[Colorado-Talk] Pushing Back on Accessibility

Wed Sep 11 11:42:58 UTC 2024

Rep Ortiz is going to write an op ed countering this bad info

--

With Gratitude,

Julie Reiskin
Co-Executive Director
Email Address: jreiskin at ccdconline.org
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
1385 S. Colorado Blvd. Bldg. A., Suite 610
Denver, CO 80222
Organizational phone: 303-839-1775 | Direct Phone: 303-667-4216

*Looking for ways to support our mission? Follow these links:*
*Join our membership for free
<https://ccdconline.org/take-action/membership/> | Online giving
<https://www.ccdconline.org/donate/> | Other ways to support
<http://www.ccdconline.org/donate/other-ways-to-give/>*

*CCDC is headquartered in Denver*; we acknowledge that Denver is on the
occupied land of the Ute, Arapaho, and Cheyenne people

*Nothing about us without us - ever!*
<https://ccdconline.org/>
... <https://www.facebook.com/CCDC.CO> <https://twitter.com/CCDC501c3>
*Click the logos above or the text here to connect with us
at ccdconline.org <https://ccdconline.org/>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/CCDC.CO>, or Twitter
<https://twitter.com/CCDC501c3>*

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 5:09 AM THERESA MONTANO via Colorado-Talk <
colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> This is just a quick note to inform this article is filled with in
> accurate information.
> The Governors Office Of Information Technology  is working on another
> article that is accurate.
> The bill HB 21 1110 requires all digital content to be accessible. Not
> just new information but all, digital content needs to be accessible. We
> are training our agencies to prioritize, and also the rules explicit
> requiring an accommodation statement for agency that are still working on
> compliance. This means information should never be removed from a website,
> ever!
> We will be responding to this inaccurate information publicly in the very
> near future.
> Theresa Montano Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 9, 2024, at 9:11 PM, Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk <
> colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> 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
>
> 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."
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-Talk mailing list
> Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Colorado-Talk:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/tmontano9%40msn.com
> List archives can be found at <
> http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-Talk mailing list
> Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Colorado-Talk:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/jreiskin%40ccdconline.org
> List archives can be found at <
> http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
>

-- 
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or 
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or 
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received 
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any 
computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20240911/c699056e/attachment-0001.htm>