Several issues generated comments from the public during the Oct. 29 Glen Cove Board of Education meeting. One of the topics discussed at the meeting, which continued past 11 p.m., was the board's newly adopted policy regarding the testing of hair to determine illegal drug use by students taking driver's education. Driver's education is an elective course offered at the high school. It was not offered last year because it was targeted in budget cuts.

The policy, as amended later that evening, states, "Commencing Jan. 1, 2002....participation in and successful completion of a driver education program by the City School District of Glen Cove will require evidence of drug free status as determined by non-invasive drug testing capable of detecting the illegal use or abuse of controlled substances within the prior three month period to be administered before and at the completion of the course. This program is contingent upon external funding. Drug testing will be provided free of charge to a student by a vendor selected by the school district. All record of drug testing will be destroyed. In the event of one confirmed positive drug test, the school district will take only the following actions: the student will not be allowed to take the course and will not receive a certificate of completion, even if the student has completed all of the course requirements; the student and parent/guardian will be notified and provided with substance abuse prevention program contact information and if the positive test result is contested by both the student and the parent, an additional hair sample will be tested at the expense of the parent, if the retest result is negative, the parent cost will be refunded."

Questions on violations of civil rights, a board member's conflict of interest, parental notification, false positive results, the testing of the driver education teacher and the potential for lawsuits abounded. The matter becomes moot without outside funding sources. Outside funding sources are necessary because the cost of the testing, $7,800 each term, is not included in the current school budget.

Last week, an informational night was sponsored by the school board. The meeting was for residents to learn more about hair testing for illegal drug use. While the board of education asked for other companies to either attend or send in proposals, only Psychemedics took up the offer. Since there were no representatives from other companies to offer information, the meeting turned out to be an infomercial for the one company in this particular business. Psychemedics, a company who counts among its employees school board member Phil Enright, has a current client list solely within the corporate world. Should they be awarded the contract for Glen Cove Schools, it would be their first school district customer.

In a press release dated May 11, 2001, Psychemedics announced that Phil Enright joined the company as regional sales manager, Eastern United States, with sales territory including the New York metropolitan area and the Middle Atlantic states. The release states, "He has been a longtime and strong supporter of Psychemedics and hair testing....we were enthusiastic when Phil contacted us about his interest in representing Psychemedics." Psychemedics has over 1,900 corporations relying on the Psychemedics patented hair test for drugs of abuse, five of the country's largest police departments and five Federal Reserve Banks.

The New York State Department of Education does not maintain a list of school districts having mandatory drug testing however, a state education legal department spokesperson said they believed that there are very few if any at all.

During the board meeting on Oct. 29, resident Rosemary Dilgard cited many instances nationwide where courts have struck down school district drug testing policy. Mrs. Dilgard said it was more prudent to spend the money on education and it is ludicrous to assume that students taking driver education take drugs. "This violates a student's right to be free of illegal search and seizure," said Mrs. Dilgard. The board's attorney, Carol Hoffman, said, "Each case cited has a specific fact pattern and has been taken from the ACLU website. The ACLU has a particular point of view. We have been advised that non-credit bearing courses with this testing can pass Constitutional muster in New York. The cases cited are there to keep school boards from tackling this matter. Driver education is different from athletics because of the safety factor."

Bob Rubin said he was appalled that 140 students taking driver education are being pointed out to be tested for drugs. "Have the parents been asked about the policy? What's to stop a kid from doing drugs after driver education?"

Board president Vito Abbondandolo said the drug testing is contingent upon the successful obtainment, by the board, of outside funding. Without it, the testing will not be implemented.

Gerri Orlando said, "Our school district has a drug-free curriculum-Red Ribbon Week, BIONIC Week, self-awareness events in the schools. We are going in the wrong direction to have hair testing. The kids will figure out how to beat the system. Does that mean our district's programs already in place have failed and we haven't done our job?" Mr. Abbondandolo said the board is trying to help the kids and is not trying to hurt anyone to which Mrs. Orlando responded, "I'll deal with my own child."

Former board member Lorri Prince said the issue is a parent's responsibility and the board has spent too much time and energy in an area affecting so few students. As for testing the hair of a student whose religious beliefs prohibit the cutting of hair, Mrs. Hoffman said it wouldn't be part of district policy and would be considered on a case by case basis. However, during the informational night held by the board last week, Mr. Enright said that hair would be taken from "under an armpit or another part of the body." Mr. Enright's response was not well received by those attending that meeting.

Chuck Bondar asked the board why the district is testing and whom are they testing. "The testing assumes guilt on the part of the student and forces the student to prove innocence. How much previous experience does the district have to warrant this testing and why driver education? The legal ramifications are not cut and dry. We shouldn't stand for this," said Mr. Bondar. Marv Isaacson asked what the motivating factor was for the board to consider drug testing. Mr. Abbondandolo said it was a board member, [Phil Enright], who wanted to look into this. Mrs. Hoffman added that a random drug test would be illegal however this test, attached to driver education, is voluntary and a student knows he/she will be tested.

A question of conflict of interest on Mr. Enright's part resurfaced and Mrs. Hoffman said she had checked with the state comptroller's office. "As long as Mr. Enright is not an owner of the company and his salary is not based on commissions, there is no conflict of interest," said Mrs. Hoffman.

Dr. Ron Abrams said he heard a lot of questions on civil rights and it seemed to him the district would be facing many lawsuits which would cost taxpayers a lot of money. Nancy Fender said the district has come up with a solution without identifying a problem and without facts-not even a PRIDE survey.

Board member Carol Sucharski said that since the informational meeting, the board received several proposals from other companies and she felt the board and public should hear about them. Mrs. Sucharski's seconded motion to table the adoption of the policy and its amendment only received 3 of 4 necessary votes for passage. Superintendent Dr. Mary Ellen Freeley added that outside funding is not forthcoming and it didn't look as if money would be in place to commence on Jan. 1, 2002.