[nfbmi-talk] Fw: systemic ada t22 complaint accessable meetings program access and effective communications

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Jul 1 20:36:24 UTC 2011


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Farmer, Mel (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: systemic ada t22 complaint accessable meetings program access and effective communications


Not the only issues. And the complaint is not just about this issue alone but the chronic and pervasive papatern and practice.

Have a nice weekend.

Joe
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Farmer, Mel (LARA) 
  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Sally Conway USDOJ 
  Cc: Arwood, Steve (LARA) ; Elmer Cerano MPAS ; TOM MASSEAU MPAS ; Jeanette Brown MI CAP ; Jo Anne Pilarski MCB, Chair ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; Joe Sibley MCBVI Pres. ; Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Jeanine Worden US DOJ ; Robin Jones ; Peter Berg ; Cecily Cagle MRC Chair ; Marlene Malloy MRC Dir ; Luke Zelley TDN ; Susan Fitzmaurice ; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org ; Morrow, Mario (LARA) ; Porter, Jaye (DELEG) ; Zimmer, Mike (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Arwood, Steve (LARA) ; Brown, Melanie (LARA) 
  Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:57 PM
  Subject: RE: systemic ada t22 complaint accessable meetings program access and effective communications


  Mr. Harcz, this notice is in response to your complaint (attached) asserting that the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is not complying with certain provisions of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding information/records you requested in your June 21, 2011 email.  Please be informed that the Department/MCB believes that it is full compliance with these federal statutes/regulations based on our responses to and the status of each portion of your requests as follows:

    1.. Request for "a DVD of the video recording of the June 17, 2011 MCB general meeting on 
        a thumb drive or similar medium sent to my address above"

   

  Status: As indicated in June 30, 2011 email/letter from the MCB, the response time to 

  address this portion of your request was extended to July 13, 2011. As you are aware, 

  meetings of the MCB are not usually video recorded; and MCB was not responsible for 

  the recording this 6 hour meeting. At this time, the Department/MCB are reviewing the 

  various factors that may be involved in complying with your request; and will inform you 

  accordingly of the status of this portion of your request by or before July 13, 2011.

   

    2.. Request for "the audio recording of the same meeting in similar matter" 
   

  Status: As indicated in the June 30, 2011 email/letter from the MCB, you were provided 

  the website address and instructions to access the requested information/records at  

  www.michigan.gov/mcb .

   

    3.. Request for "the audio recording of the June 16, 2011 budget and PA 260 meeting" 
   

  Status: As indicated in the June 30, 2011 email/letter from the MCB, the audio recording 

  of this meeting will be copied and sent to you on a thumb drive under separate cover. The 

  MCB mailed the thumb drive to you July 1, 2011.

   

    4.. Request for "the draft meeting minutes of the June 17, 2011 MCB meeting as a Word 
        attachment sent to my email address listed above"

   

  Status: The draft minutes (36 pages) of the June 17, 2011 MCB meeting were emailed to 

  you by me July 1, 2011.

   

  Thusly, based on the above, we believe that this complaint is without merit.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 1:47 PM
  To: Sally Conway USDOJ
  Cc: Arwood, Steve (LARA); Elmer Cerano MPAS; TOM MASSEAU MPAS; Jeanette Brown MI CAP; Jo Anne Pilarski MCB, Chair; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; Joe Sibley MCBVI Pres.; Cannon, Patrick (DELEG); Jeanine Worden US DOJ; Robin Jones; Peter Berg; Cecily Cagle MRC Chair; Marlene Malloy MRC Dir; Luke Zelley TDN; Susan Fitzmaurice; Farmer, Mel (LARA); nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
  Subject: systemic ada t22 complaint accessable meetings program access and effective communications

   

  This is again a part of a systemic complaint against the following state of Michigan entities:

   

  -The Michigan Department of Technology Management and Budget

  -The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

  -The Michigan Rehabilitation Services and Michigan Rehabilitation Council

  -The Michigan Commission for the Blind

   

   

   

   

  Note to all I am blind and require accessible digital information related to this complaint and all others in accordance with DOJ policies under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Any print correspondences to this or other complaints will be considered a violation. As for the State actors involved I also invoke the ADA, Title II, subpart e in these regards. I request that  any information is sent via simple e-mail as either conventional Word attachments or plain text enclosures. My goodness just what would happen if I asked for Braille?)

   

   

   

  July 1, 2011

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

   

  1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

  Mt. Morris, MI  48458

  joeharcz at comcast.net

   

  Cell: 810-516-5262

   

  Re: accessible meetings in Michigan

   

  To: United States Department of Justice, Civil rights Division, Disabilities Rights Section

   

  (This stands as a complaint and partial documentation of a complaint under title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act)

   

   

   

   

  All 

  The attached procedure (after my signature line) was downloaded today, July 1, 2001 from the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs accessible meeting policy web site at:

  http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154-10573_35828_36119---,00.html

   

   

  None of this and more have  been done and in fact at the last two and more meetings of the Michigan Commission for the Blind there were even substantial physical barriers denying people with disabilities "program access". That was in the  Ottawa Building and the last at Constitution  Hall.

   

  Aside from existing barriers identified in a Michigan Department of Technology Management and Budget survey  conducted  belatedly  in 2008 (of which I've forwarded to the DOJ and Great Lakes Technical Assistance Center among others) neither of these buildings have raised character and Braille signage in accordence with ADAAG 4.30.1 through 4.30.6. And Constitution Hall was built at least ten years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

   

  But, regardless even the rooms where the Michigan Commission for the Blind meetings took place had only flat signs with no raised character or Braille.

   

  In fact a fully compliant  meeting cannot take place in this state except, perhaps in some University Buildings.

   

  Moreover, effective communications of all materials (i.e. all information at the meetings) are not provided and indeed I have to try to get them  even draft minutes on a case by case and ad hoc basis which, by the way violates the affirmative obligations in Tyler v. Manhattan.

   

  When will this state come into full compliance with the ADA, Title II and that includes the Michigan Commission for the Blind and the Michigan Rehabilitation Services and all entities holding ppublic meetings for people with disabilities including those of us who are blind?

   

  Moreover, the attachment goes to the issue of Melvin Farmer related to the video recording of the June 17, 2011 Michigan Commission for the Blind which documents this and more and in which he as a State Actor didn't even follow this but, rather wished to claim "undue hardship". (Sent to Ms. Conway yesterday along with other violations of him and LARA, and MCB).

   

  Regardless, all of this goes to show more than deliberate indifference to known laws and even internal guidance by this scofflaw state and I wish that the United States Department of Justice would enforce the long standing civil rights of this state's persons with disabilities including those of us who are blind such as myself.

   

   

   

   

   

  Sincerely,

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

   

  Cc: Sally Conway, USDOJ

  Cc: Steve Arwood, Deputy Director LARA

  Cc: Patrick D. Cannon, Michigan Commission for the Blind

  Cc: "Great Lakes TAC"

  Cc: National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

  Cc: Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired

  Cc: Jaye Porter, MRS

  Cc: Marlene Mally, MRC

  Cc: MRC Members

  Cc: Members Michigan Commission for the Blind Board

   

   

  Enclosure:

   

   

   

  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH 

  ACCESSIBLE VIDEO PRODUCTION POLICY 

  Effective date: 12/1/04 

   Background: 

   The Department of Labor and Economic Growth uses videos in communicating to internal 

  and external audiences about its mission, programs, products and services. In keeping with 

  Federal and State disabilities rights laws and the value of inclusion, it is the intent of this 

  policy to standardize an approach to the production of video media. 

   POLICY: 

   VIDEO CAPTIONING AND AUDIO DESCRIPTION 

   1. All training and informational video recorded productions which support the 

  agency's mission*, regardless of format that contain speech or other audio 

  information necessary for the comprehension of the content, shall be open or closed 

  captioned. 

  2. All training and informational video recordings which support the agency's 

  mission*, regardless of format, that contain visual information necessary for the 

  comprehension of the content, shall be audio described. 

  3. Display of presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions shall be 

  user-selectable unless permanent. 

  4. The Office of Media Technology (OMT) is responsible for implementing this 

  policy and will maintain procedures for producing, commissioning or otherwise 

  procuring video media. Questions on this policy may be directed to Dave Callanan 

  at (313) 456-2929. 

       * Note: Video recordings intended for internal investigative processes and/or 

  documentation such as depositions, video recorded inspections, etc. are not 

  included in the scope of this policy. 

    Approved: Line comment dinataleg

  11/18/2004 12:58:51 PM

  blank

   Dated:Line comment dinataleg

  11/18/2004 12:59:00 PM

  blank

               DLEG Procedures for procuring Accessible Videos 

   These procedures implement the Accessible Video Production Policy effective December 

  1, 2004. Videos produced by the Department of Labor and Economic Growth will meet the 

  policy. These procedures guide the use of pre-existing videos. These procedures will be 

  revised and updated to reflect advancements in technology, experience and the state of the 

  art. The following procedures for in-house produced closed captioning, audio description 

  and pre-existing videos are as follow. 

    ?? Captioning 

    The customer/client provides a written script. 

    Captioning will follow industry norms. 

   In the event that the customer cannot provide a written script, the Office of Media 

  Technology (OMT) will assist in working with the client to get a transcript. 

   Upon receiving the script from the customer the OMT will review the material for 

  clarity and language. 

   Closed captioning will be provided using these materials. 

   A description of the availability of closed captioning, open captioning or audio 

  description will be listed on the DVD or video. 

   Lack of equipment, or faulty equipment is not a reason to show inaccessible videos 

  or DVD's 

   The actual cost of captioning will be invoiced to the customer. 

    ?? Audio Description 

   Audio description (AD) should describe any visuals that significantly add to or 

  enhance the message of the video. The OMT follows Audio Description 

  International (ADI) standards and definitions, which state, in pertinent part: 

  "Audio description is a means for providing access for people who are blind or 

  have impaired vision. The purpose of audio description is to give people who are 

  blind or have impaired vision a more complete picture of what is being shown, 

  enabling them to appreciate and to share in the presentation as fully as a sighted 

  person". 

   The OMT will review and provide AD voice-overs to videos when necessary. AD 

  voice-overs should only be present when there is no other audio narration on the 

  video. Ideally, the AD voice-over should be performed by someone other than the 

  person doing the regular narration on the video. 

   Audio description should be available on the Second Audio Program (SAP) 

  channel. 

    ?? Audio Description 

   If audio description cannot be provided on the SAP channel, the audio description 

  on the video should be "open", or there should be an alternate video available with 

  open audio description. 

   A description of the availability of closed captioning, open captioning or audio 

  description will be listed on the DVD or video. 

   Lack of equipment, or faulty equipment is not a reason to show inaccessible videos 

  or DVD's 

    ?? Vendor Usage/ Pre-existing Videos 

   In the event a video is requested to be purchased, procured, rented or obtained 

  through a contract facilitator for training purposes, job enhancement, guidelines 

  and/or knowledge of duties, approval to obtain this video must come through the 

  OMT. 

   The OMT will review the video with the client and make recommendations on the 

  process needed for the video to comply with the current policy. 

   Example: If a client requests to use a video for an enhancement group 

  or training session, they would first request approval from 

  the OMT to use the video. If the OMT finds the video to be 

  accessible it can be used. 

   If the video is not accessible OMT would review the video 

  with the client and suggest changes needed. The OMT will 

  contact the producers of the video to request the alterations 

  for accessibility. 

   If the producer wants to make the alterations, the time frames 

  for the completion of the project are decided. If accessibility 

  cannot be achieved in the time frames desired by the client, 

  then OMT will offer to make the changes. 

    If the producer refuses to make the changes and refuses to 

  allow OMT to make the video accessible, then OMT will: 

   1. Advise the producer of the ADA and DLEG 

  policy; 

  2. 

  Advise the client not to use the inaccessible 

  video;

  3. Advise the client of alternative means to 

  present equivalent information in an 

  accessible format and 

  4. 

  Inform the DLEG ADA coordinator of the 

  actions. 

      ?? Vendor Usage/ Pre-existing Videos 

   If the client states that a small group of customers will view 

  the video and no one requires accommodation for 

  accessibility then a written request for approval must go to 

  the DLEG ADA coordinator. 

   If the client refuses to comply with this policy a report will 

  be made to the ADA Coordinator.



More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list