DRUG TEST REVISIONS COULD SWING VOTE

JAMES CITY - Tuesday's contentious public hearing on student drug
testing focused on civil liberties. Ten of 12 speakers were opposed,
calling it an invasion of privacy and ineffective.

During the School Board work session later that night, the discussion
took a turn. Rather than debating drug testing at the high schools,
School Board members debated how to do so. A compromise arose that
could ease passage.

School Board member Joe Fuentes offered a list of amendments to
better protect student confidentiality and to widen the prevention
component.

"I will not close my eyes and vote for a policy that I feel is
flawed," Fuentes said, referring to the lack of legal protection. "It
never gets fixed later, so we either do it right the first time or I
don't want to be a part of it."

Among the board, Ron Vaught has advocated drug testing, and now
Fuentes would support it if his amendments pass. John Alewynse and
Elise Emanuel are flatly opposed. That leaves chair Denise Koch, vice
chair Mary Ann Maimone and Ruth Larson as the swing votes. Their
efforts to tweak the policy suggest they are leaning toward testing.

Alewynse and Emanuel are still opposed, but have worked with the
others to reshape and refine the policy.

In making his revisions, Fuentes called on his sister, Patricia
Fuentes Mulqueen, who is a former public defender and now an assistant
district attorney in Pennsylvania, to change the policy.

* Random drug testing would be part of a "multi-faceted approach" to
drug prevention. His colleagues expressed interest in creating a task
force to discuss other prevention initiatives, of which random testing
would be "just one tool."

* The testing procedure would go before the School Board for regular
review, and the policy would be re-evaluated after two years.

* The testing pool would be enlarged up to 15% from
10%.

* Administrators would be informed of test results "on a need-to-know
basis" to ensure privacy. The School Board agreed that the principal
and athletic director are the only staff members who would need to be
informed of a positive test. The sponsor of an activity would only be
told that a student is ineligible to participate for a certain amount
of time.

* Students who refuse to take a drug test would not be presumed
guilty, but instead would merely be considered "in violation of the
drug-testing policy." The punishment for refusal to take the test
would be the same as that for a positive test, but Fuentes pointed out
that it is "patently unfair to assume [they would test] positive."

* Notification of test results would not be left on a home answering
machine or with a non-guardian.

* Under no circumstances would test results be released to law
enforcement. Fuentes said that release of test results to police would
be a constitutional violation.

The School Board was very receptive to Fuentes' changes. Alewynse said
he could better tolerate Fuentes' amendments to the policy.

"If I end up having to live with this, and my opposition has not
changed, I'd rather live with Fuentes' rules than the ones that he
worked with," Alewynse said.

After lengthy debate, School Board members agreed to three additional
amendments to the proposal:

* Drug test records would be destroyed after the student graduates or
transfers out of school.

* At school expense, parents could request a retest with a new
specimen at the lab of their choice within 24 hours.

* Only competitive extracurriculars would be tested. Clubs that
compete against other schools, such as Model United Nations and Mock
Trial, would be part of the testing pool. Non-competitive clubs, such
as honor societies and language clubs, would not be tested.

Larson spearheaded removal of general extracurriculars from the
policy. She liked the idea of testing parking-permit holders because
of safety concerns, and she did not object to testing athletes since
there are health concerns if a student becomes overexerted while on
drugs. She said testing was less merited for after-school activities
and asked that the policy be modified to remove extracurriculars.

Mathews advised the School Board that sports and competitive
extracurriculars were the drug-testing activities specifically upheld
by the Supreme Court. Therefore, these activities would be the most
"airtight" against lawsuits. School Board members opted to jettison
non-competitive extracurriculars from the proposal, but retained the
right to test parking-permit holders.