City of Olive Hill to make changes to drug policy

By Nicole Back, staff writer

Dec. 31, 2008 — The city of Olive Hill’s drug policy will soon change. The employee handbook states the city’s employees should be drug free but the rule is not currently enforced.

Council discussed the first reading of an ordinance establishing a policy for a drug-free workplace at a special meeting, held Monday, Dec. 22. The ordinance was part of a special meeting’s agenda. Mayor Danny Sparks called for the special meeting. However, Sparks did not attend the meeting because he forgot he had tickets to a UK game and decided to go to that, instead, according to Sheree James, city clerk. Madeline Powell, council member, acted as mayor.

The city will start enforcing the new policy in order to get financial help from the United States Department of Agriculture.

“We’re hoping to get two police cruisers,” Powell said in an interview. “We buy two and they match us with two but in their stipulations they require a drug free policy within your city ordinances.”

She said she does not know much about the new ordinance.

Gayle Smith, council member, pointed out to his fellow council members that, according to the new policy, city employees can easily fail a drug test.

“If you read that very first page where it talks about alcohol, say you laid down and took NyQuil, you could be in violation of this policy,” he said.

“Absolutely,” Tony Williams, council member, said.

James said the group needs to study the policy in order to discuss the second reading of the ordinance at city council’s next meeting.

“There’s a lot of room here for lawsuits,” James told the group during the meeting. “There’s a lot to this and you all just need to come up with your questions.”

During the discussion, James told council enforcing a drug policy is expensive.

“Right now all of our gas employees, and have been ever since I’ve been here, because of the federal service commission, their names are given to this company and randomly this company will send us a letter and they are drug tested constantly,” she said. “Anybody that comes around to the gas meter. That is expensive and we’ve only had to pay for it for gas.”

Powell said in an interview she is not sure how expensive enforcing the ordinance will be.

“If we can use someone that’s already employed with the city to do the training that can actually do the drug testing, that would be great but if we have to hire somebody else to do the drug testing it will add a cost to the city,” she said.

She said there is no special funding for the program.

“I know that the drug free policy is trying to bring us into compliance with what the state requires for us to receive certain funds that they provide for things that help operate the municipals around the state,” she said.

James read part of the policy aloud during the meeting.

“The city will pay for all conductive tests as described in this policy except for a second controlled substance test if requested by the employee,” she read. “When the test confirms the initial test be positive, employees may utilize all service benefits available to the city’s employee assistance program.”

Smith reminded everyone that the discussion was about the first reading of the ordinance establishing a policy for a drug-free workplace.

“It could cost us more that you think long term but really I don’t know whether it’s bad or good,” he said.

Williams disagreed with Smith.

I really think in the long run it will probably save us money because of the insurance,” he said.

James said there is a discount available for the city but she is not sure what it is.

“The state is really pushing this or we’re going to lose funding,” she said. “We need to do it, we just need to get it down to something we can manage.”

Council will discuss the second reading of the drug-free workplace ordinance Jan. 12.

Text Only