<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Mary et al.,<br>
<br>
Maybe I'm missing something here. <br>
<br>
David has three surveys: the revised one being discussed is <u>just
one of them</u>. It is more comprehensive than the others. In my mind,
this survey could be entitled something like"How to make a church
building and program accessible."<br>
<br>
I do NOT see it as useful for a UUCE committee out investigating
another church as a venue for an event, eg, an installation or auction,
because it has too much irrelevant detail for that purpose. But it is a
very good list for a group like the BPOC investigating a larger
building for purchase or planning to build a new church. And I think it
is useful to link it on our website.<br>
<br>
I think it is a mistake to try to make this one survey serve all
purposes. (Another one of the surveys David has available, developed by
NOD, would be more suitable for the special event use.) <br>
<br>
I think we can develop our own accessibility guidelines for UUCE, one,
or one part, for meetings held within our building, the other for
meetings outside the church.<br>
<br>
I think these could be most effectively developed in conjunction with
the Coordinating Council, as they could also include items such as
scheduling procedures, building lock-up, childcare, etc. Moreover, by
bringing it up with the CC and soliciting their input and support, we
will be increasing awareness that we are undertaking such a list.<br>
<br>
To give an example of the type of checklist I have in mind, here are
some questions I would see as appropriate for it:<br>
<br>
Are access aisles at least 36 inches, whether between rows of
seating, between parallel edges of tables, or between a wall and the
table edges? <br>
Will programs and other written materials in Braille be available?<br>
Are bathrooms ADA wheelchair accessible?<br>
Are all doorways at least 32" wide? <br>
Are thresholds no more than 3/4" high? <br>
Will hallways be kept clear, ie, no extra chairs or other equipment
stored there making for too narrow (less than 36") a passage? <br>
Will there be a place to put walkers so they don't block aisles? <br>
Are there facilities for childcare?<br>
Will there be a contact person for people to call in advance if
they are concerned about accessibility needs?<br>
Are there hearing-assistive devices for the sound system? <br>
If the event involves spoken participation from the "audience", is
there a cordless mic?<br>
Will there be someone at the door to help the visually impaired
find their way? <br>
<br>
I think such a checklist should be as short as possible and not include
the finer details about lighting, venting, etc. These are important
issues, but not useful for a one-time event. And let's face it, few, if
any buildings in this area, would have all these advantages.<br>
<br>
Cindy<br>
<br>
<br>
mary otten wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080220182438.maryotten@comcast.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Rev.D.Gilmartin@comcast.net"><Rev.D.Gilmartin@comcast.net></a>
to: Access Issues and Discussion <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:access@uueugene.org"><access@uueugene.org></a>
date: 2008/02/20 10:24:29
subject: Re: [Access] Survey (Revised)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi DavideaRe question 28, why is limited hearing mentioned in a
question having to do with light. what is the connection?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Good point. I will work on how that could be better worded.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">"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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Good catch, as Martha might say.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sorry I'm late commenting on this. I'd love to hear what others think.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Stay tuned to this listserv and you will!
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mary
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">David G.
_______________________________________________
Access mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Access@uueugene.org">Access@uueugene.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.uueugene.org">http://www.uueugene.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access">http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->_______________________________________________
Access mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Access@uueugene.org">Access@uueugene.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.uueugene.org">http://www.uueugene.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access">http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>