Negotiators discussed random drug‑testing language for safety‑sensitive positions and whether to incorporate model language the city provided from another department. Both sides said they want a fair, non‑targeted process, but union leaders objected to language they had not fully reviewed and requested time to consider the model policy.

Context: City staff presented an example (the El Paso policy appendices were provided as examples in the session) and said the proposed approach would test between 10% and 50% of authorized employees in safety‑sensitive roles on a random basis, with clearly defined collection procedures and reasonable‑suspicion and post‑accident testing subsections. Union leaders said they would review the model and seek to ensure safeguards against targeting and that any random program be applied consistently and only to employees in safety‑sensitive positions as defined by law.

Why it matters: Both sides acknowledged prior incidents where reasonable‑suspicion testing returned positive results; union leaders stressed that public statements implying widespread drug use in the department were inaccurate and harmful. City negotiators said the random component would help find individuals who are not identified through reasonable‑suspicion screening and protect public safety.

Next steps: The union asked for time to reconcile two similar policy appendices provided by the city and to review the collection and randomization procedures. Negotiators agreed to revisit the model language in their next meeting and to continue negotiating where the city's standard policy differs from the union’s requested language.