Pubdate: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 Source: Charleston Gazette (WV) Copyright: 2007 Charleston Gazette Contact: http://www.wvgazette.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/77 Author: Anna L. Mallory, Staff Writer Note: Does not print out of town letters. SCHOOL DRUG TESTS INCLUDE TOP OFFICES Kanawha County Proposes Policy A proposed drug testing policy for Kanawha County school employees will include board members and central office workers if it's approved, board members affirmed Thursday. Meanwhile, the former principal whose arrest kick-started discussions about drug testing was found not guilty on misdemeanor drug possession charges in Kanawha County Magistrate Court on Thursday. The Kanawha school board -- and the county's teachers and principals unions -- had been uncertain about administrators' role in the random drug-testing scenario because the policy outlined Thursday did not specifically mention top employees or elected officials. It did specify 36 particular "safety-sensitive" jobs, but also named anyone who drives a county vehicle or their own car more than 10 miles each week. "It's in there if you read the fine print. We all drive for the job," said Superintendent Ron Duerring. "We should have put [everybody] in it." He said those defined were part of other policies pulled from across the nation. Board members, excluding Pete Thaw, said they never planned not to include high-level employees. Thaw had voiced concerns over the policy as worded. The policy, which would subject employees to random testing even without reasonable suspicion of drug use, was kick-started in October after Pratt Elementary Principal David Anderson was charged with possession of cocaine. In Kanawha County Magistrate Court on Thursday, a jury found Anderson not guilty of misdemeanor possession charges. His lawyer, Bill Forbes, said he hoped Anderson would be reinstated in an administrative role in the school system. School board member Barbara Welch said Thursday evening that Duerring confirmed Anderson's acquittal after the meeting. She said he did not give any indication whether Anderson would be reinstated. Welch and board member Becky Jordon said they didn't know about the ruling during Thursday's board meeting. Even so, the two wavered at the meeting on the idea of drug testing, worried about skyrocketing legal fees. "Maybe I overreacted," said Jordon. "I feel that we could be opening a can of worms." She said the test might be best used only for pre-employment purposes. Welch contends the drug policy and the Anderson ruling are two separate issues. Thaw and Bill Raglin said during the meeting the policy must be enacted, but that they'd wait for school board President Jim Crawford to weigh in after a two-month comment period. Crawford said after the meeting he's not dismissing the idea. Teachers say they wish he would and that it's contributing to a downgrade in morale. They worry random testing could create false positives, ruin teachers' reputations and open some of their medical records to public scrutiny if they have to defend a false positive. "And, people might look at you in a different light after that," said Grandview Elementary teacher Debbie Kitchen. "It's none of their business." They point to a similar situation in a neighboring county when a woman tested positive because of a prescription drug, was suspended and then reinstated after she declared the legal drug. The policy, with revisions to include central office workers, will be on comment for two months and the board will review it again. "Oh, we won't abandon it, I can guarantee that," Thaw said after the meeting. In other action Thursday, the board: Decided to move its monthly curriculum meetings to 4 p.m. to accommodate teachers' schedules. The next meeting is set for March 5. Voted 3-2 to grandfather in current coaches who also serve as athletic directors. A new job description approved at an early meeting says that athletic directors cannot be head coaches. Now, when the current director who doubles as a coach steps down, no coach can replace him or her. Raglin said the decision allows employees to "double dip" because they would receive both stipends. - --- MAP posted-by: Elaine