PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
ON DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING
Meeting MinutesJune 3, 2011
Opening:
The fourth meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on Disability and Accessibility Planning was called to order at 3:30 p.m. on June 3, 2011, in Baker University Center 356 by Laura Myers, Co-chairperson and Harry Wyatt, Co-chairperson.
Present:
Carolyn Bailey Lewis, Carey Busch, Jenny Hall-Jones, Leisha Lininger, John McCarthy, Laura Myers, Dick Planisek, and Harry Wyatt
Absent:
Dan Evans, Sebastian Hurtado Torres, Linda Lonsinger, and J.W. Smith
Minutes:
Copies of the agenda, the Aprilmeeting minutes, and the draft of theOhio University Sustainability Planwere distributed to the Council members.
1.Review of Minutes
The minutes from the April 29, 2011, meeting were approved following a motion byCarolyn Bailey Lewis, seconded by Dick Planisek.
II.Review of Ohio University’s Experience with the Sustainability Plan
A.There are big differences between the proposedDisability Plan (as informed by federal regulations) and the Sustainability Plan but there are enough similarities to learn from the process.
B.The common themes are:
1.Public input – very important.
a.invited community to a public forum – surpassed expectations
1. Those in attendance given the opportunity to sign up for a sub group but not everyone accepted
b.advertised meeting through Compass and The Post
c.committee members personally invited people to the forum – very successful
2.Need for effective sub-grouping
a.each group was given the three goals: citizenship, stewardship, and justice; asked to provide objectives
3.Setting a timeline – two year timeline was set by the planning committee
a.goal setting
b.establish work groups
c.do the work
d.synthesize the work
e.turn work into a plan
f.presentations and vetting
4.Vetting process
a.Presented to the Board of Trustees for input
b.President will adopt the plan which will give flexibility to modify the plan over time without going to the Board of Trustees.
c.President asked for group to prioritize and cost the Plan.
5.Learning to speak with a common vocabulary that is understood by everyone no matter their backgrounds
a.Most important definition for the Plan was the difference between a goal and an objective
b. Some areas may be more visionary (not confined by current technology) and others may be currently achievable.
6.Cost estimation
a.Prioritize elements.
b.Decide what the university costs with and without the Plan will be
c. 5 year costs
7.Deliverable – Final report
a.Divided into three parts:
1. Narrative
2.Supplemental documentation
3.Documentation of written feedback received from the website, advertising through presentations at other meetings and Outlook, other venues.
b.Information shared with committee on Blackboard and via email
IV.Questions from council members
Q.Was this plan-focused or were pilot projects done?
A.Plan-focused but there were people on groups involved in heading up projects that would be incorporated into the Plan.
Q.How did you create the “Statements”?
A.The “Statements” came out of the public forum which produced 400+ statements. These statements were grouped by the committee and three goals were created which lead to the objectives.
Q.To what extent did you use information from another university’s sustainability plan?
A.Looked at several plans that were varied. The level of detail was quite different as universities approach this in different ways.
VISub Council Reports
Academic Access – Carey Busch, Jenny Hall-Jones, co-Chairs
Have met with subcouncil:
1. Set up a framework about how to define academic access
2.Discussed benchmarking and gathering information
3.Identified good things that are happening: professors and students; institutions that do things well; standards and expectations
4.Considering what information and support is needed to assist with academic access
Architectural Access, Carolyn Bailey Lewis and Dick Planisek, Co-chairs
No Report
Campus Climate – Linda Lonsinger and J.W. Smith, Co-chairs
No Report
Emergency Preparedness – Harry Wyatt, Chair
No Report
Program and Web Access – John McCarthy, Chair
Has met with subcouncil. Discussion included need to consider students, faculty, staff, as well as Athens and all regional campuses for differences. Plan to try to address goals from student perspective (services/access experienced) and faculty/staff (providing services/access)
VII.Bring Ideas to Next Meeting – Fall Quarter
A.What is important to the council members?
B.What are the concerns of the council members?
C.What are the best ways to collect and define goals?
1.Each sub council chair meets with group by email to develop goals
a.Draft your goal statements
b.The framework of goals is the visionary thing you want to achieve
2.Send them to Laura and Harry so they can synthesize into two or three ideas and send them out to the Council members before the end of summer
D.Benchmarking – each group to look at planning documents, instruments where other programs were evaluated (regardless of topic), federal government, web portals, visit other institutions, etc.
Please Note: If you have handouts for a Council meeting, please format it as a Word document without charts and tables. Please email it to Ruth (b) for formatting if you’re unable to format the document.
The next meeting will be scheduled for early September 2011.
Minutes submitted by:Ruth Blickle
Approved by:Laura Myers and Harry Wyatt
Page 1 of 4