Drug Testing for Elected Officials Is Explored
Policy: Burbank City Council votes to develop guidelines for voluntary,
random screening. Final approval is pending.
By JILL LEOVY, Times Staff Writer

BURBANKThe City Council is developing an unusual
policy to provide for voluntary, random drug tests for
elected officials, and publicize the results.
"Drug use is endemic in our society . . . and voters have the right
to know if we are clean or not," said City Councilman Ted
McConkey.
McConkey said the idea sprang from reports earlier this year
that former City Councilwoman Susan Spanos had allegedly used
cocaine.
Spanos stepped down earlier this month. The cocaine allegations
stemmed from an incident in which her husband told police she was
addicted to the drug, police reports said.
Reached at her home Wednesday, Spanos declined to talk
about the allegation, saying she does not want to compromise a civil
lawsuit she has filed.
But, "I just want to say it's a fantastic idea to have drug and
alcohol testing for elected officials," said Spanos.
Not all agree, though. City Councilwoman Stacey Murphy, who
has replaced Spanos on the council, said such a policy would be "a
waste of time and money."
And Marvin E. Krakow, an attorney who has volunteered for
the American Civil Liberties Union on drugtesting cases, called the
proposal "the stupidest idea I have ever heard of."
While many cities have set up drug testing in some form for
employees, Krakow said he has heard of none like Burbank's
proposed policy, he said.
The proposal is potentially troublesome because the city might
be held liable for publicizing false results, said Burbank City Atty.
Dennis Barlow.
"You don't want to have a situation where you start blasting it in
the press and it isn't true," he said. "It has to be done carefully."
"It's going to be a little bit tricky," said City Manager Bud
Ovrom. "When you are on the cutting edge you sometimes get
bloodied, and we are on the cutting edge with this one."
Barlow said Burbank already requires drug tests of applicants
for city jobs, and periodic, random tests of employees in what are
considered more dangerous jobs.
But Tuesday's 32 vote by the council mandates city staff to
develop some procedures by which elected officials could volunteer
for random testing.
The council will be asked to vote on a final version of the policy
before it is put in place, said Barlow.
The idea of testing elected officials for drugs is not new.
Congress is currently mulling mandatory tests for members, and
some representatives have already taken part in voluntary urine tests
to bring the point home.
* * *
The congressional measure is pending despite an April U.S.
Supreme Court decision striking down a Georgia law requiring
political candidates to take drug tests.
Because of the ruling, Burbank will take the precautionary step
of keeping its program voluntary.
"But I will take part in the thing," said McConkey. "And I would
encourage anyone without strong moral objections to do so too."
Responded ACLU attorney Krakow: "They shouldn't be asking
other people to do it at all."
City Councilman Bill Wiggins, along with Murphy, voted against
the proposed policy. Wiggins believes it didn't go far enough, saying
he wants "some administrative procedure with teeth in it," which
would require drug treatment for anyone who tests positive.

Copyright Los Angeles Times