The Parker City Council met in workshop on Jan. 7, 2025, to continue reviewing a proposed personnel manual, concentrating on Section 1.5 (drug and alcohol use), testing procedures, mandatory reporting and related personnel rules.

Council members and staff debated whether the policy should create a presumptive blood-alcohol level (the draft referenced 0.02) or require a simpler zero-tolerance rule for employees “while on city-related business.” Several council members said a single clear rule would be easier to apply at community events such as National Night Out or ParkerFest; others noted practical and legal differences for public-safety employees. The council discussed examples (off-site city events, use of personal vehicles while on city business) and whether different employee groups (law enforcement, emergency responders) should have separate rules.

City attorney Catherine (recorded in the workshop as providing legal guidance) told council she drafted language to require that “someone observing someone who appears to be impaired” must report that observation to a supervisor and human resources so the employer can perform a reasonable-suspicion analysis. Human-resources staff (Grant) explained existing testing logistics: the city uses an external lab (NOVA, with the closest site in Plano), testing windows can be short (the draft references a four-hour window for some post-accident testing), and there are cost/scheduling considerations for different test types.

Council and staff also discussed how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to employees with substance-use disorders, and the distinction between treatment-protected status (in some cases under ADA) and disciplinary consequences for on-duty impairment. Council members asked for clearer language on when employees must disclose prescribed medication and when supervisors should trigger reasonable-suspicion testing. Grant noted the city offers an employee assistance program (EAP) for counseling, but that inpatient rehab coverage is limited and varies by insurer.

Other topics reviewed during the workshop included: mandatory reporting of arrests/traffic violations (the draft links some reporting obligations to drug and alcohol rules), off-duty conduct and “damage to the city’s reputation,” possession vs. use distinctions in paraphernalia clauses, and testing confidentiality (medical-related records to be retained in HR, disclosed only on a need-to-know basis).

Workshop participants agreed on several next steps: staff and the city attorney will (1) redraft the alcohol/drug sections to improve clarity about city business vs. personal time and to resolve the 0.02 vs. zero-tolerance tension, (2) add clear reporting chains (supervisor → HR) and reasonable-suspicion guidelines, (3) confirm testing vendor capabilities and turnaround time, and (4) revise nepotism/employee-dating language and other housekeeping edits. The manual review was paused at the end of the workshop; council will resume on Section 1.8 at a later meeting.

Catherine summarized the reporting requirement language she prepared, saying it would require reporting to a supervisor and HR so reasonable-suspicion analysis can follow. The council asked staff to return with edits and with clarifications about testing logistics and EAP/insurance coverage.

The workshop was informational; no ordinance or binding action on the personnel manual was adopted at the meeting.