Alternative Forms of Communication
and the Minneapolis Government
by Kenneth Brown
People with the disability of blindness/poor
sight and those that may be deaf/hard of hearing use alternative
forms of communication. Some of the alternative forms of communication
include: Large print, American Sign Language, closed-captioning,
audio-description, and technology based voice adaptive and/or print
adaptive machines, etc. As technology advances, we are able to offer
more and more alternative forms of communicating for those who may
need it. Being able to communicate effectively with others is a vital
part of our human experience and learning.
With the passage of
the Civil Rights Act and the American with Disabilities Act, one
would hope that people with disabilities would not continue to
be treated as an afterthought. Yet, this seems to be the case from
Minneapolis City Government/leadership and elected officials. As
a volunteer representative on the Advisory Council for Persons
with Disabilities and the Civil Rights Commission for the City
of Minneapolis, I am troubled by the city’s actions towards
persons with disabilities.
The city had an ethics video produced for all city employees and
volunteer representatives of the city to view. The video was not
originally produced with closed-captioning or audio-description.
The video was presented to the disability committee in its inappropriate
format with the expectation we view it. We refused to view the video
because we have people on our committee that use alternative forms
of communicating. The city claimed it did not have any employees
that used alternative forms of communication so they did not have
to produce the video with these alternatives as it would have been
cost prohibitive and there was not a request for the alternative
format.
The city’s position
is that people with disabilities that require alternative forms
of communication have to notify the City in advance so proper arrangements
can be made. There are two basic problems with this position: (1)
The city constantly communicates with us daily on hundreds of issues.
How are we to know in advance what they want to tell us and when?;
and, (2) Any communication that needs to be re-done to accommodate
people with disabilities is going to be more expensive. If City
Government/leadership and elected officials were more diverse,
aware of, and accepting of persons with disabilities, the cost
issue would not be an issue.
I personally met with
almost every City Council member, a representative from the Mayor’s
office, and officials in CPED (Community Planning and Economic
Development) and had to basically threaten them with a lawsuit
based on the ADA and the Civil Rights Act before someone, such
as the Communications Director at CPED, would take responsibility
for the error and correct it
We live in a capitalist
society where “Supply and Demand” reigns
supreme. If city government, companies, organizations, and others
used and requested alternative forms of communication as a normal
part of everyday communication, instead of as an afterthought that’s
too late, believe me, the paradigm shift in supply and demand would
happen. With the increased demand for alternative forms of communication,
the number of companies offering the service would increase, causing
more competition, resulting in reduced cost and improved service
to persons with disabilities and the community. If the City has no
employees that are deaf/hard of hearing or blind/limited in vision,
I beg the question as to why not? Could it be that City Government
is not a welcoming or inclusive environment for persons with disabilities
to work? What do you think?
Please contact Access Press
regarding your comments on this article. Our phone number is 651-644-2133;
e-mail is access@accesspress.org.
