Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Komadina

DATE TYPED 1/20/05

HB

SHORT TITLE Elected Officials Drug Testing Act

SB 20

ANALYST Medina

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

$50.0

Recurring General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Relates to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Secretary of State

Drug Detection Services, Inc., Albuquerque, NM.

Responses Received From

Secretary of State

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 20 appropriates $50.0 from the general fund to the Secretary of State for the purpose

of paying another entity for drug testing of elected officials and for the operating costs associated

with the Elected Officials Drug Testing Act. The bill enacts the Elected Officials Drug Testing

Act, a voluntary drug-testing program for all elected officials in the state. The Elected Officials

Drug Testing Act calls for the Secretary of State to randomly select elected officials for drug

testing and requires every elected official in the state to be selected at least once per year. While

elected officials will reserve the right to refuse to submit to a drug test, they will have to do so in

writing. Furthermore, the names of all elected officials selected for testing will be published on

the Secretary of State’s website, along with test results or reasons for refusal of test.

Significant Issues

The bill does not include provisions for a protocol for random selection of elected officials for

Senate Bill 20 -- Page 2

drug testing. The Secretary of State argues that the Attorney General’s Office should be respon-

sible for the administration and enforcement of the Act. The cost of a single full profile drug test

is approximately twenty-three dollars. According to the Secretary of State Office the total num-

ber of elected officials in the state is approximately 1,475 (approximately 600 federal, state and

county officials, 430 municipal officials, and 445 school board members). Thus, the estimated

cost of administering one drug test per elected official would be approximately $33.9 thousand.

Finally, the bill does not address appointed officials such as judges.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $50.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any

unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2006 shall revert to the

general fund.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The Secretary of State contends that the additional responsibility would require an additional di-

vision within the agency. LFC staff contends that the additional responsibility could be absorbed

without additional FTE.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

The consequences of not enacting this bill will be the status quo.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

Is an amendment to include appointed officials the next step.

DXM/yr