[Access] Survey (Revised)

Wed Feb 20 12:24:38 CST 2008

hi david and all,
thanks for your response to my comments. i'm not sure we need different checklists for each type of program, smg, church-wide event. but what i am sure of is that we don't want to give unnecessary questions to anybody who is just investigating a facility for our one-time use. there had been a request for such a checklist, and i'd like to provide it without extra stuff that the people doing the facility research may find intimidating. so i would still like the listening assistence stupp included in the first part. if you want it twice, i guess that's ok. but i think it needs to be in with the facilities stuff. and good point about people with poor hearing supplementing their hearing with lip reading. linda diaz at lila would be a good person to ask regarding any standards on that lighting question. 

-

regarding the matter of different standards or questions for different things, my main concern is getting a facility checklist that can be given to anybody considering use of an outiide facility for a big all-church event. we can work other stuff into specific programs, e.g. making sure that there is space provided on the smg form for people to indicate special needs and what those are, then making sure that they are accommodated if at all possible, without having to ask everybody whose home is used for a meeting if their home meets all the criteria. we also need to work on making sure that programs we sponsor meet those program criteria. i'm thinking especially about alternate format materials for things like the nvc group, the smg groups and the green sanctuary programs run using absolutely inaccessible material from the whole earthinstitute, which was singularly unresponsive to attempts to get them to provide such materials accessibly. that may be a separate topic. 
and ok abthe possible lighting fixes. i doubt many facilities have that; sam goes for computers vented to the outdoors. again, maybe not a big deal if the parts of the facility we use are vented and do have decent air exchange, and we're not going where the unvented machinery is. i don't want to make this so hard that people throw up their hands in despair of ever finding an acceptable place.

mary # 
----- source message -----
from: David Gilmartin <Rev.D.Gilmartin at comcast.net>
to: Access Issues and Discussion <access at uueugene.org>
date: 2008/02/20 10:24:29
subject: Re: [Access] Survey (Revised)

>
>
> Mary,
> 
> I've interleaved my responses to your comments in the message that  
> follows. Hope they are helpful. Come on back with further comments if  
> you want.
> 
> David G.
> 
> 
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 10:14 PM, Mary Otten wrote:
> 
> > Hi DavideaRe question 28, why is   limited hearing mentioned in a
> > question  having to do with light. what is the connection?
> 
> Those with low hearing rely on lip reading to supplement what they do  
> hear. Adequate lighting on the faces of those speaking assists in  
> reading the lips of others.
> 
> > In the
> > questions about wheel-chair accessibility, you have some specific
> > guidelines regarding heights, position of grab bars etc. In the low
> > vision ones regarding light, there is nothing indicating what
> > constitutes adequate. I don't know if such standards exist, honestly.
> > but if they do, I think it would be good to include those as you have
> > specified things for accessibility for folks who use wheel-chairs.
> 
> I wondered about this too. Again, the issue is accessibility for those  
> with low hearing. I will contact some of the organizations for people  
> with hearing limitations and see if any of them have developed or know  
> of measurable standards. If not, of course, one has to rely on the  
> educated eyes and experience of those with the disability.
> 
> > I also don't understand question 25 regarding venting printers fax
> > machines and computers to the outdoors> I've never heard of such a
> > thing. Maybe it could be taken out?
> 
> The issue is of importance to people with chemical sensitivities. The  
> outgassing from the plastics, circuit boards, and toner, in the  
> absence of suitable and sufficient ventilation, are significant  
> factors in "sick building syndrome" and many kinds of physical  
> reactions to being in their vicinity. People also react to the  
> electromagnetic fields, especially those generated by computers.
> 
> > Also in the question that asks
> > about all parts of a building being accessible to people who use
> > wheel-chairs, I think that should be revised to ask about whether all
> > parts of the building which will be used by the public. If this is the
> > check list we want people to consider when looking at outside rental
> > space, it is not relevant if certain parts that our people wouldn't  
> > use
> > are not accessible, e.g. maybe there are offices that don't have
> > accessible desks, but we won't be needing to use them.
> 
> Good point. I will work on how that could be better worded.
> 
> >  I think we could provide this list, minus the stuff about programs,
> > policies and practices, as the check list for folks looking to rent
> > outside facilities for church events, The program practice and policy
> > part does not seem relevant for them, since they are considering
> > facilities, except the part about listening devices and amplification
> > systems  for the hearing impaired, so I think that should be included
> > in  the first part about the facility, not the part about the programs
> > etc.
> 
> I put the listening devices questions in the "program, practice, and  
> policy" part mainly because I think of them more like furnishings, not  
> part of the physical plant itself. I suspect you are right that not  
> all questions are of equal relevance, depending on the reason for the  
> survey and the type of facility being evaluated. There would be quite  
> different expectations regarding accessibility for a SMG meeting in  
> someone's home, for example, compared to a pledge campaign kick-off  
> dinner at Lane Community College. How important is it to design the  
> questionnaire for each particular kind of use?
> 
> > What would guidance under question 48 look like? My first reaction is
> > to say I don't even like that question. It feels like special
> > consideration. How would it be to ask does your congregation provide
> > guidance for, say people of color, or women, or glbtq people in
> > services? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why should there be such
> > guidance and what would it look like?
> 
> "Guidance" could be a number of things. In our case, I think first of  
> the statement in the church bylaws that says:
> 
> 020.2 We covenant to affirm and promote the full participation of all  
> persons in all our activities and endeavors-including membership,  
> programming, hiring practices, and the calling of religious  
> professionals-without stereotype based on race, color, gender,  
> physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, gender identity,  
> class, national origin, or political affiliation.
> 
> Then there is the Board policy on accessibility that says:
> 
> ACC.1 As far as possible, the church and its staff shall make  
> reasonable accommodation in its programs and facilities to make all  
> aspects and areas of the church accessible to members and others with  
> disabilities. These accommodations may include facilities  
> enhancements, alternate materials and publications, adaptive equipment  
> and/or accommodations by staff.
> 
> Another example that I found on the UUCE website is in the mission  
> statement for the youth program, that includes:
> 
> .. . . UUY-OUTH, advisors, and supporters strive to nurture one another  
> by:
> .. . . . "x^^225 providing developmentally appropriate activities and  
> experiences that accommodate diverse learning styles.
> 
> The guidance I see in these instances strikes me as "this is how we  
> will do things" statements, not "this is the way you will do things."  
> As such, I'm not riled by them. But you raise an interesting question,  
> and it could be helpful to get some feedback on both the wording and  
> the intent from some church members of color, or who are women, or  
> glbtq. So let's solicit some opinions.
> 
> > I would suggest moving question 46 to the first part as it has to do
> > with the facility, not a policy or program; its signage.
> 
> Good catch, as Martha might say.
> 
> > Regarding alternative lighting, isn't there something about  
> > fluorescent
> > lighting, dimmer switches or some new kind of lighting or something
> > that makes them ok or at least better than they use to be. We just had
> > a discussion at the accessibility committee of the HRC on this topic,
> > but I don't remember the technical details. A fix is nontrivial.
> 
> My discussions with people who are sensitive to electromagnetic  
> radiation (EMR), plus reading on the subject, indicates that natural  
> daylight is best, and that incandescent lighting is much better than  
> either fluorescent or LED lighting. Fluorescent and LED lighting both  
> require ballasts, which produce EMR. Fluorescent lights flicker and  
> induce seizure activity in some people. When I think of a complete  
> fix, I see the architectural provision of three systems of lighting --  
> natural, fluorescent or LED, and incandescent. Building in all three  
> would involve extra expense, though those costs would be offset some  
> by the savings in electricity usage over time. The much easier fix is  
> to have a number of incandescent lamps that can be moved from room to  
> room and used where needed, as needed.
> 
> > Sorry I'm late commenting on this. I'd love to hear what others think.
> 
> Stay tuned to this listserv and you will!
> 
> > Mary
> 
> David G.
> _______________________________________________
> Access mailing list
> Access at uueugene.org
> http://www.uueugene.org
> http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access