If You Ask Me / By Martha Knight

A thought provoking proposal was made by a citizen-in-attendance at a recent meeting of a municipal governing body: Adopt a rule requiring that officials “sitting at the head table” be sober.

An initial reaction might be, “Goes without saying.” It would seem obvious that elected persons convened to do official government business would not be under the influence of—anything. They’d be in possession of their faculties. They would not have been drinking, or not more than one beer or glass of wine with dinner, not enough to affect their alertness or thought processes.

They would not have had too much prescription medication, or over-the-counter remedies, either—not if those are the kind that require warnings about driving or operating machinery. Nothing that would impair judgment.

A good catch-all term might be “psychoactives,” which would include any sort of substance that affects the nervous system. I find myself ready to protest, though. Not coffee! Please don’t restrict use of my drug of choice! But I do have to admit, I have been known to overdo caffeine to the point of jitters and irritability.

And there was the time in my Western New York newsing days, I had taken my blood pressure meds, then defied the warning on the label and ordered a 7-and-7 in celebration of Pete Presutti’s birthday, and midway through that beverage I toppled off my barstool at the Belmont Legion, right onto the sheriff. Next thing I knew I had been placed on the pizza assembly shelf and well-intentioned people were looking for my pulse in some rather unlikely places, and someone had summoned the Amity Rescue Squad for a “red blanket emergency.” Me, a reporter, a bureau chief too, supposed to be able to either stay sober or handle her liquor

Most of us are expected to come to work sober. Many jobs have that requirement, and failure to comply can bring dismissal.

Certainly no one would be allowed to drive a bus or a snow plow or an ambulance with anything mind-altering in his or her system. We can’t have blood-alcohol-content above certain readings, or fail field sobriety tests, without risking serious consequences.

So surely no one should be operating the controls of government, piloting the ship of state, steering the advisory tugboat, or wielding authority while impaired.

And yet, we know people do.

Teachers have been known to. Or, to use tenses more responsibly, I should say some teachers are known to have come to work less than sober, possibly having had a little snort to lessen the discomfort of a hangover. Public school teachers! Some have kept a bottle in a desk drawer, under some papers. Students were aware that some teachers were regulars at bars, after hours, on their own time—but they were asked to make the assumption that this had nothing to do with their teaching abilities, even in the days many teachers took work home with them and corrected tests and graded homework—some of them, sometimes, while sozzled.

Even administrators have been known to tip a few. County officials. Members of the bar have been known to belly up to the bar. If elevated to the bench, they did not always turn abstemious. “Sober as a judge” sounds fine, but some of us remember when we had a judge who had to be poured into a car and taken to a very private sanitarium and dried out, periodically.

As to that judge, you’d have thought there was a more lasting and effective remedy at hand. Surely the county bar association would complain to the appropriate disciplinary body! They were so unhappy about having to practice law where a judge might sign ex parte orders while crocked, or blurt out shocking comments in front of reporters, and generally rule erratically, they complained bitterly—in private. But they were afraid to DO anything. So were both political parties.

We know this country has had presidents who were two-fisted drinkers. We have had one who kept nodding off in important meetings, and who testified at length in hearings saying mostly, “I can’t recall.” Maybe not drunk, but, we came to understand, certainly impaired. Another kept on serving as president, after a stroke, with his wife “facilitating” his actions.

So it is very hard to find ways of ensuring that people will not be drunk, or high, or stoned, while performing official duties. Most of us would agree that we need to keep booze and other mind-altering drugs out of governmental processes, but it’s hard to come up with ways of doing that.

Terminology would be difficult. Who is to say when some other person is drunk? How would the determination be made? Should that person be marched off to the loo for a specimen—and the meeting adjourned until the lab results are in? Should there be an interlock device, like those installed in vehicles when those convicted of DUI have conditional driving privileges? The official wouldn’t get to sit in his official meeting chair unless his or her exhalations scored in the  right range?

Or does the official, possibly smelling a mite boozy, or looking glazed, or slurring, or making questionable remarks, cause an onlooker to summon an officer of the law or make a citizen’s arrest on a charge of public drunkenness?

It’s a thorny problem. We might just shake our heads and say that such problems will be sorted out in the next election, but that could be years away. A Common Pleas judge has a 10-year term, and then has no opponent unless he waives the right to a retention vote. Most other offices have four-year terms, but some appointive posts last five or more. Township supervisors and U.S. Senators are elected to six-year terms.

But most boards and commissions have at least two other members! We can hope those will out-vote one member who might be impaired or just off his meds at a meeting. Even with only a quorum of two present, including the addled one, we hope the sober one would block or deadlock truly dangerous motions .

But it would be, literally, a shame if it came to that.

Peace.