COUNCIL REVISITS DRUG TESTING

Burbank Leaders in 1997 Rejected the Idea of Screening Themselves, but It Has
Resurfaced.

The Burbank City Council will decide tonight whether to pursue
adoption of a drug-testing policy for elected officials o a month
after former Councilwoman Stacey Jo Murphy pleaded guilty to cocaine
possession.

The council will vote on whether to direct the city staff to study the
legal and ethical implications of either a voluntary or mandatory
testing policy, and if so, to come back with a proposed policy at a
subsequent meeting.

Mayor Jef Vander Borght said he supported some type of measure that
would make officials more accountable.

"It will give the public the comfort that the members of the council
are drug tested," he said.

The vote comes only a few weeks after Murphy, 47, pleaded guilty to
federal charges of cocaine possession and child endangerment. Murphy,
first elected to the council in 1997, and her boyfriend were arrested
last July after authorities searched their home as part of a broader
probe of a San Fernando Valley street gang.

Murphy resigned in August. Under a plea agreement, she was placed on
five years' probation and required to attend anti-drug and parenting
classes.

But some officials downplayed the council's decision to consider a
drug-testing policy in the wake of Murphy's case.

"I see it as nonrelated only because I see it from the perspective
that we ask all of our employees to undergo drug testing," said
Councilman Todd Campbell, "so why shouldn't we require that of our
elected officials?"

In 1997, the city considered establishing a voluntary drug-testing
policy for council members after reports of alleged drug use by former
City Councilwoman Susan Spanos.

At the time, Murphy stated that such a policy "would be a waste of
time and money."

Adoption of a voluntary policy was later rejected by the council 3 to
2 on the grounds that "it would have no teeth," said City Atty. Dennis
Barlow.

The city was prevented from instituting mandatory drug tests for
elected officials because of a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
such testing without proper cause violated the 4th Amendment.

Other cities have weighed drug testing for city officials, but few
have approved policies or kept them for long. In 1999, South El Monte
implemented voluntary random drug tests for council members, the first
community to do so in California.

The proposal to revisit drug testing for elected officials was
suggested to the Burbank City Council in November after several
members of the public demanded that such a policy be put in place,
said Judie Sarquiz, director of the city's management services department.

One of the issues that came up in 1997 was whether the results of the
drug tests should be released to the public. Privacy concerns and
possible publication of false test results made some officials queasy
about such a policy.

Vander Borght said he fully supported public disclosure of test
results.

Because employees across many sectors are subjected to pre-employment
drug testing, the question has arisen whether candidates running for
office should be tested as well. While the city's attorneys would have
to research the issue, Campbell said he would support the idea if it
proved to be legal.

"If you're going to run and the policy is adopted, you probably
shouldn't shy away from drug testing," he said.

Although drug testing would cost the city money, Vander Borght said it
would be worth it.

"I recognize that this is like using a cannonball to kill a fly," he
added. "I say this because I have the feeling that we're going at it
with a bit of overkill, but if it helps the perception of an anti-
drug policy, we might as well be the guinea pigs."