Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adair County fiscal court discusses change to employee drug-and-alcohol testing policy; effective after second reading
Summary
Fiscal court reviewed draft revisions to the county’s drug-and-alcohol testing policy: the jail would administer urine drug and alcohol testing, the county would pay for the first test for new hires, employees requesting lab confirmation would pay that fee, and the jail would bill departments. The change was described as effective after a required second reading.
Adair County’s fiscal court reviewed proposed changes to its employee drug-and-alcohol testing policy during Tuesday’s meeting, outlining who pays for testing and how positive results would be handled.
Under the draft language read to the court, the county jail would administer urine drug and alcohol tests, and the county would pay for the first urine test for new hires. If an employee contests a positive result and requests a confirmatory laboratory test, that additional confirmatory test would be at the employee’s expense, and the jail would bill each department for testing it performs. The draft states the changes would take effect only after the ordinance’s second reading.
Board members and department heads raised practical questions about vendor costs and capacity. Jail-related staff said their vendor (Cornerstone) charges $65 for alcohol confirmation testing, and that additional confirmatory testing would increase per-test costs. A sheriff’s office representative and other members emphasized the need for a clear written policy explaining when the county covers testing, when departments are billed, and how the county documents and tracks testing and reimbursements.
The court’s discussion repeatedly returned to two themes: vendor clarity and implementation mechanics. Members said they would follow the draft language as written but also requested that staff bring clearer cost estimates and written procedures before the policy’s final adoption.
Because the draft sets the effective date after the required second reading, the policy is not yet in force; court members said they would follow existing procedures until a second reading finalizes the change.
