Present: Ron
Balsamo, Jay Carpenter, Cathleen Cummings, George Grijalva, Nancy
Moorhead, Marie Thompson, Anthony Tusler (honorary member), Dorothy
Vitali and Raoul Yriberri (Tim Bosma's Proxy).
Absent: Tim
Bosma, and Patie Wegman.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Meeting Schedule for Fall & Spring .
George reminded members of the meeting schedule as posted in the meeting minutes of October 26, 1999. In the spring, beginning with the February meeting, the meeting schedule will be 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
2. Membership
George reported
that he has still not heard from Student Activities as to a student
member. In addition, a student member is still needed from Disability
Resources Department.; Anthony and George will discuss the latter.
3. Goals and Objectives for 1998/99.
George handed out a draft of the 1998/99 Goals
and Objectives. Members will are to look over the list and get
feedback to George for updating. Those objectives with lines through
them have been completed last year.
4. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure Status
Marie noted this was the last chance for feedback on the Reasonable (RA) Policy and Procedure before going to College Council. She has received Anthony's suggestion to add "and any other appropriate experts" to number "4" under Long Term or Permanent Disability where it reads: ....District Compliance Office shall consult with Personnel Department and the Environmental Health and Safety Department.. This will help insure requests are adequately reviewed and final assessments are fair and appropriate.
Dorothy mentioned an experience she had with her RA review. years ago, when The State Department of Rehabilitation had sent out a consultant that was blind; she did not feel he adequately assessed her low vision needs at the time. She felt Anthony's suggestion would help in this regard.
Anthony said he wanted to make sure that in the worse case, where an employee feels they really need a particular accommodation for their job, that there is a body of experts who could say that it would be nice, but it is really not an appropriated accommodation given your situation.
Dorothy asked when a new employee should or is expected to request a RA at their work site, before or after they are hired? Marie responded by saying, she would prefer that it be part of the hiring discussion. It does say on the College's job announcements that "if you need accommodations, please inform us".
Nancy suggested the a Policy and Procedure Brochure be part of the New Employee Orientation. George noted this had been mentioned at the last meeting and was agreed to be a good idea. Dorothy noted, but this would be after the hire. Which in response, Marie said it is also part of the application process; perspective employees are informed of their need identify their RA needs to the District., should they require them in the interview process or to perform the job.
Anthony noted, that legally an individual does not have to disclose their disability or RA needs until they are hired. Dorothy, for herself, felt more comfortable disclosing her disability up front, at the interview. Marie agreed that the discussion would be best to have during the interview.
George pointed out that the reason the law does not require disclosure of disability needs until after the hire is to protect the person with a disability from being screened out by the interview committee. Though illegal, interview committees have ways of getting around the legality by changing the focus of "not to hire" to other screening criteria across the board. By putting the disclosure requirement after the hire, screening committees are not able to screen out what they may perceive as burdensome or "costly" candidates.
The committee agreed the RA Policy and Procedure has turn out very well and is ready to go on to the College Counsel for further review. George said the main thing is that the District will now have an agreed to procedure, everyone will know what it is and what the expectations are relative to reasonable accommodations.
Marie asked the committee as to which version everyone had. The committee had an older one. She noted Dr. Agrella had suggested changes in two areas.
One of the suggested changes Dr. Agrella made was on the first page of the Policy, third line, "The District will adhere to all applicable federal and state laws...to qualified disabled individuals." At the beginning of this sentence add "At a minimum," the District will... individuals. Marie said this gives the statement a more affirmative nature.
The other suggested change he made was on
the last page under The Appeal Process section, under item number
"2.." Sentence number one is changed to read: The District
Compliance Office will forward the appeal to...Vice
President of Business Services to
the President or his designee. Dr. Agrella's feeling being, according
to Marie, the Vice President may not always be the appropriate
person to review a particular appeal.
Dorothy inquired about who is responsible for training an employee to use a provided piece of equipment as a reasonable accommodation? Marie suggested circumstances would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis, but generally speaking the District would provide the training. Anthony stated the Supervisor may have the responsibility, for instance, if the software were a requirement of the department and within the standards of the employee's essential functions.
Marie will take the RA Policy and Procedure
forward to College Council. She will report back on implementation
date.
5. Barrier Removal Phase I- ALS Project Status
Jay reported the ALS equipment is here, but there is a debate between the contractor and the District (Russ Bowden) about who is responsible for doing some of the final hookups, microphone drops, and other items in the larger rooms. Jay says there is suppose to be a meeting this week with the contractor to come to terms on responsibility. The District is still holding the contractor's retainer fee until the issues are worked out. He will report back at next meeting.
George reported the ALS in Emeritus Hall was successfully used for the Disability Pride Week Arts & Lectures presentation on Oct. 19th (David Rouche Event.) The system worked well, users were very pleased at the quality of the system. Both Dorothy and George used the system and reported they were amazed on how crisp and clear the units were in picking up the speakers voice. Cathleen inquired about outside noise, and Dorothy said you could hear it, but it was in the background. The voice, George added, was accentuated so background noise was not an issue for him.
George also said that one of the concerns
going into the project was that there would be dead spots in room,
places where the voice pick-up would be weak or non existent.
However, his experience was, after walking around the whole inside
of the Emeritus Lecture room, that there were no dead spots; the
received sound remain clear.
6. Barrier Removal Phase I- Power Door Status
Jay reported
all the doors are done except for one door which is covered by
warranty. George said there are still some power button locations
that need to be moved to provide adequate access to users.
7. Plover Library Access
Anthony started off by saying the main access he was concerned about in the library was the access for the blind and low-vision, primarily because this was the focus of the Office for Civil Rights visit last year. The main issue being access to the on-line card catalog system.
Anthony noted a Workrite height adjustable monitor arm and keyboard tray were installed at the one library access station (As part of funds from Phase One of Academic Accommodation Capital Outlay Request). The report from the library is that the station gets a fair amount of use. The PC also has Deck Talk speech out put and screen enlargement.
Anthony went on to say that he did get a chance to talk with Will Baty, Library Director, and he has been working at the state level and is in contact with Marcia at the High Tech Training Unit. According to Anthony, Will is making sure there is language in budget request to the state that will insure access issues are addressed. The language is being addressed particularly to vendors.
The library is moving to a web pack, according to Anthony, an on-line catalog that is web based rather than running in DOS, as is the current system. Once this happens, he continued, the District will need to move to JAWS for voice out and the PC will have to be upgraded to at least a 200 Mhz machine. The main reason for this is that JAWS has moved to a speech software emulation package rather than a hardware based one. The feedback from student users is that on slower machines, the speech out put is very slow due to the machine having to process information as well as put out voice.
In summary, Anthony is pleased with the library focus and especially pleased that Will is in contact and working the Marcia at the High Tech Training Unit. This will help insure access. Anthony will keep us posted on the library status as they proceed.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Phase II of Academic Accommodation Capital Outlay
Anthony reported he had made contact with Ed Buckley as to the availability of money for Phase II, but there has not been a decision on our request as of yet. The decision is anticipated to be made this week.
Anthony said that until we are able to implement Phase II, a number of students who use the High Tech Center will not be able to access the main labs to use such applications as Naturally Speaking (voice recognition software); the lab computers are not fast enough to handle the software. He reports this application is working well in the High Tech Center; four students are using the center for this purpose alone, but they are not able to get enough hours in the center to complete class assignments. Having the software in the lab is the necessary next step.
There are a number of other items that constitute the Phase II request., including Kensington Turbo Mouse for Mac, Workrite adjustable arm & keyboard tray, Pentium III, 300 Mhz machines and other. George will include a copy of the Phase II Request with the meeting minutes.
George referred to the DAC Goals and Objectives
list, objective "5.11," and stated the focus of the
DAC sub-committee has changed from specifically computer technology
to Academic Accommodations in all areas, including labs which
are largely technology based. Objective "5.11" has been
rewritten to reflect that change.
2. Role of High Tech Center in Reasonable Accommodation Request
George introduced this item by saying he has had discussions with Patie regarding the need to clarify the role and process for use of the High Tech Center in RA request. The concern centers around the need to protect the original purpose of the Center, to train students with disabilities on how to use adapted software and hardware. The fear being that the RA process might become disruptive unless there was a clear communication on how RA request assessments were to happen. A discussion within DAC was felt to be the best venue; to set some protocols on how Environmental Health and Safety would access the Center to perform RA request assessments.
George suggested RA assessments within the High Tech Center should be by appointment. Anthony did not see it as a problem. His attempt has been to keep the Centers usage of the lab to about 75% so there is some flexibility for drop-in and other unexpected needs--this, he noted, is all that can be staffed right now. So for Ruth Roberts, of Environmental Health and safety, to stop by with an employee could be handled within the 25%.
Anthony continued by saying the place where he is having to set limits is with the CA. State Department of Rehabilitation (DR). DR's thinking has been that they can just send a client over to get assessed. This has been worked out with DR, according to Anthony, they now call Anthony rather than going directly to Centers Disability Access Technician.
Jay thought this type of use would be appropriate for the District's Contract Education Program. The committee felt this was a good idea. Anthony will check into this...he has had some discussion with Geof Perel of DR around doing beginning, intermediate and advanced trainings on JAWS. This is still in the hopper.
George said one of the things he would like to see is that Ruth Roberts receive training on the different aspects of the High Tech Center so that she, rather than the High Tech staff, would be working on the employee assessment. George felt the need to define the roles is important because the roles are so different; there is the student assessment, the employee RA assessment, and now the potential for Contract Ed.
Anthony noted that the in depth evaluations
of students is a new endeavor for the Center and can only happen
as he and his staff get more trained in the workings of the various
software and hardware components.
3. Partnership for Excellence (P4E) Program
George reported he had spoken with Brenda Collins this last week about the P4E proposal request. According to Brenda, there may be another round of request for proposals in the Spring of '99. George would like to submit appropriate DAC projects for funding under this umbrella. He and Anthony have talked about submitting the signage project for the blind, the Way Finder System, objective 5.18.
He also noted that IPC is meeting today and is expected to finalize the criteria that will be used to determine which proposals will be funded under P4E. IPC is, apparently, the body that will determine which P4E projects will ultimately get funded as opposed to the FRG projects are approved by the Component Administrators. The District still has yet to determine the priority between the two funding source projects, the P4E 1.9 million and the Academic Affairs Budget which Ed oversees. The time the District has taken to clarify the criteria for use and the priority relationship between the two funding sources has caused a delay in responding to proposal requests in both areas, according to George.
The committee members will look through this
years objectives to determine if a P4E proposal is applicable
for any of the listed objectives. Discuss at next meeting.
REPORTS
1. Emeritus Hall Furniture Task Force
Jay reported that since the last meeting he did go into some of the rooms with Ron Taylor and custodians to modify the layouts of a couple of the rooms. Some furniture had to be taken out. This adjustment seems to be working, at least from the instructors view point as he has not heard anything to the contrary. However, the station counts did go down in these classes which is not good from an administrative perspective.
Raoul continues to work with vendors to find other furniture that would have a smaller footprint so station counts can be maintained without sacrificing access. This may change the way the District buys furniture for the next phase of Emeritus.
Cathleen asked if the templates had been posted in the rooms. George reported he had talked with Ron about this; Ron has not been able to get staff resources to get this done, but wants to do so soon. At some point, this would include templates for various room configurations such as furniture in a circle, in lecture format, etc.
George also noted that he, Raoul, and Ron had met with a KI furniture representative to explore other furniture options, this included looking at Dorsal type Desk with a smaller footprint. The concern George has, however, is by reducing the footprint the seating space will also be reduced, making the desk unusable for bigger students.
Raoul announced he now has the preliminary listing of furniture samples from KI and will be sharing them with the Emeritus Hall Furniture Task Force when it reconvenes. The committee will be looking at four different types of Tab Arm Desk and also the possibility of shrinking the footprint size of an existing style.
Anthony added that he and George would be bringing up the classroom furniture and size issue at the annual State wide California Association on Postsecondary Education and the Disabled (CAPED) conference on Oct. 29th. The hope is to get a review of the class size capacities relative to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
George added, the specific people he wanted to talk with on this issue are Dr. Catherine Campisi, the current statewide Coordinator for DSPS program at the Chancellor's Office, and Ralph Black, Esq., the General Counsel for the Chancellor's Office. Both of these individuals have been key at getting things looked at and changed if warranted. George felt getting the State to reduce the class size requirement would solve many of our problems and would serve everyone better, instructors, students in general and those with disabilities. (The idea is to reduce the required class size to accommodate access code and fire marshal requirements, while still receiving the same funding level from the State.)
George noted that Dr. Agrella just recently attended a Disability Resources Dept. Meeting and he spoke on this issue. In essence, Dr. Agrella said the District must maintain class size limits to obtain maximum funding. However, when students require a furniture accommodation, the District must comply and move the authorized furniture into the class room, if even on a temporary basis.
George finished by saying, if the class size could be changed at the state level, this would eliminate the furniture juggling at the local level. It would also make standardizing classroom furniture a lot easier.
2. Phase 1 of Academic Accommodation Capital Outlay Request
George reported this phase has all ready been implemented as of late summer, early fall with the equipment going into the labs around campus. Anthony reported the High Tech Center is up and going, and ZoomText is installed in the various labs. Anthony also noted there is an absence of a few blind students this semester which has given some slack to focus on other priorities. He is still looking into how to get this software installed in Coddingtown, the library, and Petaluma Center.
An Aside: Jay shared the Call Building signage Story. Turns out all the feedback about the Braille and other written signage being inaccurate was the result of the work done by a dyslexic employee at the sign company. It was just in the last couple of months that the signage has been redone.
George reported that the Work Rite computer arm and tray, originally brought into the District as part of Phase I, has also since been purchased to satisfy reasonable accommodation requests on campus. Several employees are now using this adaptation at their work site. The universal design of the Work Rite product makes it ergonomically sound and very easy to use by a wide spectrum of individuals.
Speaking of tables, Jay inquired of Raoul as to the status of the hardware repair for the tables in this room, the Oak Room. Raoul reported the company was here last Friday, but due to the set up activity for the District's 80th event, they had to be reschedule for this Friday, Oct. 30th.
Raoul also responded to the Work Rite adaptations. He said employees like the flexibility of the computer arm and tray; seems that more employees are being told by their doctors that they should stand while at their computer.
There was then discussion on the labeling of height adjustable tables in both staff conference rooms (Senate and Oak Rooms), staff lounge, and student cafeteria areas. George said most people are not aware that a few of the tables in each of the areas are height adjustable. He inquired if their was an emblem for the universal design and if this might be a alternative way to label a table as opposed to the International Symbol of Access. Jay said it would be nice if the such signage could be installed at no extra charge at the factory. Anthony said he did not think there was a symbol for universal design and felt the International symbol was sufficient, being that it was developed to be used in that way. People may see the table with the access symbol, he added, and think it is just for use for disabled, but he felt people would just have to be educated on a case by case basis that the tables can be used by anyone with the idea that people with special needs would have priority.
George inquired further about information
on the universal design concept, having received some information
from Jay in the past and knowing of Anthony's interest in the
area. Anthony said he had a Power Point presentation he was going
to be doing for CAPED, specifically How to Market Universal Design
on Your Campus. Anthony agreed to show his presentation to the
committee at the next meeting.
5. Pac Bell TTY Pay Phone Status
George reported he met with two Pac Bell representatives last week to review the TTY Pay Phone Project. Currently there are seven TTY pay phones on campus. The goal is have twelve. The hold up in finishing the project has been due in part to the redesigning of the box the TTY attaches to; the new one is design in such a way that people will not be able to sit or put drinks on the box. In the later instance, the idea is keep drinks from spilling onto the TTY.
George noted he also wants to extent the project to the Petaluma Campus, but Pac Bell does not currently have that contract with the District, but would like to and is working toward that end. George will bring a list of the sites, and those proposed, to the next meeting.
6. FRG Projects List
Jay reported Prop 1A is has the Criminal Justice Training Center in it. He encourage everyone to vote with this in mind.
Jay continued by saying the FRG List has recently been reformatted, the one handed out at the last meeting is the old one. He will forward a copy of the new one to George for attaching to the minutes. The first page, of the New FRG List, is a list of all projects that are actually funded and/or under way, or under design, in essence the ones that are definitely going to happen. The following pages list the High, medium, low, and unprioritized projects.
Jay said now is a low activity period in so far as doing the listed projects: summer projects are being finished up and the District is gearing up to bring in designers to start the next round of projects which will start in spring and next summer. However, some of the smaller projects on the list will be started now so they are out of the way.
George asked about the relationship of the projects to the Academic Affairs Capital Outlay Request Form. Jay said his understanding is that the form is strictly for equipment, movable objects. He said it is a bit confusing because the state calls a huge building project a capital project and it also calls the purchase of a table a capital project. Academic Affairs form is for furniture while the one from Curt's Office, the Facilities Project Proposal Form (FPPF), is for buildings or remodels.
Anthony inquired about the $5,000.00 cut off relative to the FPPF. Jay said they are not using a figure, but more concern about impact of project.
Cathleen asked about the status of the LRC and if it is part of the Prop 1A bond issue. Jay said it was not, but the bond issue would in effect help clear the way and in theory the LRC would be part of the next one. However, the state, according to Jay, likes Phase II of the Petaluma Center over the LRC because it would generate another five to eight thousand dollars. Petaluma Center needs Phase II, he added, they are again renting outside buildings and wanting trailers brought in to handle the enrollments. Jay's sense is both buildings will be funded in the next five years.
Ron inquired if the plans for Petaluma Phase II had been drawn up already. Jay said they had not, it has just been submitted to the state as a place holder and they have expressed satisfaction with the project.
There was discussion around the Petaluma Library. Jay said the current library is mainly an on-line library. Phase II would create a full blown library and the current library would most likely become an all purpose room.
George asked clarification as to the projects
listed on FRG List. Are any of them on a Facilities Project Proposal
Form? Jay said some of them predate the form, a few were received
on an older version of the form. Very few projects have come in
on the new FPPF. George's concern is that the projects listed
on the first page may have access issues. Jay said projects will
still be reviewed for such issues.
7. Project Updates
Jay reported
the Health Science building is about six weeks behind schedule
because the steel vendors had some problems. The contractor is
going to try to make up the time in the other trade areas of the
project. The goal is get the steel up so a roof can be put on,
allowing them to work on the inside during winter.
8. Service Animal Policy
Marie reported the policy will be going for it's first reading by the Board in November and the final reading and, hopefully, approval at the December Board meeting. This puts the project on schedule with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Agreement.
Anthony said he had been telling people about the policy. UC Berkeley has had an issue come up and he referred them to Marie.
Marie noted that part of the Agreement with
OCR is to provide a training for the Disability Resources Department,
that will happen so after the Policy is adopted by the Board.
9. Disability Pride Week
Anthony reported the week went very well.
The David Rouche event on Monday in Newman Auditorium had about
%85 capacity. The event at Petaluma was packed also. The Learning
Center Open House on Wednesday also went well. Anthony said it
was the first open house he had seen were people avoided the food
to get to the high tech part of the Center. The film on Friday
had a small showing of 10 or 12 people. Anthony is thinking about
doing a film festival in the spring.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. Critical Incidence Response Training on November 6th and 7th.
George announced this relative to objective 5.15 )To research and provide feedback on District's Emergency Preparedness Plan to ensure the needs and safety of persons with disabilities are adequately addressed). He is planning on attending and noted he had received information from Catherine Campisi on this topic.
Anthony said he had little success with this
20 years ago at SSU. Students did not feel comfortable approaching
the subject because they felt their presence on campus was tenuous
in the first place. He also noted that people who are doing trainings
in this area these days are including the disability issue. One
hotel he went to had a sign on the emergency exit noting a place
were disabled should gather for assistance. George will review
the Districts plan with Anthony and others and get back to the
committee.
2. Next Meeting: November 16, 1998 in the
Senate Chambers.
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