An Update from the Department of Justice: Recent Enforcement Activities. Presenter: John L. Wodatch. >> RACHEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to today's webcast where John Wodatch will give us an update from the Department of Justice on recent enforcement activities plus actually a little bit more. I will tell you more about that in a moment. First I want to let you know my name is Rachel Kosoy. I'm with the Disability Law Resource Project, your host for today's webcast. I will be moderating the webcast will which basically means the questions you E-mail in, I will be voicing those to John Wodatch. Before I introduce him properly today, I just want to remind you about questions. This webcast is intended to be interactive, so please submit your questions now or at any point during the presentation. And I will pose those as -- as John pauses for questions. And in order to submit a question, you can click the submit question button, which is at the bottom of your RealOne Player or it may say webcast@ilru.org. Ultimately you can just create an E-mail and send it to webcast at ILRU.org. And if anybody runs into any technical difficulties of any kind, please feel free to give us a call. We've got people who can help you out and the number is 713-520-0232. Okay, now I'm going to introduce the topic and the presenter for today. The topic is basically an update from the Department of Justice. John Wodatch, who is the chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, don't worry, there won't be a quiz on that. He will be talking about several different things. First, he's going to preview some items that will be appearing in the upcoming status report from D. O. J, so he will be talking about some recent settlements as well as some new lawsuits. He also is going to talk about the complaint process that the Department of Justice uses, so when there are incoming complaints of discrimination, you can learn more about how those are processed with the Department. And lastly, he will talk about a new document, it's a really valuable document which deals with accessibility of state and local government websites for people with disabilities, as well as he's going to talk about the disability provision of the Help America Vote Act. So I want to go ahead and tell you a little bit more about John and then I'll turn it over to him. As I said, he is chief of the Disability Rights Section in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. This is the division that's responsible for enforcement of titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And Title II deals with state and local government and Title III deals with public accommodations. Mr. Wodatch is a civil rights attorney with over 30 years experience with the federal government, specializing in the rights of people with disabilities. He plays a key role in developing administration policy on the ADA and he's also the chief author of the Department of Justice's ADA regulations and of the federal regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. He received his bachelors from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, his masters in public administration from Harvard University, and his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center. So we're very pleased to have you here today, John, and without further ado, I'll turn it over to you. >> MR. WODATCH: Thank you very much, Rachel. Good afternoon to everyone from a hot and muggy Washington D. C. where I can tell you it's vacation season here so there are very few of us left. The president is in Texas. Congress is scattered around the world and even the Supreme Court is on vacation. So it's a good time to take stock of where we are and how things are going with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I'm also -- I would like to thank Rachel and the Disability Law Resource Project and ILRU for inviting me to join with you all today. I have a high regard for the work that they do and I'm always pleased to be associated with Lex Frieden who is a stalwart leader in the disability rights community. So it's a pleasure for me to be here today. What I had thought I'd do before we go to questions and answers is go over some of the recent things that have been going on and sort of if you don't have questions now I hope after I've discussed some of these you will, because I think answering your questions are probably the most important part of this. I'd like to begin with breaking news. This is an agreement that we're going to be announcing in the next couple of days. Right now it's an agreement reached in principle, but I wanted to bring it to your attention because I hope it will have some meaning for some of you out there. We had received complaints a few years ago against Alamo and national rental car companies. Complaints that were filed by Travelers who used wheelchairs and scooters alleging that when they went to rent a car from Alamo or from National that they did not provide accessible shuttle buses between the airport terminal and the rental lots. And this is an investigation that's been going on for a couple of years. It was delayed a little bit because Alamo and national are in bankruptcy at this point so that added a little bit to our negotiations; but I'm pleased to announce we've reached and agreement and they will, starting now, have at least one accessible shuttle bus at each of their 50 corporately owned airports across the country. There are six airports that have Alamo and National rental car companies that aren't covered by this because they are franchised operations and not the corporate headquarters, but 50 of them will. In addition, they have agreed that all larger shuttle bus vehicles that they'll buy in the future, which are buses that hold more -- 17 or more passengers -- will be purchased and will all be accessible and that in the future all smaller shuttle buses, which means seating 16 or fewer passengers, at least 10 percent of those will be accessible. So starting now, there will be at least one accessible shuttle bus at each location, but as time goes on, there will be an additional accessible vehicle at each of these. In case that one shuttle bus at each location is not enough to meet the demand for wheelchair users and others with mobility impairments, they are going to adopt procedures that will allow for accessible transportation outside of the shuttle buses between the airport locations and the car rental places. So we hope that this will be the dawn of a new accessible age for Alamo and National, and as always, with these kinds of agreements, if you go to these companies and find that you have difficulties, we certainly want to hear about that from you. Another recent settlement of a case that had been going on for awhile is our case against SFX Entertainment. SFX is -- owns and operates more than a hundred concert venues nationwide, and we had received a series of complaints, mostly from people with diabetes who were being told that they couldn't bring diabetic supplies or food with them into concerts as SFX convenient use. So this was requiring people with diabetes to -- who really needed immediate access to their medical equipment and to their insulin to really being forced to choose between being barred from the concert or attending the concert and taking unreasonable health risks. We filed suit against them, and I'm pleased to say that we have reached an agreement. They have agreed to implement a policy that will allow guests with diabetes to bring into any concert at any of their venues their medical supplies consisting of syringes, their insulin, lancets and any equipment to measure their glucose levels. They'll allow people to bring in food for someone with diabetes to have. I think that's particularly important for some concert venues where people are at a venue for along period of time and the food that's available is not necessarily appropriate for someone who is monitoring their glucose levels. They also, under this policy, will allow guests to bring in and keep with them an epipen, but we have over time had issues with people who have severe allergies often to peanut butter or to bee stings and need to have with them at all times their epipens. So this policy will allow them to participate as well. As with all of our agreements, there is training for employees, including policies that they would implement to make sure that this actually works. In addition, we had several complainants, and we received $20,000 in compensatory damages for the complainants that we had -- that brought this issue to our attention. Let me shift gears to the Supreme Court, and a case that you may know about called Barden vs. the city of Sacramento. This case involved a lawsuit brought by a group of individuals, some of whom were blind and some who used wheelchairs, alleging that the city of Sacramento had violated the ADA by failing to remove obstructions in existing sidewalks, and these obstructions, whether they were benches or sign posts or guide wires made the sidewalks inaccessible. They sued. It made it to the appellate court. The appellate court of the ninth circuit held, and we participated in this as an amicus, and they held basically that providing and constructing and maintaining a system of sidewalks by local government is a government service. It is covered by the ADA by Title II. The city of Sacramento then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court and they were joined by a variety of cities around the country, the U.S. conference of mayors, the national league of cities, all were supporting Sacramentos appeal and saying if this decision was allowed to stand, huge amounts of money would have to be spent on alterations and would break the bank for these cities. The Supreme Court wasn't sure whether to take the case or not. They asked the Department of Justice for our views. At the same time, advocates in California and across the country mobilized to try to get Sacramento to withdraw their appeal and to get this out of the hands of the Supreme Court, and a couple of things happened. Right at the last hour, before the Supreme Court was going to decide whether to take the appeal or not, the city reached agreement with the people with disabilities and agreed not to appeal which would let stand the decision that curb ramps -- that curb -- that city sidewalks are a covered program under Title II. We, at the same time, filed a brief so the government reiterated its position that sidewalks are covered and that really with the way the ADA is structured, there really wouldn't be any undue financial and administrative burdens that would come out of this because of the undue burdens limitation and the fundamental alteration limitations in the statute. So the case has now been removed from the Supreme Court's docket. If you're interested in our brief, it is available on the Department of Justice website as are lots of the briefs that we file and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes. I'll shift gears a little bit again, but not too far. We'll stay with the Supreme Court, and the issue on constitution a letter of the ADA. We are engaged -- my office spends a lot of our time in litigation with state governments over whether the ADA is constitutional. This all stems -- those of you who have become constitutional scholars along with me on this issue, stems from a Supreme Court dea few years ago in the Garrett case where they held Title I of the ADA, the title that deals with employment, unconstitutional in the following sense, in the sense that a person with a disability can no longer sue a state for money damages under the ADA because the Supreme Court has said that states have sovereign immunity from suits for damages. You can still sue for injunctive relief, you can sue to get your job back and maybe even to get back pay, but you can't sue for compensatory damages. Since that decision, we in just about every case against the government, the state has been raising the issue and saying well if Title I was unconstitutional, so is Title II. And there have -- there are 12 appellate courts in the United States, five of these have agreed with the Garrett decision and have held Title II unconstitutional. Another four have held that the Title II of the ADA is an appropriate exercise of the constitutional authority of Congress and, therefore, Congress could waive sovereign immunity by the states and people with disabilities can sue. This continuing to be a hot bed of discussion. In the last term there was a case, and we thought the Supreme Court was going to analyze this issue again. It was a case that came out of California called Medical Board of California vs. Hason. It involved whether the state medical Board had improperly denied the application -- an application for medical license because of mental illness. The case made it to the ninth circuit and the ninth circuit held that the ADA was constitutional. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court. We filed a brief in that case. Again, that's on our website if you're interested in what we say -- we clearly said the ADA is constitutional, but the interesting thing that happened there is that advocates in the disability rights community in the state of California convinced the state to change its position and withdraw its appeal. And so the case -- the decision we thought would be made by the Supreme Court was taken from their docket. However, the Supreme Court has granted certification in another case, a case called Tennessee vs. Lane. A case that actually upheld the constitutionality of suits against states under Title II of the ADA. The suit there was brought by two individuals who have mobility impairments who use wheelchairs. They were against Tennessee and a series of counties in Tennessee for having inaccessible courthouses. In one situation, one of the plaintiffs was charged with misdemeanors and in order to get to the courtroom, had to literally crawl up two flights of stairs to get to the courtroom. The other plaintiff is a certified court reporter who alleges that because there are inaccessible courthouses, she is impaired in here ability to practice her profession and serve her clients. The sixth circuit there held that the Title II of the ADA was constitutional as an appropriate expression of the due process clause of the constitution, but not under the 14th amendment. So that case has been accepted by the Supreme Court. We are in the process of working on a brief. I understand from reading press accounts that the advocates in California who were so successful in getting the state of California to change their mind about the constitutionality -- the ADA, are working with advocates in Tennessee to have the same thing happen. So you might just want to follow the press and see what happens with that. I can tell you from our perspective, we at the Department of Justice believe is that the ADA is a constitutionally appropriate legislation to remedy what we believe is a history of pervasive discrimination against people with disabilities in this country. The Bush administration has been resolute in defense of ADA. We have gone and made a strong case in every appellate case across the country and we will continue to do so. There are still a number of decisions we're waiting for. We continue to believe though that when Congress enacted the ADA, they gathered extensive evidence of unconstitutional discrimination by states. They specifically made findings in the statute that discrimination that was state-sponsored continued in areas including education, voting, public services and the institutionalization of people with disabilities, and we believe that this evidence supports the legislation and makes it constitutionally appropriate. All I can say on this issue is stay tuned. There is a lot going on here. It can get very arcane in terms of the discussion of constitutional principles, but I think at the heart of it is a very simple proposition about whether the Congress can enact legislation to protect the rights of people with disabilities in this country. Okay, Project Civic Access. I hope all of you are familiar with this because we've been doing this issue for a number of years. If you recall what this is, it's a project that we started here, an effort to ensure that cities and counties around the United States comply with the ADA. The first phase of it was we went into each state and picked a city and went to the city and tried to get them -- looked at their programs and if they weren't accessible, came up with agreements to make them accessible. We had some 53 agreements. Again, you can find them on our website. They are very comprehensive. The Bush administration wanted us to continue this and so we have begun what we are calling Phase II of Project Civic Access and for the 13th anniversary of ADA, we announced our first settlement agreements under Phase II. And so we have reached settlement agreements, comprehensive ones, with the following towns and counties: Madison County, Mississippi, Maryland, Lowden County, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Oregon, and we have reached agreements in principle with Lincoln County, Nebraska, Carson City, Nevada and Binghamton, New York. These are agreements are not on our website yet. We're in the process of getting them up there so in a few days you can go up and hit the what's new button and I hope you'll be able to find these very detailed agreements. They are like our earlier ones. They cover improving access at everything from city and town halls to police and fire stations, community centers, parks, softball stadiums, pools, polling places, 911 emergency service centers. They go into dealing with assistive listening systems and legislative chambers and ensuring that you have large print Braille and material on cassette tapes. And with this round we have added trying to ensure that the emergency management procedures and policies for evacuations and crises in cities deal with the issues that affect people with disabilities. We've also gone into more detail on voting issues and have been working with them on website accessibility as well. So it still is a very important part of what we do. We have another six cities and six states that we're close to agreement on that we're still working with so there will be more in the days ahead. You can keep up with this by looking at our website or by looking at our status agreements. And we are beginning the next part of this phase which is an additional 19 states that we'll do in the next year, and then we'll finish up the year after that receipts of the states. So we'll have over 50 set.S, one in each state. Okay, let me talk a little bit about our stadium style seating, movie thee at they are cases. >> RACHEL: John, this is Rachel. >> MR. WODATCH: Do you want to go with some questions for awhile? >> RACHEL: Identify a couple of questions on some of the cases you've already mentioned. The first one has to do with the agreement with the car rental places. So the question is basically when will it go into effect or when can people expect to actually see an accessible vehicle at these 50 airports? >> MR. WODATCH: They should see an accessible vehicle at these airports as soon as the agreement is signed, which would be next week. So they have told us that as of when the date it's signed, say it's next week, there will be at least one accessible vehicle at each of these 50 airports. And what will happen is over time there will be more than one. In fact, some of these will have more than one. Some of these airports are Alamo and National are merging and some of them -- so they will be dealing with it that way, but the real answer is starting now. So if you have problems now, starting next week we want to hear about them. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. There is also a question about the SFX venues. Basically, how will the venues know who has diabetes or what will people with diabetes need to show to prove that they're diabetic? >> MR. WODATCH: This was the interesting thing that happened with this case. They had signs up saying that you couldn't bring syringes or things like that into a venue. And so people with diabetes, being good citizens would go up to the person, whoever was in charge and say well, I have diabetes and I have this material and I'm taking it in and they would say, no, you can't. What was sort of ironic to me was if you wanted to not follow the -- if you were a drug user and they were really worried about syringes and people using drugs at their concerts which is a legitimate worry, but if someone was going to be engaging in illegal behavior, they weren't going to follow the sign. So really what we're trying to educate people with diabetes is they don't have to do anything now of the they just know that they can -- if there is a sign up where someone is saying you can't bring syringes in, it won't apply to them. Now, we're working with SFX to make sure they have signage up there so that no one will ever even be asked these questions and people with diabetes or who have glucose equipment won't have to tell anyone or do anything. They will just take the equipment into the venues and use it as they need to use it. >> RACHEL: Okay. All right, let's see, I have a couple other questions about cases you have mentioned. One about the Barden vs. the city of Sacramento. Somebody is just really seeking clarity. So basically they want to know does this case require that all cities and states in Region IX will need to build and maintain sidewalks throughout their cities and states? >> MR. WODATCH: Yeah, what the 9th circuit decision says is that the city sidewalks are a covered program or activity under the ADA. So they have an obligation to ensure that they are accessible. Now, clearly that doesn't mean the city of San Francisco is going to have to wipe out its hills and no longer have sidewalks on hills. I think there is some common sense that's going to be applied here, but the idea is that the city does -- is going to have to figure out how to maintain its accessible features and deal with problems that they can deal with in terms of making them accessible. Clearly, there is a fundamental alteration defense in the ADA as well as an undue burdens defense. So it's not going to break the bank but it is something they have to pay attention to. It is something they have to sit down and figure out not that they have to have curb ramps, but look at the sidewalks and if the sidewalks become so broken, if the pavement is so broken it becomes impassible, that that's an issue they have to start dealing with. >> RACHEL: Okay. And what about -- I know that in some cities individual homeowners are responsible for the sidewalk in front of their home. So is that now going to change? >> MR. WODATCH: No, it's very interesting. We're starting to look into that issue ourselves and this issue comes up a lot with us in terms of who has the responsibility in northern cities when you have a lot of snow and who has the responsibility for removing the snow from the curb ramps. These are issues that we have really just started getting into ourselves. The ADA doesn't trump local law about how the city allocates the responsibilities for upkeep. And so if the city says the businesses and homeowners have the obligation to shovel snow or to keep things free, then it is the homeowner's obligation, but most of those do not get into dealing with -- you know, the city still has the obligation in most of the ordinances I know for doing the heavy duty upkeep. You know, so the homeowner might have to sweep the twigs off the sidewalk, but they're not going to have to replace the sidewalk when it becomes impassible. That's still a city's obligation and that's not something that would be passed along to a homeowner or a business. >> RACHEL: Okay. I look forward to that being so in Houston. >> MR. WODATCH: I know this is a new issue for a lot of cities and I think we're all going to have to work with them to try and have them come up with plans for how to do this. And I think all of us -- the people listening to me today as well as us here in Washington D. C. will have the obligation to work with cities to help them figure out away to do this so that the cities really become accessible to the citizens with disabilities. >> RACHEL: Okay. All right, I have one other question for now. And this one has to do with since the last Supreme Court case that you addressed, they think it's the Tennessee case, can you repeat the issues that the Supreme Court will really address? >> MR. WODATCH: The Supreme Court is not going to look at the underlying issue in that case, which is what we would say would be a clear violation of the ADA, having a courtroom on the second floor and having no way for a person in a wheelchair to have access to that courtroom, either independently or with dignity. That's not the issue that is being looked at. The Supreme Court is looking at a procedural issue, which is, is the ADA constitutional? And the specific way it's coming up here is the lawsuit in Tennessee asked for not only for the courts to be made accessible, but for people with disabilities to be compensated in money damages for the harm that came to them, which is a typical part of many civil rights laws. You not only can get injunctive relief, you can get money damages for the fact that you were harmed. The state of Tennessee is saying the ADA can't force the state to pay money to citizens with disabilities who have been discriminated against because the state has sovereign immunity and Congress -- the federal government does not have the right, under the constitution, to take that sovereign immunity away because the nature of discrimination against people with disabilities is not constitutionally pervasive enough to get rid of that. And so it's really about whether people with disabilities can sue for money damages and so the Supreme Court will look at whether they think the ADA is constitutional. >> RACHEL: Okay. I said that was the last one, but I just got another question that is really a follow-up on that. It's a what if question. So if the Supreme Court finds that Title II is unconstitutional, will that mean that states no longer have to follow the ADA? >> MR. WODATCH: Not right away is the answer to that, but to be very honest, my answer to that is eventually that is what that would mean. Because if the Supreme Court says there is not a constitutional basis for a private party to sue, eventually they're going to find there is no constitutional government to act or for anyone else to act. And although the technical, legal, actual thing that will happen won't be that way, I think that's what this is about. >> RACHEL: So you think eventually other cases will follow? >> MR. WODATCH: Yes, the states -- every time there was a lawsuit about anything, they would say the Supreme Court has said there was no constitutional under pinning for your action, therefore you can't do this. So I think that is where we are heading with these decisions. >> RACHEL: Okay. And does the administration have a position on that? >> MR. WODATCH: The administration believes very firmly that the ADA is constitutional and we are doing everything that we can to try and convince courts that it is. We have had success in some courts. We have not had success in others. The one I suppose glimmer of hope -- this is not just something that's happening in the disability area. The Supreme Court really is looking at the role of the federal government vs. states and this is a states rights issue, but in this last term, there was a case like the ADA cases, only dealing with the family medical leave act and sex discrimination. The Supreme Court for the first time said, oh, here is a statute that is constitutional. You can continue to have lawsuits under this statute. It was the first time in a row of decisions where they held something constitutional instead of holding it unconstitutional, and we can get some so last from the fact that, okay, it's not always going to be a decision against the minority group or private group that is bringing the case, but whether that will generalize or not, we don't know, but we are very much aware of that, which is why we're trying very strongly to defend the constitutionality of the ADA. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. Let me let you go on. >> MR. WODATCH: Okay, I was about to talk a little bit about our litigation about those movie theaters, the new design movie theaters called stadium style seating. I assume many of you are familiar with these. It's really a revolution in design that occurred in the mid '90's. The A. M. C. chain was the first one to come up with this, and if you haven't been to one, instead of having a sloped floor, these theaters have staggered steps like a big stadium, and they do provide much better views, unobstructed views, much better sight lines. They are usually much bigger screens and it's a very different movie going experience. Unfortunately, from our perspective, where they placed the wheelchair seating locations in these theaters was often in the first row or the first couple of rows and on a sloped floor, not on the stadium style seating area. So from our perspective, we thought the movie theater chains were providing people with disabilities inferior sight lines and inferior viewing experience and in fact were excluding them from what these new theaters were all about. We tried to negotiate with the chains to bring about a settlement. We were unsuccessful, so we have filed suit against a number of the chains. Early on, we lost a case in the 5th circuit, Laura vs. Cinemark, and basically the 5th circuit, which is in Texas -- the this case was in Texas -- basically said that all that movie theaters had to do for wheelchair users was give them an unobstructed seat. So if they sat in the first row, that was okay. We thought that was wrong, and so we continued our litigation and I'm pleased to say we've had a lot of recent successes. One coming as recently as -- let me see the date of this was August 12th of this month. The 9th circuit agreed with the position in a case called Stewmon vs Regal Cinemas. Let me read to you one of the things -- for me I've always been troubled by the fact that we've lost some of these cases because it's such a simple proposition. Of course I love going to the movies myself, and I knew from talking to people with disabilities who just had a very difficult time going to these theaters and sitting in the front row with these large screens with such an unappealing prospect that one of the judges who agreed with us called it headache city, that it really wasn't giving equal opportunity to people disabilities. And the 9th circuit agreed with us and let me just read to you one of the things that they said. This is a quote from the case: In the theaters at issue in this case, wheelchair bound -- we've got a long way to go on explaining to judges how the terminology they use, but any rate, wheelchair bound movie theater patrons must sit in seats that are objectively uncomfortable, requiring them to crane their necks and twist their bodies in order to see the screen. While nondisabled patrons have a wide range of comfortable viewing locations from which to choose. We find it simply inconceivable that this arrangement could constitute full and equal enjoyment of movie theater services by patrons. So we got this decision from the 9th circuit. We ourselves have won cases recently against the AMC movie theater chain in California and against Hoyts and against national a muse. In Boston. But the litigation goes on. We now have a split in the circuits. Whether this goes to the Supreme Court, how long this continues on will be an issue that will continue to occupy our time, but I'm pleased to report that at least I think we've changed the view of some of the courts who get to understand that this really keeps people from disabilities who use the wheelchair seating locations from really being able to go to the movies and enjoy them. One of the parts of good news is that this -- we have been engaged in this litigation since the mid '90's and a number of chains have started changing their designs. So a lot of them are getting better even though they're fighting us in litigation. So the most recent designs of AMC theater chain, for example, no longer put the wheelchair seating locations in the first two rows and they are now even putting them in the stadium style parts of the theaters. So I think we are making headway on these cases, but we'll continue. And I'm hopeful that the change in the climate by the courts will result in a settlement that will work out a deal so that people with disabilities will be able to freely choose a movie theaters that they go to. Okay, let me switch gears again to a whole other responsibility that we have at the justice department. One of the things the statute says is that we can certify a state or local building code to say that it meets the standards of the ADA. Why I think that's important is that your local architects or builders or people in your area will know that, you know, they don't have to go to the ADA standards. If they just follow their state code and they actually follow it and it's been approved by us, then they'll know they're building an accessible building. Thus far, we have four states that have codes that have been found to be -- to meet the minimum requirements of the ADA. And that's Maine, the state of Washington, Florida, and Texas. I'm pleased to report that we on May 29th notified the state of Maryland that we have preliminary certified the Maryland accessibility code as meeting or exceeding the new construction and alteration requirements of Title III. Now, we have a whole set of processes that we have to go through, and for those of you listening from Maryland, you should know that there is going to be a public hearing in Maryland in Howard county on September 4th, and that if you want to file comments with us about whether you agree or disagree with our assessment, you can do so. There will be information about how to do this on our web site. It's not there today, but it should be there by tomorrow telling you if you want to file a written comment, where you will send it to us and if you want to attend the hearing, the exact location of the hearing. For those of you who might be interested, we have codes from several other states that we're reviewing, the states of California, Indiana, New Jersey, and North Carolina have all sent us their codes; but no other states had, and so in the past couple -- in the past two months, I've sent letters to the officials in charge of state agencies with primary authority for promulgating their state accessibility requirements for every state that we haven't heard from. And really told they will about certification and asked them to sending us their state codes so we can go through the process. The process is along and difficult one. Because we'll look at your state code and see if it really -- if there are problems with it. And if there are, we'll say we can't certify it unless you fix this issue or that issue. It's a difficult long process, but I think it will bear benefits for us all. I'm pleased to report that the first state to come forward and ask after the letters we sent out is the state of Utah has sent us their code and said that they want us to review it. I'm hopeful that there will be more activity in this area and that it will, in the long run, result in buildings being built or being altered in an accessible fashion. Last thing I'll mention of this kind of notion before talking about our complaint process is just so you know a couple of the suits that we've been filing. You may know some of these. Some of them are more recent. They're all fairly recent but I'll give you an idea of the kinds of lawsuits we're bringing. Many Massachusetts we've sued the state and the trial courts and the registrar of deeds in Bristol County, Massachusetts because of the existence of significant architectural barriers in their courtrooms and in their offices. There are no elevators in these buildings. They are located up a flight of stairs, sort of like the situation in the case that I mentioned in Tennessee. In Brooklyn, New York, we've sued the parkway hospital for refusing to supply qualified sign language interpreters to patients and their families, and that case is ongoing. In Tennessee, we've sued a private provider of fixed route transportation between Memphis and the Little Rock airport. The Betty bus shuttle service because of its failure to provide wheelchair accessible vans. Also in Tennessee in the Memphis area, we have sued the owner and operator of some 50 McDonald's restaurants basically for the failure to remove existing barriers. It's a variety of issues, usually it's lack of proper parking, curb ramps, entrances that aren't accessible and restrooms that aren't accessible. So it's a variety in each of the 50 restaurants, but that's the kind of issue. In Arizona, we just recently intervened in a case against a sports medicine practice in the Phoenix area because it refused to provide medical services including orthopedic surgery to a person who had identified himself as H. I. V. positive. And the last one of these I'll mention in Camden, New Jersey, we sued the owner of a large restaurant because of its failure to remove architectural barriers in its parking lot. Again, it's entrance and restrooms, so those are the kind of meat and potatoes kind of issues that we deal with really on a fairly regular basis. Okay, before we open up to questions again, let me talk a little bit about complaints. And I think many of you know that we do receive complaints and we investigate them, but I think you also know that we have a limited staff resources and so we are unable to investigate most of the complaints that we receive. What I want you to know though is that every complaint we received from you, we spend a good deal of time looking at trying to determine if it's a case we can investigate. I'll own up to the fact that we have in our office 12 investigators and they cover the entire United States. So clearly -- and we literally get thousands of complaints every year. And many of the complaints that we send back to you and say we're sorry, we can't do this, we know are good complaints, but we just can't do every single one with the resources that we have. And we have over the years asked for more resources from Congress. A number of our requests, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have made appeals to Congress for more staff for us, but that hasn't -- hasn't been successful, and I can point out to you that I think now with most any new federal resources that are being enacted because of the budget crisis, are really going to fight terrorism and not to dealing with civil rights issues. So it doesn't look to me that in the immediate future we will be having an increase in staff. So we try to do the best job that we can with the staff that we have. What we do is we try to see where the kinds of complaints we're getting and address the issues as people with disabilities are bringing them to us. I'll give you an example. Early on, we weren't opening many service animal cases because we thought they were sort of cut and dried and took care of themselves and really was an issue that was with a little technical assistance we could handle, but we started to see more and more and more complaints involving service animals. Now we try to open more service animal complaints and what we try to do is have an enforcement program that's national in scope so that we're in every state. So that we do the whole range of issues affecting the disability rights community. So we're not just doing one kind of issue, but a broad array of issues and we try to change what we do as we see different issues that come before us. It's a very difficult process for us to turn away complaints that we know are good. We have our mediation program and that was developed as away to try and deal with complaints and put them through the mediation process and that has become a very successful program in its own right. We also, if there are other federal agencies that have joint 504 jurisdiction, we will send complaints to those agencies so that, you know, for example, if we get a complaint about an interpreter in a hospital, we might send that to the Department of Health and Human Services because they will have jurisdiction and do it under 504. So we're trying to use all the resources of the federal government that we can to provide investigation of these complaints, but I know a number of you who are listening today know that you have sent us complaints and we have been unable to do them. I think that will -- I regret that we can't do all of them, but this is the reality that we face in terms of trying to do the cases we do. Frankly, we try to do cases that we think will be precedent setting so if we publicize them, people will see what we think the law requires. And let me talk to you a little bit about our website and how you can use it. We try to put on our website the major settlements that we do, the status reports talk about the issues that we're confronting both in the cases we take as well as the informal settlements that we do as well as the mediation program. If you have an issue and we're unable to do it for you, and say it's about interpreters at a doctor's office or interpreters in a hospital or problems with the police department in terms of the jail being inaccessible, you can go to our website, pull down settlement agreements that we have reached and take the settlement agreement to the entity that you're dealing with and say, see, this is what the justice department says is required of you in these circumstances and use our website as away to try and empower yourself locally if you are unable to use -- if we're unable to take your case or if the state protection and advocacy agency or the local agencies don't have the resources to do that. It is certainly -- it's not the best of all possible worlds, I know, but it is at least a way to use the areas where we have been successful to try and allow you to gain access in your local communities. Okay, Rachel, are there some other questions? >> RACHEL: Yes. We have some questions that relate to what you've just been talking about. A couple that have to do with certification of state accessibility codes, one has to do with enforcement and basically they are interested to know if the process of certifying codes addresses enforcement of the codes and basically what does certification mean from enforcement? >> MR. WODATCH: That's a very good question from whoever asked that question. What we do is certify the state code itself. So if the state code says you have, you know, the right standard for a door, the right standard for an elevator, we say that's fine. We do not certify, and we point out to the state that if they grant waivers from their state code, they are losing the effects of certification. Certification just is rebuttable evidence that an entity can use. If they don't follow the state code, then they're going to be in violation of the law. So from is a lawsuit that goes on, and they say, well, we followed the certified state code of our state, but then you find out that the local building code inspector waived the requirement for the ramp, the fact that there has been a certification is lost because the state code has not been followed. And so, to me, the major use of this is to give guidance to builders and architects in states who seem to have a hard time following the state codes and the federal ADA standards, and lets them look at one document and know if they follow that code they're -- they will have an accessible building, but they should know if they don't follow that code, that that's not going to give them any protection from lawsuits. >> RACHEL: Okay. Do you require the states then when they grant waivers to let people know that this doesn't necessarily give them a waiver under the ADA? >> MR. WODATCH: We haven't -- that's an interesting notion. We haven't required them to do that, although we have tried to put in any documents that we do what I just said about they're losing the impact of certification, and a number of the states actually have been very helpful with us in telling people that -- you know, and raising the issue about losing the impact of certification from doing that, but there is a lot of training and education that has to go in place. I'll think about that as maybe something we can do in the future states we're dealing with. So that people do know that there is -- that they are risking this when they vary from the accessibility standards. >> RACHEL: Okay. Another question that has to do with accessibility guidelines, and I'm going to listen carefully to this answer, when will DOJ rule on or adopt the outstanding final rules on the ADA accessibility guidelines? >> MR. WODATCH: That's a great question. For those of you who may not be familiar, the standards that we have in place are based on the Access Board guidelines that were done at the beginning of the -- when the ADA was enacted in the first couple of years. Since then, the Access Board has gone through a number of rule-making procedures to add provisions. We have not gone through that ourself. I've long ago given up the answering the answer when because I've been proven wrong just about every time. I can tell you that we are actively working on those as is the Access Board. There are -- what's happened over the years is there are a number of procedural hoops that we have to go through before we can do any regulating, and one of the things we have to do is a cost benefit analysis, and we are working with O and B and other agencies to figure out how we do that so the rules can go forward. For example, there are rules on state and local government facilities, there are a number of recreation facilities, play areas, there are a number of children's facilities that we are -- would like to move along, but it appears every time we make some headway, we run into problems. So I, to be very honest, can't predict when. I would hope by next year that would be done; but it -- >> RACHEL: Is it basically that you haven't begun the process of cost benefit analysis? >> MR. WODATCH: No, we're in the middle of -- we're working with the Access Board on doing cost benefit analyses, but we have to do them appropriately, and there are some new standards. One of the difficulties for us is that any new standards also apply to existing facilities incoming up with any cost estimates of what that means, requires more predictions than we can appear to get economists to make. And so we're trying to go through the hoops to get that done properly so that the regulation will withstand any attacks. Under the new procedures, once we do that, we also have to go not only to O. and B, but once they're out, the Congress does get a chance to vote yeah or nay on the rules as well. So all those processes have to be gone through before we can get a standard in place. >> RACHEL: Got it. Okay. So in short, we can blame it on the economists? >> MR. WODATCH: Well, no, you can blame it on us. You don't have to -- we'll shoulder the burden. I mean, it's our obligation to do this. It's just -- it is taking a long time. >> RACHEL: Okay. I have a question here about Project Civic Access. Can you talk about how the communities are chosen? Are they targeted because of the number of complaints have come in or are you guys looking at certain priorities and choosing -- >> MR. WODATCH: We start by looking at where we have complaints, especially if we have a lot of complaints against a particular town. But then we started looking at other issues. We looked at if the town was near a tour it's site or someplace where there might be a lot of visitors to the town so that there would be people with disabilities coming from across the country to that area. So that was one criteria we looked at. There was a college or some other entity like that nearby. We looked at that. We also tried to get towns in terms of sizes that were representative of towns across the country. So that we weren't just doing little tiny towns or really huge towns. We also had to look at our resources. If we picked some of the biggest towns in the United States, we might not be able to do many towns at all. For the second round of Project Civic Access, we're also trying to choose towns in the state that are far away from the last town we choose. So we look at all of those factors and have come up with the towns that we are looking at. >> RACHEL: Okay. The next question is a little more specific actually. This is from somebody who uses paratransit. She uses a motorized wheelchair. The paratransit driver said that he could not pick her up because paratransit -- their paratransit is funded by Medicaid, and Medicaid has a policy by which motorized vehicles cannot be transported because they can't be secured once they're inside the vehicle. >> MR. WODATCH: This person should file a complaint with the Department of Transportation. >> RACHEL: Okay. >> MR. WODATCH: This person, I can tell whoever you are, you are not alone. This is an issue that's come up in other places, and I should say the Department of Transportation has been trying -- the civil rights office there headed by Michael winter has been going a really good job of trying to turn some of the paratransit issues around. There has been some good litigation recently, some good decisions from the courts in terms of a variety of paratransit issues. We've had a couple of cases referred to us ourselves and we're looking at some of those for future work on our part because we hear this kind of -- these issues constantly, and the Department of Transportation will be the first avenue of help for this person. >> RACHEL: Okay. And the last part of their question -- >> MR. WODATCH: And if you need to know where this transportation, our website has a list of the federal agencies and where you should send the complaints. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. And they want to know is this a Title II issue? >> MR. WODATCH: Yes. >> RACHEL: Okay. So it's not -- well they said 504 or tight 28? >> MR. WODATCH: Well, we would deal with it both ways as 504 and Title II because there is overlapping jurisdiction. >> RACHEL: Okay. Let me see the next thing I have -- I just got a couple that came in. Let's see, one about service animals. Have you encountered the situation where a police officer routinely responds to calls where people with disabilities are being asked to leave a certain premises because they have a service animal. And are there settlement agreements on your website that demonstrate what the agency's position is on this issue? I was pair a phrasing there. >> MR. WODATCH: That's fine. One reason I love doing these kind of interactive calls is that is an issue that we have not addressed. I have not even heard this issue. And believe me, we have a large percentage of our complaints deal with police departments. Most of the complaints we get, though, are from people who are deaf or hard of hearing and are discriminated against because of that. This is an issue that I have not heard before. I would love to know more about it. So if whoever that is wants to write and let us know, please mention that it came up in this -- in this phone -- >> RACHEL: Webcast. >> MR. WODATCH: -- webcast so it doesn't get lost in our processes here. >> RACHEL: I will make sure to E-mail her back and remind her of that. Let me see if I have -- okay, here is a toughie, are you ready? >> MR. WODATCH: Oh, sure. >> RACHEL: Are DOJ and the administration protected from suits alleging that the DOJ is not fully implementing the ADA by not following up on all complaints. >> MR. WODATCH: There is sovereign immunity for the federal government, but if you don't think we're doing our job correctly or we've made decisions that are wrong, you can file a suit against us. And in the '70's there was a suit against the federal government on a similar issue involving race complaints that was eventually worked out, but the suit went on for three or four years, if not longer. So we are fair game for lawsuit for not doing our job right. It's also fair game to write to your Congressman and say this shouldn't be the way it is or you can write to the president and say this shouldn't be this way, as well as filing suit or following any of those avenues of expressing your views about your rights and how they're being handled. >> RACHEL: Okay. Great. You handled it very well. You didn't seem like you even sweat. >> MR. WODATCH: No, I don't want to be defensive about that. I want to be honest about what we're doing and if you had think that's wrong or there are ways that that's your right to make it known. >> RACHEL: Okay. Great. I have an easier question for you. This comes from somebody who -- let's see -- wanted to attend the mayor's disability committee. I'm not sure which city this comes from, and let's see, it looks like the security man prevented him from attending this. And he said -- so this person says it's the mayor's staff that was the chief discriminate tore, and so what could he do at this point? >> MR. WODATCH: Well, this raises to me a couple of interesting issues. One of the things we're starting to see more of and talk to cities about is after 9/11, how do you deal with legitimate security issues, but at the same time ensuring that people with disabilities are able to participate as freely as anyone else in meetings, and in anything that goes on in the cities, and to be very honest, a lot of cities have a long way to go to learn how to deal with this, as do we. I think it's a learning process we're all going through. Certainly, if you were excluded from a public meeting that is really on the basis of your disability, that that is a basic ADA, and if there are federal funds involved, 504 violation. You can certainly file a complaint with us, but you know, the chances are -- or we can attempt to do mediation on that issue, but I would hope that some action in your local -- you know, a newspaper article -- my experience is a newspaper article in your local news often does a lot more than anything else because it's sort of shining the light on discrimination. I think it does bring about an understanding that what is being done is wrong. Whether it's -- and whether you can find a local forum, whether it's a town council member or someone who will take the issue and run with it in the city is an appropriate way to do that. What we've learned from Project Civic Access though is sometimes in small cities, in particular, it becomes very difficult to do that and so going outside the city to us or the state protection and advocacy agency is another -- every state has a federally assisted agency that can provide and sometimes can provide assistance in these types of issues. >> RACHEL: And we also at the Disability Law Resource Project, which is basically a resource center on the ADA, and there are actually ten of these around the country. They are called DBTACs. We often get calls just like this, and a lot of times what people want is something in writing that's official that explains what the law is. And so people often call here and ask for an official document and a lot of times they're from the Department of Justice, and they can take that and show that to the powers that be there and it seems to carry more weight than the individual with the disability just telling them this is what the law says. So -- >> MR. WODATCH: Over the years we have worked very closely with the ten regional DBTACs and they are a local source that's closer to you. They have access to us. We work with them. I think it's a useful way to do this. I should also point out that in a number of states have governor's committees. They have different titles, but a governor's committee on employment of people with disabilities and sometimes they do issues beyond just employment and are a resource that you can use to bring about change in your area. >> RACHEL: Right. Yeah, that's true. Okay, this next question comes from somebody who feels that there is a delay in either approving or disapproving various state's accessibility codes, and they want to know what is the cause of the delay? >> MR. WODATCH: Yeah. It is a very long and detailed process. The delay that occurred for a long time was because we had very few people doing this. We now have several architects on staff and a couple of attorneys who are dedicated to this, and so we are hopeful that the delays will be a thing of the past. Also, to be very honest, most of the state accessibility codes are getting better and better, so that a part of the delay comes from us taking the time to go line byline through the codes and then negotiating with the state officials and sometimes with members of state legislatures, but we are hopeful that we're going do a much quicker and efficient job of responding to the states that have applied to us. >> RACHEL: Okay. One other question I have at this point, you'll have to let me know if you can -- if you can answer this without more information. You'll have to give me a minute because there is a quote here that I've got to read. They basically -- the person who submitted this wants help understanding what it actually means. So they received this in an E-mail and they're not specific about which case it refers to but you might figure it out. It case this case on theater access is likely to be appealed either for an embanked ruling on the 9th circuit and they want clarification on what that is, and likely to go our way if they're willing to hear it or to the Supreme Court where the outcome is highly uncertain as Gregory Hurley, lawyer for the national association of theater owners in California and Nevada noted that the 5th circuit has ruled directly the opposite of the position endorsed by the 9th circuit. And the last piece is, cases in which there are circuit court with often are prime candidates for being granted -- I don't know how to pronounce it -- >> MR. WODATCH: Certification. >> RACHEL: Thank you. >> MR. WODATCH: That it? >> RACHEL: Well, there is a follow-up yes that says if the current ruling does not go to the Supreme Court, will that mean that the new theaters built after '92 will have to remodel so that seats are dispersed? >> MR. WODATCH: This is the case that I mentioned, the Oregon case the 9th circuit just decided this month. And it does set up a split between the Texas case, which is Laura vs. Cinemark which said to be accessible you just have to have a wheelchair location anywhere in the theater. The 9th circuit agreed with us and said, no, you have to take into consideration other issues like the lines of sight. So that -- now, it is likely -- there are two choices that Regal Cinema which is the defendant in this case, and they are represented by Greg Hurley, I believe, among other attorneys. They can choose to ask -- when you have a decision like this, three judges in the court rule, in this case it was two to one. One judge disagreed. There was a descent saying Laura was the right interpretation. Now, the party that lost can ask for an unbound caring which means all the judges would sit together and decide it. So what would happen is they would say this decision doesn't stand anymore and all the judges of the court -- I don't know how many there are in the 9th circuit -- and then they would issue another decision. If they don't do that, the other thing they could do ask the Supreme Court to look at this case. Oftentimes, the Supreme Court will not -- doesn't take very many of the cases that are brought to them, but they will take them if there is a split in the circuits and here there is a split in the circuits. So this case may end up at the Supreme Court. It may end up with an unbound hearing or it may not. It may be that regal cinemas will settle the case because the case itself is only about I think six theaters. They could take care of the actual -- the narrow legal part of this decision and just go along and fix those six theaters and that would be the end of the case. Now, it is the law of the 9th circuit then and so it would have an impact on other theaters in the 9th circuit, but unless someone brought something, brought a case before them, it wouldn't necessarily mean -- it doesn't mean that tomorrow every theater is going to go out and try to fix themselves. >> RACHEL: Okay. >> MR. WODATCH: The legal process grinds very slowly I guess is the down side to this. >> RACHEL: Okay. And they wanted clarification about the legal term, the one I couldn't pronounce. >> MR. WODATCH: Certiorari. That's just the term that the Supreme Court uses. It's called CERT for short. You asked the Supreme Court -- you give them a writ of certiorari. It's just a name for the appeal to the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court adopts it. If they grant it, it means that the case will got to the Supreme Court. So for example, the Barden case that I was talking about, the Sacramento case, Sacramento asked the Supreme Court to grant CERT and the Supreme Court said no. >> RACHEL: Okay. Okay. That helped a lot. >> MR. WODATCH: Or not, depending. I'm not sure. >> RACHEL: It helped me. (Laughter). Actually, though, I do want to tell the person who submitted that, actually submitted a question. I did respond back and ask for a little more information and he did send more information. So to that person out there, if that wasn't clear to you, please do E-mail us again and that way we can write you, you know, or call you and explain it again because we want to make sure that you guys are really getting the answer that you're looking for. Okay, John, I'm going to let you go a little bit more. I have some more questions, but -- >> MR. WODATCH: I'll do a little briefer explanation of the two things I was going to talk about just so that they're out there. Just so you know about them. First let me talk about something people may not know about. We have new guidance on our website, and it's called accessibility of state and local government websites for people with disabilities. I just want you to know that it's there and you can use it. It's not a technical document for web masters. We really did it to aim at government officials, state and city officials who are in charge of websites. And so it's general information. It tries to explain what barriers that there can be in websites for people with disabilities, especially people with disabilities who use assistive technology. So a blind person who uses a screen reader, someone who has manual dexterity issues and can't use a computer mouse and so uses voice recognition software, how barriers are created on a website. We provide resources, a list of resources for web masters so they can get to the technical information, and we give examples of accessible features that are on the website, and we set up a voluntary action plan that a local government can use so that they have their websites that are accessible and it includes things like establishing a policy that all the web pages on the website will be accessible. And then as a first step, ensuring that all new modified web pages are accessible and what that means in terms of photos and graphics and scanned images, and making sure that if you put documents up in PDF format, you also have some text -based format and then develop a plan for making your existing web pages more accessible over time. So that it's not a daunting task and we also suggest working with the disability community in the town so that the website really -- the most important features of it are accessible and then training staff. So I just want you to know that it's there. It's a resource. We're very much aware of the expanding use of websites, especially for local governments, you know, if it's a job application process. If you can get basic city services on it, ensuring that those services are accessible to people with disabilities is an ADA obligation. And so we wanted -- this document is there for that purpose. Very briefly, there is something -- the other issue is the Help America Vote Act, which was enacted not too long ago. It's a very detailed law, but it does have disability provisions. And some of them are pretty significant. Section 301 of that law establishes new requirements for voting systems that are used in elections for federal offices. And it requires that each voting system has to be accessible for persons with disabilities, including people who are blind or have low vision. And it specifically says that each polling place in this country, by January 2006 should have at least one what they're calling direct recording electronic voting system. And what that means is that each polling place must have a machine that will allow a person who is blind or has low vision to vote independently and privately. This is really a major change from where we were a few years ago and actually a few years ago there wasn't the technology available to do this. All right, so what's an accessible voting machine that meets this? The law sets up something called the election assistance commission. It's not in place yet, and they will eventually issue guidance on -- and guidelines on these issues. Until that guidance is adopted, there is some existing guidance in the federal election commission on voting systems, and that's in place. So what that means is, issues you have to consider for accessible voting machines, especially for having a person who is blind or have low vision to have the ability to vote independently, which means without the intervention of a third party and privately means if it's audio, having -- you know, if you have audio, having ahead set that others can't hear the prompts from the machine. So it includes things like having visual information available through audio, making sure that the audio information gives the complete content of the ballot, having volume controls. If the voter can request repetition of any information in the system, making sure a blind person can do that. If you allow write in voting, having a process through the machine that allows a blind person to -- a blind voter to review, edit, and confirm their written entry. It also requires, you know, issues for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. So if you have visual cues in the machines, if there are sound cues, you have to have visual cues so they will be able to vote independently as well. And for people with limited manual dexterity, you're going to have to ensure operable controls that are usable. And for people in wheelchairs or other mobility devices, making sure you have the appropriate reach ranges, clear floor space next to the machine and knee clearance spaces and so there are a large number of these issues that are there that your local governments are going to be dealing with between now and 2006. And they are making decisions now about what kinds of machines to buy. There are committees set up in your state. I just want you to know that this is ongoing and a very important issue that's there. We in the Disability Rights Section here have been given some responsibilities for this. We are in the process for developing detailed technical assistance that will provide information not just about voting machines, but on how to make a polling place accessible, and some of the other issues that exist about polling place accessibility. So I just want you to know that. There are probably organizations and people in your community who are working with your state agencies and local agencies. Your secretary of state, registrar of voters. If you are interested in these issue or your organization is, you should be aware of them and get yourselves involved because there really is -- I think our future holds major changes and the ability of people with disabilities to participate in a real way with the voting process in away that they haven't in the past. There are a lot of difficult issues ahead. There are some issues that have been raised recently about whether these -- how these machines will be used and there will be a lot of debate. And if you're interested in these, I think you should find the people in your community doing it and get involved. With that -- that's -- I tried to do that as quickly as I could so there would be more questions. >> RACHEL: You did. You did. Okay, and I was going through the questions and some of them you've answered along the way. And I'm mindful of time. I think we have about ten minutes left. Okay, this one -- this question has to do with the voting act, and again, enforcement. So basically asking, you know, will DOJ be responsive to complaints against states and local election authorities if they fail to provide accessible, and if you could comment more about how you make sure that happens and how much staff will be devoted to it, et cetera. >> MR. WODATCH: We are hoping that staff will be devoted to it. That remains to be seen. I should point out that one of the things happening here is starting next Monday, the Civil Rights Division gets a new boss, and Ralph Boyt who is the head of the Civil Rights Division left. R. Alexander Acosta who is from the state of Florida originally, who helpfully enough taught an ADA course at the law school there. So understands ADA issues and will be taking over and he will have a number of hard decisions to make about some of these issues. We are hopeful to spend a lot of our time working with state and local governments to try and educate them about this so that they make the right decisions now in terms of buying the right machines because -- and providing training for people. Because there are now machines available that do all these things, and getting the machines purchased and getting people trained in them and then training voters in them so they know how to use them is really a huge task that confronts us. We want to be a part of that. Similarly, we want to spend our time trying to make polling places accessible in this country and providing guidance to registrars of voters about that. We believe that one of the -- you know, we're making changes slowly with the ADA, but changes are being made. There are many more accessible places in towns and communities now and so there are many more places that are accessible so you can have voting places that are accessible. There are also solutions that are some common sense solutions. I didn't realize until starting working on the voting rights issues that there are a lot of places in this country where people vote in people's homes. And so making their homes accessible -- that becomes a dicey proposition. If their home is inaccessible, then move the voting area to their garage. If a car can get into it, they should be able to get into it. There are suggestions we make to places so people with vote alongside nondisabled citizens in their town in the same kind of way and access and dignity and we are very committed to making that happen. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. I'm going to give you these two questions together and it might be the last two questions. We'll see how the time goes. These are about the accessibility of state and local government websites. The first question asks if you can talk specifically about the status of any complaint activity and the implications for public education? And then the second question that has to do with this is basically if section 508 of the Rehab Act requires federal websites must be accessible, does this document that you've put out say that the ADA requires state and local government websites must be accessible? >> MR. WODATCH: Let me try -- I think I'll deal with the second one because I think I've already forgotten the first one. You'll have to refresh my memory. >> RACHEL: The first one -- tell me when you're ready. >> MR. WODATCH: Section 508 is a law that was -- Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act does require the federal government to provide it's electronic information in accessible format. So it applies to federal websites. It doesn't apply to state and local government websites. What this document says -- it was the complaints was the first one. It came back do my head. What our document says, really says how a website can be made accessible, but what we have said is we would allow a local government -- there are ways that if they provided all the services that were on their website, if they didn't want to make the website accessible, they could get around the ADA if they provided, you know, 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, access to the same information in the same kind of way. I think that's not likely to happen, but we have to hold -- the ADA really talks about programs being accessible. So if they can do that, they don't have to make their websites accessible. It is so easy, comparatively to make the websites accessible, that we're pushing people in the direction of doing that; but it's not a blanket, the website must be accessible. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do it other than making the websites accessible. We have not received a lot of complaints on this issue. We have under Project Civic Access matters we're doing this year, working with the local governments, doing an analysis of their websites and telling them what they have to fix. And to be honest, I think the response we're getting from entities is pretty good because they're starting to understand -- you know, there are certainly some difficulties there, but they are -- it's in a sense, it's like making buildings accessible. If you do it when you're planning them, it's really a low cost, easy thing to do. And so we're trying to get as many people in the planning stages and the planning stages can mean that every day you add things to your website. You can add them in away that is accessible with just a little training of your web master and the staff that -- your in-house or contracted people. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. And I just -- you know I'm going to take the opportunity to do a little commercial here since it flows naturally. Is that the ten DBTACs now provide training and technical assistance specifically for public school systems and that's K. through 12 as well as post secondary on making websites accessible. And so we've got a number of resources for on line training about it and certainly in person training as well. I know in Houston we've got one coming up in the middle of September. So if people are interested, please contact your local DBTAC. You certainly can send us an E-mail where you've been sending them today and we can -- we can point you to your local DBTAC. >> MR. WODATCH: And if I can just add to that, I think that's -- you know, the other question was what are the implications for public education, and I think they are vast. The implications for this are vast as we start exploring distance learning and other issues. I think trying to now get the rudiments of having accessible websites is very important because these are becoming more and more important part of our society in how we get information and how we get some basic services. So I think that you're right, the DBTACs which are now not just DBTACs, but provide very specific information about accessible electronic information and technology, I agree, use them. >> RACHEL: Okay. Can you just maybe give a yes or no to this and we certainly can follow up with someone and give them more detailed information. They want to know if your website lists settlements that are with hotels which provide airport transportation that's free to guests? >> MR. WODATCH: Yes, we have at least one of those. >> RACHEL: Okay. >> MR. WODATCH: And if they do that, they have an obligation to provide it free of charge to guests with disabilities and however way they have to do it in order to provide effective comparable transportation. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. And if whoever sent that in wants more specific information, please E-mail us again and again I can work with you individually on that. So, John, before I wrap up, is there anything else that you'd like to say? >> MR. WODATCH: No, I think -- I hope you've all been patient out there. Thank you very much for letting me rattle on for all of you. I love doing this, and I hope it has been helpful. Our website is there if you have suggestions about our website, we're always very anxious to hear ways that we can get information to you in a more, effective better way. I'd like to thank you, Rachel, forgiving me the opportunity to be here. >> RACHEL: Great. We really loved having you and obviously there are a lot of questions so you're meeting a need. We've talked you dry, so we'll let you go. And I just want to -- you know, just want to mention to everybody that today's webcast will be archived. So if you want to go back and listen to it again or read a transcript, that should be up by tend of the week, and that way also you can share it with people who weren't able to make it today. You can also look on our website for additional webcasts. We've got along calendar of upcoming webcasts, and I'd like to now do my thank yous. Of course thank you, John. I mean, you really were able to give us a lot of information in a short period of time. And now I think we're a little ahead of the game. We've heard some things that haven't even been released yet. >> MR. WODATCH: That's right. >> RACHEL: But thanks, and I'd like to acknowledge NIDRR, who funds the host for today's program, the Disability Law Resource Project. And there are -- there is a small team of other people who have made today possible, those include the ILRU webcast team, Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, and Dawn Heinsohn. We also have our techie guy who is Rob Dickehuth and last, but not least, our incredible realtime captioner, who can keep up with all of us, Marie Bryant. So, again, thank you all for joining today and hope you have a great afternoon. Bye-bye.