RESIDENTS DISAPPOINTED IN CHANGES TO DRUG POLICY

LOCKNEY, Texas -- Residents in this small West Texas community are
upset that a mandatory drug testing policy their school board passed
last year had to be revised in the wake of a lawsuit filed by a parent,
who claims the policy violates his son's constitutional rights.

But even though disappointed by the board's move to lessen the
punishment against those who refuse the mandatory test, many in the
farming community are glad that, for the most part, the policy remains
intact.

So intact, that attorneys representing Larry Tannahill say the
revisions might be a step in the right direction, but they are in no
way a compromise when it comes to 12-year-old Brady Tannahill's federal
case against the district.

"They are moving inches and they need to move miles," Tannahill's
Lubbock attorney, Jeff Conner, said Thursday. "The policy still
presumes that the kids are guilty until they are proven innocent."

The policy update, approved July 13, suspends those who fail to consent
to the mandatory drug test from extracurricular activities. Many
residents learned about the policy change before Thursday night's first
board meeting of the new school year.

Catholic priest Jim McCartney admitted the policy has caused a ripple
throughout the community. He tried to joke about it last Sunday and
failed.

"I said, 'Well, I hope you are ready to go get your drug test the
first day of school and nobody laughed."' he said. "They got into
something they never dreamed was as volatile as it is, and they
thought there would be a quick resolution and there won't be."

Superintendent Raymond Lusk and board members hoped the revision would
be considered a compromise on their part.

"Sometimes you implement a policy and look back at it and say this
should have been done this way," he said. "The purpose of this is to
settle this (issue) because we have a lot more important things to do
as far as the educational process."

But that doesn't alleviate the disappointment for many who feel
Tannahill and the American Civil Liberties Union have pushed the
community into a corner.

"I don't think outsiders should come in and dictate what should be
done," said Betty Goen, who lives seven miles outside the city of
2,243.

"I think the people of Lockney have the right to do whatever they
want," she said. "Children are our responsibility not the government's.
God gave us those children to raise up in a Christian home and drugs
have no business in any Christian community."

Lockney resident Preston Belt agrees. He's glad the policy still
requires everyone to participate, yet disappointed the board was
"pushed" into changing it.

But the revised version of the policy isn't any more constitutional
than the first, because it targets everyone, Conner said.

"A resonable resolution would be to do what the Constitution of the
United States requires, which would be to have some suspiscion that a
student is using drugs before requiring them to submit to a drug test,"
he said.

In March, the ACLU asked the board to totally eliminate or at least
refine its policy to comply with the Constitution. The board decided
not to act on the motion, upholding its original policy and denying
Tannahill's appeal of his son's punishment for not consenting to the
drug test.

For not participating, Brady was punished as if he had tested positive
for drugs: a 21-day suspension from extracurricular activities, at
least three days' in-school suspension and three sessions of substance
abuse counseling, as required by the original policy.

Many of those in attendance at the March meeting spoke out in support
of the policy. They wore red and white shirts that stated, "We asked
for it, LISD delivered it, We appreciate it."

Wayland Baptist University business professor and Lockney parent Bobby
Hall was among those wearing a shirt in support of the policy last
March. Despite his support of the original policy, he thinks the board
legally made the right decision by changing it.

"I'm sure that many people, including those on the school board, are
disappointed to change the policy," Hall said. "But sometimes you must
do things you don't necessarily want to do, and in this case it would
not be prudent to ignore legal counsel."