DUERRING SAYS TOP OFFICIALS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTS

Top administrators in Kanawha County's schools would be randomly
screened for drugs under a proposed drug-testing policy.

School board members said the policy would be revised to include
administrators at the central office and board members themselves.

"From the beginning, we've said everybody would be included," School
Superintendent Ron Duerring said Thursday at a board meeting.

Board member Pete Thaw criticized the proposed policy earlier this
week. It called for random drug testing of employees in "safety
sensitive positions" -- specifically teachers, school service
personnel and those with direct contact with students.

Thaw said the way the policy was written, it appeared to exclude board
members and central office administrators.

"I would never be a part of a policy that would test everybody else
and then not be subjected to it myself," board member Barbara Welch
said.

The board began looking into new drug-testing rules after the former
principal at Pratt Elementary was arrested on drug charges.

David Anderson was found not guilty Thursday in Kanawha County
magistrate court, but debate over the new drug-testing policy continues.

Under the proposed policy all newly hired and current employees deemed
"safety sensitive" would be subject to the random drug tests.

"Safety sensitive" positions, according to the policy, are those
positions "where a single mistake by such employee can create an
immediate threat of serious harm to students, to him or herself, or to
fellow employees."

The first draft of the policy discussed at Thursday's meeting
explicitly listed 36 specific positions that would be deemed safety
sensitive. Principal, assistant principal, bus operator, electrician,
groundsman, mason, machinist, plumber, painter and warehouse clerk are
some of the 36 positions.

The list did not specifically include central office
administrators.

"You enumerate 36-38 positions," Thaw said. "If you're going to go to
that extent and list all those other positions, then why not list
central office administrators, too?"

Duerring said the policy did not list central office administrators
because officials were following a standard definition of "safety
sensitive" positions, as provided by other school districts in other
states.

Although administrators were not individually listed, Duerring said
upper-level officials would be included in the policy under a
"catch-all" paragraph, which requires anyone who drives his or her own
vehicle on school business more than an average of 10 miles per week
to be subject to the random testing.

"If you read the fine print, we all drive more than 10 miles a week,"
Duerring said Thursday.

Still, teachers' unions are displeased with the policy, saying it
violates teacher privacy. As part of the drug testing, teachers would
have to provide a list of their current medications.

"Our position is that we do not want unsafe schools," said Fred
Albert, president of the Kanawha County chapter of the American
Federation of Teachers. "Neither do we want students or other
employees put in harm's way by those people who have an abuse problem.
But we should be protected from unfair search and seizure."

Union representatives also cited the possibility for false positive
readings, saying that some doctor-prescribed medications could result
in a false reading.

But board member Bill Raglin said "that's no excuse."

"All the reasons they gave today can be refuted," he
said.

Many other professions and industries drug-test employees without
problems, Raglin said.

Both Raglin and Thaw said they remain committed to the revamped
drug-testing policy. But other board members are wavering.

Becky Jordon said Thursday she was concerned about the possible legal
bills.

"I'm just worried they're going to be unbelievable," she
said.

She said the county should have formed a committee to help develop the
policy, as previously discussed.

Welch said: "We said we should have a committee. We said we were going
to do that. So we should do it."

But Duerring said forming a committee would have been difficult, in
this case.

"It's hard to have a committee when everyone's already opposed to it,"
he said.

The policy will come back to the board for review in a month.