Thank you and good afternoon to everybody and for those in other parts of the country that still might have it be morning, good morning to you. We are ending the 12 month series that started in October of 2004 and we will be beginning our new series next month with some new changes, which I will be introducing, but first and foremost let me just say welcome to everybody. You have joined the audio conference program on the Americans with Disabilities Act sponsored on a monthly basis by the 10 Regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance centers, also known as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Accessible Information Technology centers. We hope that you have participated in the past. If this is your first time, we hope that today''s program will be enjoyable. And a learning experience for you. I am going to be playing and wearing two hats today. Traditionally I am the moderator of the program and there is a speaker who will join us on for the specific topic. But today I am going to be playing both roles of both being moderator and the presenter. So bear with me as I juggle my hats and take one off from the other. For those of you that have joined us and are interested, this is also real-time captioned on the internet. You can access the captioning by going to www.adagreatlakes.org and click on the real-time captioning link which will get you into the program. This program is being audio recorded and a transcript will be prepared, a written transcript and will be added to the archives of the program. We now have over four years of archives on our website, and you can access the previous sessions and search for that information and look for information that might be useful to you, again, on our website at www.adagreatlakes.org. Before we get into this session which is titled Readily Achievable Barrier Removal: What Does It Mean 15 Years Later, which I will be presenting the materials. I do want to spend a minute to talk about some changes that will be taking place in the audio conference series starting with our session in October of 2005. Probably the most notable is that we are going to be moving to a new website for the program. The URL for the new program is going to be or is already www.ADA-audio.org. The website will contain all the information one will need related to this program, so we hopefully will simplify things for people. People will not have to go on to our individual website and that everyone, all the 10 centers will be able to promote this one URL and it will be easier to get all the information that you need about the program in one place, including all the archives of the past sessions and things of that nature. So we invite you to visit the website and take a look at our new look and the information that is on there. We are going to be updating it in the upcoming weeks before the October launch, but we do invite you to take a look and please feel free also to give us your feedback. Some changes that we are making in the 2005-2006 series is we are expanding the medium in which we provide the program. Traditionally many people have been accessing this program using a traditional telephone conferencing service where you dial into an 800 number using your telephone at your desk or a speakerphone or some other method of accessing telecommunications. We are going to be continuing to offer that particular option, but we are also going to be expanding and offering streaming audio on the internet as a secondary option for people to choose, so that would mean that you will be given a link to a website address off of the internet and you can actually listen to the entire program on the internet. You will then also be submitting your questions via the internet as well, so for those of you not familiar currently on the audio conference telephone program, you are given instructions by the operator for you to queue into the system to be able to ask your questions. If you are using the streaming audio on the internet, you will be submitting your questions through a form on the internet and then that question will be relayed directly to the moderator of the program who will be speaking or articulating your question to the presenter. We will also continue to offer the real-time captioning via the internet, so we will now have three modes of access for this program. Hopefully that will expand the opportunities for people and allow people some different options that they may prefer for being able to access the program. You will find more information about these three modes on the website www.ADA-audio.org. Some of the topics, I think we have an exciting agenda to offer you for the next year and I hope you will consider joining us for one or all of the sessions. We are going to be offering responding to some of the feedback that we have received from people about the various topics and the methods and way they would like to see things organized. This year we will be offering a series of three, two or more series in a row on the same or similar topics to allow for a more concentrated learning experience on one particular topical area. So you are going to see three different series. One is going to be a series on accessible information technology. That will be a two-part series where we will be addressing some different issues under that particular topic. For those of you that have an interest in the accessibility of electronic information. We have a four-part series this year on employment and the ADA which will cover a number of different topics. We did offer a three-part series in this year that we are ending on various topics, but we are expanding that to four topics for this next year and we invite you if you are interested in employment issues to take a look at that. We are also going to offer a two-part series on the built environment. We will cover issues that we have not previously covered related to physical accessibility and architectural accessibility issues. We will continue to have our program yearly marking the anniversary of the ADA each year where we invite our federal agency partners from the Department of Justice and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to give us an update on their activities, enforcement activities, Supreme Court decisions and other relevant issues. And then in August and September of 2006 we will be offering a couple of programs that have been requested or have been an area that we have heard interest in. One will be discussing the issue of disability statistics and how you use the numbers and what the numbers really mean. We hear a lot of numbers thrown out like 70% unemployment rate and things of that nature. How are those numbers arrived at, what do they mean and are they correct or are we interpreting those numbers correctly? And then finally a session on accessible travel options. Land and air and sea. We will be looking at issues of accessibility in travel. So I hope that I have sparked your interest in some of the topics that we might be offering, whether you enroll for a series or the entire 12 or just pick and choose along the way. We are also centralizing the registration process from here on out for the next 12 months where you will all be registering through one main website. You can still be interacting with your individual regions related to participation, but all registration will be handled through one main website. So we have a lot of different changes and enhancements. We believe they are enhancements to offer you next year and hopefully we will increase your experience with the program and continue to bring you back and encourage you to invite others or 7tell others about the program. So I think I have spent enough time on that particular issue, but please feel free to contact our offices or contact your regional center if you have questions about the program, how it is going to operate and how you might continue to access this program and services that we have made available to you. So I was going to introduce myself, I will take just a minute. My name is Robin Jones and I am Director of the Great Lakes ADA and Accessible Information Technology (IT) center. I have served as director for the past 15 years of the center and we are located at the University of Illinois at Chicago. We have been hosting the audio conference series for the past five years now, and I have been the moderator for the majority of the time, so my voice and my name should be familiar to many of you if you are rejoining us. I have been involved in providing technical assistance training and consultation on the Americans with Disabilities Act throughout my tenure with the center. My prior experiences, I have an occupational therapy practitioner for many years back, worked in rehabilitation, was the director of an independent living center for several years in the suburban Chicago area, and have been involved in disability and advocacy issues for a number of years. I provide training and technical assistance to business, government, disability organizations across our region and have been involved actively in advocacy efforts on many levels related to disability policy issues. I appreciate the opportunity to address everyone today on this particular topic of readily achievable barrier removal. It has been one of those things that has been most difficult to get across to many of our business owners. Many individuals who are involved in the architecture and design world. Some of our code officials and things across our states, to really understand and look at this issue of what and how does the ADA apply to buildings that existed prior to the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and what are those building owners'' and occupants'' responsibilities to look at or address their accessibility under the ADA. Probably many of us are familiar with some of the activities that we have seen in the press related to these issues. I will be covering or at least mentioning some of those things that have happened across the country with what we sometimes hear referred to either verbally or we see it in the press referred to as, quote unquote, drive-by lawsuits. We know that there has been some legislation that has been introduced at the federal level to address some of the concerns raised by the business community and the legislative community about people filing complaints under the ADA against businesses who may or may not have undergone the renovation removal of barriers in their businesses. So as I said I will be touching upon those things a little bit along the way. Hopefully you received a copy of the outline of my presentation today and that should facilitate your ability to follow along as well as take notes. My goal is to not have you spending all your time having to write things and hopefully the outline will be useful to you in being able to organize your thoughts as we go along. I do encourage you to consider questions that I might be able to answer of your own experiences and things that you have come across in this arena through the years. That you have been involved in this issue. Businesses that continue to question what their obligations are under the ADA and there continues to be a lot of mystique by many businesses and business owners about their requirements to do anything or have any proactive response under the ADA. And that is probably largely due to the fact that many entities are familiar are most familiar with working with building codes, where they are triggered by taking an action or a change in a facility, so undergoing renovation or undergoing some kind of remodeling or putting an addition onto a building and so then we will see a local building code or a state building code kick in where there is some kind of a review process and a permit process that takes place where an entity would take a set of plans or proposed changes before either an individual or board or something to be reviewed and looked at against those codes. The majority of those codes, building codes across the country, have some elements of accessibility. More and more of them have incorporated many of the same elements that we find in the ADA accessibility guidelines. What becomes the big, as I sometimes think of it as the big black hole or a gap is this issue of, well, what if I am a business owner who I have been in business for 18 years, I have been in the same building since I opened up 18 years ago, and I have never undergone any renovation other than maybe painting or maybe putting in some new furniture and sprucing the place up a little bit to keep current with the times? What, if any, responsibilities do I have under the ADA and aren''t I "grandfathered" prior that existed to the ADA? This is the biggest issue that continually comes across. What does readily achievable barrier removal mean? Well, it means it is a removal of barriers that are easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. You really have to go back and kind of analyze and break that information down. First of all, the first thing is easily accomplishable. What does that mean? Well, when we look at some of the interpretation that has been given through the technical assistance manuals issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and look at some of the technical assistant letters that the Department of Justice has issued over the years when these questions have been asked of them, we will see that they interpret or at least define this as easily accomplishable means that it is something that can be done without a great deal of difficulty in that are we talking about reconstructing an entire space, are we talking about a major disruption of business operations, are we talking about something that can be done fairly quickly so it is not a six-month, 12-month process to remove those barriers and such. So easily accomplishable is not defined in any real hard terms. It is more of a concept of the fact that the intent behind here was that there would be the removal of barriers to take place, but that it would not involve a great deal of technical difficulty to be able to do so. That doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t still potentially need to work with an architect or someone to identify what needed to be done, that I might not still have some structural changes and things that would have to be looked at, but it would be something that would not require any significant modifications and changes to the facility. It should also be noted at this point that what is easily accomplishable could be different for an entity with more resources than another entity. It could make a difference in regards to the locale that I am in, in regards to what might be my options that are available to me, because, for example, if I am a store front that is on Main Street USA and I have no real streetscape in front of me other than a 48-inch sidewalk and then I am hitting the curb and gutter and I am into the street, creating some kind of access into that building that might have a five, six, seven-inch step to get into it might be quite significant because I am going to have to look at what exactly would that take. It is not necessarily a simple - first thought might be put a ramp in. Well, it may not be as easy as putting a ramp in because I am not going to be able to put a ramp in that impedes on the public right of way, I am not going to be able to put in a 16-foot ramp that goes out into the streetscape or the street itself. I may not be able to modify the front entrance because to do so by pushing it into the actual business versus pushing it out on to the sidewalk, so creating my access internally versus externally or starting working from the inside out may not be feasible because I may lose a great deal of my display space or I may lose some of my feeding space in a restaurant cafe or something of that nature. That may not be feasible because of the potential impact that that may have on business operations. So it may not meet that threshold of easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty expense. Oftentimes you will see something written or at least near other presentations and dialogue the issue said that, well, putting an elevator in where an elevator did not already exist may not be considered to be easily accomplishable because of the nature of the structure that we are working with. And when we are going to construct the infrastructure necessary to support an elevator or lift device of some type, it may require much more engineering than we might automatically think of and that may not be an easily accomplishable barrier removal issue as well. So that is going to be different. So it is not going to be able to look at everything and apply the same measuring stick to it to see whether or not someone has achieved it. It is going to have to be in the context of the building, the situation, what are the barriers to be removed and what actually are some of the factors that play into that. Much difficulty and expense is another issue that could be different depending on the entity. If I am a large corporation with multiple sites and resources, what might be a high expense for me may be much less than what it might be for a single owner, proprietor and what available resources that they might have. So my ability to argue expense in a multi-site, multi, you know, million dollar plus entity may be very different than someone who is barely making it in the black every year in their regular business operations, including payroll and all of those types of things. So, again, it is a target or a concept that is applied differently, depending on the entity and depending on that entity''s resources fiscally and otherwise. The readily achievable barrier removal requirements only apply to places of public accommodation. We often find there is confusion about the applicability of this particular provision in the ADA itself, Title III. Many entities want to apply it to Title II government owned buildings and such and it is not an applicable standard there. When we look at Title II entities their responsibility is to do program access and they are required to remove barriers that may impede upon their ability to make sure that a program is readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The readily achievable barrier removal requirement is a standard set forth for readily achievable barrier removal only applies to places of public accommodation. So I would need to look at my 12 categories of public accommodations as defined under Title III of the ADA and apply them accordingly. Readily achievable barrier removal also does not apply to commercial facilities because they are not open to the public. Commercial facilities being your factories, your commercial buildings that are not open to the public for sales and service. They may be office buildings where employees work, but readily achievable barrier removal does not apply to employee-only areas. So if I have an office building that is for my employees and the traffic in and out is employees and there is not commerce being engaged in in the building in that we don''t have a sales or service establishment within the facility and there is not any other activities that fall or define within the 12 categories of public accommodation taking place in that billing, then readily achievable barrier removal is not going to apply. That does not mean as an owner, operator and lessee of that building that I don''t have obligations to my employees with disabilities but we would apply Title I of the ADA, reasonable accommodation. We would not apply readily achievable barrier removal. So it is important to think through and apply appropriately where this applies and look at it. If I am a retail establishment, I am definitely looking at my obligations for readily achievable barrier removal. If I am an office building not engaged in commerce or any activities open to the public and only utilized by my employees and I might have some sales staff coming in other people coming to sell me products and things of that nature, I am going to be a commercial facility and the readily achievable barrier removal requirements are not going to apply. The new construction alterations requirements under the ADA still do apply to the commercial facilities, but not the readily achievable barrier removal. Also when we look at what buildings we are really applying the readily achievable barrier removal concept to is we are talking about application to buildings that were constructed prior to January 26 of 1992. And that have not undergone alterations or additions at that point. You would not apply readily achievable barrier removal to a building that was constructed as a new construction after the implementation of the ADA. A new construction standards of the ADA went into effect January 26 of 1993. So I wouldn''t take a building that was built in July of 1994 and apply readily achievable barrier removal to it because that building was subject to the new construction standards under the ADA. So it should have been constructed accordingly and should have had all of its appropriate barriers removed through the new construction process. So we are really only applying readily achievable barrier removal in existing facilities constructed prior to that 1992 implementation date of this facet of the ADA. When we look at where specifically, we often find that people are confused and are unclear as to where specifically to find these requirements. This is why many times our architects and designers may not be familiar with the requirements for readily achievable barrier removal because they are often only familiar with dealing with the ADA accessibility guidelines, which is appendix A of the Title III regulations of the ADA. You are not going to find readily achievable barrier removal there. The actual requirement for readily achievable barrier removal is contained within the regulations implementing Title III of the ADA and that specific reference is given to you on my outline. You would go to that particular section to find the specificity required in order to meet this requirement. But due to the fact that most people when we look at it, because we consider it an architectural change, they go to and are looking for the specific requirement or the scoping or the applicability of it in the ADA accessibility guidelines. When they don''t find it, then they obviously are not - they are going to miss that part if the and that is the only part they are looking at. They are not looking at the other parts of the implementations of the ADA. They will miss this and then I don''t know I had this requirement and nobody told me I had this requirement. That is where we find a lot of problems and a lot of confusion out there with businesses because they have not been directed there or they are not familiar with it and those that they rely upon or work with may not be familiar with it as well. The other thing that should be noted here is that building codes only traditionally deal with new construction and alterations. They don''t deal with existing facilities not undergoing, so you do not see similar requirements to readily achievable barrier removal in our state codes or model codes. There may be some jurisdictions out there who have adopted language that may have a readily achievable barrier removal requirement, but traditionally we don''t see that. So, again, it is not something that is common to most groups who are familiar and used to working with these concepts. So they, of course, then leads to the confusion and missing of those issues as well. Some things that might be considered or examples of barrier removal. I have given you a list of those there. They are those that are also found in the actual regulations implementing Title III of the ADA. You will see a variety of different things that may be considered. This is not an exhaustive list and that should be key to anyone''s consideration here is that you would not approach it from the perspective of, well, I looked at the Title III regulations and saw this list of what would be barrier removal and what I need to do, my barrier is not on here so that means I don''t have to do it. That is not the case. These are strictly examples and common examples that we find often in barrier removal. So dealing with things of externals to a building such as curb cuts and our sidewalk, where we might have changes in level and things of that nature. To things that might include, you know, widening doorways or removing certain aspects like turnstiles and things. As simple as putting in accessible door hardware, lever handle hardware or some other option. Rearrangement of tables or chairs or vending machines. Here we are looking at something in that regard that is not part of the built in environment. Oftentimes we only think of readily achievable barrier removal as an issue dealing with the built environment. For myself when I need to conceptualize the concept of what is part of the built environment, the easiest for me from a visual image is to think about taking a building, and all of us have probably played tinker toys or something and have built a log cabin or some kind of structure or just think of a box that is acting as my built structure right now. And I take that box and I turn it upside down and I shake it. There are going to be things that fall out of that box. Everything that doesn''t fall out of that box is going to be part of my built environment. It is actually built into the structure of the facility. Whereas things like tables and chairs and vending machines and display racks and such are typically movable furniture, but yet they still present barriers, so they are part of my readily achievable barrier removal requirements. It is not just about the bricks and mortar of the facility. So rearranging of furniture, moving or changing the stacks or the stock that I might have in my store. For example, many of the large chain stores that we deal with will oftentimes have temporary products that they are dealing with, that they may move in in large quantities. Boxes and boxes of either food products are other kinds of electronics and things of that nature. They will temporarily display those in their wide aisle ways. Well, right away that creates a barrier for anyone who may use a wheelchair or other mobility device or have any type of mobility difficulties because as they try to maneuver that particular aisle way, there may not be enough width. They may not have the minimum 36-inch width to be able to maneuver without having to bump into and brush across other merchandise and such, risking knocking it to the floor. Now, that would be very much a readily achievable barrier removal to look at changing how we might display things because those movable things are still part of the environment and still create a barrier and are still part of our obligation to do that. We might do that and achieve that readily achievable barrier removal by looking at a different plan or different layout for how we do our displays. We may look at an asymmetrical display instead of symmetrical. We may look at moving our display more to one side or the other so we narrow the pathway on one side to create a wider pathway on the other side. If we have a middle of the aisle type of a display going on so people can see it from both sides. People who don''t have mobility devices and things of that nature, there isn''t anything that regulates the width of their pathway. So while we want to still make it comfortable for them and facilitate their review and viewing of the merchandise, we might be able to narrow one side and widen the other side so we have created at least one pathway that is accessible. Yes, that is doing it differently than we may have done it in the past but it is removing the barrier and creating a clear path of travel. Rearranging partitions in bathrooms or looking at insulating our pipes under our sinks to prevent burns. It may not be readily achievable for us to entirely repipe the sink and change the configuration or change the piping due to the cost or the particular layout and the space we have available, but we may be able to address the issue of burning and having contact with someone''s legs by insulating underneath that particular sink. Installing a full length bathroom mirror in the bathroom instead of addressing or looking at lowering an existing mirror that might be already adhered to a wall that would require new tile work or something if we were to change it. Simply just putting another mirror in that would be a full length mirror would address our issues or our barrier that would exist there in the bathroom. Creating designated parking spaces. Restriping parking lots may be a readily achievable barrier removal for an entity. Again, it may not be restriping the entire parking lot, but if I have the obligation or the requirement, depending on how many overall parking spaces I have, to create one space or two spaces, I may just restripe that one area that would be impacted. It doesn''t necessarily mean I will restripe the entire parking lot but that is something I would need to consider. Replacing carpeting and things of that nature. Transportation falls into this issue as well. Sometimes we don''t think about that. But our transportation is part of our requirements. Again, when we think about this goes back to some of the stereotypes or the thoughts, misperceptions we have worked under. Barrier removal is only an issue of architectural barriers. In the context of where I am, a business that may have vehicles, I am a rental car agency or I am some other type of an entity that provides motor vehicle access for patrons or for sales or service, I may find that installing hand controls or some kind of assistive device for driving would be another means or another form of readily achievable barrier removal. Not necessarily saying that putting in a lift on a vehicle would not necessarily that could be argued again depending on the size and scope of the entity, but looking at something like a hand control. Again, just let me emphasize this is not an exhaustive list, these are strictly just examples of what might be readily achievable barrier removal. In looking at it and recognizing that for a building or a business or an entity, there may be multiple barriers that interfere with someone''s use or being able to readily use or access programs and services offered by that entity. And so the U.S. Department of Justice through their issuance of the regulations implementing Title III of the ADA established a set of priorities. Recognizing that when I look at the issue of significant difficulty and expense, that some of those issues may be insurmountable from an expense perspective, but where do I start making my choices. Where do I start making the determination I can do this but I can''t do that. If I am looking at what my resources are, my financial resources or other resources I may have to pull upon to be able to do this, there is some guidance that is provided in prioritization and there is a common sense approach to it. I have oftentimes worked with business owners, a restaurant, for example, because they were undergoing some renovation internally under their state code or whatever. They may have made some changes to the restroom or maybe they were upgrading or remodeling their restroom and it may have some accessibility features to it. I will have a business owner say to me, you know, well, I spent this money and had to make this restroom accessible but nobody has used it yet. Then I will look at their front entrance and note that they still have three steps getting into the front entrance. You know, it is only a logical conclusion to the fact that, gee, the reason somebody probably at least somebody you have not visually with a disability seen use your accessible bathroom is because they still can''t get in the door. So that while you may have addressed one particular area where you have a barrier, there still may be a problem to someone''s actual use of it. Again, recognizing that not everyone who uses accessibility features will not necessarily be using a wheelchair. I could be someone with arthritis or hip replacement that I have no necessarily use of a mobility device but that use of an accessible restroom with grab bars and a higher toilet seat may still be beneficial to me. In setting forth the barriers, we start with the issue of getting in the door. When you think about using a facility, if I think about going into a retail establishment to make purchases and such, my real concern and my real desire and need is I need to get in there to be able to conduct business. And that includes everything from the access points to that facility, which could include the parking that is available. The signage that might be related to identifying where there is an accessible entrance. Maybe I more than one entrance, only one of which is accessible. It doesn''t do me a whole lot of good to have an accessible entrance if I don''t let the public know which one is accessible. Especially where it may be a side entrance or back entrance, so as patrons are typically approaching it from the bus stop, from the sidewalk, from the parking spaces serving that facility, the accessible entrance may not be readily noticeable. It may be around the side. And so I approach the building and I see the steps. I don''t know that there is an alternative entrance because you haven''t placed a sign identifying where the location of that alternative entrance is. So I need to start from outside the building. How someone accesses the facility. Looking at the barriers including curb cuts and such and look at what barriers need to be removed to be able to do that. This should also include up to the entrance to the facility. So are there steps? Is there even a half inch or a one inch or a six-inch step to get in? Is there a threshold that is problematic that may need to be removed or beveled so that it is easier to get in and out of. Is the door itself accessible. When I talk about the door being accessible, I am talking about everything from the hardware on that door. Is it a levered handle? Is it a mechanism that can be operated with a closed fist? Can I hook my wrist or my fist in that mechanism to be able to pull or activate any kind of latching mechanism to pull the door and free the door so I can open it. Oftentimes we will see individuals who are advocating for electric doors. Electric doors are not required under the ADA but they are an access solution one might consider under the ADA. When we look at barriers of addressing things like hardware or door clearances, oftentimes our entrances may be able to be accessible from the hardware and such and we may be able to create the ramp to the facility, but we have barriers that impede upon the ability to create maneuverability so that one would be able to approach the door, activate the latch mechanism, pull the door away from them so that they could actually clear the door to get in. And so what I may have to look at there is, okay, I can''t create any additional maneuverability on the side because of other architectural elements that may not be able to be moved. They may be integral to the entity and I can''t change that. It may be in a vestibule or something that makes it difficult. Some of our difficulty factors come into play. An electric door may be the option that one would consider as readily achievable in that concept and that would allow the door to be activated and opened and eliminate that problem or that issue of maneuverability that I might not be able to remove very easily. Once I have created access into the facility, my next priority is obviously getting someone access to the goods and services within the facility. It doesn''t do me a whole lot of good just to get in the door, although sometimes that may be as far as I am able to get and may need to look at some alternatives which I will talk about in a minute. Can I provide access to the goods and services within the facility, which may include widening doors, relocating materials to accessible locations. Can I change where something is offered? Maybe the checkout area or customer service area or other spaces of our establishment are traditionally more in the middle or left side or right side of the facility but we don''t have a clear path of travel to that area. Is there any ability potentially to move where those points of access for the public actually are so that I could potentially side step other level changes and things in the facility so I can still provide at least some degree of customer service to someone and look at other options to get to the facilities or the services within the building that I might not be able to remove the barriers for. Can I look at and what have I done to look at signage and someone''s ability to maneuver within the facility or have the ability to find the restrooms, identify the male and female restroom through having tactile signage available. Have I addressed those kinds of issues? So how does someone access the goods and services would be my second priority and what barriers. This is where our issues of looking at aisle ways in our establishments, retail establishments and things would come into play and we would need to look at those issues or things like being able to access the checkout counters and things would also come into it. How do I interplay? What is the purpose of the business and how do I interact with that business. Third on the line of priorities is access to restroom facilities. In not any way, shape or form would I want to downplay the importance of restroom facilities but when you look at the purpose and intent when looking at readily achievable barrier removal issues, the fact is most businesses were not created to create a bathroom so someone could go in and use them. We might have public rest rooms created for that purpose in public spaces, but traditionally bathrooms that are available within most of our facilities, retail restaurants and other facilities, are there for convenience of the customers and to help codes and things that might require those to be present. Obviously if I am in a bar or food establishment, one of the side effects of taking advantage of the goods and services offered there is that the restroom may become more critical to me, but the establishment itself was not created to provide a restroom. So it does become a third priority. In no means does that mean it is not still important and that one entity should not look at the restroom accessibility. First again, I would say going back to the priorities and thinking about common sense, why they were set up this particular way. So creating access to restroom facilities might include things like widening of the doors. Is there the ability to widen the door because oftentimes we will find restrooms are constructed such that you can enter into the doorway but right away we might have a privacy wall of some type that was constructed or the designer layout of the bathroom was such that we created a natural privacy wall by changing the direction once we got inside the bathroom but that becomes a major maneuverability issue for someone using a mobility device. Can we look at anything there? Can we widen the door to create more maneuverability? Can we change things like privacy walls and such that might provide better paths of travel within the bathroom? Can we look at installation of grab bars which may include having to put reinforcement in back of walls? Some of the biggest mistakes we have seen made is where someone thinks, yeah, this is easy. I will go out and buy some grab bars from my home improvement store and install them and not recognizing the fact that, you know, without being installed with appropriate reinforcement on the back, a patron or customer is going to use those and pull those right off the wall just due to the problems associated with not securing them correctly. Raised toilet seats or raise the toilet up from a 15-inch or 16-inch toilet to the minimum of 17 to 19 inches that would be required under an accessible toilet. Is there installation of an automatic flushing mechanism if it is difficult to reach the flush controls or any other things? Can I look at changing out of the toilet paper dispenser? One of the biggest issues we find is oftentimes we will see the very large jumbo rolls of toilet paper, which are in most situations not readily accessible to someone with a disability. They don''t allow for a free flow of the toilet paper. They don''t allow somebody to operate without a pinch or pull. Oftentimes I find myself almost having to get myself up to my elbows to access the toilet paper out of one of those rolls. Maybe changing out the toilet paper roll might be a readily achievable barrier removal issue. Putting in a different soap dispenser or having toils on the counter top instead of in a paper towel dispenser may be another option to look at for those kinds of things as well that might be readily achievable. Then the fourth priority being those other measures that might be necessary to look at providing equal access. Things like if we do have water fountains, what might we be able to do to increase access to that water fountain? Is it readily achievable to put in a high-low fountain? Looking at the requirements to have an accessible height water fountain but not discriminating against individuals who might not be able to bend over to that based on other types of disabilities. So how can we create access where maybe we might look at things like paper towel dispensers being mounted. One of my biggest cautions when people talk about using paper cup dispensers and such as a way to remove barriers for water fountains is that is only as good as maintaining the paper cups in the dispenser and making sure that the dispenser is able to be easily operated and utilized by somebody with minimum hand function and things of that nature. So while sometimes these concepts are great and we can think they are easy solutions, they may not be practical in some instances and some areas. Using alternative type of water cooler as an option might be something again to consider, another way for someone to get access to water. Visual alarm systems may be something, installation of visual alarms for individuals with hearing impairments. Again, is it readily achievable? What is it going to take? What are our requirements? Again, we have to also look at what the other health and safety code issues might be. What might be triggered by our fire codes and things would come into play here as well. Possibly looking at visual alarm systems in public space areas or in a hotel space or other types of transient housing facilities may be another area of readily achievable under the fourth priority. When we look at undergoing or undertaking the issues or beginning to embark on readily achievable barrier removal, we would look at the standards set forth under the Americans with disabilities accessibility guidelines which is the standard adopted by the Department of Justice as the enforceable standard for accessibility under Title III of the ADA. We would probably be looking at and referring to the alteration provisions of Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) versus new construction standards. We would want to look to trying to achieve new construction standards because that is obviously going to create and be able to give us the greatest degree of accessibility, but from the enforceable standards process or perspective, we would be looking at alteration because we are engaging in an alteration. So we would want to look at those things and pay attention from the scoping perspective as to how the alteration provisions apply and what would be the specific technical standards related to that. Deviations from the standards are allowed when something is not readily achievable to meet that standard unless they pose a significant risk of safety to others. So there are some provisions in the alterations area that talks about using steeper than a 1 in 12 ramp in certain circumstances. That is a deviation from the standard. Again, I would want to look at wanting to go to the max I am able to. One of my greatest frustrations in working with people, designers and others, and I am not only talking about designers because many other people may apply and use the standards as well, is that we tend to talk about things in the absolutes like the 1 in 12 ramp under the ADA. If you read the language, it is minimum 1 in 12, which the maximum slope being 1 in 12. That means that it could be 1 in 15, 1 in 16, but too often we see that we go to that standard of 1 in 12, which it was really the floor. That is the bottom denominator. We can always create greater accessibility and we would encourage if you could go greater than the 1 in 12 to provide a more gradual slope for somebody versus a steeper slope, you would want to look at that. But in the cases where you might not be able to because of the circumstances in place, you would be able to deviate and do a steeper ramp in that situation. Or potentially a narrower doorway. I may not be able to achieve a 32-inch door but maybe I have a 28- inch door and through the use of offset hinges I can at least achieve a 30-inch door. I may not get to that 32-inch new construction standard. It is not going to be my ideal for accessibility but I will have greater access than I did before. So strictly approaching and saying I can''t get 32 inches, don''t have to do anything, can''t do anything, no. You definitely would have to look at whether or not you could achieve that at least 30-inch, if possible, or whatever to the maximum that you are able to do. One of the more frequent questions that we are often asked is the issue of how do I determine whether something is readily achievable and who makes that decision? Can I send something in and get somebody to approve it? Can I get them to sanction it as being, quote unquote, okay? Or meeting the ADA. Can I somehow protect myself from a complaint or a lawsuit by having somebody sanction my decision to remove barriers? Really, there isn''t any official sanctioning body. We have an enforcement body under the Department of Justice. Obviously at some of our local levels when you have local code officials and state code officials and such who are looking at our state codes for the enforcement but the ADA itself does not have a proactive policing mechanism. No certifying mechanism or no official review body that will sanction it for you and saying, okay, if you do this you are okay or you are in compliance. Really as an entity who has got obligations and responsibilities here, I am going to have to go through and make my determination the best I am able to and looking at what is going to be my evidence of how I am going to defend the decision that I made and how can I defend that decision. So I am going to look at the nature and the cost of the action that I am undertaking. I am considering the overall financial resources of my entity and my facility, including how many employees I have, what is the effect on the operations and whether or not there are any health and safety concerns. So again the size of an entity, the resources available to that entity. For an entity to say that it may affect their bottom line to engage in barrier removal, well the reality is anything you do affects your bottom line one way or another. My side argument might be that you are going to increase your bottom line by opening your facilities up to a broader audience of individuals who are able to come in and spend money where they may not otherwise have been. So if I was to look at it in the short term, yes, it might affect my bottom line. In the long term like any business decision we make, our goal is to increase our bottom line and with the growing number of people with disabilities in our society, with the aging population and with the other group of individuals who benefit from the use of many of these accessibility features, your chances are you are only going to enhance or increase. One of the other things that often comes into play is that a business owner will make changes, but they won''t see a significant increase in the number of people with disabilities patronizing their business so they become frustrated and it becomes a point of contention with them. Look, I have spent this money but I am not seeing any more customers. Well, what have you done to inform the public or let the public know that you have made these changes? If you have been in business for 25 years as a local restaurant and you have never been accessible and suddenly tomorrow you are accessible, all of those people who may have wanted to use your facilities for the past 25 years but they were inaccessible, don''t necessarily know you have made the changes and may not have been able to come to your restaurant and have a family reunion or wedding there or other gathering because of the accessibility but they don''t know that you made the changes because what have you done to promote or let the public know that you have increased your accessibility? It becomes also a marketing opportunity for you at the same time.
Looking at the geographic separateness of your facility''s administrative or financial relationship to any parent corporation comes into play. Is it corporately owned, is it franchise owned, how many stores does a single franchisee own. Who has got obligations there is going to be looked at in relationship when we start to look at the resources that are available and whose resources would be impacted is going to be a part of that play in relationship to that issue. When we look at issues that often come up with landlord-lessee relationships, an entity who leases space and there are barriers but the landlord won''t remove the barriers, there is a shared responsibility. Irregardless of whether I own the building I am in, if I am operating a place of public accommodation, I am covered under the ADA the same as if I lease to or operate place of public accommodation. So the landlord has obligations, the owner has obligations and so does the lessee. So it may need to be negotiated between the parties for responsibilities. Who is going to do what? When I enter into a lease when, I renew my lease, looking at issues? What about common use spaces that might be shared by more than one lessee and how is that broken out and who has obligations? All of those things will be looked at and governed by some of those lease agreement type issues but none of the parties are free at any one point. If I am a lessee I can''t hide behind my landlord''s refusal to do something, if I am a landlord I can''t hide as well and say but the business owner has obligations. It is his responsibility to do it. It is a shared responsibility and it may be spelled out through that lease relationship but it is something that both parties are going to have to look at. As I said earlier, we recognize that some entities may never be able to get to the point of achieving barrier removal for a variety of different issues. Financial, structural, the difficulties, the complexity of what might need to happen. That doesn''t mean I get to stop there. This is where we find still today we are 15 years into this and I can still go down a majority of streets in any community or subset of that community and I am going to see businesses that are still inaccessible and no indication whatsoever that they have even considered any alternative methods of serving people who may not be able to get into their facilities. We still have the obligation to look at alternatives. But the alternatives are only to be used when I can demonstrate that I am unable to remove the barrier itself. So I don''t jump right to the alternative before I even consider removing the physical barrier. The alternatives are a last resort but they may include curb service or home delivery service that may not have a home delivery program but I may be able to implement that for my customers with disabilities who can''t get to my facility because they can''t get inside of it. Curbside service is an option. Again, these are not ideal ways to deliver service, but they do provide an opportunity for someone to gain access to services. As simple as assigning staff to help retrieve merchandise from inaccessible shelves and racks. Even in new construction there is not an obligation for a retail establishment to have all of its merchandise at 48 inches. It is recognized that that is probably not feasible to do. We would have two football field lengths in some of our stores if we did those kind of things. That becomes a whole other barrier for just fatigue and maneuverability and other kinds of things. So, again, identifying staff but letting people know that that service is available through some kind of signage or indication so that your customers would know that there was assistance available and educating our staff that this is their responsibility or assigning somebody that responsibility and teaching them how they would do that and what kind of protocols would be in place for that. Relocating activities to accessible locations. Can we move the meeting to a different site? Can we meet somebody in an alternative location? Maybe I am a second floor law office or tax preparer or some other kind of service and I don''t have vertical access, it is only a walk-up and not feasible to put an elevator in. Could I offer an alternative service of meeting in someone''s home? While I may not regularly provide that service, but as my alternative barrier removal for those customers unable to get into the facility due to physical barriers that exist in the facility, I may be able to deliver that service in an alternative way. Meeting at a common place such as a public library or something is another alternative. Again, all kinds of aspects and considerations here, confidentiality, what is the nature of the service being delivered, making decisions what the best locations are would have to go into that. But the bottom message here is just because I may not be able to remove my physical barriers does not mean that is where I stop nor do I jump to alternatives before I look at to what extent I can remove the barriers. Critical and key to this whole process is the planning process. What have I done to look at my barriers. Have I even undergone or conducted a self evaluation to identify what my barriers are. I may anecdotally know what my barriers are, or a patron has commented on something along the way, but in a more formal way, what have I actually done? There are a couple of tools available to assist. There is an existing facilities checklist that was developed under some federal funding by Adaptive Environments and Barrier-Free Environments, two organizations that work together to create this document. It is available on the Department of Justice website and referenced frequently as a tool to be used there. From that checklist creating a barrier removal plan. What are my resources? What have I done to look at what resources do I have available and comparing that against the barriers I have and what is it going to take to start to begin to remove those barriers, going back to those four priority areas I discussed earlier and how I might apply any resources that I might have available? Secure the services of an Accessibility Specialist or an architect. Have them create a barrier removal plan. If you are not comfortable or familiar with some of the requirements or you want to make sure that you have got them correct or that they are right and you want a full picture of what is actually required, you know, securing the services of someone who has that expertise so they can give you a good, clear picture of what the costs of doing so might be. To make an argument that you can''t put a ramp in when you have no idea what it is really going to cost to put a ramp in and, yeah, I know your fellow business owner down the street put one in and it cost him $5,000, but he has a different store front, he has a different business. To make your decision of it not being readily achievable based on someone else''s cost is not going to be a very good defense. What have you done to look at that particular issue in regards to your own barrier removal and what information do you have to support any decision not to be able to remove the barriers and a plan is going to be a good faith effort towards that and is going to give you a good, clear idea of what you need to do. Probably the most important thing here is understand it is an ongoing obligation. For many, many people they treated it as a snapshot opportunity. They took a snapshot back in the 1990, ''91, ''92, when the ADA was first passed. They made a determination that they didn''t have the resources to remove the barrier and have never done anything since. That is not a correct interpretation. It is an ongoing obligation. So if I have been in business 15, 20 years and I have owned the same facility and not undergone any renovations and such and I still haven''t removed barriers because it is too expensive, why haven''t I removed those barriers? What did I do? Did I look at, okay, it was going to be something that maybe was a $2,000, $3,000 expenditure or so I couldn''t afford it in one year when I was first looking at it. But maybe I have a plan in place that for the next couple of years I will put a certain amount of funds aside to address that particular issue and eventually I will remove the barrier. Until that time I will provide one of the alternatives, but I am going to eventually remove the barrier. This is something that is very much a part of the ADA''s requirements. It also is very much a part of the spirit of the ADA in that requirement, that it be eventually facilities will have those barriers removed over time. If there is a change of ownership, it is not that if I am a new owner, I have no obligations because the previous owner didn''t do anything. As I said earlier, there is no grandfather clause under the ADA. Every time I change ownership I will look at a new set of resources or a new set of arguments and defenses as to why something may or may not be readily achievable as far as a barrier to remove. Change of use may also trigger again relooking at this particular issue. If I am changing the use, I am the same owner but am changing the use from one kind of facility to another, maybe I was going from a commercial facility to a retail facility, because I didn''t have to remove barriers as a commercial facility but now I am making that same facility retail, we are going to sell things out of our front doors I am going to have to look at these issues. I don''t get to use the argument that I am not covered because I previously may not have had obligations because of the type of the use of the facility at that time. In making my defense on undue hardship with respect to cost with these things I will have to look at any tax credits that might be available to offset the cost of removing those barriers. IRS code 44, disabled access credit, can be used for removal of barriers and the cost of those barriers, there is information available on the IRS website related to this tax credit, but I could have up to $5,000 per tax year available to me to assist in offsetting the cost of removing barriers under my readily achievable barrier removal requirement. IRS code 190, the architectural transportation barrier removal deduction, again we all should know the difference between deductions and credits here, would be available to me for the removal of architectural transportation barriers up to $15,000 per tax year could be available to me. Again, these tax credits are applicable to readily achievable barrier removal. Where I would have not be able to use the tax credits on new construction because my obligation on new construction is that I construct it accessible. I wouldn''t be able to use tax credits to offset the cost of what I am already obligated to do under a new construction concept, but I would be able to use them for my readily achievable barrier removal responsibilities. So, in conclusion, what are the consequences of not removing my barriers? The loss of potential business. The Department of Justice has recently put out a fact sheet for business looking at who are people with disabilities, what is the spending power of people with disabilities and there is a significant amount of spending power available. I think that any business who thinks of it only in the context of one individual person or that individual with a disability is missing a whole pool of individuals, because frankly I don''t eat by myself very much, more often it is with friends. One, two, 3 individuals, or a family goes out as groups. So I may lose not just one meal at the restaurant, but four meals, five meals. I am going to lose potentially five people shopping for their toiletries at your establishment or clothing because they can''t get in, not just one person. Because where my family member can''t go, I am not likely to go as well. So those will be issues that are paramount, just that loss of potential business first and foremost. Dealing with the issue of complaints that might be filed through the formal processes available to individuals, being able to just deal with it. We all know the cost of legal services and things. It is oftentimes when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it much more cost effective for someone to spend $1,000 to remove a barrier than to spend $3,000 for a legal consultation in the end. And, again, of course the potential for a lawsuit to be filed for not compliance under the ADA. So there is many things that could happen and we have seen that by some of the lawsuits that have been filed by advocates and others across the country in different geographic parts of the country. Looking at these issues of in the reality while one might not agree with one''s particular tactics or what one might be doing in some of the lawsuits that are being filed, the bottom line is in a majority of the situations, they are legitimate barrier issues. There are businesses who have not taken into consideration even from the first most initial step what their barriers might be and how to remove them. There is, as I said, litigation - I am sorry, legislation that has been introduced, the ADA Notification Act. It has not really gone anywhere. It is a few years past at this point but it is still out there. But it is set up or put in place if it was to be passed or approved by congress would provide a notification period proposed that 90 days but who knows what that legislation might end up being, but what has been proposed is that an entity or individual who wanted to file a complaint or a lawsuit would be required to give 90 days notification to the business owner prior to being able to file that complaint or lawsuit, allowing that business owner during that 90 day period to act on the particular barrier-related issue. In some situations we have seen states who have enacted legislation addressing some type of notification related to their state laws or being able to file complaints under the State. Again, the ADA being a federal law, a state would not have jurisdiction over the ADA, but we do see some litigation going on at the state level around these issues and some states have looked at remedies from their issues and looking at possibly putting into place legislation that might give that notification period. So I hope we are well past 2:00 here and I wanted to provide some time for questions. I do apologize, I needed that time in the beginning to talk about our next year''s series and I guess I am my worst enemy here in that I didn''t monitor my time very well and I am the moderator so there was nobody to pull the chain on me. At this time Kim, if we could give some instructions to the audience so that they can spend some time asking some questions at this point and we can all further learn. That would be appreciated.
My question is we are doing a remodel of a building that we have previously had. Half the building is the public and half the building is ours, but majority of the work in there is by volunteers from the community. We are putting a classroom in there that they will be able to utilize. There is two stairwells in the middle of that building and no way for a ramp or anything else unless we build something to go in. Are we obligated to put a ramp into that building in case we have outside community people coming in and using those classrooms?
Just let me start from the beginning and try to do some clarification here. First and foremost whether or not the work is done by volunteers or others is not going to make a difference of what your obligations and such are. Those areas that are open to the public are going to be defined as and they are going to fit if they are using the classrooms and things, those could be places of education and such, so you are going to have obligations that are going to fit in those 12 categories. Because you are undergoing renovation and remodeling at this point, you are also going to be triggering the alterations requirements of the ADA accessibility guidelines in addition to anything that might be triggered by your Colorado state building codes. Traditionally when we think about the applicability of the alterations requirements, it is somewhat of a you touch it, you fix it kind of an approach. Again, that is a very simplistic way to look at it but that is one way we would think about it. You are in a two-story building, is that correct?
Actually it is a one level but it has like five or six stairs getting to the next level.
So there is more than one level within the structure.
Right.
And raised mezzanines or something. And so all of the classrooms are on the second level?
Yeah. All are on the second level and both areas going to the classrooms are stairways, but you can enter the classrooms through the rear.
When you say from the rear, you mean there is an accessible path of travel through an exterior door to the rear somehow?
Correct. There is one in the rear, but a person that is in - doing something in an open area in the front of the building where most of our community goes would then have to leave the building in the front, go around the entire building to the rear to access that building. And I mean we are up near it is near garden of the gods and a lot of snow goes up there.
You have many issues obviously. Well, things to look at. I am not sure if you have looked at some of the lifts that might be able to be used versus a ramp. You know, in an existing facility in alterations in certain circumstances and situations, again would have to look against whatever is going to play in your state code. You might be able to use a stairway lift that would be able to be used depending again on the width of the stairwell, your fire codes and all those kinds of things so that would be something you would have to consider. Whether or not you could create a classroom area on the level that is accessible. Is there any possibility to create something on an accessible level and maybe shift around from the way you have now conceptualized the use of the building? Are there any opportunities to do that, to look at that to get at least one of the classrooms on an accessible level and you could look at the scheduling becoming your issue you there?
Well, they are actually using the two big conference rooms in the back where the classrooms are, and so there is no way we could put any conference room like that up front. My question to our architects and our facilities people was, okay, in the event that it is inclimate weather or whatever, how are you going to get somebody to the classrooms through the internal area. And they stated to me, well, nobody is going to go through the internal part unless they are an employee and they have a card to be able to get through. And I asked is there an opportunity for someone, if it is inclimate weather to open up that door if it is an employee to let people through, what happens to the person that is disabled that can''t.
Well, again, so now you have kind of thrown another whole issue in here in that the public accesses those conference rooms from the exterior, from the outside.
Well, this is what they are saying, it is from the outside. But I mean we know if it is inclimate weather and there is somebody there with a card, they are going through the inside of the building because it is just like five steps away.
But what you are going to have to look at there, it comes as part of your policies and practices. It is not an ideal situation. You don''t have an ideal situation in any way, shape or form. First and foremost looking at how to create the vertical access through some of the means that are available to us through alterations. We are not able to use those means of new construction but we might be able to do something, again the stair lift or other options with that. And then the other thing would be that recognize in all parts of the country they have got inclimate weather. While it may not be ideal for people with disabilities exposed to the inclimate weather, is there a possibility could you create some kind of a covered walkway, you know, is that a option along the building so that everyone would be
It is like a street and it goes to the back and it is a hill, so
This is one of those kinds of things that you probably want to think about some more and think about other options. I don''t have time unfortunately to really go through the whole thing here. I would really strongly recommend that you were in contact with your Rocky Mountain Center that serves your area and possibly someone from their staff could help you to problem solve some other options and some thoughts of how you might be able to do that. Again, you are going to have to play against your state codes as well here.
Okay, great.
Thank you. Next question, please.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
You mentioned the difficulty that you have when you cannot make your facility accessible through reasonable accommodation and when it is not readily achievable.
It is not readily achievable, yes.
If you have gone through the steps for any companies that have gone through the various steps of doing the evaluation and involving people with disabilities, etc. Do you know of ones that have been successful in getting lawsuits dismissed when complaints have been filed?
Yes. I mean there definitely is some, those are the toughest ones to ferret out because they are not on the record. They may have had a complaint filed and gone to the courts but then it gets dismissed or settled so it doesn''t become part of the public record. I am aware of different parts even within my own region I can most specifically talk to just because I have more aware of it. But I know that my colleagues across the country can give some potential examples in this arena as well. But where there was an entity or an individual who in a situation of being able to demonstrate that they, you know, had taken a proactive stance and that they were willing to remove the barriers and such, they have been able to negotiate a settlement that did not result in any specific fines or any specific, you know, monetary damages or anything of that nature because it was worked out and decided between the judge and the individuals and their attorneys that they, you know, would remove the barriers and with an agreeable time frame and such. So it takes parties that are willing, though, to do that. It takes parties who are willing to have those conversations and such. There is so many different dynamics that play into it in regards to what is the initial response within. Human nature plays a large part of what happens of our litigious society. So if an individual has felt that they tried to get resolution of the issue and either felt they have been dismissed or treated rudely or their concerns have been not taken seriously by a business owner, they may be less willing or less, you know, interested in a settlement type of situation which would result in a dismissal of the complaint or the lawsuit under mutual agreement. So there are a lot of factors that go into play there that, you know, a business center will have to look at. But I am definitely aware where there has been success, where good strategies have been utilized by the business community and legal community together to try to get the bottom line of, you know what we really want here is we want to create access. If we can agree what that access is, we can agree to dismiss or to, you know, do away with the formalized process.
You are talking about settlements. My question really was whether you know of anywhere the judge has dismissed the case without having to go into negotiations with the plaintiff and all of that.
I am aware of cases where the judge has determined that the case did not have merit.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
Yes, I am definitely aware of situations where the judge has, you know, looked at the facts and has found that there was not merit. Now, that is one of those things that also comes into play and whether or not the judge is fully informed and educated also about the issues. But, yes, I am aware that there have been situations. The reality is there is not when you look at the overall degree of litigation under the ADA and across the different titles of the ADA, the most amount of litigation has been in the area of employment. We don''t have a lot of documentation and a lot of information unless it hits the papers or it becomes known to different parties who then, you know, broadcast it or make it known to the general public that there are complaints or those things are going on. It is just not treated the same and there is not the same numbers of those things happening within the Title III arena so we don''t have the same history of those types of things. And because they do get dismissed, they don''t get published and so it really becomes more an individual knowing about it that we find out about it more than any other way of tracking it.
Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Lisa.
Do I understand correctly that businesses that existed prior to 1992 are supposed to act proactively rather than reactively in their barrier removal? That is are the business owners responsible to anticipate barriers and remove them even though no one has complained?
Oh yeah, definitely. Yeah, it is a proactive responsibility. It should not be complaint driven. We would hope it would not be complaint driven. The ADA is a voluntary compliance law. As I said earlier, there is no active police force or monitoring mechanism and such. Each one of us as individual citizens with or without disabilities typically are the monitors of most laws and pieces of legislation. Most of them don''t have an enforcement proactive police force built in. So, yes, a business owner is supposed to know. This is when I drive the down whether it is posted to drive 65 miles per hour or not, I am responsible for the rules of the road and to know what the speed limits are. If I am operating a business in a particular jurisdiction, it is my responsibility to know what the laws are that govern me, at the federal, local or state level, which the ADA would be one of those. So it is definitely a proactive responsibility. It is not complaint driven. If we have gotten down to the complaint driven part of it,where its only being looked at because of a complaint, then we have already demonstrated that the person was in violation of the ADA.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, this is Roy. We have a facility that was built in 1972. It is approximately 32 years old. It is a two-story building and my question is we have been, we have had an assessment by our local city level as well as our state level with the Department of Human Services. A lot of things that they have identified as doable were a two-person staff office with about 1600 statewide members of an association. We have not received any complaints, but we want to be within the spirit and compliance of the law of the ADA. My question is in this two-story structure, we have administrative offices upstairs, but meeting rooms downstairs. In both assessments, they have identified the areas that would be made more easily accessible were downstairs. Would we be in compliance if we put the lift in or whatever we decide to do just to go to one level?
Well, what you have to look at here is where are you and what portion of that building are you operating as a place of public accommodation. So if the only area of the building that is a place of public accommodation is that lower level or that one level where the conference rooms and that is the place where the public would be coming into and the administrative offices are not a place that the public is coming into or, you know, you could provide that service by relocating or providing another means to deliver that service on the first floor, you would not need to create that vertical access to that second floor. Your obligation is to make sure that you are creating access to your areas of where your public accommodation is operating.
Okay. Now, and I understand clearly your answer. As executive director, if I have an appointment and it is just one person, they can come to my office but when I have my meetings is I go downstairs is my situation. In the case of our disabled members, if they were to come to the office, I would set the appointment up in the board room downstairs and that is what I am asking. Is that okay?
Yeah, sure. I mean you are providing the service, you know, first of all, you want to make sure that you go through the analysis are you in a place of public accommodation. You want to make that determination. In looking at your removal of barriers and looking at your priorities given what your resources and things are, I would definitely if I was going to put totally my advocacy on, I would like to see every building as fully accessible as possible but I recognize that the resources aren''t always there and, you know, sometimes we spend resources on things that you may not need to and then don''t have money for interpreters for sign language or other accommodations that come into play. So we have to really balance that, what is common sense practical there. As long as the needs of that individual are served and they have equal opportunity to access the services, then, you know, you are meeting the needs there and your public accommodation aspects have been met.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Gretchen.
How do we ask question that say may come to mind after today''s session?
You can send an e-mail to gldbtac @ u i c . e d u.
Thank you.
Sure, not a problem.
Is your name the contact?
Yes, Robin Jones, yes.
I am calling from Jersey City, New Jersey my question is, I am an advocate for people with disabilities. I am feeling there is a lot of, I guess, construction that is going on in our area where these buildings that are very historic are undergoing major renovations or major projects. And I want to be able to so far I am not having a lot of luck in forging any kind of relationship with the developers. I work for a center for independent living and we have a project access coordinator who could help in terms of frequent consultation and finding out if these projects are going to be accessible. I am just wondering, I guess you answered my question in terms of the enforcement, but I am just wondering if there is any process that can help me go forward and try to get, I mean right now it seems like the developers have such strong relationships with the people who are in office and they are not answering my phone calls or I am just really being ignored. And I think it is a good thing for them to have somebody who can really consult them and we could offer this service so that it won''t be any litigation in the future. Is there people that I could go to or is there something in terms of strategy, I guess is what I am really looking for.
Yeah. I mean I think many advocates and others have used different strategies to try to develop relationships with local officials and such to be, you know, looked to or turned to as a resource for this information. Sometimes they have to be kind of shown that you can be a resource and that you are knowledgeable in what you want to do. Are you an independent living center?
Yes.
You might want to use the ILNET and some of the resources available for some of the communication that goes on to try to get ideas from some of the other CILs that have been successful in this area because some have been very successful in developing those relationships. Even though they have oftentimes had some of the same political issues and things that you sound like you are having in your geographic area, you know, they have used some successful strategies trying to get involved in some boards, trying to find that one friendly person, you know, member supporting a candidate to get elected who might share similar views who could be an inside advocate for them, looking within the staff to see if there is anybody who is than advocate, looking to see if you can identify if there is anybody within the political structure that may have a family member with a disability who may be somewhat empathetic to some of these issues who might be also able to be used as a conduit. Also you have to always overcome the concept that experts come from far away. Which, you know, sometimes we don''t look in our own backyards for who our expertise might be so you may have to also, you know, convince them that you do have the expertise and that your information is reliable. One of the biggest problems that I have seen out there with some of the advocate organizations is that some may not always be using most accurate and correct information and so what happens there is that they may have lost some credibility with an entity because one thing that they did or one thing they said somewhere along the line was found to be not correct or accurate and that may have only been one out of 200 things they did but that one thing will impact their relationship so also be very careful in the fact that you are accurate and that you are giving good objective information and helpful information. But I really would encourage you to use the resource available, you know, out there within the independent living network to get some ideas from some of your colleagues about how they have been successful in doing that because there are some with very good models in place that serve as a key resource in their communities on these issues and are viewed as experts in their communities.
Great, thank you. Very helpful.
Well, we are at the end of our time period and I could keep going but I as the moderator to have shut it off today. But I do thank everyone for participating today. I do look forward to having you all back for our 2005-2006 series. I encourage you to go and visit our new website, provide us some feedback. And, again, just remember, or remind you it is www.ADA-audio.org. And you will find all the information you need on there. I will just repeat also the e-mail if you want to send any additional questions on this issue, gldbtac@uic.edu, but another very good source as I am just one of network of 10 centers out there is contact 1-800-949-4232 or if you would like to contact them by e-mail or some of them have contact pages on their websites or electronically, you can find out which center serves you and get their contact information by going to the network website of www.adata.org and from there you will be able to link to the center and get the contact information specifically to the center that serves your area. We all work with this issue on a regular basis and it is something that we all can help you and assist you with. So thank you very much, everyone, for your time today and I hope this session was valuable and looking forward to hearing you next month. Next month''s session in October is a legal update where we will be examining some of the current trends in case law under the ADA across various titles and I invite you to join us for that to get a little update and insight into what is happening in the legal community related to some of the litigation under all titles of the ADA. So thank you very much and have a great day.