Source: Seattle Times Contact: Pubdate: 25 Nov 1997 Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/ CHONG JOINS FORCES TO PASS DRUG POLICY by Susan Byrnes Seattle Times staff reporter Just three weeks after his loss to Mayorelect Paul Schell, Seattle City Councilman Charlie Chong did something his opponents and even some colleagues had said he couldn't do: He teamed up with two other council members to introduce a major piece of legislation and helped pass it. The resolution, cosponsored by Councilwomen Tina Podlodowski and Martha Choe, directs a sweeping revision of the city's drugtesting policy, narrowing the classes of new employees who must undergo the tests. The council passed the resolution yesterday 53. Passage of the measure was a quiet victory for Chong, who opposed the city's drugtesting policy from his first day on the job, but was quickly branded a naysayer. In his year on the council, Chong opposed the status quo, even when it meant winding up on the losing end of 81 votes, but less frequently offered viable alternatives. "If he had done this all year, it would've been different," Podlodowski said. "Look at all the people who came together." Chong said that personal animosities on the council had made it difficult for him to sponsor legislation in the past and that issues he encountered chairing the personnel committee were fairly narrow. Still, he downplayed the notion that yesterday's drugpolicy revision marked a milestone. "I've worked with other people steadily," said Chong, who gave up his seat to run for mayor and will leave office at the end of December. "To say I don't get along with people is really not fair." Chong's aide, Matthew Fox, who helped write the resolution, wondered whether politics played a role, making some colleagues less inclined to work with Chong before the election. That, he said, has changed. "You could throw him a bone or two, he's already out the door," Fox said. But Chong also downplayed his role in the passage of the resolution, giving credit to colleagues and aides who wrote it and rallied support for it. "I was the godfather," he said. "I was not the prime mover." The resolution narrows the classes of new employees who must be tested for drugs. The old policy required all new employees but elected officials to undergo drug tests. The new one requires tests only for those who work in public safety, directly handle city funds, work with dangerous substances, perform hazardous physical activities, operate vehicles or heavy machinery, or work directly with minors. The only thing that would prevent the resolution from going into effect would be a veto by the mayor. Mayor Norm Rice's spokeswoman, Rebecca Hale, said Rice would not oppose the resolution. But she said he supports the existing policy. "He really does believe it's helping to prevent injuries and accidents," Hale said. Councilwomen Margaret Pageler, Jane Noland and Sue Donaldson voted against the resolution. Council President Jan Drago was out of town. "I feel the public has a right to expect the city to hire carefully," Pageler said. When he was elected last year, Chong opposed the drug policy that required his two legislative aides be tested. He said the policy was an invasion of privacy and amounted to a chipping away of constitutional rights. The city's policy was crafted by the Personnel Department as an expansion of a federal law that required tests for those with commercial drivers licenses. Since July 1996, 114 applicants have failed the drug test. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and eight citizens, including former Mayor Charles Royer, sued the city this year over the policy, saying it violates basic human dignity and goes beyond constitutionally permissible urine testing for safetysensitive positions. Council sponsors of the resolution said it would not affect the lawsuit. Doug Honig, spokesman for the ACLU, called the resolution a step in the right direction. But he said the continued inclusion of employees who handle money or work with minors means the policy remains broader than legal precedents set by U.S. Supreme Court cases.