‘Danger’ Cited in Plan to Check Job Applicants : Proposed City Worker Drug Tests Assailed

A proposal to screen prospective San Diego city workers to determine whether they are using illegal drugs drew angry rebukes Thursday from lawyers and employee representatives, who argued that the plan violates personal privacy rights and is riddled with logistical problems that could unfairly damage workers’ careers.

At a Civil Service Commission meeting where the guidelines proposed last month by City Personnel Director Rich Snapper were discussed, a handful of speakers warned the commissioners that the suggested drug test rules are too vague, discriminatory because they would apply only to some city employees, and may, in the words of lawyer John Murphy, represent “the first move toward a serious erosion of personal privacy.”

“Today it’s testing for drugs,” Murphy said. “Tomorrow it might be cameras in the bathrooms. Once you open the door, who knows where it stops?”

During a brief debate, the commissioners expressed general support for the concept of a drug screening program, which also would apply to city employees whom supervisors suspect of on-the-job drug use.

However, the commissioners, conceding that they shared some of the concerns raised Thursday, delayed any action on the proposal until their July meeting to allow additional public input and reaction to the plan.

“The concept makes sense to me,” said Commission Chairman Jim McFarland. “But I have some concerns about logistics.”

In a memo to the commission, Snapper recommended requiring pre-employment blood and urine tests for all applicants for city jobs “where public safety, employee safety and liability concerns (may) arise with any employee negligence or loss of efficiency” due to drug use.

The positions affected by Snapper’s proposal include prospective police officers, firefighters, lifeguards and workers who operate heavy equipment near the public, such as street sweepers, sanitation drivers and truck drivers. Snapper also proposed that the drug tests be given to applicants for other jobs involving “work in difficult situations due to emergency conditions, nighttime shifts and proximity to the public.” Workers in other city departments who apply for such jobs also would be required to take the tests.

Applicants for those city positions currently are required to take a medical examination and provide blood and urine samples. However, only the Police Department now disqualifies candidates whose tests reveal drug use, Snapper said.

Present Civil Service guidelines also specify that applicants cannot be disqualified solely for current use of illegal drugs. Rather, the rules disqualify only those persons whose “habitual or excessive use of habit-forming drugs or intoxicating beverages . . . would adversely affect job performance or public safety.” Under Snapper’s proposal, however, any applicant whose test revealed the presence of any illegal drugs would be barred from holding any “position with significant potential safety concerns.”

Asked by Commissioner Hope Logan why the tests would not be given to applicants for all city jobs, Snapper explained that there were “financial and practical reasons” for limiting the drug examinations to only certain job categories.

“The tests aren’t free and some jobs don’t involve the risks that others do,” Snapper said. Snapper estimated that a comprehensive screening for marijuana, amphetamines, PCP, cocaine and other illegal drugs would cost about $30 per applicant, adding that the program’s annual expense probably would be $5,000 to $10,000. Across-the-board application of the testing program could cost “tens of thousands of dollars,” Snapper added.

Deputy City Atty. John M. Kaheny also emphasized that “there’s a different level of concern” about occasional use of marijuana by a prospective police officer as compared to an applicant for a clerical job.

Murphy, however, contended that the guidelines might be improper even for law-enforcement officers and the other employees specified in Snapper’s proposal.

Noting that the California Constitution requires local and state governmental agencies to show “compelling reasons” to justify violations of personal privacy, Murphy said, “If they implemented this plan as it’s now written, I think a challenge (to its legality) would be successful.”

“In terms of invasion of privacy, this would be a dangerous precedent,” said Murphy, a former city personnel officer. “This is like the days when they used to screen for Communists. What’s it going to be next? This is just an excuse to violate personal privacy.”

However, in a legal opinion sent to the commission, Kaheny argued that the city could legally require applicants for city jobs and current employees suspected of on-duty drug use to be tested for illegal drugs if it does so “in compliance with its own rules and procedures and the requirements of due process.”

“No one has argued that a current drug addict is entitled to public employment,” Kaheny said.

Meanwhile, Richard Burk, representing Local 127 of the Assn. of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), complained that the proposed guidelines were “vague and loosely written,” creating “the potential for abuse.”

The commissioners also expressed concerns about protecting the confidentiality and insuring the accuracy of the tests. McFarland, for example, warned that wide-scale testing created the possibility of “logistical foul-ups and mix-ups of results.”

“It could be ruinous to a person’s career if a mistake is made,” added Dick Barker, the general manager of the Municipal Employees Assn., which represents about 2,500 of the city’s 7,000 workers.

In an attempt to protect against such errors, McFarland suggested that any applicant whose first drug test is positive should have the right to an immediate second test, perhaps by a different laboratory.

Drug testing among current employees is limited to those workers ordered by their supervisors to take a medical exam because their work allegedly is affected by their suspected drug use. To prevent vindictive supervisors from abusing that procedure, McFarland also proposed that at least two supervisors be consulted before an employee is ordered to undergo a medical examination. Refusal to take the tests can result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.

“Every safeguard we can think of should be built into this program,” McFarland said.