Clear, 57° F
After much discussion, Powell’s school board has unanimously decided not to impose mandatory training on staff and volunteers who decide to carry in Wyoming schools ahead of the upcoming repeal …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
The Powell Tribune has expanded its online content. To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free web account by clicking here.
If you already have a web account, but need to reset it, you can do so by clicking here.
If you would like to purchase a subscription click here.
Please log in to continue |
|
After much discussion, Powell’s school board has unanimously decided not to impose mandatory training on staff and volunteers who decide to carry in Wyoming schools ahead of the upcoming repeal of gun free zones July 1.
Park County School District 1 Superintendent Jay Curtis advised the board of three choices May 27: adopt a rule (a process involving public input and meeting with local law enforcement) that would allow the district to place requirements on staff to be allowed to carry (similar to past CKA policies); adopt no rule; or adopt a policy outlining behavioral guidelines for staff who do decide to carry.
By not voting, trustees are waiving the option to enforce training requirements outlined in House Bill 172, the bill repealing gun free zones, that was passed at the end of February.
The trustees' decision came after meeting individually with the district’s attorney and discussing liability; what may be already covered under concealed carry law and existing policies; a lack of change to insurance and the ability to institute a rule and policy later on if they felt the need.
Adopting a rule would basically restrict staff’s right to protect themselves, trustee Dusty Paul said, adding that the number of teachers who choose to carry will likely be low. And, if a handgun is left unattended that will be a legal issue.
“If an employee did that, they're probably getting fired, I think, in all reality. And I don't think there'd be any expectations that they wouldn’t,” Paul said. “But I'm pretty sure if they're carrying in the school, they're gonna be pretty damn scared.”
Paul added that when he carries in other places he takes it seriously, but he noted this isn’t always true for some permit holders.
“I really think that by doing anything tonight than really just to let it ride I think we're making a bigger deal than honestly it's even gonna be,” Paul said.
If they later decide they want to adopt a rule and policy they can do so, Curtis said, as there is no time limit.
When the legislation was initially introduced Curtis’ opinion was that a rule would need to be introduced, but after some more thought he is not so sure. There is the argument that some training is better than none, he said, but at the same time other stakeholders in the community aren’t required to have training to concealed carry besides what is required to obtain the license.
Curtis refrained from voicing an opinion on whether or not to adopt a rule as the board deliberated but offered to “split hairs" if asked. He did share that he would like a policy that addresses the behavior and responsibilities of teachers who decide to carry, including in an active shooter situation and potential actions the district might take in the event of misuse.
Curtis gave the example that a firearm left unattended where a student had access could likely result in unemployment.
Trustee Lillian Brazelton is OK forgoing a rule, she said, but having a policy is important.
After talking to roughly 40 of the state’s 48 superintendents, Curtis said about 25 districts are looking to adopt a rule while roughly 15 are leaning towards allowing staff to carry without one.
It is Park County School District 1’s interpretation that if a district opts for training the district cannot prescribe for staff more training than what is outlined in the bill; 16 hours of initial training, eight hours of scenario based training and 12 hours of annual firearm qualification and documented recurrent training.
Trustee Ben Borcher said he'd like to see the district provide some sort of reimbursement for optional training, which would be a good incentive for teachers to pursue training if they decide to concealed carry.
“I don't see where the rule is necessary, maybe a policy, depending on sort of what you find regarding our other policies … that's something we can decide later,” Board Chair Kim Dillivan said.
For information future school board meetings and their agendas visit park1public.ic-board.com
It is inexplicable how PCSD1's attorneys and trustees could reach the conclusion that HB 172 prevents the district from prescribing more training in an armed staff program than is prescribed in the bill; the language in the bill says ". . .not less than [the hours shown]. . ." same as in the existing statute from 2017, WS 21-3-132, and school districts in Cody, Gillette, Lander, and Douglas at least have rules in place that require considerably more training than that minimum. As they should.
The requirement for a "rule" vs. a "policy" (a rule has a longer and more formal process for public feedback prior to passage) was a direct outcome of a lawsuit in Evanston that attempted to derail that district's armed staff policy. The district simply went back to square one, restarted the process, adhered to all the requirements for a "rule", passed it a second time and picked up where they left off. That's what happens when a board and administration sees the value of a regulated armed staff program.
Observers of this process should also be aware that since last year, the Wyoming Department of Education has had a fund in place to reimburse districts for many of the costs of maintaining an armed staff program, to include training, ammunition for training and practice, psychological exams and other screening. Lack of funds should not be a disincentive anywhere.
Another correction regarding training is to the suggestion that training is required to obtain "the license," that is the Wyoming Concealed Firearm Permit. That permit requires no training; merely documentation of "familiarity with firearms;" a DD-214 that implies graduation from military basic training, or a hunter safety class or a 4-hour NRA classroom-only course decades ago is enough to meet that requirement. If a permittee pursues training at their own cost, on their own time, that's great, but it's not required for the permit.
And finally, existing district armed staff rules - at least the ones in Cody, Evanston, and Lander where I have been providing training since 2019 - have created no difficulty or increased premiums for liability insurance. In fact the response back in 2018 from Cody's insurer was that properly vetted and trained armed staff would be a net positive, reducing the expected cost of likely settlements in the event of a shooting incident - because it would end sooner with fewer injuries and/or fatalities. District personnel carrying weapons without vetting or required, sufficient training may well change that.