East County Issue: Drug-Testing Thousand Oaks Employees

Thousand Oaks city officials plan to test employees for drug or alcohol use if abuse is suspected. Two unions say it would be unfair to screen workers unless council members, contractors and volunteers who receive public funds also undergo testing. Do you think elected officials and others should be subjected to drug-testing?

Elois Zeanah, City Council member, Thousand Oaks

I believe the purpose of that policy would be to ensure the health and safety of city personnel and the community. Workers might be on sensitive projects in the community where one’s physical and mental capacities should be at their very highest. However, I firmly believe that, as a policy-making body, we members should be willing to subject ourselves to the same criteria. And while we are not in positions to physically impact a person’s health or safety, I still think that we should be willing to do that if the community asks for us to undergo tests. We’re not only the policy-makers, we’re also the moral leaders. I share the goal to have a drug-free society and a drug-free community, and anything I can do personally, or collectively as a council, I am willing to do. The intent of the policy is to ensure safety. It is being used as a negotiating ploy perhaps, but I am certainly willing to submit to the same tests and the same rules as anyone else, even though in my case it is not a job issue.

Ruth E. Leonard, Thousand Oaks librarian ; president , Thousand Oaks Management Assn.

I firmly believe they should be subjected to the same policy that is applied to employees. I support the establishment of a substance-abuse policy for the city of Thousand Oaks, and I think it should be as broadly applied as possible. It should recognize that substance abuse doesn’t discriminate between volunteers or elected officials and paid employees. It reaches all layers of society. If the city is serious about addressing the problem, then its elected officials should not have a problem with being tested. I recognize it would be a departure from what other cities do, but so what? Let’s show the world that we are concerned about this issue. It seems silly to require that librarians be tested and not police or firefighters. I know the city is not responsible for the policies of those departments, but they can incorporate into the language of a substance-abuse policy the idea that we’re concerned about it as a societal problem and not just an employee situation.

Frank Schillo, Mayor , Thousand Oaks

First of all, I cannot comment about negotiations between the employees union and the city manager. But my own personal opinion regarding whether elected officials should be subjected to drug-testing is this: I have no problem with it at all. Personally, I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, and I’ve never taken drugs, so I don’t have any problem being tested. As an elected official, my rights as a citizen become less. I have very few personal rights in the sense that all my personal stuff is exposed as an elected official. I’m chairman of the Conejo Substance Abuse Prevention Authority, which is a joint effort between the county, the city, the park district and the schools. We’ve sent out letters to businesses in the area, offering to send psychologists out to volunteer their time in the workplace. They talk to employees about substance abuse and can help them recognize if they have a problem or if there is a problem in the family. Certainly, in a personal way, I have no problem with being tested.

Barry L. Hammitt, Executive director, Public Employees Assn. of Ventura County

I don’t believe elected officials, any more than other workers, should be subjected to drug-testing unless probable cause can be found. Once probable cause is established, and provided everyone is afforded all legal protections, then drug-testing is probably OK. There should not be blanket testing. And if you are going to make drug-testing a condition of city employment, then drug-testing ought to be a condition for others. Why should a volunteer be held to a lesser standard than a city employee? Or if somebody is going to build the new city hall at Jungleland, why should not they and their employees--the people who design and build--be held to the same standard as city employees? That tells me the city is concerned. They’re saying we’re not going to do business with anyone who doesn’t hold the same standard. If you’re going to profess that you’re against drugs, then be against drugs. Otherwise, it’s a bit hypocritical.

Greg A. Eckman, Human resources manager, city of Thousand Oaks

The proposed policy is being directed at employees at all levels in the organization to help ensure a healthy and safe workplace. The proposed policy is not unique and is very similar to policies adopted in other public jurisdictions. Just as civic employees are accountable to the city, City Council members are accountable to the electorate. If the voters wish to impose requirements of public office to include substance-abuse testing, it is incumbent upon the public to enact legislation or otherwise to enforce such a requirement. Furthermore, if the public has concerns over the performance of their elected representatives, that concern is best expressed at the ballot box. My reaction to extending it past city employees would not be unlike requiring a merchant in a shopping mall to be responsible for the substance abuse of its customers, and I don’t believe that to be appropriate.