Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-DAC-2017-06-14Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 Present: Vice Chair Scriber DAC Members: David McElrath Erin Sember-Chase Andrew Rappaport Lisa Monroe Others Present: Information Management Specialist – Myers Chief of Staff – Cogan Excused: Chair Roberts DAC Member Anderson CC Liaison Brock Approval of Minutes: Approval of the May 3, 2017 Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes - Resolution By DAC Member Rappaport: Seconded by DAC Member Monroe RESOLVED, That the minutes of the May 3, 2017 Disability Advisory Council meeting be approved as published. Carried Unanimously Discussion Items: Discussion of Recommendations from the Working Group on Boards and Committees Related to Crucial Disability Issues with Chief of Staff Dan Cogan DAC Members expressed their opinion regarding the proposal and shared that they all have been struggling with the proposed recommendations. They feel that the priority issues of the Disability Advisory Council will get diluted as so many topics are merged under one commission. The first year, if there is a current DAC member on the commission it might be doable, but it will become more difficult as the individual tries to remember all the issues of concern from the DAC to bring forward to include in discussions going forward. Vice Chair Scriber noted that the issues that the DAC discusses and in some cases then make recommendations to the City on, are actual laws related to the Americans with Disabilities Act that are required to be included and implemented by the City in the course of regular business. DAC Member Sember-Chase expressed her opinion that members of the DAC have given their time, input, and due diligence with concerns brought to their attention by staff, the public and others to address and ensure they are corrected and hopefully, not repeated in the future. The DAC members should feel confident that during their tenure they have made their concerns known to the City about various and multiple topics in which accessibility should be a major consideration (i.e. accessibility is a topic that should fall within each of the four new commissions purview, instead of just the “Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission”). At this point, it would seem that the recommendations are moving forward, they’ve done all that they can. The responsibility to address those issues will now be up to the City of Ithaca. DAC Member Rappaport stated that the new commissions being set up will have no voting power; thus any recommendations made by them to Common Council could be ignored. For example, the new playground on the Commons, the DAC was not involved in any of its design meetings and once built it was found lacking and not accessible to all children. Since that time, the DAC has been meeting with staff from the Planning Department to propose design changes in order to make it as accessible as possible to Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 2 all children. As of now, the new design has been presented by staff from the Planning Department, and accepted by the DAC. The work to construct the changes cannot take place until funding is in place. Had the DAC been involved from the beginning this additional cost could have been avoided. Another item involves the installation of additional accessible parking signs around the city to increase the number of parking spaces available to people with disabilities. Transportation Engineer Hathaway met with the DAC several time to discuss the problem, and the DAC recommended locations for the additional signs. Transportation Engineer Hathaway explained to the DAC that there was a budget for additional signs; however, nothing has happened yet, and it’s been close to a year that recommendation was made. Chief of Staff Cogan explained the restructuring of the boards and committees by the Working Group involved public input, a survey was circulated to all the chairs of the boards and committees to complete with the other members of the board or committee, and the Working Group held a forum with invitations extended to the chairs and members of the boards and commissions to participate in. The result of all of that effort, is the proposed recommendations that has been circulated to everyone. He explained that some of the concerns from members of other boards and committees has been the lack of feedback from Common Council to concerns, ideas, and recommendations that were suggested. The problem most mentioned from various members of the boards and committees was the lack of support staff that attended their meetings. It was determined through the survey and various meetings, that those boards and committees that have staff or “subject matter experts” that regularly attend their meetings offer the provision of a consistent and effective line of communication between them to other staff and Common Council members. Without that support, the members of the boards and committees feel less engaged and connected with the City. Chief of Staff Cogan explained the complexity of topics that all the current boards and committees cover. In an effort to better understand them, the members of the Working Group created a flow chart of the current boards and committees and how they relate to work of city staff. Currently, it’s hard for citizens to know how to be involved with their city government and have an impact, and the flow of information to Common Council and across city departments is complex and in some cases there was duplication of efforts by boards and committees. In addition, Common Council members are the liaison to many different boards and committees which makes it hard for them to attend all of those meetings consistently. The goal of the Working Group was to ensure a cohesive process and seat at the same table for all the pertinent stakeholders at the same time. The new commission structure groups topics that seemed to work well together; it’s not perfect. It is the best they could come up with in terms of staff assignments, and manageable and effective use of commission members’ time. He explained that the Working Group placed the DAC, due to its work with sidewalks, roads, etc., with the “Mobility, Transportation, and Accessibility Commission”. The topics cover by the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council will also fall under this new commission. The decision to place the DAC and BPAC together under this commission related to the need for engineering staff to attend both meetings, so it made sense to combine them. DAC Member Sember-Chase reminded Chief of Staff Cogan that the topics of the DAC should not be grouped only under the “Mobility, Transportation, and Accessibility” Commission since it concerns more than just the topics of transportation and mobility; it is a topic that should be included under all four new commissions. Chief of Staff Cogan stated that the challenge to the Working Group related to the limited amount of staff resources to provide regular and consistent support to the four new commissions. It would be great to assign staff to every board and committee and strengthen communication that way; but it’s not possible. This proposal will ensure staff support for each commission and should improve the flow of communication between the commission and Common Council via staff or “subject matter” experts. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 3 The vision for the new commissions is to create a more formal structure (although not as formal as Common Council). The commissions will m eet monthly and have agendas to publicize date/time/location of the meeting in an effort to encourage increased public participation. The commission meetings, since they will be less formal than Common Council and Standing Committees of Common Council meetings, will welcome public input and participation between the public and commission members. He stated that the members of the Working Group are not sure how to work that out; however, the procedure or structure for the meetings should be consistent from one commission to another so that it is easier to have that back and forth communication with the public on topics that interest in them. One of the goals of the process has been to offer more opportunities and provide improvement in the public’s ability to actively participate with the commissions and vice versa. The four new commissions would be made up of nine (9) members (36 total commissioners). Each and every meeting wouldn’t necessarily address all the topics that fall under a commission’s purview, similar to the current process for items that come before Common Council. The topics for each commission would be outlined in order to assist the Board of Public Works, the Planning and Development Board, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (and the other quasi -judicial boards that will remain unchanged) in referring items to the appropriate commission for review and discussion. For example, if a new ordinance was proposed related to disability, land use or zoning – issues, it would go on to the “Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission” for placement on a future agenda. With support staff regularly attending the commission meetings, there would be good communication between the commission members, Common Council members, and city staff. There is going to be a need to keep each of the commissions accountable and on topics that need to be addressed. The members of the Working Group were concerned the commissions not spend time on “special interest” topics of particular commission members that would take time away from the focus of the topics that fall under their purview and need to be addressed. DAC Member Sember-Chase stated that the DAC’s responsibilities include other topics than just mobility and transportation. As a long term member she has seen where there have been more and more people from the City that come to the DAC because they realize the value in getting the DAC’s input on particular topics and sometimes it’s vice versa - she is concerned about that resource being unavailable to staff in the future. Further, since each member of the DAC has the ability to bring different aspects of “disabilities” to each meeting (since there are many types of disabilities such as impaired vision, impaired hearing, senior citizens, physically, mentally or socially disabled), to name a few, it provides the city of Ithaca an entire entity of diverse members to whom the city and public can seek guidance and input from on a multitude of topics. That type of resource is something that she would like to see achieved by the proposed four new commissions. It isn’t possible for one person to represent the DAC adequately as a member of one the proposed commission all the various factors and impacts, and considerations to keep in mind as certain actions, projects, et al are undertaken by the City. Chief of Staff Cogan agreed with that statement; he noted that the chairpersons of each commission would have to meet to coordinate agenda topics, and have information or the knowledge readily available as to what “subject experts” reside in the community and would be willing to participate in meetings appropriately in order to bring that knowledge for inclusion in the commissions discussion and future possible recommendations to Common Council. He presumes that a few of the commissioners would be people with disability related backgrounds to provide the most diverse representation on the commission as possible. In addition to the appointed commissioners, the commission will include advisors who will be affiliated to a particular commission (with no voting power) to provide another resource to ensure each member of the public’s particular needs are considered. It has been proposed that there be up to ten (10) such “advisors” for each commission, but that has not been finalized. There will be opportunities for members of the public to only participate in a particular commission when there is a topic of special interest to them with city initiatives. Would Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 4 any current DAC members be willing and available to serve in such an “advisor role” and if so, would that meet some of the noted concerns by members of the DAC, even though such a role would not be a voting member? He further inquired as to what would or is there currently enough work on different topics to keep the DAC busy every month? He asked whether DAC members were concerned about what would happen with the current topics or items they have been discussing being left undone in the future. He noted that for some committees, there aren’t enough topics that necessitate a need to meet each and every month – but the committee still meets which is not the best use of time for members or staff. Condensing the work of some of those less busy committees into the four new commissions would be a much better way to make use of members and staff time in a productive and meaningful way. Vice Chair Scriber responded that she is one of the newer members of the DAC, and when she was first appointed, there was maybe a little less direction as to items needing the attention of the DAC; however, that has improved significantly. For example, the new Commons playground was designed and constructed without the different perspectives of the various members of the DAC who represent different disability needs. As a result, the new playground was found lacking and unacceptab le to a lot of families with children who have primarily physical disabilities that don’t allow them to maneuver a wheelchair to access the play structure. The DAC brought this problem to the attention of the City of Ithaca Planning staff and worked very closely with them to come up with a solution to re-design the structure to better meet the needs of all children. It has been a long process (since the Commons re -opened in 2015) and the structure still has not been updated. DAC Member Rappaport stated that the DAC has been very involved and has had a lot of interaction with Engineering staff related to sidewalk replacement work, new sidewalk construction, and curb ramp replacement to ensure they are constructed in a way that meets the needs of individuals with accessibility problems as well as the ADA law. In some instances, the work has had to be re-done because input was not sought from the DAC about particular areas and proposed designs. The DAC would like to be involved from the beginning of a project from planning, design, and construction so that expensive mistakes can be avoided and the work completed correctly. He would also suggest that the work of the DAC should not be assumed to fall under only the “Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission”. The work of the DAC stretches across to all four of the commissions; he is concerned that since accessibility is in the title of only one of the commissions that any other accessibility issues that fall outside of the topic of transportation will not be addressed in a proactive way; any discussion that does occur will most likely happen in a reactive way. The DAC has been very involved recently with the Director of Parking concerning the new pay stations for parking and complaints received by the DAC from various community members about their lack of access and ability to use them – be it because they pay station was too tall for someone in a wheelchair, or that it was too difficult for someone with a visual impairment to see. Slowly, after many meetings with the DAC, changes have been made to address those issues and to develop the new scratch off cards that people find a lot easier to use instead of the pay station. Had the DAC been involved earlier, some of the problems and extra costs might have been eliminated. Chief of Staff Cogan responded that prior to today’s meeting, he did take time to read and review some of the DAC’s past agendas and minutes so he is familiar with these topics and all the work that the DAC has put into making improvements to address the concerns brought to them by the public. DAC Member Rappaport explained that biggest concern are the items brought to their attention by members of the public that they’ve encountered that make it difficult for them in the community. The DAC then invites the appropriate city staff to a future meeting so that issue/topic can be discussed, and, if possible, solutions determined. He further voiced his opinion that if there will only be one person on each commission to represent the DAC it will become a problem. Maybe not the first year as they try to remember all the recent issues the DAC focused on, but as other topics under that commission’s purview are discussed and move forward, it is likely that the disability concerns could be diluted as time goes by. In addition, no one person can begin to Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 5 represent the whole wide range of disability related concerns – it is just not possible. Another example, where accessibility needs should be considered is under the “Public Safety and Information Commission”. Recently, the police department arrested someone that had special needs and that interaction did not go well; as a result the DAC met with staff from the Ithaca Police Department to share them many different resources in the community that are available for those types of situations. Because that concern was brought to their attention by the individual, the DAC was able to be proactive in working with IPD to address the need for future reference. Disability issues are very broad and very unique and there should not be an attempt to limit them to one commission in the future. DAC Member Sember-Chase stated that there has to be people on each of the four commissions that recognizes the need for disability issues to be included in almost every item. DAC Member Rappaport further noted that there are so many areas that need to be considered depending on the topic such as individuals who may have visual impairments. How can their needs related to everything from the city website to sidewalks be best met. Since the City doesn’t have a staff person solely dedicated and whose focus is those issues (i.e. ADA coordinator) the DAC is very concerned about the resource that will be lost to not only the City but the community when it no longer exists as a separate committee of the City. Vice Chair Scriber agreed, right now, each member on the DAC has a unique scope of knowledge on different topics based upon either their profession and/or disability that will be lost as time goes by. Another factor to consider going forward is the aging population of the community and the many “baby boomers” becoming senior ci tizens and the special needs of that demographic of the population. The commissions won’t have these special topic experts that will ensure these needs are met in the best way possible. Chief of Staff Cogan asked DAC members if they thought that there could be a structure that may more likely meet these issues that could be placed under one commission, along with the other four proposed commissions. Further, even if the DAC wasn’t disbanded, and remained as is, it might not work because it would be another committee that members and liaisons would need to attend. DAC Member Sember-Chased inquired as to how the other commissions were being set up, and where is there a relationship between the quasi-judicial boards/committees (which will remain unchanged) and the four new commissions. Chief of Staff Cogan responded that they probably won’t have any relationship to the new commissions. The quasi-judicial boards/committees will be aware of them, their structure and what staff provides support, but other than that they probably won’t inter - act all that much. He noted that the Common Council Liaison to the Board of Public Works would probably be the liaison to the “Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission”. The members of the Working Group thought that by strengthening the staff connection to new commissions that it would support the work of the current boards and committees that don’t have that right now. He further stated that the Community Police Board is being left alone; however, at one point during the Working Group’s meeting a recommendation was made that they only meet if they have an investigation to conduct. More ongoing conversations need to be held with them; there may come a point where it may be a better use of their and staff time to place them under the purview of the “Public Safety and Information Commission”, which will have support from the public information staff, as well as fire and police members. They want the new commissions to have enriched conversations; there has been some question of depth versus breadth with all the topics to be included under each commission, and it is understood that some depth will be lost due to the lack of subject matter experts. Perhaps that lack could be made up for with city staff and timing issues Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 6 since it is not helpful if certain input comes too late in the process. The members of the Working Group need to conduct more in depth research and work to determine at what point in a discussion those subject matter experts would be brought in to the discussion. Work still needs to be done to determine the best way to establish sub -committees that would be made up of “subject experts” to meet regarding specific items – how the members would be chosen, the meeting format, agendas, etc. There might not necessarily be monthly meetings, subject matter experts or other members of the public will need to pay attention to agendas so they can plan to attend the appropriate commission meeting where a particular topic will be discussed. An advisor from one commission could go to another commission meeting as well. The members of the Working Group have been trying to find a way to set up the new commissions in an effort to make them more manageable for the public, staff, and volunteers so they each feel their time and input is effective. Information he has received from other committees is the frustration of spending a lot of time meeting to discuss different issues that end up going nowhere outside their committee. Chief of Staff Cogan asked DAC members if they see value in having the DAC meet monthly as “advisors” to the four commissions; if that were not done, what would happen to the topics they have been working on. DAC Member Sember-Chase responded that she does enjoy attending the DAC meetings. However, her ultimate concern is that of this community and involvement of members with disabilities with community activities being lost with the proposed commission structure. The proposed structure of the four new commissions and the diverse make-up and expertise of each DAC member currently, will just not be there in the future if the proposed recommendations are approved. Chief of Staff Cogan responded that he does not want to lose the expertise that members of the DAC provide to the community and the City. The goal of the Working Group has always been to ensure continuity of current topics of each board and committee and to at least stay “status quo” and hopefully improve its area of expertise by the creation of the four new commissions. He agrees that he would like to see the City be proactive and not reactive in the future on everything, and is not sure how members of the DAC would propose that be done. DAC Member Rappaport stated that even if 8 members from the DAC are split up and two members appointed to each of the four commissions, it will be difficult. The reason being that they will need to somehow manage to remember current disability issues that affect them, past work of the DAC, or future disability related work/topics that the DAC had discussed working on, and so forth that needs to be carried forward to the new commissions. In addition, as these members age so may their disability related concerns. Since they will no longer be involved in the DAC and its diverse make-up of members, they won’t have that diverse input about disability and accessibility needs in the community from affected members of the public. That will make them less of a resource to represent them at whatever commission they may be assigned to. Without a single, passion, focus, and priority of disability issues being fairly and equally represented, it will be very easy for the commission to go off topic and those disability related topics to fall through the cracks until they come their attention in a way that will result in more reactive discussions on possible solutions. Chief of Staff Cogan responded to that concern by asking the question, “what if DAC members are made members of each of the commissions to ensure that perspective was fully represented; although their focus would also need to be shared on the current topics being discussed by whatever commission they are assigned to. There is a valid reason for active and informed advocates for the DAC community being appointed to the commissions in an effort to keep these topics and concerns in the forefront of the discussions and work of the commissions and the city in general. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 7 DAC Member McElrath voiced his opinion that accessibility of the public will always need to be considered and addressed as one of the top priorities for the City of Ithaca. Chief of Staff Cogan asked whether DAC members would prefer to have the DAC left untouched or remain as is being proposed to place DAC related topics under the “Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation” commission. DAC Member Sember-Chase responded that she was not sure it would because there will still need to be a direct line of communication to the commissions. Currently, DAC members have always had to be proactive; with four new commissions each current member of the DAC will need to take the initiative to be involved and proactive on behalf of community members’ to ensure the public has full access to everything they might need in the City of Ithaca. The ADA law and regulations are in place for a reason and it is the responsibility of the City of Ithaca to ensure that it complies with each one; if not, the Department of Justice may impose fines and or other penalties for failure to comply. Chief of Staff Cogan explained that he understands the goals of the DAC. Those goals include ensuring that disability and accessibility related issues be considered in each decision made by the City. Similar concerns have been raised by other committees/boards that will be disbanded about their subject matter. The City does not wish to create silos of information on particular focus areas such as race or gender, it wants information and resources available to be shared and communicated between the four commissions, staff and the public. Vice Chair Scriber stated that she is concerned how the so-called “sub-committees” of the commissions will work. Would informal meetings be scheduled, on an “as needed” basis to discuss a particular topic as opposed to regular and consistent meeting times? Her concern is that most current members of the various boards/committees, for the most part, work full time and make the time to devote to the work of the comm ittee their assigned to by coordinating their schedules to accommodate regular set meeting times. What happens when these same people or “subject matter experts”, whose intentions are to participate with the work of the commissions, are needed to serve on a committee, but it does not have a set and regular meeting time that they can plan on ahead of time and put on their already busy schedules to attend? The proposal sounds too informal, and despite their best intentions, these “subject matter experts” may not be able to serve on the sub-committee for that reason. How likely would that scenario be resolved? She imagines that city staff would run into the same problem with their schedules, which could be very detrimental to the work and goals of the commi ssion. She thinks that it would be helpful for the DAC to spend some more time discussing the proposal and how they would like to see it evolve and how they can provide support and input to ensure its success. Chief of Staff Cogan stated that the process for implementing the recommendations is fairly far along at this point; however, the Working Group is still considering all the feedback being provided. The proposed recommendations will be on the June 21, 2017 City Administration Committee meeting agenda; after which it may or may not then go on to the July Common Council for a vote. There is some urgency in finalizing the recommendations and then having them approved by Common Council related to the requirement that some of the proposed changes to the City Charter need to go to referendum for the public to vote on at the general election in November, and the timing related to the deadline for submission of those items for the ballot. He thanked the DAC for the opportunity to meet with them to discuss the proposal and for their feedback on it. Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes June 14, 2017 8 Discussion Regarding Possible Rescheduling of July DAC Meeting: DAC members discussed briefly and reviewed their schedules regarding whether or not to reschedule the July meeting. It was determined that it would be better for everyone if the meeting were moved to Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:15 p.m. in Common Council Chambers. Adjournment: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. ________________________________ ______________________________ Sarah L. Myers, Jody Scriber, Information Management Specialist Vice Chair