policy; members asked the city attorney for guidance and will present both versions to council.

The Committee of the Whole in Isanti City discussed employee 'permit to carry' policy language and agreed to seek legal guidance before adopting changes.

The chair opened the item and asked, "Is pepper spray considered a weapon in our personnel policy?" Staff member Travis answered by reading the policy definition: "Weapons are defined to include all legal or illegal firearms, switchblade knives, or any other object that has been modified to serve as a weapon or that has a primary purpose of serving as a weapon." The chair responded, "So pepper spray would not fit in there."

A committee member advocated striking the policy language that addresses employees carrying firearms, saying removing it would avoid creating antiquated local rules if state law changes to a constitutional-carry regime. "I want it to strike it all," that member said, arguing the city should rely on state statute rather than repeat permit language locally.

Other members countered that leaving the language in place provides clarity and reduces the chance residents or employees misunderstand local expectations. One member noted enforcement questions — who would check permits and how the policy would operate in practice.

Councilors agreed to ask staff to consult the city attorney and return to council with both options (the current language and the redlined/struck version) for formal consideration. The chair said staff will follow up and the item is expected back on the council agenda in about two weeks.