Cliff Buchan
News Editor

Just what does the public think of a random drug testing policy for students participating in activities in ISD 831 schools?

The school board hopes to learn the answer to that question sometime this winter when it conducts a public forum to collect input from residents of the school district. The board, meeting in regular session on Thursday, Feb. 2, voted to conduct a public forum and bypass, at least for now, the creation of an ad hoc committee that would study the matter and report to the board.

The decision for the public forum, however, was far from unanimous. It took a 4-3 vote to approve the forum and charge Superintendent Lynn Steenblock with the job of setting up the public meeting.

The debate on Feb. 2 comes two months after board member Joe Grafft suggested the idea of random drug testing of students in activities. The testing, Grafft said, would be another effort by the school district in the ongoing battle against drug abuse.

Grafft admitted last week his suggestion in December was an ìoff the cuffî statement that he felt pertinent in a day and age when drug use remains a problem for youth. Grafft raised the subject during a board review of a policy dealing with a drug free workplace and schools.

The matter went to the board in January after the policy committee determined the Grafft proposal should stand alone. The idea of a committee to outline the pros and cons of a random drug testing program was proposed in January.

But that idea is now on hold, too.

Forum debated

The idea of a forum to collect public input was proposed last week by board members Keith Dunham and David Gay who felt it wise to hear what the public was saying and give the board time to organize before acting.

Collecting community opinion is something the board can and should do, Dunham argued. ìThatís what we are supposed to be doing,î Dunham said.

Grafft, a community activist and leader on youth drug problems, said the committee process was the next logical step in the process. The committee would outline the pros and cons of a random drug testing plan and give the board facts it could use in deciding if the policy should be adopted or not.

In the past several years, Grafft said community groups and the districtís drug task force has gone to the community for at least four public forums. At one in Linwood late last year, 175 parents were on hand.

ìDonít tell me we havenít gone out to the community (for input),î Grafft said. He said a public forum could be part of the ad hoc committee work.

But members Dunham, Gay and Eric Langness argued that the public forum should come first. Langness argued that the board has yet to hear community input on random drug testing. The fact that 175 parents attended a meeting on drugs does not prove that 175 parents support random drug testing, Langness said.

Member Julie Corcoran, who sided with Dunham, Gay and Langness to order the public forum, earlier argued that the board should be concentrating on the fall excess levy renewal. The levy is where the boardís focus and time should be spent, Corcoran said.

Gay, who made the motion for the public forum, said he wanted more information on how a random drug testing policy of students in activities would impact other district policies and student records.

Members Grafft, President Bill Bresin and Rob Rapheal cast the ìnoî votes in the 4-3 decision last week.

Bresin suggested that the time for a forum would be more appropriate when the committee had time to study and collect information. With the board moving ahead with a forum, Bresin said the board would receive questions that it could not answer. That will only result in more public confusion, he said.

A matter of policy

Dunham used the discussion last week to criticize operations of the school board in relation to how ad hoc committees are formed.

Grafftís efforts and passion are deserving of applause, Dunham said, but he added he was troubled about board communications via e-mail that addressed how the committee should be formed. The communication involved Bresin, Grafft and Steenblock, Dunham said.

Such discussion, Dunham said, went outside the board policy for the formation of ad hoc committees. ìThe fact remains we have policies,î Dunham said. ìItís a matter of policy.î

Grafft said he felt the preliminary study was a way to provide information to Dunham that he requested at the January meeting.

After Grafftís ìoff the cuffî suggestion in December, the random drug testing policy became the subject of media coverage. The board faced criticism from Langness for doing interviews on the subject.

Grafft said last week the goal was to take steps that would help youth deal with illegal drug issues and offer deterrents to drug use. There was no goal of attracting media coverage, he said.

ìMy purpose was kids, not news coverage,î Grafft said.

Ad hoc plan

In his report last week, Steenblock outlined a plan for the ad hoc committee format.

He suggested a 23-member group that would assess community opinion research on random drug testing and prepare a report for the school board in the July-August period of 2006. Depending on the time needed, any policy adopted by the full board would become effective for the winter term of 2006-2007 or the spring term of 2006-2007.

The structure for the Steenblock recommendation was built between the January and February board meetings as a result of meetings that included Grafft, Langness, Rapheal, Steenblock and other school staff.

The 23-member committee would include athletic and fine arts coaches, seven parents, two students, deans and principals. three board members, the police chief of Forest Lake, a county attorney and other school staff and community athletic representatives.

Top of Page

Forest Lake Times
P.O. Box 218
880 SW 15 St.
Forest Lake, MN 55025
651-464-4601
Fax 651-464-4605