1



        Webcast:  Court Accessibility.



        Presenters:  Jack D. Humburg, Peter Blanck and William Myhill.





             >> JACQUIE:  Good afternoon everyone.  Welcome to today's webcast

   on Court Accessibility.  This webcast is being sponsored by the National

   Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, NIDRR, who funds your

   host for today's program, the DBTAC Southwest ADA Center.

        I am your moderator today, Jacquie Brennan, and I'm with the ILRU

   project Southwest ADA Center.  I'll be assisting with today's presentation.

        Before we get started I wanted to go over a couple of housekeeping

   issues.  For those of you on the webcast today, to submit your questions,

   just click on the E-mail button on your screen or you can E-mail the

   questions directly to webcast@ilru.org.  If you have any technical

   difficulties today, please feel free to call us at (713)520-0232, and again

   thanks for joining us today.

        I'm pleased to introduce our three presenters.  We have Jack Humburg,

   William Myhill and Peter Blanck.  Peter is going to start off the

   discussion for us and help to frame the issues.  He is traveling today, so

   his participation will be a little more brief.  And we're really glad to

   have all three today.  So Peter I'm going to turn it over to you.

             >> PETER:  Thank you very much.  It's a pleasure to be a part of

   this webcast and I thank you for -- Jacquie, for organizing this and NIDRR
                                             2

   and the DBTAC for helping us convey this important information and to learn

   together.

        The topic of courtroom access probably reached its peak in terms of

   national recognition with the case of Tennessee v.  Lane and that was a

   Supreme Court case in 2004 which many people are familiar with, which

   people who had mobility impairments and other sorts of issues as well,

   disabilities, were unable to get into the courthouse.  And moreover, they

   were penalized as a result of getting into the courthouse and not being

   able to participate ultimately.

        The case really went to what is a fundamental right of social

   participation and civic participation in our society, and of course one

   such fundamental right is the ability to access our Democratic court

   system.

        The topic today really also goes to the national objectives of the

   Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws which focus on core

   principles of equality of opportunity, full participation, access,

   independent living, economic self-sufficiency, you name it, if you can't

   have your day of redress in the court or access to the courts, then those

   sorts of freedoms and individual rights often become not particularly

   apparent.

        So today I'm pleased just to open the discussions with Jack and

   William and others who are going to talk more specifically about specific

   features related to courtroom access and the principles embodied in it.

        I would say as a general matter -- and Jack and William, I hope you'll

   speak to this as well -- given the huge growth of the Internet and
                                             3

   technology and telecourting and video depositions and so forth, we are in a

   new age not only of physical access to courtrooms, but of technological

   access as well and this is a very real issue that many groups around the

   country are debating and litigating today from the National Federation for

   the Blind to others, to ensure that the web and digital communications,

   wireless communications, are accessible to people with and without

   disabilities.

        So with that brief overview, I think that I would turn it next to

   Jack.  I'm going to stay -- it's snowing here in D. C., so we get a little

   snow and everything slows down a little bit, but I'm going to stay a little

   bit if that's okay, Jacquie.  And I think Jack is the next speaker to

   participate; is that right?

             >> JACQUIE:  That's right.

             >> PETER:  So, Jack, would you like to pick it up from there?

             >> JACK:  Thank you, Peter.  Good afternoon, everyone.  My name

   is Jack Humburg.  I work for a nonprofit organization in St. Petersburg,

   Florida, call Boley Centers and we provide services to people with

   disabilities, primarily targeting those with psychiatric, mental illnesses

   and provide a variety of services.

        Along those lines, I have been the Florida affiliate for the Southeast

   DBTAC for a number of years now and pleased to be a part of an effort here

   in Florida to address this question of court accessibility.

        With the objective of improving access to court facilities from

   Pensacola to Key West, the Florida State court system has embarked on an

   initiative to voluntarily survey all court facilities.  And what I'm going
                                             4

   to do now is just sort of outline that effort and give you one example of

   what one state is doing, not that we're doing anything perfectly, but we

   have taken an affirmative stance to try to address these issues and I'm

   going to just kind of describe that effort for you.

        Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis of the Florida Supreme Court has directed

   the Supreme Court standing committee on fairness and diversity to build a

   coalition of the judiciary of clerks of the court, counties and persons

   with disabilities and engage them in a collaborative effort designed to

   facilitate practical enhancements to court facilities that will increase

   compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida

   Accessibility Code for Building Construction.  The emphasis of that project

   is the removal of architectural barriers.  You may recall that Florida has

   a certified accessibility code, certified by the Department of Justice, as

   being substantially equivalent to or greater than the ADA guidelines.  And

   so we look to both those documents, both the standards for accessible

   design under Title III and the Florida Accessibility Code for Building

   Construction when we do alterations and new construction here in Florida.

        The standing committee developed a subcommittee and a survey

   instrument and as a result of that the subcommittee met on numerous

   occasions, dating back to early 2007, and developed a smaller group, a

   working group, that worked for several months to develop a survey

   instrument and it consists of a summary of the courthouse as well as 35

   specific forms for various public use areas and elements of the court

   facilities.  The standards applied in the survey instrument generally

   reflect those that are applicable to renovations and new facilities, and
                                             5

   the use of these standards results in the identification of architectural

   barriers to access throughout the court facilities.

        Because we were using standards that are higher than what was required

   for an existing pre-ADA, if you will, facility, not every negative response

   to the survey indicated noncompliance, but the subcommittee felt that it

   was important for us to use a higher standard and to ensure that we were

   identifying any barriers that we might come across.

        We only looked at the public areas of court facilities and as we

   developed this instrument.  As a result of the development of the survey

   tool, the subcommittee established four regional training events around the

   state and in May of 2007, working with the chief justice and the courts

   administration, training was held in Tallahassee, Orlando, Clear Water and

   West Palm Beach covering all of the circuits in Florida and inviting teams

   to come to these training events where we had a variety of materials, which

   I can outline for you as well as several speakers to address the question.

        Our first event was held in Tallahassee and the chief justice

   addressed the group at that event.  We were fortunate that he was able to

   attend and really speak to the group about his commitment to ensure that

   the barriers were removed across the state.  We videotaped that address and

   used it at the other three events.  We also invited attorneys from the

   Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and Laura Einstein appeared

   at one of the events and Tracy Justine, I believe is here name, was at the

   other three events with the objective of framing for the attendees the

   issue from the Department of Justice's perspective outlining the Tennessee

   v.  Lane case for them so that they understood the significance and
                                             6

   importance of that.  We also had a representative of the Advocacy Center

   for Persons with Disabilities, Mr. Stephen House, address the group on

   behalf of people with disabilities.  And then Larry Schneider, who is a

   prominent architect here in Florida, as well as myself conducted the

   technical part of the training going through the survey instrument in some

   detail, and various aspects of the instrument and trying to instruct folks

   on how best to use that.

        What's happened since that time, since May, is that the various

   circuits were given the charge to go back to each courthouse, complete a

   survey and send those in to the administration office in Tallahassee.  The

   deadline has passed but I know there are some that are outstanding and it

   has been a daunting task.  I've been working with our local team and

   working with the Hillsborough County court system to go courtroom by

   courtroom, holding cell to holding cell, if you will, looking at access

   throughout some of these courtrooms, some which were built a long, long

   time ago and others that are relatively new.  So it has been quite a

   challenge and I know that various teams and various circuits have taken

   somewhat different approaches.  They were given some flexibility, of

   course, but asked to use the survey instrument that was developed that

   really looked at individual elements.

        So, for example, within the courtroom itself, they were asked to look

   at accessible routes throughout the courtroom, the various court stations

   like the clerk's station, as well as the jury box, witness box, judge's

   bench and other elements, including spectator seating in the courtrooms and

   identify specific barriers.
                                             7

        The teams were each given a notebook of materials including copies of

   the Tennessee v.  Lane decision as well as the standards for accessible

   design and Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code which is the

   accessibility standards in the Florida code, as well as the instructions on

   what type of tools to use and some details about parking and rest room

   access and so on beyond what was in the standards in terms of providing

   guidance to them to assist them in completing the survey documents.

        The survey was developed using a yes/no format so that if there was an

   answer that was no, they were instructed to provide more information about

   what was not in strict compliance with the guidelines.

        So the next step is to compile these surveys and try to develop a

   transition plan for each of the circuits to ensure that program access is

   available throughout each of the circuits in Florida, recognizing that in

   some cases we have historic courtrooms.  I took a look at, for example, the

   courthouse in Kissimmee, Florida which was a very old courthouse that's

   been used in some of the Disney movies and looks like something from a

   1940's movie.  And various parts of that courthouse are extremely

   inaccessible, and so the effort was to look at this from a holistic

   perspective, recognizing that program access requirements apply and we may

   develop procedures within the various circuits to ensure that when an

   accessible courtroom is needed, that's identified and those procedures are

   put in place to move proceedings, if necessary, to accessible locations.

        With that, I'm going to stop for a minute.  I've been rattling on here

   for awhile, and throw it back to either Peter or William to jump in here

   and take on the next aspect.  Did I lose you?
                                             8

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay, who is up?  Peter?  We must have lost Peter.

   William?

             >> WILLIAM:  This is William.  I'm here.  Thank you, Jack, that

   was a fantastic coverage of what a really interesting initiative you have

   going on in Florida, quite unique.

        Please correct me if I'm wrong, Jacquie, the structure was generally

   to now open this up to some questions and comments that might then allow

   Jack to go -- dig in deeper with his initiatives.

             >> JACQUIE:  Well, we can do that or if you want to just go ahead

   and do your part and then we can do all the questions sort of at the end.

   I have only two questions that have come in.  So it's really up to you guys

   how you want to handle it.

             >> WILLIAM:  I'll go ahead and move on with some things.  I

   really appreciate Jack having laid out in a sense the Florida picture.

   He's already covered some of the important details of what we consider

   court access.

        My background is as a lawyer and I tend to look at the issues a little

   more on a national level.  I don't have such a specific state focus as

   Jack, and so I'm hoping to just provide some background on some of these

   issues on more of a national level to begin with.

        Historically, if we look at these court access issues, we recognize

   that there have been federal laws in place at least since 1968 under the

   Architecture Barriers Act that do have some implications for the

   accessibility of federal courtrooms and then more recently under the

   Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and as both Jack and Peter
                                             9

   indicated, Tennessee v.  Lane was a landmark decision that really opened

   the eyes of the obligations of state court systems to ensure accessibility

   of their programs and services.

        One thing I find interesting and not a criticism, but something that

   we ought to be aware of is that there has been a lot of focus on physical

   access requirements, and really the Architectural Barriers Act and the ADA,

   as far as Tennessee v.  Lane goes have primarily been addressing these

   physical access components, things that we in on other contexts might think

   of how do persons park outside the courthouse?  How do persons get into the

   building through doorways using ramps?  How do persons access jury boxes

   and courtroom benches and restrooms and the lifts and elevators in

   courtrooms?  These are very important issues.  I want to be able to expand

   the discussion to think a little bit more about programs and services and

   how they are provided to persons with a wide variety of disabilities.

        Moving in that direction, as Jack spoke about the challenges of

   addressing the access to courts when we have these beautiful, old

   courtrooms that go back 100 or more years sometimes, they pose unique

   challenges to us and one challenge inherent in the law is that there are

   historical structure exemptions that we do have to work with, in particular

   buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places or they may

   be designated similarly by state or local law.

        If alterations to these buildings would destroy or threaten the

   historic significance, then certain requirements to make them accessible do

   become more difficult.  Generally, if it's determined that the general

   alteration requirements, for instance, under the ADA would threaten or
                                            10

   destroy the building's historic significance, then there is a minimum set

   of requirements that we must use in making the building accessible, and

   they are fairly minimal.  One accessible route into the building, one

   accessible route into the publicly used spaces, one accessible toilet

   facility, one level of the building being accessible, and then some

   consideration to displaying information at an eye level for persons who may

   be using a wheelchair.

        But beyond that, I would like to consider that when we think about

   accessibility for people with disabilities, and we think about the wide

   range of impairments that people may have involving communication,

   involving intellectual functioning, involving hearing and vision, involving

   issues related to mental health, then we begin to be challenged by a very

   wide and often difficult set of matters that we try to accommodate under

   the spirit of the ADA.

        We have the effective communication mandate that does apply to state

   courtrooms and it does nonetheless have somewhat of an emphasis when we

   talk about communication on the needs of persons with visual or hearing or

   speech impairments.  How do we make materials on screens that may be

   evidence in a courtroom or directions to courtrooms on a guide at the front

   of the courthouse available to persons with visual impairments?  How do we

   make the proceedings in a courtroom available to a person with a hearing

   impairment?  How do we allow a person with a speech impairment to

   effectively serve as a witness in the courtroom?

        Fortunately, we have tremendous resources being developed in this

   21st century, and Peter referred to this as -- oh, how did he refer to
                                            11

   this?  We are going into an age of technology, the new age of technological

   access.  We have some fantastic tools to use, various assistive listening

   devices, video captioning we can use and may be required to use, qualified

   sign language interpreters.  Additionally, we have Communication Access

   Realtime Translation services, various relay services such as

   telecommunications, speech to speech, video and voice and hearing

   carryover.  We have the ability to use printed materials in alternative

   formats like audiotape, Braille, large print, or just electronic text such

   as is required under the NIMA standards and we have the ability to adjust

   lighting and seating arrangements to accommodate people's needs.  And then

   again as lawyers, we now access the court facilities online extensively for

   filing motions and briefs or for accessing opinions of the courts, many of

   these things are now not only available, but in some cases they are

   becoming standard requirement as means for filing these times of things

   with the courts.

        So with regards to meaningful communication or effective

   communication, we have a tremendous toolbox of potential tools that we can

   use to facilitate more effective communication, specifically to meet the

   needs of persons who have visual, hearing or speech impairments.

        One of the most interesting things to me is this area of how do we

   provide meaningful use and effective participation of the programs and

   services of a court when the issues are relating to a person who has an

   intellectual impairment or perhaps a mental health impairment.

        Although we don't need to adjust the signs in a courtroom necessarily

   to meet the needs of persons with these impairments, we may need to,
                                            12

   although we don't need to generally adjust seating or lighting to meet the

   needs of these persons.  We ordinarily need to have sign language

   interpreters.  I get concerned when we have persons who need to access the

   courts for their own redress of grievances and perhaps because of an

   intellectual disability do not have the ability to fully use the services

   that are available.

        One particular instance comes to mind recently.  In a nutshell, a

   state Court of Appeals in South Carolina was looking at the issue of a

   mother who had her newborn daughter removed from the home with concerns

   about there being past abuse to the mother's son in the home.  The

   Department of Social Services removed the child and then a psychologist

   evaluated the mother and determined -- this is the terminology -- that she

   was functionally illiterate and borderline intellectually deficient.  There

   was a hearing to determine whether or not her parental rights would be

   terminated and leading up to that hearing the family courts repeatedly

   advised the mother that she had a right to counsel and specifically South

   Carolina law requires there be the appointment of counsel for parents in

   termination proceedings when they cannot afford representation.  The mother

   wanted counsel, but she never actually applied for the counsel and after

   some lapse of time the court ultimately did appoint counsel to her, but at

   that point in time in a sense it was too late and her parental rights were

   terminated.

        Now, I don't wish to speak to the merits of whether that was the right

   decision or the wrong decision because ultimately one of the most important

   factors here is the best interests of the child.  What I find interesting
                                            13

   is whether in that scenario the family court had an obligation to assist

   the mother in the process of applying for a court-appointed attorney.  This

   was something that she had to do herself if she wanted to have this

   attorney, and it strikes me that the actual procedures for someone who is

   functioning with some difficulties intellectually, that it may actually be

   a barrier just telling the person that they can have counsel if they apply

   for it.

        I think at that point in time -- or at this point in time there are

   other things that we can go into.  One more area that is interesting to me

   is the eligibility to serve on a jury, but I would like to pause at this

   moment and to pass this back to you, Jacquie, to see if this is a place

   where we want to begin to have some questions.

             >> JACQUIE:  Sure.  We have a few.  So let me go through them.

   The first one is, where can we get the survey that you mentioned and

   accompanying training materials?

             >> JACK:  This is Jack.  I guess that question is directed to me?

             >> JACQUIE:  I would guess that it is.

             >> JACK:  The survey is available.  We have it on CD.  It's

   large, of course, and probably the best way to get that would be to E-mail

   a request to me and I can get that survey out to you.  And I can give you

   my E-mail address if that's appropriate.

             >> JACQUIE:  Sure, go ahead.

             >> JACK:  It's jackhumburg@boleycenters.org.  And if you want to

   E-mail a request to me and give me an address, I can send you the CD.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay, Jack is that going to be specific to Florida
                                            14

   or will that be easy to transfer to other states?

             >> JACK:  Well, I think in large part it will translate fairly

   easily.  There are areas of the Florida accessibility code that go beyond

   the standards at the federal level.  For example, Florida has a lavatory

   inside the standard stall in a rest room with stalls.  So that's something

   not required at the federal level, but is required in Florida.  So there

   are a few specific items which are noted on the survey as being specific to

   Florida.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  We have a few questions on -- we have I guess

   three different questions on deaf and hard of hearing difficulties.  One

   is -- and this is from a Center for Independent Living.  We have a client

   who is deaf.  He was arrested and although the court provided an

   interpreter, the client still did not really understand what was going on.

   For example, when the judge said hearing, he thought he meant hearing as

   opposed to deafness.  The judge would not allow the interpreter to explain

   what was going on, but just to interpret the words that were said.  Is that

   adequate?

             >> WILLIAM:  That's an interesting question, Jacquie.

   Adequate -- one thing comes to mind is of course that really the sign

   language interpreter needs to be someone who is qualified to do so and

   meets the applicable standards.  It sounds like it may be the right

   procedure for the interpreter to indeed not try and interpret what the

   court is saying and just stick to the strict language.  I'm not an expert

   on whether there would be some levity in there for allowing the person --

   the interpreter to actually elaborate a little bit, but certainly there
                                            15

   should be an opportunity for the gentleman or the person in this case to

   ask questions of the court and to use the qualified sign language

   interpreter as a means for asking those questions for clarification.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  And then this one I guess -- this is not a

   deaf question, but this one sort of goes in with what you were just saying.

   Is a court required to provide someone to explain legal concepts to someone

   with a cognitive disability?

             >> WILLIAM:  Yeah, that's a great question.  That does fit in

   with the scenario I discussed in South Carolina.  Well, I think that's a

   question that is open for interpretation.  One thing that I should mention

   in summing up what happened in South Carolina is that ultimately the court

   determined that the proceedings in the state's appellate courts are not

   services, programs or activities under Title II of the ADA.  Now, if that

   is correct, then the person who needs assistance understanding the

   procedures is going to have really no redress.  It strikes me that that

   particular outcome is not accurate, that there would be -- I see no reason

   why the actual programs and services, the activities provided by a court

   should not be subject to Title II.  So there may be some questions, again,

   in this area of specifically leading back to the question you just asked,

   this area of kind of a communication -- not the same type of effective

   communication that we have to address for persons with hearing or vision or

   speech impairments, but there is another level of communication that may be

   implicated by persons who have intellectual disabilities or mental health

   disabilities, and I don't think we have any clearances or any guidance on

   this.  So this is something that's without being able to answer this
                                            16

   question, it's something that we need to continue to explore.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  I am hard of hearing.  Can I ask people to

   wear my FM system in a courtroom setting?

             >> WILLIAM:  That's a fair question.  I believe that generally

   you can.  There may be some specific court by court requirements regarding

   that, and I'm not particularly aware of what they may be.  Jack may

   actually have some reflections on that from his experiences on these issues

   in the Florida courts.  I know that a lot of persons in a public speaking

   capacity in Title II entities such as in public universities would happily

   put that device on to help facilitate the hearing for that particular

   individual.  Jack, do you have any thoughts on that?

             >> JACK:  Well, my initial thought is that I know there are

   situations that I've run across where an individual has a specific device

   that is unique to their needs and the courts have said, no, you need to use

   what we have available.  And I'm not sure that that's necessarily

   appropriate, but I have heard of that occurring, that they have an

   assistive listening system, either a portable one or a permanently

   installed one that they feel should be used as opposed to one that is

   provided by the individual with a disability.  And, again, I'm not able to

   say whether that's appropriate or not, but I have heard that has occurred.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  This is another sign language one.  Is the

   court responsible for providing sign language interpreters or any other

   form of effective communication for attorneys who are deaf who are

   practicing in the courtroom?

             >> JACK:  You want to take that one, William?
                                            17

             >> WILLIAM:  I would suggest that the standard applies equally

   whether you're a person in a general public who is trying to access the

   court services because you have a grievance, whether you're a plaintiff or

   defendant, or whether you're actually an official of the court or an

   attorney who in a sense is another official of the court.  I would say that

   generally, yes, that those types of services should be available also to

   attorneys.

             >> JACK:  If I can add to that, what's happened here in Florida,

   this question has come up and the Florida courts have initially taken the

   position that a private attorney practicing for a firm or even in private

   practice, a solo practice was responsible for their own effective

   communication.  In other words, it was the employer's responsibility to

   ensure that their employee, i.e., the attorney, had effective communication

   in their workplace.  That has been quite a battle and it has been back and

   forth, and I believe that there is the committee of the Florida Bar that

   has been advocating the opposite position that more of a position as

   William described, that it was an effective communication and that these

   were officers of the court in effect and in Title II the same

   accommodations as a plaintiff or defendant in the courtroom.  And there has

   recently been some agreement to pursue that and I apologize, I can't speak

   directly to the scope of that agreement, but I think that the Florida

   courts have now changed their position to one that more fits with what

   William was describing.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  Are there any financial assistance programs

   that may help, for example, small town courthouses improve accessibility
                                            18

   where funding may be limited?

             >> WILLIAM:  Jacquie, if I can just step back one moment.  That's

   a great question, but I just wanted to add that it sounds like Florida is

   moving in the right direction.  One problem that would occur by a court

   requiring a private attorney to provide their own, in a sense, their own

   accommodations is that many attorneys work -- you know, they hang their

   shingle up.  They are small outfits, one, two, three attorneys.  They are

   not part of large law firms and generally as Title I entities, as employers

   under the ADA, the requirements for accommodating really don't kick in

   until a firm -- a Title I entity has 15 or more employees.  So by pushing

   that back on to the employer, you really are denying the potential for an

   effective communication accommodation for possibly the majority of

   practicing attorneys or maybe especially so in smaller communities.

        Now, I would like to go back to your other question, but I'm afraid,

   Jacquie, you're going to have to repeat that.

             >> JACQUIE:  Sure, no problem.  I agree, I hadn't really thought

   about the 15 employee problem with requiring firms to do that rather than

   the court.  That's a great point.

        Okay, the question was are there any financial assistance programs

   that may help, for example, small town courthouses improving accessibility

   where funding may be limited?

             >> JACK:  This is Jack.  I'm not aware of any.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.

             >> JACK:  I'll leave it at that.  I'm not aware of any funds

   available for Title II entities in particular.
                                            19

             >> JACQUIE:  I'm not either.

             >> WILLIAM:  I concur with you guys.  Under the ADA there really

   is no money available to help with these types of issues.  So it would then

   fall upon some type of a state mechanism or perhaps a local mechanism for

   doing so and there by it would be very individualized state by state.

             >> JACQUIE:  Right.

             >> JACK:  You raise a good point because one of the things that

   we've been wrestling with here in Florida -- and I can only speak from our

   experience here -- is in most of the jurisdictions throughout the state,

   the courthouses themselves are owned by the counties, while the programs

   and activities going on in those courthouses are under the control of the

   state courts.  So there is a great deal of cooperation needed between the

   state, county and in some cases municipalities to ensure that the buildings

   and the programs in those buildings were accessible.  So a lot of

   communication necessary between those parties to make things happen.

             >> JACQUIE:  This is a really good question from Ohio.  We're

   building a new courthouse for the court.  What words of advice would you

   want to give us to make the new courthouse as accessible as possible for

   all types of disabilities and what resource it's would you recommend to

   ensure the courthouse is built as accessible as possible for all types of

   disabilities?

             >> WILLIAM:  Jack, do you want to start on that one?

             >> JACK:  I would say there are a great number of resources

   available out there and if you'll bear with me one second, I've got a list

   of some of those resources that are available.  For example, there is a
                                            20

   document called Justice For All, Designing Accessible Courthouses, with

   recommendations from the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee of the U.S.

   Access Board, and I would certainly recommend that you get copies of that

   report.  The Access Board had a group of individuals with disabilities,

   designers and others involved that looked at this whole question and

   developed some mock courtrooms, made specific recommendations and that

   information is available at the Access Board's website.  So I would

   certainly encourage you to look there.

             >> WILLIAM:  Yes, I agree.  Are you referring to the Justice For

   All report on accessible courthouses?  Terrific report based on a couple of

   years of research spanning the country to look at these issues.  The only

   hesitation I have is that again there tends to be a very important strong

   emphasis on physical access, and that does include more and more effective

   communication in light of the needs of persons with visual, hearing and

   speech impairments, but we're somewhat in a quandary when it comes to the

   actual access of programs and services that may be more implicated by the

   needs of individuals with various intellectual impairments and the work of

   the Access Board, which really is carrying out the mandates of the

   Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act, in this

   sense sort of in regards to facilities and very physically focused, we

   don't get a lot of guidance from the Access Board when it comes to making

   accommodations for persons who have more of the type of intellectual

   impairment.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  I live in a very small town and the

   courthouse is a historic facility that's not accessible.  I would like to
                                            21

   attend an upcoming trial, but cannot access the building.  What would the

   court need to do in order to accommodate me?

             >> WILLIAM:  Going back to what I briefly over viewed with regard

   to the exceptions for historic buildings, I can -- assuming this is

   actually a historic building on the national registry, then an alternate

   set of requirements applies and the local Title II entity, if it's a county

   courthouse, does have an obligation to make very basic accessibility

   changes, but there is an accessible route into the building.  That means it

   could include the parking, the curb cuts, the pathway, the ramp, the width

   of the doorway, the access route directly perhaps into a courtroom.  It

   would have to include toilet facilities, sort of the very basic baseline

   requirements should be in place, and it is up to that particular entity to

   ensure that these modifications take place.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay, this is an interesting one.  While there are

   several electronic options available to persons with disabilities, some

   courts do not permit individuals to bring such tools into the courtroom.

   One of my colleagues ran into this problem at the Court of Appeals in

   California.  While the trial court allowed him to bring a laptop into the

   courtroom, he is blind, when the matter was appealed to the Court of

   Appeals, Supreme Court security would not allow him to bring his laptop in

   for the oral arguments.  He is an attorney, but was represented by the AG's

   office.  However, he needed his laptop to efficiently communicate with the

   attorney general in response to or to raise problems in response to the

   judge's questions.  What's the rule when accessibility bumps up against

   security?
                                            22

             >> WILLIAM:  Jack, have you seen anything similar to that in

   Florida?

             >> JACK:  Not specifically, but I will say that there are

   legitimate security concerns in some of the courtrooms.  We ran into some

   difficulties just bringing in tape measures, for example.  And security can

   be extremely tight in some of these courthouses.

        My advice would be to make an early request when you know that you're

   going to be arriving at a facility with some type of adaptive equipment or

   electronic equipment that may be necessary for effective communication.

   Communicate with the ADA coordinator in that circuit ahead of time and

   ensure that there is ground work laid that will allow you to bring in your

   laptop or make arrangements for the court to provide an appropriate

   alternative, maybe one of their own laptops with the necessary software

   preloaded.  At least that would be my suggestion going in.

             >> JACQUIE:  That's a tough one.

        This question is from an attorney with the Illinois Protection and

   Advocacy Agency called Equipped for Equality and he says I wonder if the

   speakers can speak to the need of accessibility for court ordered classes

   such as for DUI classes or domestic violence trainings that individuals are

   ordered to undertake as part of their sentencing?

             >> WILLIAM:  Great question.  This tends to lead into that area

   of looking at the broader programs and services that a courthouse might

   actually provide.  If the court is requiring that individuals attend these

   types of programs and services that are provided specifically and perhaps

   only within the domains of the courthouse, I would lean in the direction of
                                            23

   saying they are going to be basic Title II accessibility requirements

   applying to these types of programs and services.  Great question.

             >> JACQUIE:  I guess it's possible that they would be -- that

   they would not be provided at the courthouse, but be provided elsewhere and

   maybe would fall under Title III.

             >> JACK:  Yes, if I could jump in.

             >> JACQUIE:  If they just had to take -- even like when the court

   says well you can take develops I have driving instead of paying a ticket,

   you know, that's not -- the court doesn't offer the defensive driving

   course.  You can go somewhere else and take that and that would probably be

   a Title III entity.  Either way, they would have to accommodate an

   individual with a disability of course.

             >> JACK:  I would agree and let me jump in and add that it's my

   opinion that in those situations the tight Title III entity, if that is the

   entity providing the program or service has the same obligation to provide

   effective communication as any Title III entity.  So you obviously can't

   pass on a surcharge to that individual even though they've been court

   ordered to attend that.  At least that is my opinion.  We have individuals

   court ordered into some of our programs here and if that individual happens

   to be an individual who is deaf and needs sign language in order -- a sign

   language interpreter in order to effectively participate in the program,

   that responsibility falls to us as the provider of the service and not to

   the individual to pay for.

             >> JACQUIE:  All right.  Okay, this is the last question that has

   been brought down to me so far, although this one is a little bit like one
                                            24

   we had earlier.

        If a court is dealing with a consumer involved in a proceeding and the

   consumer has an intellectual disability or short term memory deficit,

   traumatic brain injury, then what type of an accommodation would such a

   person be entitled to receive?  Would they now require the type of

   accommodation that would help facilitate understanding?  Hello, one of you.

             >> JACK:  Well, I think this goes to the questions that William

   raised earlier and I'm not sure that there is a clear answer in terms of

   how much interpretation on behalf of an individual with an intellectual

   disability is required under the law.  And even in a situation, for

   example, of an interpreter, you know that sign language interpreter -- if

   they are providing effective communication, they are interpreting the

   proceedings as opposed to a transliteration where they are simply signing

   word for word what is being said, which may not get across the meaning of

   the proceedings.  The example of a hearing versus a person being able to

   hear earlier is a good example.  When we're talking about a hearing, we're

   talking about a court proceeding as opposed to a person being able to hear

   sounds and I would think that a qualified interpreter who is effectively

   communicating in American sign language would interpret that appropriately

   as opposed to simply signing or spelling out hearing.  That's my opinion.

   Again, I don't represent the Department of Justice here.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  Well, I said that was the last question, but

   then we got two more just now.  Let me get to those.

             >> JACK:  William, would you agree with what I just said?

             >> WILLIAM:  Yes, I do.  I think you're quite right, Jack.  I'm
                                            25

   glad you pointed that out.  That indeed it is the job of a qualified sign

   language interpreter to convey meaning and not just word for word.  There

   is a boundary or a line you would cross that would then perhaps go into the

   realm of providing more subjective interpretation, but as a general rule I

   think keeping it objective, that would be a requirement of a sign language

   interpreter.

        With regards to the person with the intellectual impairment, I would

   suggest that the person bring with them some type of a personal assistant,

   a family member to help them to understand information that's being

   conveyed to them by perhaps officers of the court.  I would also suggest

   that when it comes to making accommodations for different disabilities,

   that the types of accommodations that work for a person with an

   intellectual impairment in an employment situation may very well be the

   same types of accommodations that can be effective for a person who

   interacting with a Title II entity.  So it might be useful to go to a

   source like the Job Accommodation Network and to look at the accommodations

   that they discuss in the context of persons with intellectual impairments.

             >> JACQUIE:  One of the pieces of paper that was just brought to

   me that I thought was a question, I was just reading it and it actually is

   a response to the last question that you all were just answering.

        This person says I formerly served as a senior trial attorney at the

   Department of Justice in the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights

   Division.  I wanted to try to respond to the question about communicating

   with someone with a cognitive or intellectual disability.

        In my opinion, the court is required to ensure effective communication
                                            26

   under Title II.  The court has to assess how the individual communicates

   most effectively and try to provide those services to accomplish the goal

   of providing effective communication.  This may include utilizing the

   services of a family member, social worker or other way to ensure effective

   communication, which is I think what Jack was just saying, too.

        Okay, next question.  As you stated earlier, accessing the courthouse

   can present tremendous barriers to individuals with intellectual

   disabilities.  Would you recommend that courts develop policies and

   procedures to assisting people in understanding and filing all of the

   appropriate paperwork?

             >> JACK:  Absolutely.  I'm proud to say Florida is undergoing

   that and has a pretty good record I think overall in establishing

   procedures and publicizing those procedures, but it is incumbent upon the

   court to publish and make known how a person can access the court system,

   including accommodations that might be necessary.  So it certainly is, I

   think, important for the courts to establish procedures, publish those

   procedures, put in place a grievance procedure if that individual is not

   pleased with the outcome of their request, and have a system in place ahead

   of time to ensure that if a person needs an accommodation they, A, know how

   to apply for it, and B, can appeal that decision if they don't like the

   decision that is initially made.

             >> WILLIAM:  These types of requirements often fall upon, as Jack

   indicated earlier, an ADA coordinator.  Jack, in your experience with the

   Florida courts, are you seeing that county courthouses as well as state

   courthouses are indeed appointing individuals to be ADA coordinators who
                                            27

   then might ensure these types of things are in place?

             >> JACK:  Yes.  A qualified question.  I would say that that's

   true today.  I'm not sure that as little as a year or two years ago that I

   could say that, but with the current chief justice at the state Supreme

   Court level having such an emphasis on ensuring access to all people here

   in Florida, that those ADA coordinators are now identified and that a

   greater emphasis has been put on ensuring that the public at large has

   access to those individuals and can make appropriate requests.

        Certainly as you go from a large jurisdiction to some of the smaller

   more rural areas, that person's probably wearing many hats, but at this

   point in time, there are ADA coordinators identified in all of the circuits

   throughout Florida.

             >> JACQUIE:  I guess, Jack, this is probably more for you.  In

   your survey, did you address the barriers or modifications that people with

   multiple chemical sensitivities might face in accessing the courthouse?

   And if so, what with were the recommendations?

             >> JACK:  I would say that during the development of the survey

   tool this question did come up.  Frankly, the team was unable to really

   identify the best method or a simple method for identifying those types of

   barriers.  It was a consideration as we looked at some of the various

   public areas, but quite frankly, I don't think that we did a great job in

   identifying ways to identify the barriers for individuals with multiple

   chemical sensitivities and really addressed this issue in a comprehensive

   manner.  So I'd like to tell you that we did, but unfortunately the answer

   is that I think we probably fell short on that particular issue.
                                            28

             >> JACQUIE:  Let's see, with all of the great new technologies

   available, could a person, a party or an attorney make an appearance in a

   courtroom using video relay or similar technology if they can't access the

   court because of their disability?

             >> WILLIAM:  Well, technologically of course that is quite

   feasible.  It would be up to generally I would think the willingness of the

   court to use that, but some courts already are moving in the direction of

   getting testimony perhaps via remote video.  There are these types of

   technological developments occurring.  I don't know that we're in a place

   though where this type of technology or these alternatives could be

   required of a court.

             >> JACK:  If I can jump in, I think this kind of goes right back

   to the last question and the type of accommodation that might be necessary

   for someone with multiple chemical sensitivities would quite likely be the

   use of some type of technology that allowed them to testify or appear

   remotely.  As William has indicated that certainly is becoming more and

   more achievable and, in fact, is used for a lot of hearings where for exam

   in Tampa the jail is several miles from the courthouse and initial hearings

   are done by video link.  That's a different scenario than perhaps an

   attorney appearing by video or another type of proceeding.  But I think

   we're getting closer to the day where those are going to occur more and

   more often.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay, I've got now a big stack more of questions.

   We're just going to have to go through these questions.  Probably that's

   all we'll be able to do is hit the rest of the questions.
                                            29

        So if there is something else you really want to say, just in the

   middle of your answer go ahead and say that, too.

        This question says I'm finding that courts are unaware and/or

   unwilling to require that pleadings or print evidence, evidence that's

   presented to the court in print, utilized in court or filed with the court

   by opposing counsel be provided in accessible computer formats to persons

   who are blind, even though opposing counsel readily has access to the files

   on computer.  Any suggestions as to, one, educating the courts as to what

   constitutes accessible electronic documents?  And, two, requiring that

   print documents presented to courts be provided by opposing counsel in an

   accessible format?  And the question goes on, similarly, the courts are now

   making pleadings available to the general public online or on the web which

   are accessible to the general public.  However, the documents on the court

   websites are inaccessible because there are inaccessible graphics or

   essentially electronic pictures of pleadings, evidence, et cetera, or full

   of added computer codes which render even otherwise accessible computer

   word processing documents inaccessible.  Are there any resources available

   to which we could refer the courts to learn how to make their documents

   accessible to persons using screen readers?

             >> WILLIAM:  This is William.  One thing I would suggest is using

   the resource provided by cast, funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

   They have developed the National Instructional Materials Accessibility

   Standards guidelines.  What they are doing is providing standards for how

   information is electronically stored so that it is available to the widest

   variety of individuals and can easily be converted into all kinds of texts,
                                            30

   large print, Braille, and text to speech and other accessible formats.  So

   these are existing national standards.  As for whether we could -- well, I

   think that's an existing resource I would suggest that we consider here.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  This one is the same attorney that used to be

   with the DOJ that just wrote in about the laptop security issue.  Saying

   that the ADA test is whether the security modifications that the person is

   seeking, such as bringing in a laptop are reasonable modifications of the

   policy, so the more information you provide and the sooner you provide it,

   the more reasonable it is.

        And then back to the question about the historic courthouse, what is

   the court obligated to do for the person who wants to attend a proceeding?

   And this question doesn't say, so I'm not sure what the disability is, but

   let's say -- seems like we're talking about accessibility, so let's say the

   person has a mobility impairment.  What's the court obligated to do for the

   person in order for them to be able -- well, if they want to attend a

   proceeding but can't because of the historic nature of the building?

        >>This goes back to what we have discussed to some extent already.  If

   the building does fall on the national historic building list, then if it's

   one of those types of buildings, then, again, when it comes to the ABA, the

   Architectural Barriers Act and the ADA guidelines which now are

   incidentally really merging in terms of being much more in line with one

   another, it's really just a very, very basic requirement that people who

   need physical access can literally get into the building and get into the

   place where the proceeding is occurring.  It may simply be just a direct

   route in.  There may not even be particularly seating provided.  It's a
                                            31

   fairly minimal standard.  That's just the way the standard is right now,

   and I would tend to think that a lot of historic buildings, the operators

   of historic buildings are inclined to stick to the very basic standards.

   Jack, who has done a lot of work specifically with individual courthouses

   may have seen something different.  I'd be curious to know what he thinks.

             >> JACK:  Well, I would just add that the standard is program

   access, meaning that there should be some method for this person to request

   access to the proceeding, and that may mean moving the proceeding to an

   accessible location across the street and in a building that's not historic

   or providing a video link so that the person can see the proceedings from

   another location that's accessible.  There certainly are some situations

   particularly in historic structures that are going to be almost impossible

   to get access to some of these areas.  So the standard, as I understand it,

   is that the program being provided there is accessible to the person with

   the disability.  That may mean alternatives to an accessible route into

   that courtroom.  It may mean moving that proceeding or providing access in

   some other technological manner so that the person can participate in the

   program.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay, this is from a court administrator.  What

   suggestions do you have about educating judges about blind people sitting

   as jurors?

             >> WILLIAM:  Do you think there might be some clarification --

   educating in terms of whether or not they are eligible as jurors?

             >> JACQUIE:  I know that I've seen this where a lot of times

   judges will just simply dismiss jurors who have disabilities, not really
                                            32

   even just blind, but other -- all kinds of disabilities if they are

   apparent disabilities.  They'll just dismiss them sort of as, oh, let me do

   this for you sort of thing.  I won't make you serve because you have a

   disability.  So I guess it's really -- I mean I read the entire question,

   but I'm guessing that's where they are coming from is just sort of that

   they are not letting blind people or it could be that for individuals who

   are blind they need accommodations as jurors obviously, you know, pass

   around this and look at it sort of thing when you publish evidence to a

   jury and things like that.  So I guess it would just be any suggestions you

   have about educating judges about these issues.

             >> WILLIAM:  I think what we should just consider is that the

   court's obligation here really is to assess an individual juror's abilities

   on an individual basis without regard to any impairments.  And then provide

   accommodations to meet their individual needs.  There was a time in state

   law across country where a person with a visual or hearing impairment would

   be just simply excused from the jury, that is denied the ability to serve

   as a juror based on their disability, and that's no longer permissible, but

   I think as you indicated, Jacquie, it can still occur in less overt ways.

   So the typical standard that we see here is that the court really does have

   to make an individual determination of one's ability and then look at what

   kind of accommodations are available.

             >> JACQUIE:  Yeah.

             >> JACK:  This is Jack.  I would certainly agree with that answer

   and just anecdotally through this process we've undergone here in Florida

   of training the various circuits and working with various court personnel,
                                            33

   including some judges who have attended the training, it's apparent -- and

   I'll be politically incorrect -- the judges sometimes are the biggest

   barriers and they have treated some individuals with disabilities in

   horrendous manners and so I think there is an educational need oh the part

   of our court administration, on the part of the disability community at

   large, and those of us in this field to continue to work with the courts

   and encourage judges to participate in training that includes ADA, 504, et

   cetera, and sensitivity because some of the stories I've heard a cross the

   state have been quite horrendous to how judges have treated individuals

   with disabilities in their courtrooms.  I think we do have an educational

   job to do, all of us, and it's an excellent question.  Unfortunately there

   is no easy answer to it.

             >> JACQUIE:  Now, this looks like it might be the last question

   that I have right now at least.  Do you have any examples of innovative

   ways that courts are using any of the relay technology you mentioned in

   your PowerPoint to accommodate persons who are deaf or hearing impaired?

             >> WILLIAM:  Good question.  I don't have any specific cases I

   could suggest.  I think it's up to our imagination here.  We know how these

   technologies are working for us as alternative means for persons to

   communicate via video, via text, via telephone and I think it's really just

   up to our own imagination for how we can best use these technologies.  Jack

   may have some very specific examples.  I hope he does he has seen in the

   Florida courts.

             >> JACK:  I'd like to say I do have some great examples, but

   unfortunately I don't.  I do know that there are -- in some traffic
                                            34

   situations and some of the, if you will, misdemeanor courts where video

   relay is being used and those cases that don't require the person to be

   physically in the courtroom, that that is being used in some courts in

   Florida.

        But I think there is -- and I'm going back to what I just said.  I

   think there is some reluctance, particularly on the part of judges, to

   relinquish control and they see that as lessening their ability to control

   the courtroom and control the proceedings in front of them sometimes when

   we talk about this technology so I would -- it kind of stresses the answer

   to the last question that more education needs to occur and more creativity

   across the judiciary.

             >> JACQUIE:  Okay.  That's all the questions that I have in front

   of me right now.  So what else would you guys like to talk about?  I feel

   like we've covered a lot of ground on the questions I know.

             >> JACK:  Well, I would like to thank you for hosting this event

   and I think it's important that the interests across the country

   understand -- certainly the courts in Florida and I think the courts across

   the country are getting better in terms of access and that these questions

   are continuing to come up and I'm optimistic about the future and about

   access for people serving as jurors, participating in court proceedings,

   those individuals with disabilities and I want to thank you and all of the

   participants for their interest in this topic.

             >> JACQUIE:  I appreciate both of you as well as Peter Blanck for

   doing this webcast today.  You know, people access a courthouse very often

   at stressful points in their life and it helps to know that something is
                                            35

   being done and that there are some resources out there that people can turn

   to to help out when trying to make some improvements there.

        Please feel free, everyone that's listening in, to share the archives

   of today's presentation with your colleagues.  They will be available

   tomorrow at ilru.org and please don't forget to complete the evaluation on

   the webcast page as we are very interested in receiving your feedback.

        Thanks to the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation

   Research, NIDRR, our sponsor today, and thanks to Jack Humburg, William

   Myhill, Peter Blanck and to Pamela Williamson who helped pull these people

   together for this great presentation today.

        The opinions and views expressed today are those of the presenters and

   no endorsement of any sponsoring agency should be inferred.  And finally,

   this webcast would not be possible without the efforts of our webcast team:

   Rob Dickehuth for his technical expertise and our great captioner today

   Marie Bryant.  Thanks again for joining us.  Have a dazzling day.