Drug Tests for 50,000 State Employees Near, Governor Says

Gov. George Deukmejian announced Saturday that his controversial plan to test new and current state employees in “sensitive” state government jobs for drug use is nearing implementation.

“Drug abuse among state employees is not only illegal, but it is inconsistent with the trust placed in such employees as public servants,” Deukmejian declared.

Potentially affected by the policy would be such state peace officers as members of the Highway Patrol, narcotics agents, game wardens and prison guards and other workers such as physicians, nurses and heavy equipment operators whose drug-impaired performance could threaten the health and safety of citizens.

Although the federal government has initiated a similar program, Deukmejian Administration officials were unable to estimate how many other states might also have instituted employee testing for suspected workplace abuse of drugs and alcohol.

Case-by-Case Basis

Under regulations developed by the state Department of Personnel Administration, violators would be handled primarily on a case-by-case basis, officials said. Depending upon the severity of the situation, punishment could range from assigning an employee to a rehabilitation program to firing.

In his regular weekly radio speech, Deukmejian asserted that under the new policy “we will help to ensure the protection of public health and safety in a manner that is consistent with the right of privacy and personal freedom.”

Potentially covered by the drug-testing program would be 30,000 peace officers and 20,000 employees in “sensitive” positions, ranging from firefighters and mental hospital workers to dentists and the operators of heavy equipment such as highway construction machinery.

James D. Mosman, director of personnel administration, said that actual testing of employees “reasonably suspected” of violating the anti-drug rules would start at mid-summer, barring hitches in the public hearing process and the filing of lawsuits or other litigation against the program.

In an effort to create a “drug-free workplace,” Deukmejian first ordered a state government drug-testing program for “sensitive position” employees in September, 1986. He issued the directive to the state Department of Personnel Administration and the state Personnel Board, which screens applicants for jobs.

Eight months later, however, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp issued a 162-page analysis of legal issues common to drug testing of public employees. He warned Deukmejian that a program “triggered by anything less than a reasonable suspicion that particular individuals are using drugs would probably conflict with California’s strict constitutional guarantees of individual privacy.”

Further, Van de Kamp said, such a policy would likely be held in court to violate both state and federal constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and raise questions of equal protection under the law as to which employes held “sensitive” positions and which did not.

‘Legally Sound’

The governor’s press secretary, Kevin Brett, said officials who drafted the regulations “took into account the attorney general’s opinion and they believe the regulations are legally sound and are confident they will withstand legal challenge, if it comes to that.”

Brett said that Administration officials “are consulting with employee unions,” which last year assailed proposed Personnel Board drug-testing regulations. The rules subsequently were pulled back and new public hearings were ordered.

Brett said the Department of Personnel Administration will hold a public hearing March 16 on its proposed rules and submit them to the state Office of Administrative Law, the agency that must give its approval before actual implementation.

The department’s regulations, in part, define “reasonable suspicion” as the “good faith belief based on articulable facts that an employee may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

In an effort to prevent possible conflicts between an employee and his or her immediate supervisor from spilling into charges of drug abuse, the regulations would require that a “reasonable suspicion” must be confirmed by an authority higher than the immediate boss.

The regulations also spell out employee rights, testing procedures and safeguards against erroneous results, review of the results by a medical officer, and protection against disclosure of confidential test results and employee records.

The rules would also require that any state worker in a “sensitive” position who violated the anti-drug policy would be required to submit to “periodic drug testing” as a condition of remaining in or returning to state government employment.

The Department of Corrections and the California Highway Patrol now screen job applicants during interviews and written testing on past use of hard drugs. Officials have said that up to 20% are disqualified because they admit to drug use.

‘Should Be a Leader’

In his speech, Deukmejian noted that many businesses already have drug-testing programs. “The state government, as one of the largest employers in California, should be a leader in the efforts to rid the workplace of drug abuse,” he said.

He also issued an executive order creating a new advisory council of key state department directors and representatives of the attorney general and superintendent of public instruction to devise a “comprehensive and coordinated” strategy statewide on alcohol and drug abuse enforcement and treatment and prevention programs.

Deukmejian said this would “maximize the efficiency and effectiveness” of the many drug and alcohol abuse programs already in place.