Fiscal court reviews draft drug- and alcohol-testing policy to match state model

Members of the Fulton County Fiscal Court discussed a draft drug- and alcohol-testing policy intended to conform the county’s rules to a state model and to pursue a possible workers’ compensation premium discount.

The conversation focused on technical changes the court’s staff said are needed for legal compliance and practical application. Court staff emphasized that medical review officers (MROs) should be explicitly recognized as independent evaluators who can validate prescription explanations for otherwise positive screening results, and they proposed clearer language to ensure MRO determinations stand alone for purposes of confirming or overturning initial screens. Court members also discussed a new waiver section intended to allow limited, pre‑reported, inadvertent uses of prescribed medication to be considered by supervisors before a positive test is treated as a disciplinary matter.

Court members noted a recent court decision affecting random testing and said the draft removes blanket random screening of all administrative employees; under the proposed policy, administrative employees would generally be tested only after an accident, observed suspicious behavior, or for other specified reasons. Safety‑sensitive employees (including those holding commercial driver’s licenses or performing safety‑sensitive duties) would remain subject to random testing, accident testing and testing for cause. Staff also discussed that CDL rules and other federal or state regulations could limit local discretion for those categories.

The draft adds training and recordkeeping requirements: an initial one‑hour employee orientation, a 30‑minute annual employee review, and a 30‑minute annual supervisory training. Staff said forms would be needed, including a return‑to‑work acknowledgement and substance‑abuse‑treatment documentation; the draft maintains language to keep testing and treatment records confidential and separate from general personnel files.

Members asked staff to check specific language (including references on certain pages) and to get legal input. Staff said they had already sent portions of the draft to “Rich” for review and that the policy would be submitted to the county’s workers’ compensation carrier for approval of any premium discount. No formal adoption vote for the policy appears in the transcript; staff said they would return with a revised draft at a subsequent meeting.

Ending: Court members agreed to continue review, seek legal and carrier feedback, and bring a revised draft back to the fiscal court for further consideration.