Pubdate: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 Source: Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (TX) Copyright: 2000 Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas Contact: http://www.star-telegram.com/ Forum: http://www.star-telegram.com/comm/forums/ Author: Pam Easton, The Associated Press RESIDENTS DISAPPOINTED IN CHANGES TO DRUG POLICY LOCKNEY, Texas -- Residents in this small West Texas community are upset that a mandatory drug testing policy their school board passed last year had to be revised in the wake of a lawsuit filed by a parent, who claims the policy violates his son's constitutional rights. But even though disappointed by the board's move to lessen the punishment against those who refuse the mandatory test, many in the farming community are glad that, for the most part, the policy remains intact. So intact, that attorneys representing Larry Tannahill say the revisions might be a step in the right direction, but they are in no way a compromise when it comes to 12-year-old Brady Tannahill's federal case against the district. "They are moving inches and they need to move miles," Tannahill's Lubbock attorney, Jeff Conner, said Thursday. "The policy still presumes that the kids are guilty until they are proven innocent." The policy update, approved July 13, suspends those who fail to consent to the mandatory drug test from extracurricular activities. Many residents learned about the policy change before Thursday night's first board meeting of the new school year. Catholic priest Jim McCartney admitted the policy has caused a ripple throughout the community. He tried to joke about it last Sunday and failed. "I said, 'Well, I hope you are ready to go get your drug test the first day of school and nobody laughed."' he said. "They got into something they never dreamed was as volatile as it is, and they thought there would be a quick resolution and there won't be." Superintendent Raymond Lusk and board members hoped the revision would be considered a compromise on their part. "Sometimes you implement a policy and look back at it and say this should have been done this way," he said. "The purpose of this is to settle this (issue) because we have a lot more important things to do as far as the educational process." But that doesn't alleviate the disappointment for many who feel Tannahill and the American Civil Liberties Union have pushed the community into a corner. "I don't think outsiders should come in and dictate what should be done," said Betty Goen, who lives seven miles outside the city of 2,243. "I think the people of Lockney have the right to do whatever they want," she said. "Children are our responsibility not the government's. God gave us those children to raise up in a Christian home and drugs have no business in any Christian community." Lockney resident Preston Belt agrees. He's glad the policy still requires everyone to participate, yet disappointed the board was "pushed" into changing it. But the revised version of the policy isn't any more constitutional than the first, because it targets everyone, Conner said. "A resonable resolution would be to do what the Constitution of the United States requires, which would be to have some suspiscion that a student is using drugs before requiring them to submit to a drug test," he said. In March, the ACLU asked the board to totally eliminate or at least refine its policy to comply with the Constitution. The board decided not to act on the motion, upholding its original policy and denying Tannahill's appeal of his son's punishment for not consenting to the drug test. For not participating, Brady was punished as if he had tested positive for drugs: a 21-day suspension from extracurricular activities, at least three days' in-school suspension and three sessions of substance abuse counseling, as required by the original policy. Many of those in attendance at the March meeting spoke out in support of the policy. They wore red and white shirts that stated, "We asked for it, LISD delivered it, We appreciate it." Wayland Baptist University business professor and Lockney parent Bobby Hall was among those wearing a shirt in support of the policy last March. Despite his support of the original policy, he thinks the board legally made the right decision by changing it. "I'm sure that many people, including those on the school board, are disappointed to change the policy," Hall said. "But sometimes you must do things you don't necessarily want to do, and in this case it would not be prudent to ignore legal counsel." - --- MAP posted-by: John Chase