phr
Bluelighter
School board ends push to drug test teachers
Ry Rivard
Charleston Daily Mail
8.11.09
The Kanawha County school board voted 5-0 Monday afternoon to end its controversial plan to randomly drug test teachers and most other school employees.
The decision came as the school system's legal expenses, which are now at $38,000, were set to escalate and after the school system's attorneys told board members they had "little or no chance" of prevailing in court.
The program has been stalled since state school employees' organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union succeeded in getting a federal judge to halt the testing plan before it was to go into effect at the start of the year. The groups argued that random tests are unreasonable searches of public employees.
Though the board removed themselves from the legal fight by repealing the random testing policy, board President Becky Jordon said in a statement that the board's decision came despite the "belief that random testing is an effective and useful tool to combat substance abuse."
Board members Jim Crawford, Bill Raglin and Pete Thaw said they were disappointed with the decision, though each voted to end the policy.
"We are greatly disappointed," Thaw said speaking for group. "We had a real problem in this county and we still have it, and we had to test the system."
The legal system, Thaw said, "has failed us." He said the board's attorneys told members they had "little or no chance" of winning the case in court.
In a vote last fall to implement the random drug testing policy, Crawford, Raglin, Thaw and Jordon voted to randomly drug test teachers. Board member Robin Rector was the lone objector, citing potential legal costs.
The school board has already racked up $38,000 in legal fees with lawyers from Steptoe & Johnson. Because the board will now be asked to pick up the legal fees of its opponents, the total court costs for fighting the random drug-testing plan are likely to exceed $80,000.
But the board did drop out just in time to avoid mounting fees associated with preparation for a full trial early next year.
The board's uphill legal battle was set to begin again in January 2010 before the same U.S. district court judge who originally halted the teacher-testing program in December 2008. At that time the judge, Joseph Goodwin, gave a sweeping condemnation of the board's plan.
Random testing supporters argued that teachers have jobs that are "safety sensitive" because the law allows public employees with such positions -- including police and mass transportation employees, such as school bus drivers -- to be randomly drug tested. But in court, the board's lawyers were unable to present a single instance in which a student was seriously injured or killed because a teacher under the influence of drugs acted or failed to act.
Private employees, who can be tested almost at will by their employers, do not fall under the same set of laws as government workers.
But even if the school board prevailed before Goodwin, the teacher unions that opposed the random tests could appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for months of further litigation.
The circuit court, once considered among the most conservative in the country, now has openings that will likely be filled with judges nominated by President Barack Obama. Those judges could be less likely to side with the school board.
Though the school board has cited legal expenses for its decision, it will not be able to rejoin the drug testing fight when the economy rebounds. The groups opposed to random drug testing plan to seek legally binding assurances that the board will not try such a policy again in the foreseeable future, though such details are yet to be worked out.
Opponents of the testing plan applauded the board's decision.
"This was a sensible decision that puts the children of Kanawha County and their education first," said Adam Wolf, an attorney from the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union "In these times putting money into the classroom instead of into litigation makes economic sense and properly looks out for the best interests of Charleston's school children."
Dale Lee, the president of the West Virginia Education Association, said he thought the board made a good decision.
"To challenge this (the board) would just prolong a costly court legal expense that the taxpayers would ultimately have to foot the bill for, and it would take away much needed money for the kids in the classroom," Lee said.
After the board's vote, Thaw said he wanted school Superintendent Ron Duerring to increase the focus on for-cause or suspicion-based testing, a method accepted by teachers unions for testing teachers who appear impaired on the job.
"We're not giving up the drug fight," Thaw said. "The drug fight now turns to the schools and it turns to the schools in for-cause testing."
Last year, only five or so school employees were tested for cause, said Carol Hamric, the school system's human resources administrator.
The method is different from random testing in that it is meant to remove impaired teachers from school buildings, not deter teachers from using drugs or alcohol. Also, it could be hard to ramp up testing because to do such tests the suspect's supervisors have to observe signs or symptoms of impairment.
Once a supervisor has become suspicious, they must complete a "reasonable suspicion checklist" and get permission to conduct the test from the central office. Then, a mobile drug-testing unit can be sent to the school within an hour to test the employee.
Link!
Ry Rivard
Charleston Daily Mail
8.11.09
The Kanawha County school board voted 5-0 Monday afternoon to end its controversial plan to randomly drug test teachers and most other school employees.
The decision came as the school system's legal expenses, which are now at $38,000, were set to escalate and after the school system's attorneys told board members they had "little or no chance" of prevailing in court.
The program has been stalled since state school employees' organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union succeeded in getting a federal judge to halt the testing plan before it was to go into effect at the start of the year. The groups argued that random tests are unreasonable searches of public employees.
Though the board removed themselves from the legal fight by repealing the random testing policy, board President Becky Jordon said in a statement that the board's decision came despite the "belief that random testing is an effective and useful tool to combat substance abuse."
Board members Jim Crawford, Bill Raglin and Pete Thaw said they were disappointed with the decision, though each voted to end the policy.
"We are greatly disappointed," Thaw said speaking for group. "We had a real problem in this county and we still have it, and we had to test the system."
The legal system, Thaw said, "has failed us." He said the board's attorneys told members they had "little or no chance" of winning the case in court.
In a vote last fall to implement the random drug testing policy, Crawford, Raglin, Thaw and Jordon voted to randomly drug test teachers. Board member Robin Rector was the lone objector, citing potential legal costs.
The school board has already racked up $38,000 in legal fees with lawyers from Steptoe & Johnson. Because the board will now be asked to pick up the legal fees of its opponents, the total court costs for fighting the random drug-testing plan are likely to exceed $80,000.
But the board did drop out just in time to avoid mounting fees associated with preparation for a full trial early next year.
The board's uphill legal battle was set to begin again in January 2010 before the same U.S. district court judge who originally halted the teacher-testing program in December 2008. At that time the judge, Joseph Goodwin, gave a sweeping condemnation of the board's plan.
Random testing supporters argued that teachers have jobs that are "safety sensitive" because the law allows public employees with such positions -- including police and mass transportation employees, such as school bus drivers -- to be randomly drug tested. But in court, the board's lawyers were unable to present a single instance in which a student was seriously injured or killed because a teacher under the influence of drugs acted or failed to act.
Private employees, who can be tested almost at will by their employers, do not fall under the same set of laws as government workers.
But even if the school board prevailed before Goodwin, the teacher unions that opposed the random tests could appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for months of further litigation.
The circuit court, once considered among the most conservative in the country, now has openings that will likely be filled with judges nominated by President Barack Obama. Those judges could be less likely to side with the school board.
Though the school board has cited legal expenses for its decision, it will not be able to rejoin the drug testing fight when the economy rebounds. The groups opposed to random drug testing plan to seek legally binding assurances that the board will not try such a policy again in the foreseeable future, though such details are yet to be worked out.
Opponents of the testing plan applauded the board's decision.
"This was a sensible decision that puts the children of Kanawha County and their education first," said Adam Wolf, an attorney from the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union "In these times putting money into the classroom instead of into litigation makes economic sense and properly looks out for the best interests of Charleston's school children."
Dale Lee, the president of the West Virginia Education Association, said he thought the board made a good decision.
"To challenge this (the board) would just prolong a costly court legal expense that the taxpayers would ultimately have to foot the bill for, and it would take away much needed money for the kids in the classroom," Lee said.
After the board's vote, Thaw said he wanted school Superintendent Ron Duerring to increase the focus on for-cause or suspicion-based testing, a method accepted by teachers unions for testing teachers who appear impaired on the job.
"We're not giving up the drug fight," Thaw said. "The drug fight now turns to the schools and it turns to the schools in for-cause testing."
Last year, only five or so school employees were tested for cause, said Carol Hamric, the school system's human resources administrator.
The method is different from random testing in that it is meant to remove impaired teachers from school buildings, not deter teachers from using drugs or alcohol. Also, it could be hard to ramp up testing because to do such tests the suspect's supervisors have to observe signs or symptoms of impairment.
Once a supervisor has become suspicious, they must complete a "reasonable suspicion checklist" and get permission to conduct the test from the central office. Then, a mobile drug-testing unit can be sent to the school within an hour to test the employee.
Link!
