District Accessibility Committee

Present: Ron Balsamo, Jay Carpenter, Cathleen Cummings, George Grijalva, Nancy Moorhead, Marie Thompson, Anthony Tusler (honorary member), and Dorothy Vitali.

Absent: Tim Bosma, and Patie Wegman.

Guest: Russ Bowden- Manager of Media Services and Raoul Yriberri-Purchasing Assistant (Tim Bosma's Proxy )

OLD BUSINESS

1. Meeting Schedule for Fall & Spring .

(Returned to agenda item 1 after discussion of New Business item 2.) George reviewed the meeting schedule for Fall & Spring. The next meeting will be Oct. 26th, delayed a week due to Disability Pride Week event on the 19th, David Rouche (See Arts and Lectures Series announcement below, item 1). Future meetings are as follows:

Oct. 26- Oak Room

Nov. 16- Senate Chambers

Dec. 14- Senate Chambers

Feb. 08- Rm. TBA

March 15- Rm. TBA

April 19- Rm. TBA

May 10- Rm. TBA

Cathleen asked if meetings could start an hour later to allow for coverage at her office in Media Services. The committee agreed to start at 2:00 P.M. This will start with the Feb. 8 meeting in the Spring of '99.

2. Membership

The committee has two student positions that are not yet filled. Apparently, Abel Jeffcoat is not enrolled this semester. George will check with Student Activities to secure student participation.

3. Goals and Objectives for 1998/99.

George stated he would put together a tentative list for next meeting based on today's discussions. Several of last years objectives will continue for this year.

An additional objective was identified at the last DAC Meeting in April, members of the committee would like to develop a Disability Access Directory/Map. The map would display the locations of the various access accommodations through out the District, including location of Assistive Listening Systems (ALS), pay phone TTY, and high tech hardware and software items. Anthony said he characterizes it as more of an inventory, so that management and students know where these items are located. He would like to also see this on the WEB for students to access and, also produce in a map format with some assistance from Computer Assisted Design (CAD). Also, the ability to print the map out on 17 1/2" by 14" would benefit low vision students.

Nancy noted that she has the whole facility map system on a auto CAD system, this includes pathways and such things as planters. Anthony added, he is interested in being able to print out parts of such a map/directory to match student access needs. George mentioned that Patie had talked about this at the last meeting, being able to produce a certain map for certain populations. For example, a student who is hard of hearing may only want the layer of the map which has to do with ALS locations. Someone else may want to see all the layers on one map.

The decision was to go ahead and form a sub- committee to work on the map directory. Anthony thought this might fit in well with the Way Finder objective. Anthony, George, and Nancy will work on this objective.

4. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure Status

Marie handed out the Draft Policy on Reasonable Accommodations (RA) for Employees (not dated). She began by saying the DAC began discussion of this item last semester, at that time the committee requested the District put the RA process in writing so that employees of the District would have a ready reference and the District would have the same reference which would serve as a means for consistency of response to RA request. Up until this time, since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, the District had some what of a RA process in place, but it was little known by the campus community, only a few people knew the current practice.

Marie pointed out that the writing of the RA policy was also in response to employees and supervisors wanting to know what the process was for requesting a RA. Marie noted that from her perspective, and others, the time had come to put the perceived RA process in writing. Marie developed the initial draft and then borrowed from other policy and procedure documents, as well as getting in put from others on campus who are usually involved in employee reasonable accommodation request, including, personnel, workers compensation people, and the coordinator of Environmental Health and Safety. In addition, the District's Legal Counsel, Bob Henry,

has also reviewed the draft and he has added a couple of things he felt were important. Marie requested the committee's review of the draft prior to sending on to College Counsel.

Anthony inquired as to the role of College Council. Marie explained that the Counsel is the standing committee which reviews all policy and procedures. The Council has constituents from all segments of the College community, students, classified and administrative staff and faculty members. The counsel makes sure that the whole college community has been given the opportunity, through it's constituent groups, to review a given proposed policy and then takes any recommendations into consideration as part of their review. The Council is currently co-chaired by Diane Smith and Dean Gooch. After the College Counsel reviews a policy, then the document is then sent to the Board of Trustees for adoption.< /FONT>

George inquired as to Marie's time line relative to Reasonable Accommodation Policy review. She said she would like to have the committee review the policy and have feedback at the next DAC meeting on October 26th. Members can call Marie if they have questions while reviewing the policy.

Marie also made a special note of the appeal process. She said the way it is currently planned, she would approve or disapprove RA request. The appeal process is set up so that an other person, besides herself, would review appeals. She chose the Vice-President of Business Services as that other person, since he supervises personal and Environmental Health and Safety Department and because of his knowledge in this area.

Cathleen inquired as to where an employee starts with a RA request. Marie said this has not yet been determined, the how and where the forms will be house. She sees the procedural details as be developed after the policy is adopted.

Anthony asked if on the form itself there would be a check off for the RA request being approved or not approved? Marie said yes, that would be the case. Anthony felt the critical point in the process, where problems can arise, is when the person does have a legitimate disability, they do have the need for a reasonable accommodation, they have a good idea that is close, but their idea does not fit with the District assessment. He felt the District needs to reserve the right to say that this is the accommodation we are willing to provide and that this needs to be on the RA request form. Marie said it would be, the rational for each decision will be detailed and related to disability information which will be held in strict confidentiality, available only to those in the process who have legitimate need to know. George suggested the policy be a part of the new employee orientation package. The committee agreed.

5. Emeritus Hall Furniture Task Force

Jay stated there had been a formal complaint from a faculty directed to Curt. The complaint centered on the size of the new furniture, rooms being to crowded, and the room capacities were not right. There was even a faculty member who was going to call the fire marshal to have the rooms shut down if the matter was not taken care of soon.

Jay and Curt went over and looked at the rooms in question. One of the rooms, 1684, which has two doors , had one of it's exits blocked, wheelchair access was blocked to the adjustable tables, and the black board could not be gotten to by the instructor. One instructor is demanding the classroom, rated at a capacity of 25, go to a capacity of 20 to cut down on the congestion.

Another room, 1691, with a single door and having a capacity of 49, had the tables and chairs laid out in such a way that blocked access to a number areas also. George showed Jay the intended lay out for the room, but Jay said the room was not laid out in that fashion.

Using the George's lay outs, Raoul explained that the room layouts done on paper are to scale as is the furniture noted within the lay outs. The vendor, when they set up the rooms just before school, set the rooms up according to the lay outs approved by the Task Force. Ron Taylor's staff was to have posted a master layout in every room, so that if a the furniture in a given room was moved around, there would be the master layout showing the approved layout. The expectation being that the instructor would move the room back to the approved master layout configuration. However, since the master layout did not get posted, the furniture was never returned to the original approved configuration.

Jay noted the result in the one room (1684) is that only one of the accessible desk can be accessed by one of the students using a wheelchair in one of the classes and there are two students in wheelchairs in that class. The other accessible desk is also in a position which would have the user looking out the window. The other big problem in one of the rooms, Jay noted, is the video screen drops down on the heads of six students. In addition, there are 8 spare chairs scattered throughout the room, further blocking and limiting access and all of the dorsal desks touch from front to back causing even more access issues for the instructor and students. In the case of the video screen, Jay said that those 6 desk would have be removed, but this would be too big of loss in enrollment.

Raoul clarified, the task force took in to account class room size mandates first and then decided on furniture that would adhere to capacity mandates. The extra seats in the rooms were to be stacked and not spread throughout the room. The chairs were to be used to accommodate extra enrollment at the beginning of the term and for Sign Language Interpreters during the course of a semester. After chairs were used during a class session, they were to be restacked again so they would not add to the crowding problem of the room. Instructors of each class, Raoul

explained, were to be the ones who monitored the master layout of a room.

Jay suggested everyone on the committee look at the rooms so they can get a better sense of the problem. He then move our attention to room 1696 , a room with three accessible stations. A similar crowding problem exist in this room and in his estimation at least ten desks would have to come out of this room to make it work.

George asked, what next? Jay said he is waiting for Curt to tell him how many tables, chairs, and desk to move out of each of the rooms. He also added that there is a meeting set with Curt and LuAnn, Ron and himself this week to address the issues. The decision as to whether the District buys the same furniture and then reduces the class size or buys other furniture which maintains State capacity standards will have to addressed. Jay did say that Curt is prepared to loose one or two station to make rooms accessible, but he is not prepared to loose 20% of capacity in any one room.

Anthony reported he was just in room 1697 and the room was set up in an orderly fashion and seemed to work fine, but it was tight. George inquired of Raoul and Jay if the rooms were ever in the master layout configuration. Raoul said that they were installed according to the master plan and he and Ron check each room prior to classes starting to make sure measurements were adhered to as in the master layout. Not having the master layout for each classroom posted at the beginning of the semester gave instructors nothing to work with as far as layout.

Jay again noted that just having the stackable chairs spread throughout a room, instead of being stacked, is a big part of the problem. The other part is the classroom management issue. Are instructors going to be inclined to perform this function? Raoul also noted this has traditionally been a problem, especially with weekend classes. Instructors do not typically put furniture back to the order they found it. Jay added that custodians can set the furniture to the layout once, but that will not help if each instructor is going reconfigure the room and not put it back to the layout standard.

Raoul spoke to the dorsal desk design. The desk is set upon a sled base so that custodians can slide the desks rather than pick them up to move. This he compared to the Petaluma Center where the classrooms are not carpeted, as they are in Emeritus. The desk at Petaluma are straight legged, but smaller than the Dorsal. However, this straight leg desk can not be slid on carpet or the carpet will eventually tear. The Faculty represented on the Emeritus Task Force opted to go with the sliding dorsal desk for that reason.

George added that Ron Taylor has a Alternate Model Sub-Committee set up to meet this Wednesday to discuss other types of furniture options for Emeritus Hall that might work better than the current furniture designs. Jay will, in the interim, attempt to set the rooms to the master layouts prior to moving any furniture out of rooms and, hopefully, this will minimize the number of pieces of furniture that will have to be taken out of the rooms.

6. Service Animal Policy and Procedures

Marie started off by saying this policy was a little different than the RA policy in the way it became an issue needing a policy. Going back to last year, she recalled a student's daughter actually filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regarding her mother's use of her alleged need to have a service dog on campus. It was out of the District's voluntary resolution to the complaint that Marie was able to work with the OCR investigator to agree to have a policy and procedure in place so that there would be a basis for future assessment of service animal issues.

The problem with drafting a policy, Marie continued, was that the service animal issue was a rather new one. OCR, she pointed out, had to do a lot of research in this area in order to jointly draft a policy in this area with the District. OCR's plan is to have our Service Animal Policy become a model for the State educational institutions.

The Policy is currently in the College Counsel for their review. Marie has been before the council once to present the policy and will go back next week to answer any questions. The Policy, Marie explained, has been back and forth with OCR. OCR, at first, wanted to have approval rights of the Policy. What was agreed upon is that the District would act in good faith and that there would be a mutual agreement as to the District's final Policy Statement.. The President did sign off on the voluntary resolution agreement and OCR's legal counsel has consulted with our District as part of this mutual effort to come up with a sound policy statement. The goal, according to Marie, is to have the Service Animal Policy approved by the Board of Trustees by the end of this semester.

Marie went on to say that the District does not have a lot of room to change the language within the draft policy since it is an agreement with OCR. Some Faculty and students have voiced concern with some of the language in the policy. However, the bottom line, Marie continued, is that if someone has a disability and has an animal that they say performs a service for them, the District does not have a right to challenge this unless it is a threat to the health and safety of others, or poses a fundamental threat to the program or activity. As long as the person's service animal is acting in a way that does not interfere with the health and safety of others, is not barking in the classroom, or causing a fundamental alteration in the way the class is taught, then the District has to honor the person's right to their service animal.

Anthony noted that he did not see anything in the draft policy which said the animal had to be under the control of the disabled person. Marie responded, this is correct. This was the last point that she went back and forth with OCR about- she wanted there to be such a statement in the policy. However, OCR's legal counsel did spell out the Responsibilities of Persons Using Service Animals on page one: "The care and supervision of a service animal is the responsibility of the individual... If a service animal becomes unruly or disruptive...to the extent that the animal's behavior may pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, or may cause a fundamental alteration..." Then the District would have reason to "consider the issue of appropriate care and supervision using the evaluations steps that follow:" Anthony concurred that it is better that the focus was on behavior of the animal as opposed "under control, " which would be hard to measure.

Anthony added, so then, a person with a very severe life threatening allergy to dog dander would take precedence over the service animal. Marie responded, OCR made the point of saying that the intent of the policy statement is not to create a hierarchy of disability. The District would have to accommodate both of the students. Quoting from her OCR notes, Marie added, "...the direct threat may not be used to remove a service animal from a classroom where another student has an allergy to that animal, instead, the district would use its regular procedure for identifying an accommodation or modification for both students perhaps, for example, assigning students to different sections of the same class." If the instructor were the one allergic to the animal, then the student would need to move to another section, in her estimation, removing the instructor would be seen as a fundamental alteration.

Cathleen inquired, what if a person was hired into a classified position and some one who was already working the office who had an allergy?. Marie said the same course of action would apply. The District would have to figure out an accommodation for each, one person does not necessarily have hierarchy over the other. Cathleen inquired further, would seniority come into play? Marie said not necessarily, it would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis; she could not issue a blanket statement.

Anthony said that seems to be what OCR is saying, these things need to be worked out on a case by case basis and they are not going to give a hard and fast rule. That these are the issues and reasonable people should be able to work out the issues. Marie added that the policy does, however, give a basis for making sound decisions.

There was some discussion around other types of service creatures, such as snakes. These too would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Jay mention service gerbils being available for those who ride the bus, but Marie could not see the District providing any kind of service animal/creature. The conversation quickly began to deteriorate at this point relative to this topic. George mentioned Richard Peel's idea of a robotic dog to assist students; Anthony said this would eliminate the allergy problem, no dander.

Getting back on track, Marie pointed out that what we started out with as a draft policy statement is very different from where we are now with the current draft. The current statement is not as hard and fast, but instead is more general.

George inquired about the relevance of the California Leash Law. Marie stated this was discussed, but does not have applicability within the policy statement, Some individuals are not able to handle a leash. This was an area where the District erred in their requirements of the student who filed the grievance with OCR. George noted that in the court case relative to this case, the judge was not clear on this issue.

NEW BUSINESS

1. Academic Accommodation Capitol Outlay Request (Tabled)

2 Academic Affairs Capital Outlay Acquisition Process

(Item happened as the first agenda item to accommodate our quest schedule.) George introduced Russ Bowden of Media Services and handed out copies of the both the short and long form of the Academic Affairs Capital Outlay Acquisition request process. He invited Russ to review with the committee the relationship of the two forms with the Facilities Project Form.

Russ started out by saying that both forms are still in draft form, these forms reflect the first round of review and development by a task force under Steve Olson, Dean of Instr./Ed. Programs & Services. The task force consist of Cheryl Hansen, Paul Finn, Richard Abrahams, and himself (Russ). The job of the group was to look at how the District currently allocates the capital outlay budget. for Academic Affairs.

Russ stated one of the problems over the years has been that a capital item would get approved, but would have other sorts of implications that were never dealt with in the approval process. He noted a classic example was the Math Lab when thirty computers were received and none of the other infra structure items were budgeted for or taken into consideration as part of the project. Jay noted another classic example about twelve years ago when the District bought six new ranges for Consumer Family Studies Department at around $600.00 each. The non-budgeted infra structure cost the District another $230, 000.00.

In response to these types oversights, Russ continued, the District developed a couple of forms designed to catch these kinds equipment related cost. The short form, of the Academic Affairs Capital Outlay Acquisition process, is intended for request that have no other related cost, his examples were when one orders a computer or a piece of media equipment and there are no other related cost. However, Russ continued, when a project becomes more than just a piece of equipment, that is when the Dept. needs to complete the long form. The relationship between the Facilities Project Request Form (FPRF) and the long form is that if the primary request involves a piece of capital equipment that requires a modification to the facility, to the networks, or change in furniture, this request would then necessitate the completion of the long form. If the request is facility driven as opposed to equipment driven, then the FPRF needs to be completed, a remodel would be another case where one would use the FPRF. Russ said this was the best explanation he could provide as to the difference or relationship between these different forms. A years test will help to further clarify these relationships.

Russ referred back to the long form, saying that on the long form there are various project areas, i.e., media equipment, micro computers, monitors, etc. A completed form would be circulated to whomever is designated to review that area. If the project has media equipment, then Russ would review, if it has computer equipment Richard Abrahams will see a copy, or if it has network, Jean Sugiyama and/or Ken Fiori would see it , or facilities, Jay would get a copy to review, etc. Russ added, there is a whole column designated for sign-off for accessibility as it relates all the areas. This is to insure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). George would sign off hear in review with the DAC as necessary.

Jay stated the loop still needs to be worked out. He spoke to the furniture issue in Emeritus Hall. The ADA wants the District to have certain furniture, but what we are finding this is starting to really reduce capacities of the rooms. In Emeritus, Jay continued, we are really having some problems. Curt, he noted, is really going to want to see the compliance item. Curt's concern is that if capacities are reduced, then the state mandated load in the room is reduced, upon which enrollment is base, upon, which in turn, the college operating budget is based. This, Jay stated, is something that nobody can change except senior administration, committees can't change this, nor can DAC. He said the only ones who can change this are Curt, the Vice-President of Business services, and/or the Vice-President of Academic Affairs. In Emeritus, Jay continued, we are starting to see that this is happening, instead of losing one to two seats, we are losing 5, 6, or 8 stations. The rooms are so crowded, students are climbing on the furniture to get out of the rooms. Jay stated this cannot continue.

What may need to happen, Jay said, is there may need to be a check-off on the form that says, "Does this, if it is furniture, change the capacity of the room by even one person ?" if so, the form needs to go to a senior administrator for review. No Department has the ability to make this decision. The State mandates adherence to the formula of 15 square feet per body. Jay went on to say that the Emeritus Hall task force was a test, though the group worked earnestly on the project, and the quality of the furniture was good, there were some consequences are going to have to be sorted through.

Anthony asked Russ about a situation where if he wanted to purchase a piece of equipment he knew needed networking. Would he circulate this to everyone on the list? Russ clarified, the associate dean would review with the area requesting to make sure all areas are filled in relative to the requested item. Russ also noted, Academic Affairs is in the process of a significant reorganization so a lot of the overseeing still needs to be sorted out. Anthony said he was told the long form had not been release yet. Russ' response was that there has been some confusion in this regard, he said the form was at the Department Chair Orientation and the form was in the packet.. The form has been ready for about three weeks according to Russ.

George inquired as to who typically would fill out the short and long forms. Russ said this year, because the long form was not ready, the Deans transferred applicable items from the short form to the long form. In the long term, the plan is to have the appropriate form initiated by the department and cleared by Dean over the area. This year, Russ added, the District is on a short cycle and needs a quick review on the long form by those noted as responsible for check-off on an area. Next year, the plan is to have the next cycle start in December for the full budget and then by May all of the review will have occurred and, subsequently, projects will be lined up for the summer (this would be the normal cycle).

Anthony said his understanding of what happens when projects are questioned as to meeting accessibility standards or not, that then George and himself would be called. Russ stated this was true, but George would, in the course of review, see the form and sign off in the access review area. Russ then inquired of George about his mentioning a committee would then see the long form. George explained, that the way he works is that if the solution to the access issue is really obvious, then sign off would be immediate. However, if there were any question at all, he would then check with his local and State resources or call together a task force or a sub-committee of DAC to review the issue. The example given was the DAC Sub-Committee on Academic Accommodations Requests, which reviews annual requests in that area. In response to Russ' inquiry, George stated this type of review can and has been done on very short notice. Cathleen asked if such a review would be reviewed by DAC prior to going on to the other area of expertise? Russ said his impression was that when this had been discussed the talk was not about routing, but that each person with a review responsibility would get a copy of the long form and then route back to academic affairs. Russ added, it is important to remember that the intent of all this is to try to better coordinate projects and catch problem areas.

Jay stated one of the things that often happens is we will get a block of money for equipment, which is not designated, and then will go through the process to determine what is needed and can be afforded. But the money really is not there because we are always a year behind. The District is just now budgeting for projects that will be done next summer, but if we don't get approval until May on equipment, then the probability of there being any money in the next summers budget to actually install that equipment for a part of a remodel being done, is slim. He continued by saying there have been several times when the District has been a year out of sync with the equipment process; it will be a year later before we can actually install equipment and other instances were equipment has actually arrived and had to be warehoused or just not ordered, because there was not any money in the capital outlay budget to do the remodel necessary to put in the equipment.

Russ responded by saying the hope is when a project is budgeted for it will be as a package, so that Jay's above described implications of cost will be in a particular project. Items funded through Academic Affairs will then be done as a single project.

Anthony questioned the sequence of the DAC sign off by George. Originally thinking that this might best handled as the second review, but Russ pointed out the check-offs across the board are meant to be simultaneous and that there actually two checks on access issues, the one by the point area and the other by George. It is thought that whomever discovers the access issue first would be on the phone to the other. Anthony noted the learning loop build into the process, as we are all learning about the particulars. Russ noted standards would be development as the learning loop occurs, but there will always be the unique ones that come up in new projects.

George inquired as to who distributes the long form to the various check off points. Russ said he would assume the supervising administrator and that each administrator would only have a couple. Ron noted he could see three coming out of a cluster. Russ said the other part of this is that the supervising administrator is creating a master list, so if the administrator feels that some of the request are a real low priority, then they will most likely not fill out a long form. For those request that go through the process once the previous year, the next year the item would go around the checked-off route to make sure that nothing has changed in how its done.

George inquired, once the check-offs have been done then the forms go back to the supervising dean? Russ noted this as being the process, then the dean would forward them to Ed in Academic Affairs for funding. George then said, is the thinking then that these long form projects would then go on the Facilities Review Group (FRG) List for Component Administrator review? Jay said that is the process, the item would go on the list unranked for subsequent review by the group.

The DAC committee thanked Russ for taking the time to review the Academic Affairs Capital Outlay Acquisition Process. George encouraged him to visit with Richard Peel of the High Tech Center for a brief tour of the facility.

3. Role of High Tech Center in Reasonable Accommodation Requests (Tabled)

4. Partnership for Excellence Funds< FONT FACE="Arial"> (Tabled)

REPORTS

1. Committee Agenda/Minutes on Line (Tabled)

2. FRG Projects List

Jay handed out the current copy of the FRG List dated 8/27/98. He gave a quick review, due to the limited amount of time remaining. Page one are the high priority projects that have been left over from last year, or are priority this year. He noted item number 13, Graphics Facilities Replacement, had been request by John Roberts to be placed on this list just to remind the college community that the old Graphics House has to be replaced one of these days. Jay said, typically a project of this size would not be placed on this list as it is a larger capital outlay project.

The Medium Priority Projects are next on the list. Jay noted these items do not stand a very good chance of being funded. On page two is a list of Unprioritized Projects. These probably are the most important, they are the items that keep coming in and the ones the component administrators have to review and determine priority status. Some items on this list are left from last year and others are new this year, according to Jay.

The last page is a listing of scheduled maintenance that are currently funded by the State. The District may or may not have the 50% match in the budget at this time, but the State has made the determination they will provide a match. The ones that do have matches in place are Shuhaw Roof-W Wings, and maybe Baker Roof-N, S, & W Wings. The other items are uncertain at this time.

Relative to number 49, Tauzer-Plumbing & Showers, Jay said the District was in limbo about this one. The District has approval for close to a million dollars, either already approved or in the pipe-line, coming for Tauzer upgrades. The District would like to upgrade the whole facility, but the cost would be much more than the anticipated funds. What will happen is the District will fix those things that are crucial to operation now and wait until a future date, when hopefully six to eight million dollars will come along so the whole facility can be remodeled.

3. Barrier Removal Phase I Status< FONT FACE="Arial"> (Tabled)

4. Phase I of Academic Accommodations Request (Tabled)

5. Pac Bell TTY Pay Phone Status < FONT FACE="Arial">(Tabled)

6. Project Updates (Tabled)

7. Tour of Learning Center

Anthony provided a tour of the Disability Resources Learning Center for those who could stay at the end of the meeting. He focused on the High Tech Center.

9. Other

As a last informative note, Jay said a couple of issues came up since DAC last met. There was a formal complaint from a student in a wheelchair regarding two areas on campus. One was a need to have a ramp into the Reentry Office. This ramp was done as a change order on the ADA Project and has been done now for some months. Jay is also looking to get a awning placed over the front door to keep out the rain at the door. George asked if the rails were going to be painted. Jay said this was not part of the contract, but the rails are galvanized so they will not rust. The problem with painting them is that you have to keep up on the maintenance of painting them.

The other part of the complaint, by the same student, was not being able to get into the handicapped women's stall at either the Plover women's room or the Emeritus women's room. This was also done as a change order to the ADA Project. The project is on hold until stalls can be manufactured, there is a back order of 8 to 12 weeks because of a back-up of work with contractors and vendors in the bay area. When the stalls do arrive, both the men's and women's bathrooms will be shut down in Plover and both back stalls will be reconfigured to provide access. In Emeritus, only the women's rooms on the first and second floor will be made accessible.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1. Oct. 19th @ 12:00 P.M. in Newman Auditorium, the Arts & Lecture Series presents David Roche, humorist, dramatic performer, disable man explores, and celebrates having a disability with humor and insight.

2. Next Meeting: October 26, 1998 in the Oak Room.

Minutes by: George Grijalva- DAC Chair

Santa Rosa Junior College

Phone: (707)527-4388

E.Mail: george_grijalva@garfield.santarosa.edu, or

ggrijalv@santarosa.edu

Posted by mlinford at September 21, 1998 12:00 PM