Council drug testing gets the go-ahead in Lafourche Parish

The battle over the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amend-ment is over in Lafourche Parish.

The Lafourche Parish Council voted last week to enact an ordinance randomly drug testing councilmen and the parish administration.

Parish President Charlotte Randolph tried to sway councilmen before the vote with an opinion from Fisher and Phillips law firm, the parish’s personnel attorney based in New Orleans.

The lawyers said that since the parish government is a public employer, there were certain constitutional and statutory constraints placed upon drug-testing employees. For it to be legal, the parish has to review each job to determine whether the employee’s duties permit a drug test, the attorney said.

The ordinance, backed by Councilman Lindel Toups, passed 5-4. Councilmen Daniel Lorraine (in his first meeting back from medical leave), Rodney Doucet, Matt Matherne, Phillip Gouaux and Toups voted for the ordinance.

Toups had previously sponsored two other motions, both of which failed, to send resolutions to the state Legislature in support of a mandate for drug testing school employees and anyone receiving government funds.

Toups’ new ordinance gained support after he argued the administration and parish council should lead by example.

“Are we holding ourselves above the people that work in the barns and the field? They have to be randomly drug-tested and so should we if we have nothing to hide,” he said.

Councilmen opposing the measure publicly denounced it. Councilman Joe Fertitta said of the ordinance, “It’s unconstitutional and I am not for it.”

Other “nay” voters – Councilmen Jerry Jones and Louis Richard – questioned whether the ordinance was beneficial to the parish.

Jones said the ordinance is too vague and is incomplete. There are no penalties attached if a person fails a drug screening, he said.

“Without penalties, the ordinance defeats its purpose,” Jones argued.

“If the parish is going to put out the money for this ordinance there will be some consequences,” Gouaux countered. “If the employee is not fired, then there needs to be some type of program for them to attend to seek help.”

Richard inquired about the cost of drug-testing the council and the administration.

“The magnitude of this ordinance is going to be costly and we have to think about this because we are dealing with taxpayers’ dollars,” he said. “And if we get into a legal battle, that’s more money being spent for nothing.”

The legal ramifications of the council’s action are not certain. Councilmen are aware that a legal issue could arise if an employee believes that his or her Fourth Amendment right has been infringed upon by the random testing.

However, Lafourche Parish District Attorney Cam Morvant refused to comment on the ordinance but said he would render a legal opinion if asked to do so.