RANDOM DRUG TESTS WELCOMED

NEW BEDFORD -- Police seem generally happy with their new four-year union
contract, which includes a provision for random drug and alcohol testing of
officers.

New Bedford is the first city in the commonwealth to adopt such a measure.

Beginning their evening shifts yesterday afternoon, some officers declined
comment, but those who spoke seemed unfazed by the prospect of random
testing.

"I don't do drugs, so it doesn't bother me," said one officer, who didn't
give her name.

Another said he had voted against the contract because it "took too much
power from the union," but was only against the random drug testing because
he didn't think it necessary.

"I don't think they had to put it in the contract," he said. "I would have
taken a test anyway, anytime anyone asked. I don't have anything to hide."

The four-year contract, among other things, gives police three raises that
total about 13 percent. Officers will also receive a $400 lump-sum payment,
in lieu of any increase in their base pay over the last two years.

Under the new contract, which passed by a margin of more than 3-1, officers
who test positive for illegal drugs will be immediately terminated.

Officers who test with a blood alcohol level of .02 or more will be
suspended for 30 days without pay and have to go into a 12-month treatment
program. During that period, if they test positive again, they will be
suspended for 90 days without pay. If they test positive a third time, they
will be terminated.

New Bedford Police Union President William Stowell said he was sure the
clause was a "bone of contention" for some officers, but believed it good
to have on the books.

"Can you honestly think of an argument against it?" he asked.

Officer Stowell said the testing provision will help the department's image.

"I believe 100 percent it does, and the officers I talked to also think
that," Officer Stowell said. "How can you hurt your image by having a
random drug testing policy? If we came up and said we don't want a random
drug policy, I think the public is going to assume that we're trying to
hide something."

In last year's Bratton Report, which studied the New Bedford Police
Department in detail, the authors reported that survey returns showed 20.4
percent of officers believed that some officers were taking drugs and or
money from drug dealers.

Officer Herb Souza, secretary of the Fairhaven branch of the International
Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 381, said Fairhaven police had a
drug-testing clause in their contract, but only in cases of probable cause.

Given the Bratton Report findings, however, Officer Souza said the random
testing policy was probably a good idea for New Bedford.

"I don't think the union (in Fairhaven) would go for it; I think the clause
we have covers it, but we don't have the suspicion that they did in New
Bedford," he said. "If they accepted it, it's because they thought they
needed it."

Marion Police Brotherhood Vice President Craig Parker said his organization
had actually proposed random drug testing for the Marion force, but had it
struck down by the town during contract negotiations.

"We said we really didn't have a problem with it, but said we would like to
see it in all the other town union contracts also," Officer Parker said.
"The Fire Department, the Department of Public Works, Town Hall workers --
and department heads -- and all of a sudden (the proposal) came to a
screeching halt."

In general, Officer Parker said, he thought random testing was a good idea.

"It increases the level of public confidence in you, and these days in
police work, we need all the public confidence we can get. Police take a
lot of bashing, and I think this will help the image."

John J. Bellizzi, executive director of the International Narcotic
Enforcement Officers Association, said he knew of other departments --
local and federal -- that had random testing written into their contracts.

"I think it's an excellent idea," he said. "If the police do it, I think it
sets an example: They're willing to do it, and that would lower the
objection from other people."

Checked-by: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)