Different Kind of Drug War Being Waged in S. El Monte

In a society where everyone from bus drivers to supermarket cashiers is subject to random drug testing, it was only a matter of time before someone approved testing for local officials.

That time has come in South El Monte.

The tiny San Gabriel Valley community is believed to be the first in California to approve voluntary, random drug tests for its City Council members.

The council’s decision has ignited a debate about whether such tests are truly voluntary for elected officials. So untested is the policy that five weeks after its enactment, city staff members are still struggling with how to test their bosses for marijuana, cocaine and other illegal drugs. “Elected officials have to be the role models for the community,” said Councilwoman Blanca Figueroa, who sponsored the policy, which was approved 3-2 by the council.

Figueroa, a teacher’s aide, said she proposed the testing after her students--citing the cocaine possession conviction of Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Hernandez and Eastside Councilman Richard Alatorre’s testing positive for cocaine--questioned how she could preach against drugs when two potential role models ran afoul of them.

“The message they got,” Figueroa said, “was, ‘Take drugs and become an elected official.’ ”

But others say that Figueroa’s proposal is political grandstanding and an affront to privacy rights.

“This is ridiculous. It assumes you’re guilty until proven innocent,” said Councilman George Lujan, who has vowed to overturn the policy.

Likening it to a witch hunt, Lujan has said he will refuse to participate in the testing. “I’ll take the test when that one individual administering it wears a red coat [and] . . . red cap,” Lujan said, invoking an image from the Spanish Inquisition.

Lujan is not alone in his objection to the policy, which says that drug tests can be conducted at random every three months.

“I think it violates the constitutional right to privacy,” said Mayor Art Olmos, who joined Lujan in opposing drug testing.

Although results of the tests would not be made public under the policy, they would be available to the full City Council. And if a council member was found to have used illegal drugs, he or she could be subject to a variety of actions by colleagues, including mandatory participation in a rehabilitation program, a private reprimand or a public censure.

Physician Forest Tennant, a drug dependence expert, said actions such as those in South El Monte do little to help people addicted to drugs, and are more about scoring points politically.

“It is sad when elected officials stand up in public and take people on for what is a medical problem,” said Tennant, a former West Covina mayor who once oversaw drug policy for the National Football League.

“It’s not to a politician’s credit to exploit a person’s frailties,” he said.

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California say South El Monte may be setting a dangerous precedent that could discourage citizens from running for public office.

Moreover, they say, council members not taking the test will be cast in a suspicious light, even though they may never have used illegal drugs.

“It’s voluntary only in name,” ACLU attorney Elizabeth Schroeder said. “It reflects an erosion of trust in our elected officials. We should assume people are clean unless proven otherwise. It is becoming very popular for people to have to prove they’re innocent.”

If there is reason to suspect someone is taking illegal drugs, it can be addressed under existing law, she said. South El Monte, she added, has failed to show a compelling need for the testing.

Schroeder said she worries that the policy will spread across the state and could become a dangerous political litmus test. At least two other cities, La Puente and Burbank, have considered the idea.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 struck down a Georgia law requiring political candidates to prove they were drug free. Georgia cited the 1990 conviction on cocaine possession of former Washington Mayor Marion Barry in defense of the law.

A federal judge in December also struck down mandatory drug testing for elected officials in Louisiana. Officials there--who argued that their law differed from Georgia’s because it applied to those already elected--have appealed.

South El Monte’s city attorney, who spent several months drafting the policy after Figueroa raised the issue in November, said the drug testing is legal, so long as it is voluntary.

Although opponents say the policy’s passage shortly before the March 2 municipal election may have been politically motivated, two of the council members who supported the measure were not reelected.

“Voters are more concerned about street maintenance and trash collection and dwindling city reserves,” said Al Perez, a newly elected councilman, who added that he has no objection to such testing.

But even as the controversy grows, Councilwoman Figueroa said she does not understand the objections.

After all, she said, like many cities, South El Monte demands drug testing of applicants for all city jobs, and periodic testing for those in the most dangerous occupations.

“We demand this of city employees,” she said. “Why won’t we step up to the batter’s [box]?”

Figueroa is tapping into voter distrust, said Alan Heslop, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “Politicians aren’t trusted by the public, from president on down,” he said.

But if elected officials need to prove they are worthy of office, Councilman Lujan has plenty of other ideas. “A civics examination or intelligence test would be better,” he said.

Besides, he added, passing a drug test is no guarantee that a politician will do what is best for the community.

Said Lujan: “Blanca Figueroa was stone-cold sober when she came up with the idea.”