Housing and Human Welfare Committee - Regular Meeting

Are both, mobile, so their cameras may be off, but they are certainly here. Also joining us is Alderman Savage, who is also mobile. His camera is off, but he is also here. So first, can I, because I am, going to be chairing the committee today, can I please get a motion to approve the agenda? So move. Second. Alright. I have a first and a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Alright. Passes unanimously. Next, can I please get an approval of the minutes for our meeting on 12/16/2024? So moved. Can I get a second?

Second. I shall thank you. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Alright. On to legislation o thirty five twenty four, the fair cannabis employment practices. Alderman Savage is the primary sponsor. You are here. We also have mister Paul Armatano, who is an expert on cannabis policy joining us. He was present in our rules in city government meeting. Mister Armatano, I look forward to hearing from you as well. I will give it to alderman Savage, then we'll hand it off to you, and then we shall give it to, miss Tricia Hopkins, who is our, HR representative, and miss Buckland, if she also has anything to add in that order. Alderman Savage, please lead us away.

Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. Just a quick summary just for the public's sake. This legislation seeks to, adjust our our policy towards cannabis use, in light of the legalization that's passed in Maryland for recreational and medical use. Because our current policy, because it utilizes a a urine test, which can detect, you know, usage that goes back weeks or months, that essentially this policy prohibits any kind of off duty use, be it, again, medical or or recreational.

And so this and the the impact to employees with the current policy is that if they do get a positive test, then they are subject to possible termination or having to go through a full drug rehabilitation program. So I think that's a bit extreme, and so this, takes a method that I basically copied the executive order from governor Moore, took his definitions and general approach, which delists, cannabis as a controlled dangerous substance. The other thing of note is that it does allow I'm sorry. It does, exempt federal and, it exempts positions that have other federal or state requirements that may supersede, the city's, autonomy. And so that would be your police officers or anybody who has a CDL.

So they are exempted from it. And what else? This has been done in many other states, which I think mister Armando could Armatano could talk speak towards. And so what it does, it removes any kind of pre employment screening test for cannabis. It also removes the tests for employees, because, again, the test is is unfair.

It doesn't actually detect impairment. So what it would move towards is allow HR to either utilize management oversight or to look towards getting a cognitive test that is, nonbiological. So that I think summarizes the legislation.

Excellent. Thank you, Alderman Savage. Colleagues, do we have any questions for Alderman Savage about anything that he has described? And we can dive deeper into the legislation as well at a later time. Just anything on what he's just

No question for me.

Seeing none. Okay. Mister Amatano, welcome back to the Indianapolis City Council. Do you have anything to add?

Yes. I have a few short remarks that I prepared. Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. I'm not going to repeat the remarks that I made at the last meeting. I have provided a written copy of those remarks to all of you if you do wanna refer to them.

As I stated in my remarks last week, I am supportive of this particular ordinance, which seeks to eliminate the practice of preemployment and post employment urine screening for marijuana. I support this policy because the existing policy in the city of Annapolis is inconsistent with state laws permitting adults and patients to legally use marijuana products while they are in the privacy of their own home. It also arbitrarily discriminates against people who are compliant with the state's marijuana legalization laws. It punishes those who rely on cannabis as a medicine, and it limits the pool of applicants who are seeking, employment in the city of Annapolis. So for all of those reasons, I think this is an important discussion to have, and I think that, the council should move forward with this particular, ordinance.

Further, there's nothing in ordinance thirty five twenty four that allows employees to be under the influence of cannabis while they're at work or to consume it immediately prior to coming to work. And I think it's really important to reinforce that statement. It simply prohibits the, public employers from taking adverse action against workers solely because that person engaged in the legal use of cannabis during their nonwork hours. And as has been said, by other parties, one of the primary problematic issues with urine testing for cannabis is the fact that the test itself has no ability to determine whether one who tests positive is either under the influence of cannabis at that time nor can it detect when that person was last exposed to cannabis. In fact, a person can test positive for carboxy THC, which is the primary metabolite that is screened for on these tests, for weeks or even months after they've ceased using the substance long after any, period of impairment has certainly worn off.

As Alderman Savage mentioned, Annapolis is not reinventing the wheel here. Numerous cities and counties, both in the state of Maryland and in, numerous jurisdictions around this country, have already adopted similar policies. Some cities like New York City, for example, have had a policy like this in place for many years. The District Of Columbia has this policy in place. In Maryland, both Frederick County and Baltimore County have implemented similar policies.

The city of Atlanta, Georgia, has adopted a similar policy. And when we look at states or jurisdictions that have adopted this sort of policy statewide, there's now 10 states throughout this country that bar either pre employment or post employment marijuana screening or both, at for public employees at the state level. New York is among those states, Connecticut, Montana, Rhode Island, New Jersey. So, again, this is not a policy where we have to ask what if. This is a policy where we have many, which is really sort of a known commodity.

Other states have done this. Other cities have done this. Other counties have done this. And it has not jeopardized workplace or occupational safety, and it has preserved the civil liberties of those adults who choose to use cannabis responsibly within the privacy of their own home in compliance with the laws of their state. Thank you.

Excellent. Alright, mister Armintano. Thank you very much. Colleagues on the committee, do we have any questions for mister Armintano? Seeing none. Alright. Hopkins and miss Buckland, thank you for joining us today. I understand you have some comments on the legislation, potential recommended, potential recommended amendments. Miss Buckland or miss Hopkins, would either of you which one of you would like to go first?

Yeah. I'll I'll jump in. So we do have one recommendation. The, the rules committee, we we've started the process of some follow-up with mister Armintano, and done and to the point that was raised actually both by Alderman Savage and by mister Armentano about the the question of of impairment. The one recommendation we would have is actually just to move some language within the legislation.

Right now, impaired as a definition, is specific to, means reduced cognitive and physical ability that results from the use of drugs, alcohol, cannabis, or controlled dangerous substances to the point that was raised in the rules committees that there are potentially a lot of different reasons why someone might have reduced cognitive or physical ability. Our recommendation is actually to move the second part of that. Just leave impaired as reduced cognitive or physical ability and move the drugs, alcohol, cannabis control dangerous substances. In particular, section three point two four point zero five zero, under number three, which is prevents the rights or obligations of the city, to take disciplinary action against someone impaired. And I would actually would insert it there.

Right? Because you're you're not gonna necessarily have an adverse action because someone's impaired because they have a brand new child and they've been up three nights in a row with a colicky baby, right, sort of thing. So we would recommend just moving that from the definition down to there. And the other thing that we would recommend is just that in order to take disciplinary action, that assumes that you've done an investigation and an evaluation. And so simply acknowledging that within within that so prevents the rights or obligations of the city to to investigate, evaluate, and potentially take disciplinary action.

That's the only real recommendation we would have. And and otherwise, I think, you know, there's clearly some longer term follow-up for us to do around that question of, you know, testing, right, non biological testing, and that that's a longer term conversation. But that that particular language change sort of sets us up for that longer term conversation. And that's really the only suggestion we have.

Alright. Alderman Savage?

Oh, yeah. Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. The those amendments sound fine tentatively sound fine by me. And because I I do agree. I think we're kind of I think it could be helpful to broaden the definition of impaired so that it could be more than just simple drug abuse or something like that. So, yeah, it sounds it sounds fine to me.

Excellent. Miss Hopkins?

I would just add that the reason we want to move that that or make that change in the definitions is that you have specific language carved out to address cannabis in the other section. That's a general definition, and it's just some consistency in that by keeping the general definition general.

Okay. Colleagues, do we have any further questions from Ms. Buckland or Ms. Hopkins?

I do have one. Alderman

Alderman Huntley, please. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Okay.

So in practice, I assume that the the drug tests we currently have administered are multi panel. In practice, would this mean that we get a drug test that simply does not test for cannabis, or would it mean that we continue to use, let's say, seven panel drug test, but we simply disregard the results for cannabis?

I I can answer that question. So what we would have, Alderman Huntley, is we would have separate panels. So those individuals that are mandated to participate in in cannabis THC level testing would continue to do so, would have a separate, form that would be used. That, the result that we would get for those, all of those positions that have this exemption applied to them, it would not even appear on the panel. And our our drug testing vendor is prepared to do that already. We've already got that arranged for.

Excellent. I should have known you were on top on top of it. Sorry. The streets are a little icy.

Alright. Alderman Gay?

Two quick questions. The first being, I'm assuming there will be cost savings. I don't I don't think I've seen the, you know, fiscal, impact sheet for this yet. But, I'm I'm assuming that there will be cost savings because

Unfortunately, that would not be the case, Alderman Gay. I've looked into that with our vendor. It's really removing just one component of our our, lab testing. And so all the same costs that are mostly labor associated with the handling of a sample that's gonna test for other, drugs that are illegal or also to test for drugs that are, you know, potentially legal that somebody may or may not have a prescription for. So those would remain in place. Removing just the, testing of THC from the panel will not, save us any money at all.

Okay. The fiscal note says there's no savings or no additional savings and

no additional costs. I did look into that. I thought it was important for us to know that, and it it does not improve.

Well, be I guess be yeah. We're still sending them to get a drug test for other substances. So why if we just had an expert tell us that I can, consume cannabis on February 1, and it's very, very likely impossible that it could still be in my system on April 1 when I, you know, go in for my preemployment drug screening with the city, and I am a CDL holder, you would penalize me for that. Why? When we've just had a a the expert tell us that, and he's told us repeatedly, that those tests aren't accurate and when you've consumed, cannabis, and actually when it's even in your system.

So why would we still be requiring, individuals exempt both the federal and state to undergo this if it actually has no bearing on their employment?

Would you like me to respond to that, or do you want us to respond?

Either one is fine.

So it's federal law. We don't set federal law, so we are are necessarily following what is our legal mandate under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and through the Department of Transportation. We don't have the ability to tell them that's not effective and that's not the way we should do things. We have to follow federal law in order to be compliant, and they check that as well. So, that that is the requirement for us.

It's state law when it comes to our police officers. That's the Maryland Police Correctional and, Correctional and Police and Correctional Training Commission that sets that requirement. And, again, that's that's not something we can legislate ourselves out of. We we need to follow the laws that have been, have included us in their mandates.

Can I rephrase it? Because I I'm I'm obviously, yeah, we can't, you know, break federal law. My question then would be, what level of discretion does the human resources office have when you receive reports like this? And and, you know, say an individual is applying to be either a police officer or work in public works, and, you know, they pass all other, you know, all other tests or substances. They they you know, they're not there's nothing tested positive there, but they test positive for cannabis.

You as the as the director of our human resources department, do you have discretion to then say, oh, wait. I've had expert testimony that, you know, lets me know that even though he's tested positive at this present time for cannabis, I could still, move forward, you know, hiring him in his employment or he or she, I'm so sorry, moving forward with their employment, you know, regardless of the test?

So we don't have that level of discretion. What we would do is we go back and we would review the legal requirements, and we would we would necessarily comply with that. The our testing vendor has all of the legal elements to respond to. So when a medical review officer is reviewing the results of a positive drug test, there's a process they go through. They're they're gonna contact the individual.

They're gonna see if there are any other prescribed substances that, could explain a positive test. They will interact with the individual, and then they will tell us whether it should be reported as a positive or a negative as a result of that. We don't handle it. It's not something I have discretion over. It is something that is provided as policy and and legal mandate to the testing company and therefore the medical review officer, and we simply accept the results that they give us as a result of that process.

And I do see a couple of hands up, some other folks who might Alderman Savage.

Yes. So we will go with, Alderman Savage and then Mr. Armintana.

Thank you. Yeah. Just on it's actually a really good question and something maybe we can address down the road, to to, you know, amend the code if this passes. Because my understanding and mister Armatano and and, miss Hopkins probably know better, but I know you the US Department of Transportation released updated standards. Gosh.

I think it was last early last year or the year before, which allow for the use of of saliva tests as opposed to urine analysis. Saliva, you can narrow it down a bit more as opposed to urine analysis is my understanding. So I don't know. We might have the ability to for those employees to say, hey. We're gonna use this test, saliva test, instead of urine.

But but also my understanding is there aren't too many testing, what's the term, like, that are that are qualified yet to be able to do the saliva test. But so in any case, we might be able to revisit that in the future. Wanna be getting it.

K. Mister Armintano?

So to add upon that, Alderman Savage is correct that in May, the Department of Transportation amended its drug testing guidelines to allow employees the option to take a saliva test and glue of a urine test. The problem is that there are still no federally sanctioned drug testing labs that will handle a saliva test. So therefore, there are no currently licensed, commercial drivers that actually can utilize saliva testing. At some point in the future, one would hope, that process will be in place, but it is not in place now. The reason DOT did move in that direction is because, they've lost about a 100,000, commercial drivers since 2020, due to those individuals testing positive for marijuana and not putting themselves back in the pool to become, to maintain their eligibility.

They're simply leaving, the profession after they test positive. DOT realizes there's a problem there, and this is one of their alternatives to try to address it. But like I said, in practice, it still can't be addressed because there are no labs certified to handle those sort of samples. But, yes, I do concur with Alderman Savage that down the road, while the city nor the state can preempt that federal drug testing guidelines for specific workers, that there may be some relief for those that are tested under the DOT guidelines in the not so distant future where they will have this alternative, test available, which, again, is not an impairment test, but unlike urine testing, which can go back months, saliva testing generally at most goes back about a week. The variability there is has to do with at what threshold, the guidelines are set at.

So the higher the threshold that's allowable, the less further one goes back. The lower the threshold, the further one can go back in time.

Thank you, sir. Alright. So do we have any further comments on the legislation? Mister Brathwaite?

We're not able to hear you.

You're off mute, but your audio is not coming through.

So I'm sorry. I'm just a little bit confused, and and apology that this was addressed. Previously, it was stated that anyone who has a CDL license is still subject to testing. Is that the exact requirement, or is it just if we are employing that person in their capacity as having a CDL license, they would be using it for the city?

We are required to test CDL license holders.

Okay. Thank you.

That's federal requirement. Alright. Miss Brithwaite, do we fix your audio?

Testing. Testing. You're on. Okay. I served as a prosecutor in Washington DC and Prince George's County, Maryland.

For CDL license holders, part of the requirements is that they surrender their point zero eight, for example, alcohol, which is the point zero eight is the legal standard for intoxication for drivers. But for CDL drivers, it's point zero two. And therefore, there are certain things that are attendant to CDL drivers that are controlled by federal statute as everyone has talked about before. But with respect to marijuana, the real issue is that there's not yet a threshold barrier of intoxication that someone could say that at this specific amount of ingestion that you would have this predictable effect on you and that quantification, the inability to quantify the amount of marijuana it takes to intoxify you and then to even quantify marijuana intoxication makes it an even impossible task to even see to, if someone is visibly intoxicated by marijuana, for example, despite the fact that they have visual indicators. It's still a pretty tough job for officers in DUI having, marijuana as the only toxicant to say that someone is, so visibly impaired that they cannot operate a vehicle.

So I think that this just shows that the state of, the art, the state of the science is that there's no science to back up, quantification of marijuana intoxication as yet, and everyone is struggling with the same things. And I believe mister Amantano, could comment further if he wishes.

So I spoke at the last meeting about different, batteries of technologies that employ cognitive testing or what we call performance based testing, and I think that's really going to be the future, a move away from this idea of detecting toxicological compounds that may or may not be correlated with impairment of performance or even recency of use and instead moving toward performance testing that measures performance at a specific date and time against either one's own personal baseline performance or aggregate, performance. And that those are and I I gave some examples and and and put miss Hopkins and others in in touch with certain companies that are, marketing those sort of tools, right now. You're definitely correct in that the pharmacokinetics, which which we refer to as the absorption patterns and metabolization of the psychoactive compounds in marijuana, do not act in a linear manner, which is why unlike, say, instance, alcohol, where we can quantify impairment based on blood alcohol content, we don't have that ability with marijuana. But frankly, we're never going to have that ability with marijuana because the pharmacokinetics of the drug aren't going to change. And this isn't something that's actually unique to marijuana.

There's many substances that can impact performance where, again, their absorption patterns simply don't follow linear model. The reason athletes can test positive for, say, performance enhancing drugs even though they know they're under strict testing is because the metabolites for those substances, for anabolic steroids, are fat soluble, just like marijuana's metabolites are fat soluble. And that simply means they hang around in the body for extended periods of time after a person has stopped using the drug. Certain other psychoactive metabolites, say cocaine's primary metabolite, is water soluble, which means it's in and out of the system fairly quickly. Same with alcohol.

That's again why those those drugs in particular have more linear models, but drugs like, marijuana and anabolic steroids simply don't follow those rules at all, and they never will.

Alderman Gay?

Thank you so much. I think from both perspectives from, you know, Mr. Armentano and then what we're learning from, human resources and, you know, how they have to juggle the federal and state guidelines. This has just been a fantastic conversation, again, in addition to the rules and and and rules of city government meeting. My two last quick questions, and this will kinda put a button on things, I'm assuming.

One, does there need to be a supplemental appropriation? I only ask that because in both conversations, we've mentioned these impairment tools. I'm wondering if that's something the sponsor wants to get into. And then lastly, is the sponsor accepting the recommendations from the administration? And if so, do we have an amendment prepared tonight so that we can get this ready to go to the full council on Monday.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. As far as the amendments, they sound good. If the committee wants to move on something, I'm I'm fine with that. But, I mean but I personally wanna take a look first before I 100% commit, but it sounds good.

As far as supplemental appropriation, I I don't think that's needed just because I if we do well, multiple, responses to that. One, I think if if the city wants to move in the direction of having some cognitive tests, regardless of marijuana, just a cognitive test for impairment? I think that should be a separate question because that is going to be independent of cannabis. I mean, somebody could be found know, get a negative test on that due to cannabis, but it's about more than that. It's like when we're changing the language of impairment, it's because we wanted to to open up that realm of of, impairment from any any substance or reason.

So I think that should be treated separately because it's gonna be a separate budget conversation. I think we need to do more research. I don't think it needs to be attached to this legislation, again, because it's a larger issue, but also we don't as mister Ramatana has testified previously and and according to the much of the research, you know, the legalization and liberal policies like this do not all of a sudden open up the floodgates to on duty usage of cannabis. And, you know, he referred to number of states who've already legalized for, you know, well over a decade, and there's no data to indicate that there's any increase in in hazard workplace hazards are all due to usage. So so I'm saying that because I think any question of a of a impairment test can be treated separately, if that makes sense.

So,

miss Buckley, Ms. Hawkins, do we need with that said, do we need this amendment then to even define impairment, or can we define that internally through policy?

I think we I I mean, this is this is a new concept of impairment testing, so we should do our due diligence around it anyway. I agree with Alderman Savage that, you know, if we have a good definition of impairment that's not limiting us to drugs and alcohol, it that may pop up in other ways within city government that would make, be meaningful guidance, and be a tool. I I think we really just need to to take a look at those, those options. And, I do agree that it's a it's a budget matter. I don't think you need to attach it to this legislation in any particular way.

And I do feel like we've we've got the ability to look at, our internal processes and what we can change most recently.

I I do think, in terms of the mechanics, I I think I mean, our our recommendation is around that amendment. It's I mean, you do have options, you know, if if everyone is amenable and and, Alderman Savage would really like to make sure he sees that in writing. It is always an option to introduce an amendment at second reader. That doesn't necessarily have to to go through the the all of the committees, and and I think that's really a decision that you guys get to make. I think from our perspective, we would be comfortable either way.

So in that case, miss Buckland and miss Hopkins, I will let you two connect with Alderman Savage and see if anything needs to actually be written down or not. That way, you can actually see if someone can policy sorry. Stutter. I will let you to connect with Alderman Savage to see if an actual amendment needs to get drafted and if we need to go through the legal office. Can talk to miss Ritter with the Yeah. Legal team or not. But for the purposes of this committee, I would like to go ahead and get this out of here. So if my colleagues are comfortable with it oh, Alderman Fendel Charles. Welcome.

Thank you.

Sorry I'm late.

All good. So we're about to get this out. Do you have any comments? Any comments at all? Cool. Hearing none. Alright. So do I have a motion for a favorable recommendation on o thirty five twenty four?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor of a favorable recommendation of o 3524 say

aye. Aye.

Excellent. Alright. So that is the final piece of legislation on the agenda for tonight. Do I have anything else on the good of the order before we adjourn? Seeing none, everyone. Alright. Thank you very much. I hope everyone is staying warm in this cold. And can I get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Can I get a second? Alright. All those in favor of adjournment, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Alright. Thank you, everyone.

Here and words of encouragement, words of fellowship, and words of joining together even all the more to do great work that you have for our hands to do. And now, we ask that you bless these your people and as we be dismissed to carry on the conversations, may we not just share them with ourselves, but share them with one another and share them with a world out there that needs to continue to tell the story. But because we have the details, may we be willing to share as well as to work. And now, the benediction. May the Lord bless you and keep you. Cause his name to shine cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon you and give you peace. Now and always, everybody say, amen. God bless you today. Glad that you are here.

Hey, Annapolis. It's go time. On demand transit that takes you where you wanna go. It's fast, it's easy, and it's an affordable way to get around Annapolis. Going to the doctor? It's go time. Going shopping? It's go time. Exploring Annapolis? It's go time.

It's easy to schedule your ride. Use the app or call Transportation Dispatch at (410) 263-7964. Set your pickup and your destination, and we'll be right there. Simply track the bus on the app so you'll know exactly when we'll be there to pick you up. Pay once you are on the bus. Just $2 per ride and only $1 for seniors. Or you can use your daily, weekly, monthly, or annual bus pass. Getting around Annapolis is easy with Annapolis Go Time. On demand transit. See you onboard.