Winston‑Salem/Forsyth board rejects change to pre‑hire THC policy after heated public comment

The Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools Board of Education debated proposed changes to Policy 4116.3 (Staff Rights and Responsibilities) that would allow the superintendent or designee to authorize employment for applicants who test positive for cannabis on a pre‑employment drug screen if they agree to conditions including four random drug tests during their first year.

The proposal, introduced by Chief Human Resources Officer Chris Weichart, would have replaced the district’s current six‑month ineligibility period with a conditional‑employment pathway for non‑CDL hires. Weichart said the conditions would include signing an acknowledgement of the district’s drug‑free workplace policy and that the employee would pay for follow‑up testing. "They'd also have to sign a paper saying they understand our board policy that we are a drug free environment," Weichart said.

The draft policy drew extended public comment and technical testimony. Several speakers urged the board to reject the change, arguing it would lower standards for people responsible for students. Public commenter Jason Lucero told the board: "We should never compromise in allowing competent people to be responsible for our children. Lowering our hiring standards to allow people that fail drug tests is not the answer." Myra Bumgarner asked the board to define numerical THC thresholds and warned that contaminated CBD products can cause positive results: "If it is indeed CBD, the level should be defined medically accepted THC levels found in CBD." Teacher and community members said retention and workplace conditions, not relaxed testing, should be the focus.

Medical and treatment perspectives were also offered. A speaker who identified his background in neuroscience and addiction treatment urged the board to consider each case and, when applicable, seek medical verification of prescribed medications rather than impose a blanket rule. Other commenters argued for flexibility for candidates who unknowingly use mislabeled CBD products.

Board members questioned operational details the policy would require: timing and number of follow‑up tests, who would make the authorization decision, and how the district would handle positive follow‑ups. Weichart told the board follow‑up testing would be randomized and noted the district receives numeric lab results that indicate concentrations above the typical 50 ng/mL cutoff. The board also discussed whether the superintendent or the chief human resources officer (or a designee) should hold authority to approve conditional hires.

After debate, a motion to approve the proposed changes to Policy 4116.3 was called and seconded. The board voted; the motion did not pass. The board did not adopt the conditional‑employment language as presented.

The discussion left several open operational questions the board referenced repeatedly: a precise numeric cutoff for THC that would trigger a positive result, the timing of follow‑up tests, and whether the decision to authorize conditional hires should rest exclusively with the superintendent. Several board members asked staff to return with clarified language and enforcement procedures if the board wishes to revisit the issue.

The board’s decision preserves the district’s existing process (applicants who test positive are ineligible for six months under current practice) while signaling interest from some members in further detail on how to distinguish medicinal/prescription positives from recreational use and how to structure a defensible conditional process.

Ending note: the item drew the largest single block of public comment during the meeting and prompted requests from board members for additional analysis and legal review if staff returns a revised proposal.