[Colorado-Talk] Pushing Back on Accessibility

Tue Sep 10 01:10:17 UTC 2024

Here's an article that describes how some Colorado agencies are pulling
documents offline to avoid potential punishment under the new accessibility
law. Great job by Dan and Jessica to push back against this reactionary
approach and clarify why this law is needed.

Onward!

-Tim

Unintended consequences: New law on accessibility leads to removal of public
records from websites

Marissa Ventrelli marissa.ventrelli at coloradopolitics.com
<mailto:marissa.ventrelli at coloradopolitics.com> 

Sep 7, 2024Updated 9 hrs ago

A 2021 law intended to improve accessibility to government documents for
individuals with hearing and vision impairments has had unintended
consequences - it prompted some agencies to completely remove public records
from websites altogether in order to avoid non-compliance with the
legislation.

House Bill 21-1110

 required all state and local agencies to implement accessibility plans for
their IT systems by July 1 of this year or face potential discrimination
lawsuits and fines of up to $3,500. Following worries from agencies about
their ability to meet the deadline, a 2024 bill

 extended the cutoff to July 1, 2025.

Under the law, to make documents accessible to individuals with vision and
hearing impairments, agencies must remove the original files and replace
them with accessible versions. These new versions must adhere to the most
recent edition of web content accessibility guidelines

. Common features of accessible web content include larger text, image
descriptions, and compatibility with screen readers.

'Unintended consequences'

While the process of converting documents to accessible formats might seem
straightforward, some organizations alleged that it is both time-consuming
and costly.

The law allocated $300,000 to the Governor's Office of Information
Technology to assist agencies with the conversions, but the agencies
themselves received no funding.

Many consider it an unfunded mandate, including Lora Thomas, a Douglas
County commissioner and the secretary of Colorado Counties, Inc. 

Through her work with the association, Thomas has learned that several
counties are choosing to remove documents, such as budgets and meeting
minutes, from their websites entirely, fearing they won't be able to meet
the bill's requirements by the deadline.

Residents looking to access a removed document must file a Colorado Open
Records Act (CORA) request, which can cost up to over $40 per research hour.

Thomas asserted that agencies are not removing key documents from their
website because they want to evade the law - they're doing so because they
cannot afford to comply with the new requirements.

The consequences for non-compliance are potentially dire.

"We see this with a lot of legislation that gets passed," Thomas said. "We
learn about the unintended consequences, and it's something that we need to
figure out. It would be wonderful if some entrepreneur would develop a
software that would take care of this very efficiently for us, but right now
that hasn't happened."

She added: "I have heard these conversations when all commissioners from
around the state are together about their frustration about following the
law and not having the resources from the state who put this mandate on us
to meet these requirements."

What bout government transparency?

Entirely removing important documents and, as a result, imposing potential
financial barriers to access records is an ironic and disheartening twist
for a law intended to enhance accessibility to government information for
Coloradans, according to Jeff Roberts of the Freedom of Information
Coalition.

"What you would hope is that this law would be an opportunity for all
government entities to think about how they could be as accessible for
everybody and make government not just more accessible for people with
disabilities, but also for everyone else," he said. "Governments should be
making as many records available online for people to access whenever they
want or need them so they don't have to make records requests and go through
that system, where the response could be delayed or they could have to pay
fees."

To make matters worse, Roberts added, the fees for CORA requests increased
in July, rising from a maximum rate of $33.58 to $41.37 per hour, a 23.2%
hike.

He argued that agencies should have already made their most frequently
requested documents accessible, and failing to do so has put them in a
difficult position that won't be easy to rectify.

"As much as governments can do that, they should be, and they should be
doing it with frequently requested types of documents -  like budgets - and
anything they see that the public is really interested in," he said. 

Advocates: Agencies can but choose not to 

Jessica Beecham, Colorado State President for National Federation of the
Blind, said the law only applies to newly-created documents, not every
document on an agency's website. 

She and her colleague, NFB Ambassador Committee Chairperson Dan Burke,
expressed frustration that agencies seem to be choosing to remove documents
from their website rather than comply with the law.

"Think about access to documents as a wheelchair ramp," Beecham said. "We
understand why people need to be able to get into the building. We never say
to folks in wheelchairs, 'Why do you need a ramp to get in?' So why would we
ever say to people with print disabilities, 'Why do you need an accessible
document in order to access it?'"

Burke and Beecham emphasized that they weren't trying to engage in "drive-by
lawsuits or be the accessibility police" with this law. Instead, they said,
they wanted to bring the state in line with accessibility guidelines that
have existed for years.  

Beecham said she believes all state and local agencies have the capability
and resources to convert their documents into accessible formats - but they
are choosing not to do so.

"I think that they are trying to show that they shouldn't have to put the
effort into this to begin with," she said. "It's not across the board
because some agencies have gotten on it and done really well with this, but
there are some that haven't, and they just kind of keep going back to doing
the same thing. This is not as monumental of a task as they're making it out
to be."

Burke argued that agencies would save money in the long run by complying
with the state's accessibility requirements now rather than having to
"retrofit" documents later. He used the analogy of a building, noting that
it's much cheaper to install an elevator during construction than to add one
after the building is already completed.

Ultimately, Beecham said, the law is about respect and equality, something
the disability community has been working toward for decades. 

When agencies don't comply, "it sends a message that we're not first class
citizens and that we're a burden," she said. "It feels humiliating sometimes
to have to beg for the scraps" 

OIT clears the record

While Beecham and Burke said the law only applied to newly-created
documents, the Governor's Office of IT said that is incorrect. 

According to Kelly Tabor, Communications Manager for OIT"s Technology
Accessibility Program, "all documents, not just new ones, will need to meet
the accessibility requirements."

"That said, although the goal for any government entity is to make all of
its technology touchpoints meet the accessibility criteria, we understand
that it isn't feasible to accomplish instantly," Tabor said. "We encourage
all government organizations to focus on making some higher priority
technology accessible first right now, and make changes over time."

She added: "They may consider assessing what actions can we take to start
making things accessible from the beginning. Some examples could include
creating accessible templates for repeatable things like presentations and
newsletters, training staff on accessibility basics, like drafting
accessible emails and accessible documents, and adding a requirement in
their contracts for vendors to produce accessible deliverables." 

Tabor added: "Our team finds that the more we all practice accessibility,
the easier and more habitual it becomes, until we just start making all of
our presentations and handouts accessible out of habit."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20240909/f4bfa096/attachment.htm>