Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drug Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee postpones vote on required drug‑test‑kit rule after extended discussion about false positives and protocols
Summary
After lengthy debate about false positives, test types, confirmatory lab testing and impacts on family‑court visitation, the committee voted to postpone a proposed requirement for high‑quality drug test kits and automatic confirmatory testing (Resolution 155). Staff reported 284 tests in 10 months with 19 confirmatory false positives (6.7%).
Legislators on the Ulster County Health, Human Services, and Human Rights Committee postponed action May 8 on a proposal (Resolution 155) that would require high‑quality drug test kits for county‑administered social‑service programs and guarantee a secondary confirmatory test when an initial screen is positive.
Sponsor Legislator McCulla moved an amendment to remove the modifier "field" from the title in order to broaden coverage; following debate staff and committee members agreed to defer action for further review. "So we can postpone it," the chair said; the motion to postpone was moved by Legislator McCulla, seconded by Legislator Harmon, and approved.
Department of Social Services staff described current protocols and data the department has gathered since adopting the kits. The commissioner and unit staff said the county uses urine panel screens, sends positives to a laboratory for confirmation and retains visits in most cases unless the parent is clearly impaired. Staff reported that over a recent 10‑month period the agency administered 284 tests; 19 of those initial positives were later confirmed negative by the laboratory, a 6.7% false‑positive rate. Staff also cited K2 (synthetic cannabinoids) as a frequent source of screening anomalies and noted some prescribed medications can trigger panels.
"Every positive is tested twice," a department official said, describing overnight lab confirmation of initial positives. Staff emphasized the tests are used in the context of family‑court orders and supervised visits; a positive screen does not automatically end a scheduled visit absent observable impairment, but confirmed positives can lead to reporting to the court and potential violation proceedings.
Committee members raised questions about inclusivity, the difference between field and agency‑administered tests, the human impact of false positives, and whether alternate sample types (oral fluid) should be considered. Because members wanted more time to review protocols, confirm costs and ensure safeguards for parents, the committee postponed the resolution so staff can return with additional information.
