CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ACCESS
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 22, 2017 MEETING MINUTES
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ACCESS
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
February 22, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Paravagna welcomed everyone and called the meeting of the Legislative Committee of the California Commission on Disability Access (CCDA or Commission) to order at approximately 10:00 a.m. at the Department of Rehabilitation, 721 Capitol Mall, Room 244, 2nd Floor, Sacramento, 95814.
The off-site meeting locations for teleconference were The Law Offices of Paul L. Rein, 200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A, Oakland, 94612; and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, 634 South Spring Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California, 90014.
Chair Paravagna announced that a quorum was not present. He welcomed the members of the Department of General Services (DGS).
ROLL CALL
Staff Member Jackson called the roll and announced a quorum was not present.
Commissioners Present: / Staff Present:Michael Paravagna, Chair / Angela Jemmott, Executive Director
Tom Lackey / Fajola Jackson, Office Administrator
Celia McGuinness (Teleconference)
Commissioners Absent:
Lillibeth Navarro
Walter Hughes
Also Present:
Cody Storm, Assistant to Assemblyman Tom Lackey
Andrew Sturmfels, DGS Chief of Legislative Affairs
Matt Bender, DGS Manager of Legislative Affairs
Corrina Roy, DGS Legislative Affairs
2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (AUGUST 25, 2016 & NOVEMBER 16, 2016) – ACTION
Chair Paravagna tabled this agenda item due to the lack of a quorum.
3. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ISSUES NOT ON THIS AGENDA
There were no questions or comments from the public.
4. REVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER TOM LACKEY LEGISLATIVE OUTREACH EVENT – DISCUSSION
Executive Director Jemmott stated that CCDA staff had received a briefing on January 22 sponsored by Commissioner Assembly Member Tom Lackey’s office. It was co-commissioned by Commissioner Thurman and Commissioner Senator Ross. There was a tremendous showing of Assembly members and Senators from both sides of the aisle. Executive Director Jemmott felt that meetings like this could be very powerful in building bridges for getting the CCDA mission accomplished; the face-to-face element is crucial.
Chair Paravagna added that we started a dialogue with aides from a number of different offices, sharing issues and concepts that are important. Sometimes we don’t understand the impact of issues; an example is residential construction in our state in which access is not considered. For the policies that we are looking at changing, the education that comes out of these exchanges really can make a difference.
Executive Director Jemmott stated that the CCDA had presented the Checklist Committee’s document regarding myths and misconceptions currently held in the business community. We gave the legislators the opportunity to post the document on their websites to be used as a tool in their meetings and town hall sessions. The document covers subjects of grandfathering and service animals, as well as 14 other myths and misconceptions.
Commissioner McGuiness commented that what impressed her the most was how little people know about what we do, and how thrilled they were to find out that we are here with resources for their constituents.
Chair Paravagna asked Executive Director Jemmott if it would be worthwhile scheduling another event like this one. She agreed, and stated that she hoped to continue the development of this relationship – it has been new for CCDA to have strong support by an actual legislator on the Commission who can push our issues forward.
Chair Paravagna noted the benefit of town hall meeting formats. Often we have the disability community and business community talking over each other, with no room for constructive solutions. He suggested a town hall meeting with a topic such as parking placards, with members present from both groups. It would be facilitated so that it could stay focused and constructive, identifying the problems we’re seeing in the community regarding the parking placards.
Action Items:
· No action items.
(2.) APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (AUGUST 25, 2016 & NOVEMBER 16, 2016) – ACTION
Commissioner McGuiness moved to approve the August 25 and November 16 meeting minutes. Chair Paravagna declared them approved.
5. DEVELOPING RELATIONS WITH DGS LEGISLATIVE OFFICE – UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
Andrew Sturmfels from DGS introduced himself and his team from the Office of Legislative Affairs, DGS. They view their role as helping the Department navigate the legislative process to track and identify bills on issues that affect their organization.
For CCDA they are a service provider – they are not interested in mandating certain activities. They are here to help the CCDA be successful in its endeavors as a commission and as an organization:
1. The team can assist in the bill-tracking side: not just policy bills, but also budget bills that impact the CCDA. They have resources for analyzing and engaging on those bills; the administration has processes they would like to have followed.
2. The team can work with the CCDA on the communications pool.
3. The team can help with outreach of the Legislature outside the immediate members of the CCDA.
Chair Paravagna?? noted that CCDA is seriously understaffed and underfunded, and needs help with something as fluid as bill movement through the Legislature. We would also appreciate any assistance in building relationships to bring a better foundation for effectiveness. Philosophically the CCDA Legislative Committee seeks to put itself forward as a resource to the Legislature in looking at the impact that various proposals may have on the disability or business communities. In trying to create a necessary bridge between the two communities, we do not get in the business of trying to support or oppose bills.
Mr. Sturmfels?? stressed the importance of recognizing two kinds of roles within CCDA: the organization in toto, and the individual commissioners, who are appointed by various entities and may have their own thoughts and opinions on bills.
He continued that Legislative Affairs can do the work of attending hearings, reading news articles daily on bills, and meeting with staff – paying attention to what is happening in the Legislature.
Commissioner McGuiness was pleased to hear about this assistance in the important task of working with the Legislature. She would be even more pleased if we could reach a point where the Legislature came to the CCDA before bills were introduced.
Mr. Sturmfels?? explained the effect of term limits. Committee members will be staying on their committees for a longer period of time, which is great as long as we can educate them.
He introduced Corinna Roy, a DGS legislative consultant who will be responsible for the CCDA portfolio; and Matt Fender, who has been with DGS for a long time and has great historical knowledge.
Mr. Sturmfels?? said that they had seen the CCDA Strategic Plan online as well as last year’s annual report.
Ms. Roy stated that they are monitoring two relatively nonsubstantial bills that may be spot bills. She described a bill that goes to CCDA’s mandate to collect and categorize terms of complaints and letters.
Executive Director Jemmott noted that in terms of tracking, the hardest part is when amendments catch us off guard. She also pointed out that the CCDA has been mandated to look at federal and local laws, and that has been totally off our radar to a certain degree. We need to be analyzing how federal and state laws impact each other.
Action items:
· Between now and July 1, DGS and CCDA will begin a conversation about their collaboration.
· DGS will return to the next Legislative Committee meeting to provide an update on what they have been doing.
6. CCDA BILL TRACKING REPORT – UPDATES
Executive Director Jemmott presented her report:
AB 150 (Mathis R). Would establish notice requirements for a plaintiff to follow before bringing an action against a small business as defined for an alleged violation of the ADA. Introduced January 19. Current status: referred to the Judicial Committee.
Ms. Roy?? stated that they will be reaching out to members, pushing them through their fact sheet on the bill. The bill may change quite a bit; they will continue tracking it and analyzing its iterations.
Mr. Sturmfels?? Stated that the DGS staff will be working directly with Executive Director Jemmott. Their bill analyses are confidential documents; the Governor’s Office approves their position. They have proposed amendments that the Administration approves, and will let CCDA know about them when they happen and before they engage the authors on them.
Commissioner McGuiness asked when it is appropriate for CCDA to weigh in with DGS about their legislative analysis. For instance, she considered AB 150 a very dangerous bill. She would like the opportunity to weigh in with DGS when they are preparing their analysis.
Mr. Sturmfels?? responded that DGS is required to work directly with Executive Director Jemmott in getting feedback on bills. The most effective way for CCDA members to engage is to provide direct feedback to Executive Director Jemmott regarding specific bills so she can include them in her analysis when DGS works with her.
Chair Paravagna?? felt that it would be useful for Commission members to sit down with DGS directly so that Executive Director Jemmott would not have to take on that responsibility.
Mr. Sturmfels?? said that right now everything is input for DGS to consider – we will be committed to continuous improvement in how we grow together. Now that the bill introduction has passed, DGS will be doing two things:
§ Prioritizing all the bills that have been introduced and have impacted our organizations. Any bill that has a direct impact on the mission, mandate or functions of any of our program line is going to be one of our first top priorities.
§ Watching for a committee hearing date; we will keep a flag on the bills. Many bills that are introduced never make it to their first hearing.
Mr. Sturmfels?? continued that Governor Brown appreciates the separate branches of government and has a lot of respect for the legislative branch. When DGS engages, they let the Legislature do their job. In letting them run their process, we pay close attention because it’s often an indicator on how they feel about the bill.
AB 1148 (Gaines R). Helps to define commercial property for the purposes of provision as property that is ordered for sale or lease to persons operating or intending to operate a place of public accommodations or facilities to which the general public is invited. The bill clarifies the commercial property definition. Introduced February 17.
Commissioner McGuiness commented that it would be worth looking at to see whether this bill is actually limiting the notice requirement or just clarifying.
AB 1379 (Thurmond D). Current law requires a volunteer certification of the state of any person who meets specific criteria as a Certified Access Specialist Professional; this bill would make non-substantial changes to the provision. Introduced February 17.
Executive Director Jemmott noted that what is interesting is that the funding source seems to be changed. It is a spot bill – the language will not remain the same. There will be a measure on the top.
AB 1516 (Cunningham R). Maintenance of the code. Minor word changes.
Commissioner Questions and Discussion
Commissioner McGuiness raised the topic of AB 913 by Gray. Mr. Bender summarized the bill: AB 913 Construction-Related Accessibility creates a new category called extremely high-frequency litigants, defined as plaintiffs who have filed 15 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility. It authorizes a court on its own motion, or on the motion of any party, to issue a pre-filing order directed towards an extremely high-frequency litigant; and it creates other procedural requirements and prerequisites to the filing of such claims, including the possibility of the court requiring the litigant to provide security toward the litigation proceeding.
Chair Paravagna?? expressed his concern as an attorney: denying the right of access to the courts is unconstitutional.
Action Items:
· No action items.
7. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TAKING THE LEAD ON STRATEGIC GOAL #6 – DISCUSSION
Chair Paravagna?? provided some context. As a result of the meeting with Assembly Member Lackey and others, follow-up meetings included the topic of Goal 6: the concept of having an office in California state government to deal with ADA issues. We also have an issue that the State of California is held to comply with Title II of ADA, as well as to look at California state law – where California state law is more stringent, apply it in place of ADA. Title II includes a transition plan designed to bring those sites that were online in 1992 into a place where they are accessible, the theory being that everything else would be accessible – however, that assumption has a major flaw. There is also supposed to be a grievance procedure, a Notice of ADA Compliance, and appointment of an ADA Coordinator for entities that have more than 50 staff.
What we are seeing is that California state government is all over the map. There is no continuity and there are compliance problems. In the discussions with the aides, the first step seems to be asking for some sort of audit of state government, then to design solutions based upon the results of the audit.
In addition, the members of the Commission feel that we should have a statewide office where the state would be providing information to local governments regarding Title II.
Commissioner McGuiness agreed with the Chair: some state government entities are proactive and have transition plans in place with knowledgeable ADA Coordinators assigned; other entities have done almost nothing and have no transition plan.
Chair Paravagna?? further explained the audit idea. The scope needs to be California state government entities having 50 or more employees. There are five questions that should center around Title II compliance:
§ Do they have a transition plan?
§ Do they have a self-evaluation?
§ Do they have a grievance procedure?
§ Do they have notice?
§ Do they have an ADA Coordinator?
§ Can they produce evidence of all five of those steps that are foundational to Title II compliance?
There should be a tracking system in place to deal with where grievances are coming from and their subject matter.