In the face of growing concerns about the expansion of government bureaucracies, the Office of Accessibility (OA) in Colorado Springs may stand as a prime example. The office is tasked with ensuring the city government’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities.
Yet there are questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the OA in terms of how it approaches compliance issues. The OA may also be an example of unnecessary bureaucracy, illustrating the second informal principle of Parkinson’s Law in full, blatant display.
Conflicting statements made by OA staff in email correspondence to the article’s writer, suggest the office is not interested in providing accommodation for all but only for some people. Additionally, the OA’s reasons for not providing adequate public accommodations are troubling given the purpose of that office in ensuring accommodations are available to people with disabilities.
Office of Accessibility is Launched
In 2018, Colorado Springs launched the OA and charged it with helping residents file grievances against city departments for non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities. The OA is also tasked with “promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities” said Jason Crowe, an OA manager.
Crowe said the OA consists of “a Title II ADA Manager, two Title II ADA Coordinators, a Web Accessibility Coordinator, a Project Manager and a Title VI Limited English Proficiency and Language Access Plan Coordinator.” The City of Colorado Springs has budgeted more than $1.57 million for “the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act operating and capital programs, including a new Language Access Coordinator, which will receive an annual salary of $88,000.”
If you watch City Council meetings live-streamed on the city’s website and are unable to read the captioning, or if a certain city department doesn’t have a wheelchair ramp to its office, the OA is the place to call or email and complain.
Say What?
In a report published in 2021, captioning difficulties for live-streamed City Council meetings and their video archives were documented. The OA responded by blaming the software and renovation of a City Council meeting room for difficulties with captioning.
The OA also hosts an ADA Forum every quarter. These forums discuss issues related to disabilities, accessibility, and networking among various stakeholders and advocacy groups. Most of the ADA Forum meeting minutes are published with English text transcripts offered on the OA website.
The March ADA Forum English transcripts were a mess and difficult to decipher. “It was difficult to read and not very user-friendly,” admitted Crowe. “It was an experiment we will not repeat.”
Since the difficult-to-read transcripts were offered in English, what about people who are not fluent in English? Does this exclude them in the context of public accommodations?
The use of sign language interpreters to provide a form of tactile transcriptions during the forum’s meetings was offered to Crowe in the context of providing video archives for those with limited English proficiency.
In addition to English transcripts, the archived videos with an ASL interpreter would solve two issues at once: it would provide an alternative form of transcripts for those unable to rely on English transcripts and a video for later viewing.
Crowe dismissed that idea, saying “City policies prevent us from” making video archives of the meetings, and added, “We only provide an ASL interpreter when requested by someone in attendance.” When asked to provide the specific ordinance or city regulations prohibiting video archives of ADA Forums, Crowe sent a broken link to request accommodations.
In a later email, Crowe further explained the city “does not have the resources to hire” interpreters to attend meetings when no interpreters were requested. But in an ADA Forum in March 2019, the meeting transcripts state, “Accommodations provided: snacks, loop system, speaker, sign language interpreter (left b/c not needed).”
Conflicting statements by the OA regarding archived videos and transcripts is an irony considering the OA has a Limited English Proficiency and Language Access Plan Coordinator. Additionally, the OA’s website may be difficult for people who lack English and are in search of information and public accommodations.
Parkinson’s Law
In 1955, Cyril Northcote Parkinson wrote a satirical essay to humorously explain the expansion of a bureaucratic system regardless of its workload. He wrote that bureaucracy officials want to multiply subordinates, not rivals and that they make work for each other.
It’s hard to not wonder if the Office of Accessibility is perpetuating Parkinson’s Law.
This is troubling news for the disability community. Since the ADA was enacted more than 30 years ago, a common refrain from disability advocates towards businesses who fail to provide accommodations has long been, “You’ve had enough time” to find resources and comply with the ADA and other federal laws.
The OA has far more resources than most small businesses to accommodate people with disabilities. The OA staff are supposed experts in public disability accommodations and ain’t doing a very good job of it themselves.
So, what’s the Office of Accessibility’s excuse?
