TESTING THE STATE

Risch, Drug Czar Ponder Drug Tests For All State Employees

In an effort to set a good example for private businesses last month,
Gov. Jim Risch said that he wants to make state government a
"drug-free workplace."

He never really elaborated on the concept. But since then, Risch and
the state Drug Czar Jim Tibbs said they are considering expanding
drug testing to all state agencies and employees.

"If Idaho state government is concerned about the use of drugs,
particularly methamphetamine, we've got to walk the talk," Tibbs
said. "And this is how you do it."

Getting there won't be easy, and Tibbs admitted that drug testing in
state government would be controversial and would require a massive
education process. Further, he said, he would want to have treatment
options available for employees who do test positive for illegal drug
use. He said that would be preferable to just firing the employees
and calling the police.

"It won't start that way," Tibbs said. "A program like this would
need to be phased in."

Of the more than 25,000 people that work in state government, some
are already tested. No statistics are available, but several agencies
already perform routine drug testing. Many are employees who have
commercial drivers' licenses and who regularly drive state-owned
vehicles, or who work in sensitive situations.

According to the governor's office, these include the Department of
Corrections, where agency staff perform random testing for employees
with commercial driver licenses, or where "reasonable suspicion"
exists, in accordance with a written policy. In the Department of
Juvenile Corrections, employees are subject to pre-employment drug
screening and random drug testing for "safety-sensitive positions."
At the Idaho State Police, the agency is drafting a policy to create
random testing of uniformed officers, but currently requires
pre-employment and reasonable-suspicion testing of all employees. In
the Department of Transportation, all commercially-licensed employees
go through pre-employment and random testing. The agency is
considering a policy to bring pilots in line with requirements faced
by commercially-licensed drivers. Similar testing of drivers exists
at the Department of Parks and Recreation, at Boise State University
and at the Department of Health and Welfare, according to Risch's office.

For his part, Risch said only that he and his staff were considering
the concept of expanding drug testing.

"We're still vetting that internally," Risch said.

But, he said, the state was clearly lacking what he called "a uniform
policy" on drug testing within state government.

"It is somewhat hit and miss," Risch said.

Tibbs, who is also a Boise city councilor and a former chief of the
Boise Police Department, said the reasons for wanting to enforce a
drug-testing policy are simple: citizens want to have faith that
their government is running a clean shop. Furthermore, he said, the
state needs to be a leader in this area if it's going to be able to
admonish private employers about their drug-testing policies.

But a representative from a state employees' union said the idea of
testing all state employees would be a logistical nightmare at best.
Andrew Hanhardt, president of the Service Employees International
Union local, called the policy proposal "ludicrous" and raised the
prospect of a time-consuming and budget-busting mandate.

"Nobody wants to work around anybody who is stoned or drunk,"
Hanhardt said. "But I cannot imagine a scenario where this would be
easily done."

The Service Employees International Union represents some 500 state
employees, Hanhardt said.

The discussion over drug testing came about as Tibbs was pursuing a
massive review of Idaho's drug prevention and control policies. In
his first three months on the job, he reviewed the policies and
programs in place at agencies involved in drug abuse and prevention tactics.

He found that Idaho has 133 government-sponsored substance abuse
programs. In his recommendations to Risch and lawmakers, Tibbs
mentioned the need to develop "common screening and assessment
protocols system wide."

Marianne King, a manager for the Drug-Free Workplace program at Drug
Free Idaho, a statewide nonprofit, applauded Tibbs's idea, and said
the nearly 100 businesses and government agencies that participate in
drug testing with Drug Free Idaho find the program to be beneficial.
Results include lower rates of absenteeism, workers' compensation
claims and ultimately, King said, better performance across the company.

"You can't deny that it's controversial," King said. "But we are
finding that there are significant benefits." Her group works with,
among other agencies, the Ada County Sheriff's Office to pursue
drug-free workplace standards. In addition, Drug Free Idaho helps the
Department of Juvenile Corrections administer its drug tests.

If the state wanted to do more testing, it could mean a boom in
business for drug-testing laboratories, but not necessarily local
ones. Because the state wants its drug tests to be administered by a
highly certified source, most of its drug tests are ultimately
processed through labs in California. That's because no laboratory in
Idaho has been certified by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration. King said her group uses Quest
Diagnostics in California because it meets those federal standards.

"It does add that extra level of credibility," King said. "If there's
anything in a sample, it will be identified." Likewise, she said, any
sample, typically a urine sample, that appears to be missing typical
ingredients would also be flagged for further inquiry.

Despite the logistical hurdles that would accompany statewide testing
of all government workers, Tibbs said he was convinced that drug
testing was a responsible way to force state government to be a role
model in the arena of drug-free workplace policies.

"Drug testing works. It's not this big, nasty, ugly monster that
employees should fear," Tibbs said. "Ultimately, everybody should be
thrown into the pot."

But Hanhardt wondered just who "everybody" means.

He noted that any testing of all state employees ought to include
officials such as the governor, the Legislature, and state agency leaders.

"I look forward to them going along with that as well," Hanhardt
said. "That would be the right thing to do."