Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
Will Missouri teachers have to abruptly step from the lectern in the middle of a discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation to head to the washroom to give a sample?
A Missouri lawmaker has sponsored a bill that would require school districts to randomly test teachers and other employees for illegal drug use and then, upon a positive test, immediately fire them.
The proposed legislation is unconstitutional, conflicts with the state's teacher-tenure law and has no precedent in the nation, says an attorney for the Missouri National Education Association, the nation's largest professional organization for teachers.
I wanted to ask the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Don Wells, R-147th District, if there was something I'd missed. A national report on the high incidence of drug use among teachers? A news story of a high school science lab turned meth lab?
But on Friday I could not reach Wells, who, according to my official manual of state legislators, is a car dealer in Cabool, which is 60 miles east of Springfield.
Which leads to the question: Should Missouri car dealers be randomly tested for illegal drug use? After all, we've seen their TV ads.
But we'll leave that for a later date.
The bill, which has a long way to go before becoming law, is co-sponsored by 10 state representatives, including three from St. Charles County: Doug Funderburk, 12th District, of St. Peters; Charles Gatschenberger, 13th District, of Lake Saint Louis; and Sally Faith, 15th District, of St. Charles. All are Republicans.
The only Democrat among the co-sponsors is Curt Dougherty of Independence.
It was Gatschenberger's weekly e-mail to me on his legislative activities that alerted me to the bill. He listed five bills he has thus far co-sponsored, including House Bill 290, which "requires the board of education of each school district to adopt a policy for the random testing of the district's teachers and other employees for the unlawful use of controlled substances."
Here's the second paragraph: "Any teacher or other employee who tests positive for unlawful use of a controlled substance shall be immediately terminated from employment with the district."
When I spoke to Gatschenberger he did not seem well versed in the bill. He, like all state lawmakers, was home on Friday so, understandably, he did not have the bill in front of him.
But I don't believe this is a nuanced question: What's happened in Missouri that the state would REQUIRE local school districts to randomly test teachers and other employees for drugs?
"It's just to let people know that they might be tested," he told me.
OK, so, why do we want teachers to know that they might be randomly tested?
"It is more of a precaution than mandate," he said.
OK, so, why does it say boards of education "shall" adopt -- as opposed to "should consider"?
"You just want to have that as a tool, like when a police officer pulls somebody over and you want to make sure everything is done right," he told me.
At this point I was confused.
Funderburk said random workforce drug testing is common in private industry and it can be done with accuracy and at a far more reasonable cost than years ago. Boeing Co., where Funderburk works, has randomly tested employees for several years, he said.
In addition, Funderburk said, a random drug-testing program raises awareness about the dangers of drug use. He does not believe there is a problem among teachers and other school employees.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education said the state does not have any type of random drug-testing policy for teachers and school employees.
Bernard DuBray, Fort Zumwalt superintendent, said the bill seems like "a little overkill."
He doesn't think the district has a problem with employees using illegal drugs.
"I would not quarrel with it if it passed," he said. "We already do it with our bus drivers. But that is going to be an expensive venture. The state doesn't have any money. It would be an unfunded mandate."
Randy Charles, superintendent of the St. Charles School District, said it can be difficult to publicly oppose a measure that, apparently, tries to keep students safe. Nevertheless, he questioned why state lawmakers would think local school districts can't do the job.
He said that earlier this month, for example, the St. Charles school board tweaked its "drug-free workplace" policy, which states that "staff members will be tested for alcohol and controlled substances if the district has reasonable suspicion that the staff member has violated this policy."
Those who test positive "will be subject to disciplinary action, which may include suspension, termination and referral for prosecution. Termination may and typically will be imposed for a first-time offender."
Local officials should be allowed to handle the matter, Charles said. "We have a board that is well in tune to this and is very willing and very capable of addressing it."
Linda Schulte, St. Charles school board president, said she opposes any policy that states a positive test will result in immediate termination. There are "false positives," she says. But she favors random drug testing of teachers and other employees. After all, some Missouri school districts randomly test students such as athletes, she said. ( The St. Charles district does not test students for drugs. )
"If you test the kids then you should test the adults as well," Schulte said.
Including school board members? I asked.
"I would say fine with that, too," she said.
But that might be problematic, she said, because school board members are not district employees.
Jacquie Shipma is the director of legal services for the National Education Association, in Missouri. The involuntary random drug testing of an employee who is not under suspicion and who is not in a "safety-sensitive" position is unconstitutional, she said.
A school district elsewhere in the nation tried unsuccessfully to argue that all teachers -- by virtue of their contact with children -- were in "safety-sensitive" positions like, for example, bus drivers.
On Jan. 8, she says, a federal court in West Virginia didn't buy that argument and struck down the school district's policy. The NEA will work to make sure House Bill 290 does not become Missouri law, she says.
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: St. Charles Journal (MO)
Copyright: 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch L.L.C
Contact: mpugh@yourjournal.com
Website: https://www.stltoday.com/neighborhoods/stcharlesjournal
Author: Steve Pokin
A Missouri lawmaker has sponsored a bill that would require school districts to randomly test teachers and other employees for illegal drug use and then, upon a positive test, immediately fire them.
The proposed legislation is unconstitutional, conflicts with the state's teacher-tenure law and has no precedent in the nation, says an attorney for the Missouri National Education Association, the nation's largest professional organization for teachers.
I wanted to ask the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Don Wells, R-147th District, if there was something I'd missed. A national report on the high incidence of drug use among teachers? A news story of a high school science lab turned meth lab?
But on Friday I could not reach Wells, who, according to my official manual of state legislators, is a car dealer in Cabool, which is 60 miles east of Springfield.
Which leads to the question: Should Missouri car dealers be randomly tested for illegal drug use? After all, we've seen their TV ads.
But we'll leave that for a later date.
The bill, which has a long way to go before becoming law, is co-sponsored by 10 state representatives, including three from St. Charles County: Doug Funderburk, 12th District, of St. Peters; Charles Gatschenberger, 13th District, of Lake Saint Louis; and Sally Faith, 15th District, of St. Charles. All are Republicans.
The only Democrat among the co-sponsors is Curt Dougherty of Independence.
It was Gatschenberger's weekly e-mail to me on his legislative activities that alerted me to the bill. He listed five bills he has thus far co-sponsored, including House Bill 290, which "requires the board of education of each school district to adopt a policy for the random testing of the district's teachers and other employees for the unlawful use of controlled substances."
Here's the second paragraph: "Any teacher or other employee who tests positive for unlawful use of a controlled substance shall be immediately terminated from employment with the district."
When I spoke to Gatschenberger he did not seem well versed in the bill. He, like all state lawmakers, was home on Friday so, understandably, he did not have the bill in front of him.
But I don't believe this is a nuanced question: What's happened in Missouri that the state would REQUIRE local school districts to randomly test teachers and other employees for drugs?
"It's just to let people know that they might be tested," he told me.
OK, so, why do we want teachers to know that they might be randomly tested?
"It is more of a precaution than mandate," he said.
OK, so, why does it say boards of education "shall" adopt -- as opposed to "should consider"?
"You just want to have that as a tool, like when a police officer pulls somebody over and you want to make sure everything is done right," he told me.
At this point I was confused.
Funderburk said random workforce drug testing is common in private industry and it can be done with accuracy and at a far more reasonable cost than years ago. Boeing Co., where Funderburk works, has randomly tested employees for several years, he said.
In addition, Funderburk said, a random drug-testing program raises awareness about the dangers of drug use. He does not believe there is a problem among teachers and other school employees.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education said the state does not have any type of random drug-testing policy for teachers and school employees.
Bernard DuBray, Fort Zumwalt superintendent, said the bill seems like "a little overkill."
He doesn't think the district has a problem with employees using illegal drugs.
"I would not quarrel with it if it passed," he said. "We already do it with our bus drivers. But that is going to be an expensive venture. The state doesn't have any money. It would be an unfunded mandate."
Randy Charles, superintendent of the St. Charles School District, said it can be difficult to publicly oppose a measure that, apparently, tries to keep students safe. Nevertheless, he questioned why state lawmakers would think local school districts can't do the job.
He said that earlier this month, for example, the St. Charles school board tweaked its "drug-free workplace" policy, which states that "staff members will be tested for alcohol and controlled substances if the district has reasonable suspicion that the staff member has violated this policy."
Those who test positive "will be subject to disciplinary action, which may include suspension, termination and referral for prosecution. Termination may and typically will be imposed for a first-time offender."
Local officials should be allowed to handle the matter, Charles said. "We have a board that is well in tune to this and is very willing and very capable of addressing it."
Linda Schulte, St. Charles school board president, said she opposes any policy that states a positive test will result in immediate termination. There are "false positives," she says. But she favors random drug testing of teachers and other employees. After all, some Missouri school districts randomly test students such as athletes, she said. ( The St. Charles district does not test students for drugs. )
"If you test the kids then you should test the adults as well," Schulte said.
Including school board members? I asked.
"I would say fine with that, too," she said.
But that might be problematic, she said, because school board members are not district employees.
Jacquie Shipma is the director of legal services for the National Education Association, in Missouri. The involuntary random drug testing of an employee who is not under suspicion and who is not in a "safety-sensitive" position is unconstitutional, she said.
A school district elsewhere in the nation tried unsuccessfully to argue that all teachers -- by virtue of their contact with children -- were in "safety-sensitive" positions like, for example, bus drivers.
On Jan. 8, she says, a federal court in West Virginia didn't buy that argument and struck down the school district's policy. The NEA will work to make sure House Bill 290 does not become Missouri law, she says.
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: St. Charles Journal (MO)
Copyright: 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch L.L.C
Contact: mpugh@yourjournal.com
Website: https://www.stltoday.com/neighborhoods/stcharlesjournal
Author: Steve Pokin
