Pubdate: Thu, 18 Oct 2007
Source: Charleston Daily Mail (WV)
Copyright: 2007 Charleston Daily Mail
Contact:  http://www.dailymail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/76
Author: Kelly L. Holleran
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)

DRUG TESTING BACK ON SCHOOL BOARD'S AGENDA

Kanawha County school board members are  still trying to decide 
whether to institute a random  drug testing provision for teachers 
and administrators,  facing the likelihood that the school system 
would wind  up in court over doing so.

Howard Seufer, a Charleston lawyer, told board members  about the 
legal aspects of drug testing public  employees, which all school 
service personnel are  considered. He spoke at a meeting Wednesday night.

There are five different types of drug tests, Seufer said.

The first is legally compelled testing. That means  employers are 
required by federal law to drug test  employees in certain fields of 
work. For example, all  bus drivers are required by law to be drug tested.

Pre-employment testing means employees who are already  hired are 
drug tested before they begin working.

Before employees in the school system can accept a  different job in 
the same system, they must be drug  tested. This applies only to 
those positions that  already drug test employees.

Suspicionless or random testing involves drug testing  those who are 
not under the suspicion of having used  drugs. It can apply to people 
who work in safety  sensitive positions.

Last is reasonable suspicion drug testing. This applies  only to 
employees who employers suspect are using  drugs. Kanawha County 
schools already uses this type of  testing.

The problem school board members face is that no court  or 
jurisdiction in West Virginia has approved or banned  drug testing of 
school employees.

If the board decides to approve its new policy, it  would be the 
first in the state to include random  testing of teachers and administrators.

There is a legal precedent that was established in 1998  in the case 
of Knox County Education Association versus  Knox County Board of 
Education. The Kanawha County  policy is similar to the Knox County 
policy, Seufer  said.

In this Knox case, the court found teachers to be in  safety 
sensitive positions and deemed they were  eligible to be randomly drug tested.

That was in another state, though. West Virginia's  courts would not 
necessarily pass the same ruling.

"It (the drug testing policy) could be fine, but we  just don't 
know," Seufer said. "The law is not clear in  that area. I can't give 
you my rubber stamp. Someone's  got to be the one to go to court. We 
know what the  arguments would be, I think, but we don't know what 
the outcome would be."

Board member Pete Thaw hopes to see the drug testing  policy pass, 
even if the school board is forced to go  to court.

"If teachers are not safety sensitive, then who is?" he  said. 
"Without the teachers, it's drug testing light.

"Somebody's got to stand up and get this thing tested  (in court). We 
had no problem spending $1 million on  Teach First. Why not do it? 
Let's spend some money on  something worthwhile."

But others would like to see a toned-down version of  the policy 
passed, one that does not include the random  testing of teachers.

"I would like to see the policy tweaked," board member  Barbara Welch 
said. "I'm very uncomfortable with us  being a testing ground."

Other board members also seemed hesitant to support a  policy that 
could be shot down in court.

"I think we need to be cautious," board member Becky  Jordon said.

Board member Bill Raglin wants to pass a drug policy,  but only one 
that will last.

"I want to make sure at the end of the day we have  something to 
stand on," he said. "At the very least, we  ought to have post-offer testing."

Board President Jim Crawford is against random drug  testing. "I 
don't want to spend money in court," he  said.

Fred Albert, president of American Federation of  Teachers Kanawha 
chapter, said he opposes drug testing  of teachers.

"You have witnessed first hand that we have a lot of  employees doing 
the correct things," he said. "We do  not have a serious problem 
among staff personnel. I  think our money could be better spent. 
Random drug testing is search and seizure and an invasion of my  privacy."

The policy will be up for public comment for 30 days.

Board members will debate the issue at a December board  meeting.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman