April 2010

ADA Committee Meeting - April 28, 2010



Members Present(X):
PresentMemberPresentMember
XJohn BaxterSr. Donna Marie McGargill
Amy BonesFran Minear
XJeff BranstetterMadan Nirmalraj
XLee BudesheimXMark Panning
Roselyn CerutisXWade Pearson
Deborah DaleyXLennis Pederson
Katherine HatfieldXJohn Pierce
Teri HoppeJohn Pierce
Rachel InouyeDeb Saure
Amy MatthewsAnne Schoening
 
Guests: Joy Doll

The minutes of the March 28, 2010 meeting were approved by Wade Pearson and seconded by Jeff Branstetter.

Mark Panning and Lennis Pederson recapped the recent tour of Brandeis Hall. The building is not very accessible as was known before the tour. Entry at the south door is satisfactory. The stair climber worked alright once a key to operate was located. Mark was cautious about the chair restraining devices on the stair climber and asked if the devices could be enhanced. Signage for locating the stair climber operating key is needed. Once in the dining room, it was easy to move about. Mark was of the opinion that the condiment dispensers could be moved more toward the front of the serving line. The menís restroom on the second (main) floor is not accessible and entry to the womenís restroom was satisfactory but no toilet stalls were checked. The upper floor was not checked because it is not accessible. Mark informed the Committee that the lower level is accessible through Swanson Hall but it was not inspected during the tour.

Lennis Pederson gave a quick overview of the list of know architectural barriers found across campus. The Committee asked that the list be prioritized since it was so lengthy and the over all cost was high. Prioritizing the list could be set up based on the community being served. The prioritization should be set up knowing the master plan for college growth and be cognizant of the Universityís master plan. Jeff Branstetter suggested a method to prioritize that involves the Committee.

The Committee asked Lennis to develop a list of completed architectural barrier removal projects looking back over a few years. The idea behind the request is to show progress.

John Pierce asked Lennis to develop a list of architectural barriers removed cover the past several years. Lennis said the short term would be less difficult than accurately getting several years of information.

John Baxter led a discussion about the April symposium. The symposium was deemed to be successful but possibly too much like last yearís program. The content may need to be changed. It was noted that the videos were done and ready for viewing. The video is considered to be a good training tool.

Mark Panning, Jeff Branstetter and John Pierce were asked to explore development of an on line training program to focus on the ADA. The training program may be inserted into the on-line training program being used now by Johnís office.

John Pierce recapped the article he circulated: Federal Contractors Must Adhere to New Online Job Application Laws. John stated the University had much work to do to comply with the legislation. Extracted from the article are 10 questions to aid in bringing the online application close to compliance.
  1. Does your website display its equal employment opportunity policy statement?
  2. Does your site provide information on how individuals with disabilities can request reasonable accommodations?
  3. Can your site be navigated with a screen reader?
  4. Does your site time out after a period of inactivity?
  5. Does your site avoid blinking, marquee or other auto-scrolling text which might trigger epileptic seizures?
  6. Does your site allow users to skip past repetitive navigation links?
  7. Does your site provide captioning for all video and audio content?
  8. Do all images on your site have accompanying text description?
  9. Can your site be accessed without using mouse?
  10. Does your site provide fully usable online forms, PDF, documents and PowerPoint materials, particularly to individual who use screen readers?
Lennis asked John and Jeff to team up to confirm the University web site is meeting the requirements set forth in the new Law.

Mark Panning and Joy Doll provided direction for grant applications.
  1) There is a need to develop an application for a program. There isnít money available for a grant that singularly focuses on architectural barrier removal.
  2) Any program that may be developed needs to be innovative. The idea of a Center of Excellence for training people at all levels from student to staff to faculty about the ASDA and the services and accommodations available began to jell. Some open questions are:
  Where will the program be housed?
  What is the administrative structure?
    a) To whom does the office report?
    b) How many people will be employed in the office?
    c) What are the capital costs?
    d) What are the operational costs?
  What does the written program contain? What is the mission statement?
    3) Any grant application will need to identify the target audience.
    4) The application will need to address how the program will be sustained after the grant has expired.
    5) Wade says that he needs some help with funding technology especially for the hearing impaired. That could be a piece of the program for the grant application.
Meeting adjourned at 12:07PM

The next meeting is at 11:00 am on May 26, 2010 in the Swanson Hall south conference room.