001Why? Uh do we have anyone online? Just no. Okay. So, this will be feel weird about having the microphone on when no one's online, but uh we'll just record anyway >> in case someone shows up. Yeah. Good point. >> Okay. I'd like to call the FMAP County School District number one board of trustees uh special meeting to order for to order business. As always, pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with justice for all. Thank you. Uh board member roll call. Everyone's here except uh for Trusty Jacobs. She is over at the fair and her uh her kids are showing right now. So she wasn't able to to attend. Uh like to get
002a motion for the adoption of our one agenda ite. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? I I >> any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. So, we are here. Just want to uh go over um some specifics of what's happening tonight because frankly it's just a little bit confusing as to what exactly all this has been about. So, Mike and I have gone through a couple meetings. I've talked with Mr. Copiki uh and then uh we talked again today. I'm just trying to nail down exactly what's going to happen. So, currently CKA um which is our concealed carry uh policy is in place. Okay. The question tonight is whether A to amend CKA or B or B to repeal CKA entirely. Okay. So, the amendment of CKA, what does that mean? That would remove all sections
003no longer permitted under state law, which includes district getting permission, right? Right now, we have to give permission. We can't do that. Uh things like psychological evaluations and drug testing. And uh it would leave our required training pretty much as is, very similar to how it's been in the past. Um and optionally at the district's discretion pay for training for uh employees that do want to carry. If we say no tonight and we don't pass these rules, so this is a rules change, then that essentially kills CKA entirely um along with all of the requirements that it currently has. So uh it's the default if we vote no on his amendments amending CKA um and the reason would be is the policy is in violation state statute so CK go away um it would result
004in the only requirements of teachers and staff who carry to number one keep firearm with them at all times and two possess a valid CCW. So, those are sort of our two options. Um, two options with one vote. If we vote yes to a mandite, we'll be presented with follow-up policies next meeting that deal with the CKA-R provisions, which will need to be in most cases eliminated um because they deal with things like the psychological um and in some cases amended. If we vote no tonight, those regula those regulations would be dismissed right along with CK. Anyone clear on that? >> Okay. Um, just because I think it's important for us to understand if we don't pass these, I want to talk a little bit briefly about what C the CCW training currently is because
005if we if we say no tonight, then we fall back on those on CC trainings. that they're offered. Wyoming law requires to get a CCW. Wyoming law requires you to show familiarity with firearm by satisfying at least one following. Completion of any certified firearm safety or training course utilizing instructors certified by the NRA or Wyoming law enforcement academy. Or B, completion of any law enforcement firearm safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division of law enforcement or security enforcement. I think that I think you'll be okay in that case. >> I'm covered. >> Okay. Uh C. experience with firearm through participation in an organized handgun shooting competition or military service. D, completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state certified or
006NRA association certified firearm instructor. Or E, be certified as proficient in firearm safety by any Wyoming law enforcement agency under the procedures established by the agency or F honorable retirement as a federal or state police officer doesn't tenure service and you have to provide proof of those items. Okay. So tonight's procedures want a chance uh to give the board of trustees to speak on the topic each of us to to speak. Then we'll have public comment then we'll enterain entertain the motion. Um the motion got some language here I think that that would be appropriate for that. Uh which I will have followup or script discussion and we'll journ. >> Yeah. >> Does that sound good to everyone? >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. So with that, I'd like to open it up to a
007general discussion of the topic. >> Mr. Chair, I just want to ask a clarifying question to make sure I understand. Um, if we want to if we vote yes tonight, any discussion of what is actually in the policy or the amendment to the policy will not be until our next board meeting. Is that >> No, tonight we have the rules in place. Uh those those are in the C uh CKA rule um that has been attached to the agenda on board docs. This is a document that Eileen and I both reviewed and had a little bit of feedback on. Um and if we vote yes tonight, these would be um adopted. There would be a little bit of followup just cleanup that would we need to do for the day. >> Perfect. Thank you for
008clarifying. >> Y Mr. Chair, are are you willing or would you be able to kind of summarize what uh the district council had had emailed about concerning u both sides of potential liability issues? >> I I can try. Um in words, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. in a phrase. I mean, I think that's what I got out of his email. Honestly, to to my reading of it, this is so new and a little bit um indetermined in terms of exactly how this is going to fall out statewide. I don't think anyone's really comfortable as far as um where the liability is going to to end or wind up. As a great example of that, I I asked about, you know, can we or is it advisable for us to pay
009for training? Uh well, if we're going to require training, you know, it should be pretty safe for us to to pay for training. It's like, well, maybe, maybe not. You know, on one hand, it's it's great because you can you can show to the to the jury or the judge that you have, you know, required all this this amazing training. And on the other hand, the other side will say, but that's clearly you clearly did not require enough training for this incident to happen. Right? So to me that was the perfect dichotomy of of both sides are are neither a win nor a loss. Um I don't know does that kind of answer your question Scott? I mean I >> Yeah, a little bit. So, there's there's there's potential liability um if if uh somebody's
010carrying in our schools and and does something inappropriate with a weapon, endangering students or causing harm to somebody um without cause. And so then we could maybe uh get get sued um on that front. And if we don't have rules in place, maybe that increases our liability. And then on the other hand, if we do have rules in place, uh potentially we're violating the rights of of staff or volunteers and they might sue us for infringing upon their rights to carry and they could sue us. And so the lawyers have said, "Good luck." That's kind of what he So, so as I look at that liability, I then that leaves me to think, okay, so which which scenario is more likely to occur? So, I'm fairly confident that we have some number of staff that
011are going to want to avail themselves of the opportunity to carry in school because we already did. So, um I'm sure some of those folks will want to continue. I'm sure there are others maybe when there are fewer hoops to jump through that will also want to carry in school. Um so, so there are people that are going to want to do that. Um, so then you have to weigh that with what are the chances that one of those people uh causes an incident that causes harm uh to a student. Far less likely. I think it's hard to know that. My guess would be far less likely. Um I know there are lots of districts in the state. I don't know the numbers. Um but there are a lot of districts that have just opted
012for the path of wait and see. So they're not implementing rules. they're just going to wait and kind of let this uh let this new law shake out maybe over the next year and see uh what happens. Maybe there'll be a little bit more clarity. Um you know, heaven forbid, but well, maybe maybe something happens in our district where um some member of staff does sue a district that made uh that made rules and that work itself through the courts and we can see what happens and then then we have a better data point um on how we should proceed. So to me, I I feel like the prudent the prudent thing to do here is to just wait and see and not enact any any rules. Let CKA uh lapse and let the law
013take effect. Uh let the law control uh who's allowed to do what um and maybe wait a year and see um and let somebody else be the um let some other district be the be the one to bear the burden of some lawsuit rather than us. That's what I would like to see happen. Mr. Chair, do you have any idea about potential changes in liability insurance costs? >> Uh, Mr. Harris, have you heard of anything? >> U, Mr. Chair, M. Bruno, I don't believe our liability insurance changed. We're already a district that allows personnel to carry. I don't think there would be an impact. Although some other districts have gotten different advice from their their insurance carriers. I like the legislature didn't >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Would it be okay for me to share
014some information? You said Mr. Johnson's point about what other districts are >> Absolutely. Okay. Um, so Mr. suggestion, you'd mentioned what other districts are doing and I think several of the districts superintendents have chimed in on what they're doing just and we have a shared board where we share information on different topics. And when I looked into this last time I looked at it, 33 of the 48 school districts had chimed in on what they're planning to do. Um, seven districts of the 33 are creating or amending rules in this area. Nine are creating policies. So, they're making some distinction between a rule and a policy. um which is interesting because the statute says rules but anyway uh four of the 33 say they're doing neither and then 13 of the respondents left the question
015blank so they haven't decided or their boards have not decided what their official position is and on the question of training this was an interesting split but 21 of the 33 districts that responded said they are planning to provide some form of training for staff in Mr. carry um whether voluntary or required and the hours for that training vary they vary widely from district to district from a low of 16 to up to 63 hours for initial training. Most of those respond respondents said they had a requirement for a split between live fire and scenario based training. Um of these 21 districts, eight mentioned recurrent training, so either annual or semianual retraining. So, you've got the additional down. 12 of the 33 said they're not planning to provide training, including three that require staff to
016be trained as part of their proposed policy rules. So, those three, I don't know, trying to have it both ways a little bit with the training requirement, but uh they're they're all over the place. I think every district's kind of, you know, going with their gun on it, but determining the final outcome of how that will go in terms of potential liability, I think, is anybody's guess. Sure. Um, so if we I mean we can't tell somebody they can't care. Correct. So I mean where would our liability and how could we get sued if they have the lender and they care? We don't have punishments right outlined. We don't have suspensions. We don't have anything against them. So what would what would they be the litigation be? I guess would be my question. >> Mr.
017Chair, Miss Farms, I actually asked our attorney that question and his his thought was that the line of reasoning that that council might bring would be that the school district or trustees in each school district had the opportunity to adopt rules and regulations to govern employees in this area but chose not to. So the legislature left that open, but the board didn't do it. So he could see that as a possible means of um you know that argument against the district. He didn't have I don't know how much water that would hold, but that was district. >> U Mr. Chair, Mr. Jensen, um I wanted to respond to your statements, Mr. Jensen and say first off I agree wholeheartedly legally and I think we are unfortunately balancing or looking at the potential likelihood of the
018cost of a lawsuit versus hopefully never the cost of a life. And for that reason only, I think I disagree with you because I'm willing to take on the risk of a lawsuit versus the risk of someone having slightly less training and that being the difference in how they respond um in a nightmare scenario and how effectively they respond. And so I'm an advocate of adopting the rule um that we have here in place in order to enhance our training with the hope that with more training we are less less likely to have a scenario that leads to a lawsuit. Um could potentially open us up for a lawsuit more but hopefully it also makes it less likely that we are losing an individual. >> Yeah, Mr. Sure. Well, we'd have to we'd have to
019balance that with um well, so I was a I was a strong supporter of our original CKA policy, although I wasn't on the board when that was passed. Um uh I'm I feel very strongly that the more competent adults we have uh prepared to confront a threat in our schools, uh the less loss of life there would be um if we were to have an active shooter in one of our buildings. That's that's borne out um consistently. active shooters um uh will their their their reign of terror will stop when they're confronted with violence and you need uh you need uh the sooner that can happen uh the fewer people die and so police we can wait for police to respond or we can have some number of people in the buildings that are that
020are ready to respond with that violence if it was necessary and so I would like to see more competent adults armed in our buildings the the likelihood that one of those adults is going to harm our children um is is pretty remote. And and the fact is um any number of our staff could walk into any of our buildings armed at any time and could have done so. Um whether we have a rule or a policy, whether this law exists or doesn't exist, um they all have access. They're trusted adults. We've hired them and and given them um we we've trusted them with their children. So these the teachers in our buildings, the staff in our building, um we've already we've already vetted these people and we trust them with our kids. And if we
021don't trust them with our kids, we need to fire them because they they're not trustworthy. And so, um, I expect when I send my kids to school, I expect the teacher in their classroom is going to that they are going to protect my children. And were there an active shooter in the building, I would expect that teacher uh to protect the students um in their classroom, the students in the hallways. And that may mean barricading the door and not letting anybody else in. uh hopefully if it's somebody that's confident, prepared, and willing, uh they'll confront that shooter with violence. And um and so the more the more opportunity for that to happen, uh the fewer lives would be lost. And so I'm I'm not as concerned, uh with with uh some sort of accidental discharge
022or something like that in a school setting. I mean, you'd have to be highly incompetent uh with a gun for that to for that to happen. It's a it's a fairly trivial matter to conceal carry a weapon and just have it concealed um daytoday. Uh you're you're unlikely to know that somebody's carrying if they're doing it properly. There are plenty of people uh that do that in our community and you have no idea u because they're just uh they're just carrying that weapon and and and nobody's the wiser. And that's generally what will be happening um in our schools. Members of the public are going to come into our building. uh they're going to come into our athletic events. Now, uh we're not betting any of those folks and um nobody's hopefully nobody's going to
023know they're carrying either. Uh for there to be an accidental discharge, particularly one that harms somebody, uh that that's I guess I don't know what all of our rules and policies are, but if we have a teacher that negligently harms a student uh through their actions, we're going to discipline that teacher. >> Is that is that fair to say, Mr. Harris? um and and depending on what harm they cause, they're going to be fired and they may face criminal charges for for that sort of negligence. And um that that would be the case now still. So I I'm not particularly concerned about some sort of um um mishap or accident that that's going to happen. Um the bigger concern to me is is an active shooter, although very remote that that would ever happen here.
024Um it could um you know we just saw the incident in New York was that yesterday day before um you know that he took out he took out the the onearmed person there the police officer shot him in the back. He never had a chance and nobody else was able to stop him unfortunately he stopped himself. Um but uh had somebody there been prepared to answer him with violence they could have stopped that sooner and that's what I would want to happen in our buildings is for that to be be ended sooner. Not not at the shooters's request but at somebody else's. Anyway, thank you. >> I've been wrestling with this one. This one's not an easy one for me. I think what this comes down to me is balance. So, we're trying to balance
025a few things. I think first one is we we're trying to balance budget here, right? And um if we pay, if we require train and we don't pay, then to me that becomes a barrier of entry for someone who wants to kill it. I think it's probably a unreasonable barrier barrier entry for someone given the amount we're we're requiring. It's it's pretty steep. Trains drains a lot. And if we do pay um then we have this clause in there that says at some point it's up to the district's discretion as to how far we go. We have to have that because if we had half the district that wanted to carry it, we'd that'd be so expensive. So, so now we have one group of people that we're paying for, one group of people we're
026not paying for. I'm not sure how well that's going to going to work. Uh, and I think it's going to create some difficult decisions for Mr. Harris have to make a or has the potential to create a difficult situation. So to me that is one part of the balance that I'm struggling with. The other part that I'm balance I'm struggling with is safety right and it's it's really having more people in the building that can carry which in the case just as Scott very well articulated um would be to districts and our students advantage um versus training and the more training that people have the less likely it is that some mishap takes place. So that's the balance that I'm going off of. I I did look at for me one of the great mile
027posts in this debate the state of Utah and the state of Utah and since 2004 all teachers and all staff have been able to carry with no restriction. So much so that the schools not even um they're prohibited from requiring whether anyone says is a CCW. Um, and in by 2019 estimates from the NCES, the digestive education statistics in Utah's concealed firearm board, somewhere between 5% uh of 30,000 teachers or about 1500 teachers carry daily at Utah and somewhere between 10 and 12% of 30,000 or 31,000 support staff or about 3,000 support staff carry daily. So we're talking about approximately 4,500 teachers or staff that carry every single day. And since 2004, so that's 21 years, they've had one one significant incident. That incident was um where a a lady happened to be a woman,
028it could happen to anyone, went and they sat down on a toilet and as she sat down, the gun discharged. She did not shoot herself in the leg. Contrary to popular belief, the porcelain broke and the porcelain cut her. So that was her injury. She aidy cut is what happened to this this poor lady. So um how'd you like to have that on your teaching background? Uh anyway, one incident. So, relative to that data point, I think it it's I'm not as worried about the training. Now, in Utah, it's a little bit different. All applicants have to complete an in-person firearm familiarity course taught by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification, uh, certified instructor. It's mandatory before applying and no training is accepted online. So, that sounds a lot, but it's four hours and it's
029actually not even um at the range. It's like a classroom setting, right? And really, they go over safe handling firearms, firearms from nilarity, I can't say the word. Utah plus federal firearm laws, use of force fire laws, things like that. So really the training for their CCW isn't I think that much more significant than our requirements given what I read earlier. So I don't know when I when I look at that I think Utah's a pretty good example of of not implementing that additional those additional restrictions. But again, it's a balance and I know that the district um through my extreme recommendations has been to offer that training and I understand that the want and need as a district to administrator to have that data and have that assuredness. So it's a tough one for
030me. It's not straightforward. >> You sure? >> Uh sure, Mr. Kale. Thank you. Just just so the board is aware, the state did establish a fund for school districts to apply for funds to reimburse or cost expended on training for personnel who carry skill. Um, we've looked into that. We don't have any any dollars back yet what we've submitted. I don't know how legislation will continue to allocate that funding, but it is out there as something that exists right now. districts that are already have staff carrying. >> Do they have a limit on how much per person that is? >> I I don't think, Mr. Chair, I don't think there is a a cap set on it right now. I think they're just kind of waiting to see what does the what a districts have
031and what's the what's the demand, so to speak, and they'll see if that allocation's at whether it needs to be adjusted up or down. Okay. >> What do you guys think? Should we do public comment now and then we can go ahead. >> I just want to quickly say like just under the um training under B that is school specific. That's the one the 16 hours of scenario that like I think that that's highly unfortunate to have in a situation that school specific and I hope our our local law enforcement will be a part of that. and what they're communicating with people. place. So, I mean, that's the thing that I get concerned about is we have people carrying conceal that we don't know and we have an emergency on our campus and now there's
032somebody walking around with a gun gum and we have law enforcement responding. Like, how is that like? So, I think there needs to be some training for that as well. Like, how are we going to communicate that and keep people safe? Keep our staff very safe. I mean, it's it's because it also becomes a light. Mr. Harris, how how embedded has local law enforcement been with folks that are getting trained today? >> Mr. Chair, they're they're a key part of it. Um, every time there's a scenario based training in our school district, the Lander PD is invited. Um, the county sheriffs are invited and um, that other personnel come to because you never know which jurisdiction for which agency is going to be responding. In our in our town, it could be federal, it could
033be tribal, it could be county, it could be, municipality. um any number of different federal agencies, marshals, all kinds of people could show up that call goes out. Um so that is something that um our consultant that kind of arranges those trainings, Mr. Swint, I think puts that out to all those those folks and says, "Hey, these are dates. This is the location and the turnout um is generally pretty strong, but we'd always love to have more like especially our LPD and our county sheriffs. But are they always show up at least some of them? >> But do our local zil carry folks do they participate? >> Mr. Chair, absolutely that's a requirement. So in order to be under the current CKA in order to maintain your to carry you have to participate in 16
034hours of scenario uh based training as an initial and then six hours of scenario based training and six hours of live fire every six months. So the requirements that are in this this proposed rule are exactly those that are in the existing CK right now. >> Yeah. U Mr. Chair, I just think that training enhances competency. I I see the addition of these rules as potentially problematic costwise perhaps in limiting people that may think, "Oh, I want to do this," but then might take a second look at the training requirements and maybe judge themselves lacking um in the skills that they need. like you have an exceptional background um and there are probably very few people out there Scott who have a background that rivals yours. Um so if a series of rules can just
035maybe make people think and give pause and consider what they have and maybe they will work to acquire those skills. Um I think that this perform or or can act as a very um appropriate mechanism for just um putting a short pause on the process and making people really consider whether they have the skills that we need for them to be bringing a gun into our school around our children. part part of that's the you and we listen to all those were there like 10 different ways you could qualify for a concealed carry permit in Wyoming but all of them the nature of those was you needed to demonstrate some basic competence with a firearm right that was that was the overarching theme so you either had some military experience you had law enforcement training
036you had passed a course uh conducted by the NRA or some other group that could uh that could meet those requirements so the that's that's the base requirement for the concealed carry permit is that you have to demonstrate some level of competence. Um so you've already done that if you have the permit, right? And that's what other people are going to have that are coming into our buildings. They will have demonstrated that competence. The second piece is um are you willing to take on the the burden um of of carrying that weapon in a school. So, if you're a teacher or a member of staff um and and you decide to to do that, presumably you're you're assessing yourself as competent because you've sought out a concealed carry permit and you're probably concealed carrying other
037places in the community throughout your life, just not when you come to work because you couldn't till now. Um and you're also willing to take on the risk of if I have to respond to something, there's additional burden there. Um I take on that burden, right? So, if I'm if I'm in some building and I'm dressed like this and I have to respond to to somebody that's threatening other people's lives, um I know police are going to show up and they're not going to know who I am, right? I have to be I have to have thought through that and what am I going to do so I don't get shot or maybe I do get shot um while I'm saving somebody else's life. Uh that's that's a burden that those anybody that conceal carries
038um has already thought about that. That's part of why they they conceal carry. Um there could be any number of reasons. Many people do it because they want to be in a position to preserve somebody else's life or their own or their families. Um and so they're they're considering those things and they're willing to take on that burden um and that risk which is going to be there. Um so yeah, more training is great and and we would wish everybody could have the maximal amount whatever it is. But um presumably these are people that have demonstrated some some degree of confidence because they qualify for the permit and and we can want more. But I would want I want more uh competent adults that we already trust. We vetted folks. Um I want more of
039them willing uh to be armed in our schools so that they're in a position to defend our kids if needed. We move into public comment. We can come back and doesn't cut our discussion up. All right. Is there any public comment on this this evening? Okay. Uh just as um we'll implement two minutes tonight. >> It won't take two minutes. >> I'm Melissa Duncan. I just think you guys have an incredibly difficult decision that you're facing and I thought I looked at some facts with regards across the country in terms of liability and things that you may want to consider that across the country once you have people that are armed staff or volunteers. They're viewed differently by the law at sometimes and they're in their authoritative roles they are sometimes viewed as police. So
040that opens your district to um excessive force claims, uh civil rights violations, and injury and death claims. Now, that's something, you know, lawsuits, you you already know how intimately expensive lawsuits are, but that's just something that you might want to consider. Luckily in Wyoming, you have some protections against some of those lawsuits, but you don't have you are still not insulated from some federal lawsuits that would regard that sort of stuff. And I think that's just important to understand. Also, you know, I think training is absolutely essential. Um because we look at law enforcement across the country and their hit rate in terms of their target when they hit the target generally is 22 to 53%. And their injuries up to 27% from ricochets from shrapnel of bullets and things like that. So I think
041the training you have such a difficult decision but if you if you avoid the training I think you're going to be in in a lot of trouble. I think that you could also take that training beyond when I worked in the prison system. I taught for years the natural response control techniques and I think if you have all your staff trained of if there is someone you know that has has a gun has a knife it's not a it's not a fun thing to think that you're going to have to go up against that unarmed but there are techniques and I think that you could train all your staff in having those response techniques and that would make safer for your staff um as well as your kids. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi
042Sarah Riley. Um just a couple of um concerns that that I was thinking about. Um I know that uh Chairman Kale is concerned about the possible expense of training. Um and if Wyoming for our district follows the trend of 5% of staff who carry as in Utah, that's really not that much of an expense. I don't see staff uh clamoring to become um concealed carry staff. If they haven't done it already, they're not going to do it now. Um, so I really don't think that that's a valid um reason to not have this policy in place. I think there's also a huge difference between some competency and proficiency. We don't ask the kid who got a two in biology to become our surgeon. We ask the kid who got a four. So, we need to
043remember that when we're allowing staff to carry weapons. They need to be as well trained as possible. Um, the other concern I have is when you all put out the notice to the public that this meeting was happening, you said that there were proposed changes to the policy. You did not tell anybody that the policy would disappear if you didn't vote on it tonight. And I think that that is sneaky and underhanded and absolutely unprofessional. So, I want you to keep in mind that there might be some legal violations to the open meetings policy if you choose to scrap this policy altogether without informing the community. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. >> Do we have other discussion before we want to I I Mr. Chairman? >> Um I just I think about it maybe a
044little different than some people because of my years as a as a classroom instructor. Um, and when we would have drills for for potential active shooters in school or intruders, whatever the case is. Um, it it it's it's a pretty terrifying thing when you when you're sitting in the school and you know nobody has the same ability to fight as the guys that are coming in to fight you. And and that puts you at a definite uh difficult situation. Uh I think that the the policy that was put together by the previous board uh did an outstanding job of having the correct kind of requirements um all the way through that policy. there was people that that wanted to carry that that for whatever reason uh ended up not being able to carry and that
045was probably a good call based on the system that was provided by the direction of of of the school board and how this would be handled. So then we're we're sitting here today trying to talk about how we're going to amend it. Um how we're going to change it. Um whether we're going to get sued or not sued. If if we have uh armed teachers and people know that our school has people that are carrying it, the bad guys are going to be far less apt to come in the door of one of our schools in my opinion. And if that's what it takes to save lives of of of our kids, um I am all for it. I agree that people need to be trained and I think the more training that they can
046get, the better if we can provide that for our folks. Um, that's great. Um, but I also understand the complexity that's thrown into the decision with some of the stuff that the state of Wyoming has done and the way that they've changed that and dictated. I I really wish they would have read our policy first and then maybe gone with that as a statewide requirement because that would have worked >> and it would be really easy, clean, neat and the right people would be carrying the people that are and I shouldn't say right the people that are mentally prepared to carry would be carrying and and I'm a I'm a Navy brat. My brother's a soldier. Um his kids is one of his boys is a soldier. Um, I grew up in a military family,
047highly competent with firearms, those kind of things. If id still been teaching, I'd have been one of the teachers probably Carrie and no one would know. Um, because I'd be willing to protect my fellow colleagues and dang sure willing to protect the kids of our community, right? But it's a scary deal as a teacher when you have practice active shooter things and because some school at somewhere had a a crazy person come in and shoot kids and teachers and that sort of thing and we'd have active shooting drills at the school and then we would do that then we're supposed to go back to work. It's like right other stuff to think about. But we got to protect our kids. That that's that's my biggest thing. I'm going to support whatever we need to do
048to be able to protect our kids. This is why my two girls, we said whenever if there was a shooter that came in, go to McConnell's class. >> I probably not supposed to say that. >> Protect them. >> Thank you. >> Comments. >> Mr. Chair, I wanted to share one more thought, which is the quote that heroes don't rise to the occasion, they fall to the level of their training. And while I for example have the utmost respect for someone who has participated in professional shooting competitions, I bet they have phenomenal accuracy, that is not the same as having training in how to manage or mitigate risk within a school building when there are bystanders and students and police and maybe other people armed. And so would just advocate for there's more to training and
049accuracy of how well you can shoot in schools or unique environment that concealed carry permit holders may not all have training in even if they have great and phenomenal training. Fair enough. >> You know, I just um you know the uh Miss Duncan's comment about law enforcement hit rate of 22 to 53%. I've heard that stat. I I don't doubt that's that's accurate. Um shooting in a in a real uh hostile situation, particularly where you're getting uh where you're maybe taking rounds as well. Um that's that's a difficult position to be in. And I would guess that uh um teachers who would be less trained um although you would be shocked to know how much little training law enforcement officers actually get um with firearms. Uh but uh they probably would have a a significantly
050less success rate in hitting their target. Um, but in the instance of an active shooter, um, I'd be happy if a teacher had a 10% accuracy rate. Um, if they could put one or two rounds in that in that active shooter, um, if it took him 20 tries to do it, um, thank goodness they had 20 chances and they hit twice. Um, I'll take the I'll take the 10%. Um, if they can save if they can save lives. Um that's uh that's that's far preferable uh than than trying to confront an active shooter disarmed um is a terrible situation to be in >> and yeah there are things you can maybe try and die is one of them. >> It is terrible but give your staff that chance to have that training do it for
051free for you. >> Yeah far far better if you can confront that shooter um with the proper tools. You know, the interesting thing about the hit rate discussion because we had this conversation quite a bit during the CKA discussion uh is that's right. I mean, the stat statistics do show that it's somewhere in 25%. Which is uh was quoted off quoted during CK. You know, 25% terrible. But you know what the hit rate of the average school shooter was? 48%. >> Practice. 48. Now, these guys don't practice on the rage. They don't have training. They're sitting in front of their Xbox, right? Boom, boom, boom, with their Xbox. So, what was it? What made the difference? They didn't have any confrontation, right? They sat there with kids in a school, in a classroom, powering under
052desks, stationary targets, and God, I'm surprised it wasn't 80%. Right. I mean, it's it's a testament to their lack of training for the fact that it was it was only 48%. Now, when we think of our cops, why do they have only 25%. Well, >> they're getting shot at. They're trying to retreat or they're trying to advance. They're shooting behind a car. They're shooting offhanded. They may have been wounded, right? So, what we really need to see in those situations is the same problem. We we need these school shooters to be under that same stress that our cops are and watch that 48% go down to 0%. That's what we're going to see. >> So, how else do you illustrate? >> I have I have not done it. I've read all about it. But I
053don't >> makes it be a hard target like it teaches the kids. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I I >> not to hide >> hard hard target or even you know when at the last ditch effort you're calling chairs or whatever it is that you're doing that's still a whole level different than having someone down the hall firing at 91. Any other discussion? Okay. So what I need to get I think this would be the and if we need to if you guys need to change this feel free but this is what I would suggest. I would entertain a motion to accept the training requirement set forth to amend uh to amend and eliminate sections not applicable under state law to require those employees with a valid CCW permit that choose to carry in the district
054meet specified training requirements and provide for funding for training at the discretion district. Unless for the paper, >> you could just do so moved if you'd like. However, you can >> so move. >> Okay, >> thanks. Sorry, I was >> perfectly fine. >> I can I stumbled a little bit on that. Uh, entertainment. So the motion is to accept the training requirements set forth to amend and to eliminate sections not applicable under state law to require those employees with valid CCW permit that choose to carry in the district meet specified training requirements and provide for funding for training at the at the discretion of the district. Um, and all of that, of course, is to uh spelled out in more detail without having to read the entire thing um in the attached rule. Is that
055fair, Mike? Does that work for you? >> Sure. Yes, I do. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Any further discussion on this? Any further discussion? >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. All those opposed. Motion carries. >> Okay. >> U Mr. Jared, I was just going to remind the board after this vote that there are some other ancillary policies that were part that were associated with the previous CKA rule that will be up for uh deletion. See those at the regular meeting in August. >> Okay. >> Around the psychological testing and things like that, firearm applications and things like that. So, >> is there I'm sorry >> that'll be coming. Yes. Is there any additional information that we need to consider in terms of uh paying for some of this
056training or are we pretty well set with the language that's in here currently? >> Um Mr. Chair, members of the board, the wording that's in there, I'm not paying for training. Um and that would be on the third page under funding. Um that is Mr. Picky's language to just basically give the district some leeway on what to what we could pay for or may pay for. Um we'll kind of see once this becomes uh known among the staff that this is open to any employee without any of supervisor approval or psychological testing or anything like that. We'll see what the demand is. Um for this first year, I feel pretty confident that with the reimbursement fund the legislature has, we should have some some funding to cover. I would guess if the Utah experience follows
057here, we would be able to cover those those additional requests for additional training. >> Okay. I would think. >> Yeah. >> Um, one one question for you. Does this I was a little confused at what the the definition of a volunteer is. Does this co this covers volunteers. Is that correct? Or is that not threatened? >> Mr. Chair, that is correct. So up above on the first page of the amended rule, volunteer is defined there as any person who provides time, support, or assistance of any kind for the benefit of a student or students of the district or a class. Um, so it could be someone who's accompanying the children to South Pass City for a field trip. They're with the school, maybe not an employee, uh, but a volunteer. Seems to be that there's
058some a little bit of gray area with that one. Yeah, there could be volunteers to volunteers. >> Mr. Chair, Miss Harms. Yes. So, a person who's going to volunteer at the school would be they'd have a fingerprint background check. Even if they're going to just, you know, read to children like Anique or something, they'd still have to go through those processes. The volunteers I think about are the the parents that help out with the concession, you know, or something like that. Is that truly a volunteer when threequarters of their time spent in the stands or not? Those are those are the greatest. Yeah, that that definition is very broad. You know, you're on the property to deliver food, supplies, or materials. Yeah, >> it could be just about anybody. Is that what Pepsi guy feels
059machine? And uh and I guess there's a question and I think I raised this before. Does that where does that leave or if if one of us for example wanted to carry uh we don't have any other ability to do so right are we volunteers are we elected officials that that was one of the questions I had. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I don't know the answer to that question. It's a great question because employee doesn't seem to encompass board members by this definition. >> Volunteer as part of >> uh volunteer doesn't talk about board either. So there must be some other category >> or maybe member of the public where you're not subject to you're an elected official as a member of the public. You're just like any other member of the public under the
060city statute and allowed to carry. All right. Anything else we need to cover tonight? Upcoming events and reminders. August 18th, the welcome back assembly for all district staff. What time is that? >> That' be 8:00 in the morning right and early. >> Wow. All right. Well, we'll see everyone there. All right, I think with that we'll return. Thank you. >> Don't forget to sign out. >> Yeah.