Could teachers be drug tested?
By Becky Orr
borr@wyomingnews.com
CHEYENNE n Laramie County School District 1 does not have a policy to randomly test teachers for drugs.
Whether it could happen rests more with decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court than the school district.
Last week, federal authorities arrested a teacher and a teacher’s assistant in Cheyenne on drug-related charges.
In light of that, LCSD1 will review how it supervises, hires, evaluates and monitors employees, Superintendent Ted Adams said Tuesday. “We need to review all our processes,” he said.
Officials also will look at whether it would be possible to randomly test employees, he added, noting there have been barriers to doing that in the past.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in different cases that subjecting government employees to random tests violates their privacy and creates unlawful search and seizure.
John Lyttle, LCSD1 assistant superintendent of human resources, has asked lawyers for the district to review the question.
Adams said that if it’s legally feasible to move forward with a drug-testing policy, the district could do so.
“The district is devastated by any kind of allegation like this,” Adams said.
“I clearly, from my personal perspective, would be happy to have drug testing” of everyone in the district on a random basis, Adams said. “But there are challenges associated with doing that kind of testing,” he said, referring to past court decisions.
The district “clearly needs to look at the options to protect children and to protect the institution and build our trust with parents,” he added.
LCSD1 does drug and alcohol tests on employees for cause. The district can test employees if there is a suspicion of drug use.
If a person refuses to take the test for cause, it’s considered a positive test. The employee is subject to discipline, including firing, Lyttle said.
Federal law requires districts to randomly test bus drivers or any employee who transports children, Lyttle added.
Coming up with a random drug-testing policy is a job beyond the scope of the superintendent or school boards, Adams said. It would take enabling legislation at the state and national levels.
But the local district can raise the question, Adams said.
Random testing would not be a solution in itself, he cautioned. The practice wouldn’t catch drug dealers who aren’t users.
District officials hire the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation to do background checks before the district hires someone. LCSD1 officials also check a registry to screen potential employees for child abuse.
LCSD1 Trustee Al Atkins does not favor random drug testing for employees. He said he doesn’t think it is necessary.
“If we had a problem, I’d be in favor of it,” he said.
But Trustee Dale Vosler supports testing everyone, from the top on down. Whether it could happen depends on what the law will allow, he added.
“I think it is something the board certainly needs to discuss with Ted (Adams),” board Chairwoman Jan Stalcup said.
The school board needs to look at places that tried it and see how it worked, she said.
“It’s something we need to look at seriously,” Stalcup said. “We take the safety of our children very seriously.”
Based on an Internet search, Hawaii is the first to enact a statewide mandatory drug-testing policy for school employees like teachers and administrative workers. The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii plans to challenge the policy.
Linda Burt, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming, objects to random testing because it violates rights and isn’t cost effective.
“We have a lot of information that says random drug testing isn’t that effective,” she said.
“What is really effective is good employee human resources programs,” Burt said. These programs provide for education, treatment and good supervision of employees to spot problems and get help.
The city of Cheyenne, Laramie County and the state of Wyoming can require employees to do random drug tests if there is cause.
But only select groups of their employees n like those who work in safety jobs n are subject to random drug tests.
Rich Wiederspahn, director of human resources for the city of Cheyenne, said people applying for safety jobs n like police officers, firefighters and city bus drivers n must take drug tests before they are hired.
Employees in these jobs n and those with Commercial Driver’s Licenses n are subject to random drug tests. Other city employees are not.
An opinion from the Wyoming attorney general in June 2007 concluded it’s not reasonable to have random drug testing for public employees unless there is evidence of drug problems at work.
Emily Smith, human resources director for Laramie County, said people have to be drug tested before the county will hire them.
Only county employees who have CDL licenses in the Public Works Department are subject to random drug tests, she said.
Reader Comments
Hard facts wrote on Mar 31, 2009 5:19 AM:
Semper "
Tess wrote on Jul 13, 2008 2:17 PM:
politicaldisturbed wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:56 PM:
UIN wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:21 AM:
Dan wrote on Feb 20, 2008 10:05 AM:
Cameron wrote on Feb 19, 2008 4:19 PM:
Leroy wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:14 AM:
What are u babbling about? I'm a federal employee and VERY SUBJECT to RANDOM DRUG TESTING.
And it is not invasive! And it does not FALSE TEST! There is a thorough questionaire that allows one to claim using legal drugs. And you're correct it does not catch every drug user, but it is one helluva a deterrent for most! AND why wait til there is a drug epidemic?? Have you ever heard the ol' saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
The district is 90% at fault in this case. Had they been a little more proactive with this "problem" teacher, this would not be the issue it is today. "
Tonjah wrote on Feb 18, 2008 11:52 AM:
Cheyenne Citizen wrote on Feb 18, 2008 1:19 AM:
It is understandable to want to do something about drug use, but the district should not be faulted for following the law or seeking advice of an attorney before proceeding in this sensitive issue. "
Cameron wrote on Feb 17, 2008 5:06 PM:
Rico wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:15 AM:
Teachers Aide wrote on Feb 17, 2008 1:41 AM:
4th Amendment wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:18 AM:
I know a lot of you, including teachers, will say "why not take the test if you have nothing to hide?" Would you let the police search your home without a warrant? I wouldn't. The Bill of Rights gets stepped on too much these days. "
School Bus driver wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:01 PM:
dont forget the kids wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:36 PM:
Start with The city and county and state government employees. Forget random. Make it when mandatory when you pick up your check. If you test positive, no check. Get breathalysers to field test everyone coming to work. That might cut down on the bar closers that come to work all hung over.
Maybe Check points on Yellowstone and some on Del Range. Or I forgot armed Check points. "
loves teaching wrote on Feb 15, 2008 5:14 PM:
Beano wrote on Feb 15, 2008 4:09 PM:
Brandi Hoff wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:06 AM:
Wyorebel wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:35 AM:
Michael Milliron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 5:41 PM:
Rational wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:43 AM:
Wake up people. Why do you ask for a police state? It is already coming and you will be the first ones crying when its here.
"
district employee wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:49 AM:
truth hurts! wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:54 AM:
Drug testing wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:51 AM:
Cholakis wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:38 AM:
gjs wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:25 PM:
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting around doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
"
wyomingteacher wrote on Feb 13, 2008 9:32 PM:
patty wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:47 PM:
It's Me! wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:12 PM:
Malcolm Tent wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:02 PM:
To Apex from Drea wrote on Feb 13, 2008 3:13 PM:
To while you're at it from Drea wrote on Feb 13, 2008 3:10 PM:
CHEYENNECOWGIRL wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:42 PM:
AA wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:36 PM:
while you're at it wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:05 PM:
"
RICH wrote on Feb 13, 2008 11:53 AM:
Mr. Bill wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:21 AM:
Since that IS NOT the case at LSD1, drug testing is needed. From the top down, not just teachers. LCSD1 does drug and alcohol tests on employees for cause. The district can test employees if there is a suspicion of drug use.
AND MR. LYTTLE, "if a person refuses to take the test for cause, it’s considered a positive test. The employee is subject to discipline, including firing"
Then why is Ms. Mondello on PAID leave? Not enough cause justified yet?
Rationale like this is why the district needs drug testing. Starting at the top! "
Apex wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:53 AM:
CHEYENNECOWGIRL wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:36 AM:
Ray wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:15 AM:
Drea wrote on Feb 13, 2008 7:40 AM:
Ralphinphnx wrote on Feb 13, 2008 6:55 AM:
school district for
drugs on a regular basis and on a spot
check basis to boot,
so the taxpayers can
get rid of drug addict school teachers
and administrators and
could we fire or hang
them if they refuse to
be tested as well? "
Leave Your Comments
|
There is a 200 word limitation per post Comments are not posted until after being approved by WTE staff. Comments may be rejected by the WTE staff at their discretion. The comments posted on the Reader Comments section are not necessarily those of the WTE. If you would like to report an offensive post, please contact us. |




kpm. wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:53 AM: