Culver City to Reconsider Employee Drug Testing Proposal

Culver City council members on Monday voted to table for 30 days a proposal to broaden random drug testing among roughly 400 city employees.

Representatives of the city’s police and fire services requested an opportunity to discuss the matter with city officials and a chance for their constituents to vote on it. The council will reconsider the drug testing proposal in mid-February.

In the meantime, the city’s four bargaining units--police, fire, general employees and management--are expected to formalize their concerns about the proposal and present them to city officials in a private session before February’s council meeting. An unofficial poll of the nearly 100 members of the Culver City Police Officers Assn. indicated that the city’s police officers and sergeants are opposed to the random drug testing proposal.

“The issue isn’t the drug testing,” said Ed Henneberque, president of the police association. “It’s an extension of the police-bashing we’ve had to withstand. Criminals get more consideration--you have to show probable cause to test them.”

Since 1989, the city has operated under a limited “for cause” principle in its municipal code that allowed the city to test employees if evidence was found of on-the-job drug or alcohol use. That provision was expanded Jan. 1 under new federal regulations requiring the random testing of employees who work in safety-sensitive positions.

But the federal law is aimed for the most part at employees who hold commercial drivers’ licenses, such as drivers of trash trucks and buses. Culver City officials would like to expand that random testing to all city employees.

“It didn’t seem fair to test (drivers) without being able to test other employees too,” said City Atty. Norman Herring.

Drugs have not been a problem among Culver City employees, according to city personnel manager Gordon Youngs. The city has averaged fewer than five drug- or alcohol-related incidents a year, Youngs said, but Herring said he still sees the need for increased testing.

“We’re striving for a drug-free workplace because we should set an example in the city,” Herring said.

Random drug testing is a divisive issue, with strong arguments on both sides of the debate between the public’s right to safety and employees’ right to privacy. A city staff summary of the council’s proposal to widen drug testing found that court decisions generally have ruled that maintaining the integrity of the workplace is not sufficient reason to conduct random drug tests.

But the summary also cites cases in which the courts have ruled in favor of random drug testing, including testing public health and safety personnel, employees who carry weapons or are involved in policing drug activity, employees with access to confidential information, and those who operate city vehicles.

If approved, Culver City’s expanded testing program would cost the city at least $15,000 a year.