terminating employees for drug abuse. In light of these arguments, when we consider that on the one hand, Arriola proposes that additional testimony of chain of custody and testing personnel is a prerequisite to admitting the test results, and on the other the school board details the burden and expense of such testimony, without Arriola making a showing of the value of his proposal for additional live testimony, the balance tilts against his position. Indeed, while Arriola has a property interest at stake, his proposal for additional l13chain of custody testimony to satisfy the foundation requirement appears to exceed the standard for admissibility in criminal trials. See, e.g., United States v. Lott, 854 F.2d 244, 250 (7th Cir.1988); State v. Simon, 544 So.2d 610 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Arriola’s argument that a
holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties holding that the trial courts classification of property will not be disturbed as long as there is competent evidence to support that determination holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized holding that where the court records in the present case and the records in a previous conviction reflected the same name and date of birth as well as a signature and the defendant did not object that he was not the same person as had been previously convicted the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction