Park County School District 1 is creating a policy outlining the responsibilities of district staff who choose to conceal carry a firearm.

The draft policy, formed at the advice of the district’s attorney Scott Kolpitcke, has not been voted on or submitted for first reading.

Kolpitcke advised the district to adopt a policy outlining responsibilities and providing definitions of concealed and open carry to staff. The draft references House Bill 172, which was passed last session and will go into effect July 1. The policy “essentially says if you’re going to carry, you’re going to do so responsibly and if you’re not responsible you could be disciplined,” Superintendent Jay Curtis said. 

The policy, as it stands, says staff are allowed to discharge their firearm only if they reasonably fear for their life, the lives of others or there is a “danger of serious bodily injury,” and contains language prohibiting students from concealed carrying a firearm. Disciplinary action against students who do carry could go as far as expulsion. It also clarifies open carry is not allowed, reinforcing federal law prohibiting open carry in schools. 

Kolpitcke informed Curtis they needed something on the books because existing laws do not cover every scenario — if a teacher were to leave a firearm in a bathroom for example, Curtis told the board. 

“We would have zero ability to hold them accountable, not by law, not by our policies,” Curtis said. 

In May, the PCSD1 school board decided to forgo a rule, a formal and lengthy process which would have allowed the board the ability to mandate some training to staff through the rule and a policy. The board opted instead to comply with HB-172 without enforcing a rule to mandate training, giving staff the same rights as members of the public. At this meeting the board discussed a guiding policy that would allow them options in the event disciplinary action has to be taken against an employee. 

Around the state, districts are figuring out what the definitions of open and concealed carry are. Debates include: If a bulge visible through clothing, which could be considered printing, is it still concealed carry?

“It’s kind of humorous, when I reached out to the PD and they asked DCI what their interpretation was, they said, ‘Open carry can see firearm. Concealed carry can’t see firearm,'” Curtis said.

The policy is simple, and in his opinion doesn’t discourage anyone from carrying, Curtis told the board, “I don’t think it makes it difficult for anyone, it just makes it clear.”

If employees are negligent in the handling of the firearm or don’t follow the policy, they are subject to disciplinary action that could go up to termination, one section of the policy says.

Board Chair Kim Dillivan asked if this wording would include a scenario in which an employee leaves a firearm unattended in the bathroom. Dillivan said he knows Kolpitcke likes to use generalities in policy language, but the statement about negligence can cover a lot of different things. 

Curtis brought Northwest College’s recently adopted policy to the board meeting to discuss whether or not the board would want to include language that lines out liability, such as the college’s policy does, while not getting as specific, to which the board agreed.

Curtis said he does not want to discourage or make the process difficult for anyone; he just wants a common sense policy in place.

“You’ve heard me say, a million times, we’re in the people business, the people business is messy and people make mistakes,” he said. “I don’t want to throw the book at someone who makes a simple mistake, but also [doing] nothing is not a good response when someone is negligent with something as serious as a firearm.”