WHEN DRUG USE IS SUSPECTED

The care with which a drug problem is identified in a public employee can
be as critical to the city as it is to the individual.

Changes in Metro's policy on drug testing serve both interests as a recent
Chancery Court ruling clearly showed. Chancellor Carol McCoy ruled that
Metro's old drug policy was violated in the case of testing Sgt. Philip
Clark four years ago. At the time, Metro required that a trained supervisor
had to document any drug or alcohol use. Clark was fired for refusing to
take a drug test that was ordered based on a tip from an unknown source.
McCoy ruled that Metro violated its policy at the time.

Clark's lawyer called the long delay in justice ''a shame,'' but there have
been even worse tragedies for Metro with its old drug policy. Earlier this
year, firefighter Richard Majors was under investigation for suspected drug
use when he died of natural causes. Despite two written reports that
employees had observed him with drugs and paraphernalia at work, no testing
could be done because his supervisor had not witnessed the alleged incidents.

Metro now seems to have found a middle ground that protects all interests.
Tests can be ordered based on co-workers' witnessing drug use or certain
behavior. The difference is that supervisors must rely on the witnesses'
probity and credibility. Supervisors have to document the witnesses'
credibility as well as the incidents involving the suspect.

Authorities have great leeway with drug testing of employees where public
safety is an issue. The ability to respond and react in emergency
situations is a critical component of successful firefighting and police
work. Metro should be just as adept at responding to employees with drug
problems.