RANDOM DRUG, ALCOHOL TESTS NOW REQUIRED IN SEABROOK

All Seabrook town officials, employees and volunteers are subject to random
testing for alcohol and drugs with the passage of a petitioned town meeting
warrant article last week. The mandated testing also applies to volunteers
who serve on town committees and boards.

"I can't tell you what extent of drug testing there is in cities and towns
and school districts," said John Andrews, executive director of the New
Hampshire Municipal Association, "but (testing) is not illegal under state
law.

"A lot of private employers do it and municipalities can. You can test
anyone as long as it's random," Andrews said.

But testing selectmen?

"I guess I never heard of a situation where they test local officials, but
there could be a sense of, 'If we apply it to some, we should apply it to
others,'" Andrews said.

Though questions of logistics - such as application of the ordinance to
union contracts - were raised by Seabrook citizens at a Board of Selectmen
meeting on Wednesday, no evidence of opposition to the new ordinance was
discernible in Sunday News interviews with town leaders yesterday.

Voters had overwhelmingly approved the new ordinance, 1,521 to 464.

But the suggestion of past reluctance on the part of officials to present
such an article on random alcohol and drug testing to the town meeting was
implicit in remarks by James Brown, a former employee of the town's highway
department.

"We," referring to himself and his wife Elizabeth, "didn't introduce it this
year," Brown said. "We tried last year. It got hid in the shuffle. They lost
it and then they found it when it was a little late."

Veteran selectman Asa H. Knowles Jr. acknowledged that the petition the
Browns submitted last year "did get lost in the shuffle" but attributed that
to the fact that the former town manager had left and his successor, Fred
Welch, had just come on board

Knowles not only approved of the alcohol and drug testing article, he also
signed the petition to include it in the warrant. "I sign every petition
that comes by because I think the people have the right to decide (the
issues that are petitioned)," he said.

"I also signed it because I am for it," Knowles said. "The town's truck
drivers are already mandated by state law to be tested. I think every town
in the world should have it."

Asked if he thought such testing might violate people's privacy, Knowles
said: "I don't know that there is such a thing as privacy rights when you
work for the people."

"Off hand, I can't say if there is drug and alcohol usage by town officers
and employees," Knowles said. He said his support for the article was
prompted mostly by a general feeling that such an ordinance ought to be
passed.

Discussion needed

Selectman Cora Stockbridge said, "I feel we have to put it in effect because
the town did vote for it, but it needs to be discussed with the Board of
Selectmen.

"The town manager (Welch) feels our four union contracts need to be
renegotiated to include this ordinance," Stockbridge said. "But I am not
sure they do. We need to review it and see how it should be put into effect.

"I don't have any concerns except about its interpretation," Stockbridge
said. "For instance, there was discussion on Wednesday as to whether
volunteers have to be tested. But I think it said only boards and
committees."

Who filed?

Who filed the petition for the drug and alcohol testing? The answer is
complicated.

Although James Brown said "we" did not file it this year, Selectman
Stockbridge read from her town report that "Elizabeth J. Brown and 77 other
petitioners introduced the petition."

Reached by telephone yesterday afternoon, Elizabeth Brown told the Sunday
News, "I don't wanna say nothin'. Don't call back again."

James Brown, in the interview before Mrs. Brown was called, said he
supported the idea of the random alcohol and drug testing because, "A lot of
the people who work for the town should be tested."

He said he suspects some town workers may use drugs or alcohol while on the
job.

"I think there are but I haven't seen them so I can't prove it," Brown said,
"but testing will prove it."

Concerns raised

Claire Ebel, director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties union, said the
ordinance raises a "great number of concerns."

The town can't breach its contracts with unions by inserting something new
into them without first negotiating with the unions, Ebel said.

"It seems to be an incredibly poor precedent to set," Ebel said. "Basically
the town is saying to its public officials, 'We don't trust you, and you are
going to have to pee in a jar to prove that you're clean.'

"Usually drug testing is a substitute for appropriate personnel management
and supervision, and it's a poor one," Ebel said.

"The fact is that individuals can be impaired on the job for a wide range of
reasons," Ebel said, "and to suggest by this ordinance that the implication
that the only thing that impairs you on the job is alcohol or drugs, is
absurd.

"If employees are properly supervised and evaluated, problems become
apparent, and those problems should be dealt with. If individual tests are
positive, what do you do? And they are not necessarily accurate," Ebel said.

"It seems to me to be an incredibly unwise and shortsighted policy," Ebel
said. "If an individual employee has a problem it is incumbent on the
municipality to attempt to assist them. I am not an attorney so I cannot
tell you with certainty but it is my understanding that either of those
conditions could be considered a disability, and if so declared, the town
must treat the individual in such a position."

Never heard of it

Andrews said, "I gotta tell you I honestly don't know what policies and
practices exist in other communities in New Hampshire in terms of random
drug testing.

"I don't think that there's a great deal of it," Andrews said. "I don't
think it's very prevalent. I go to meetings of municipal city and town
managers and talk to police and fire chiefs a lot and I never heard anyone
mention one.

"If people were failing these tests a lot and there was a real problem out
there," Andrews said, "then we would hear about it. I would like to think
that alcohol and drug abuse that interferes with people's work isn't very
prevalent.

Local interest

"A lot of things get passed at town meetings," Andrews said, "because they
are part of the local political scene or turmoil."

For instance, Andrews said, "eight or ten communities in the state, out of
234, have ethics ordinances, in some cases because they were petitioned
because somebody in the community thought ethics was a problem.

"Maybe someone in that community thought drug and alcohol use by town
officials and employees was a problem," Andrews concluded.