HomeMy WebLinkAboutAccessibility Adv - 2003-01-23ONTARTO DISABILITIES ACT
COMMUNITY FORUM MEETTNG
Thursday .lanuary 23, 9:30-12:00 noon
Waterloo Recreation Complex
1. Welcome and Introductions
The ODA Community Forum meeting took place this day, to discuss the next steps
in exploring a co-ordinated approach by the community to the legislation. Paula
Saunders, member of interim K-W AAC welcomed everyone and thanked him or her
for attending the meeting.
2. Purpose of the Meeting/Outline of the Agenda
The purpose of the meeting was to:
· focus on the benefits and challenges of a joint accessibility advisory
committee/plan
· identify partners and resources
· discuss expectations
· development of working group to move ahead
3..loint Accessibility Advisory Committee - Plan/Discussion (AAC)
IVlargaret circulated and reviewed a summary of information taken from "A Guide to
IVlunicipal Accessibility Planning" outlining the individual requirements for each
stakeholder in joint planning, advantages, various models and the expectations of
the joint planning process.
Advantaqes:
Tn addition to the advantages noted in the summary, another advantage of joint
co-operation would be a broader understanding of persons with various
disabilities and an increased sensitivity to persons with invisible disabilities (i.e.
learning disabilities, mental health).
Kitchener-Waterloo has the advantage of having the experience and knowledge
of members of the K-W Barrier Free Advisory Committee, which has been in
existence for over ten years.
IVlembers of the interim K-W AAC have been appointed by K-W IVlunicipal
Councils as an interim executive committee (term expires Nov 30,2003). Councils
have requested the group explore a coordinated approach to the legislation and
assist staff with the drafting of a mandate, Terms of Reference and a structure
for the AAC and report to Council for approval.
\ODA\ODA January 2003 Meeting 1
Models - 3oint Planninq Process:
Ministry documents illustrate joint planning model templates that could be
undertaken. Examples presented to the group that could be undertaken include:
· A joint plan including many stakeholder organizations (hospitals, school boards,
college, universities, etc).
Develop mandate and terms of reference, etc for a "Joint Public Sector AAC" that
could also include representation from other public sector organizations that
have obligations under the ODA, and participate in a "Joint Public Sector Annual
Accessibility Plan" arrangement in conjunction with the municipalities, hospitals,
universities, community colleges, district school boards and public transportation
providers.
A joint plan that creates partnerships with like sectors coming together i.e. all
hospitals, all post-secondary education institutions, all municipalities, etc. (using
municipality example) Adapt to hospitals, schoolboards,etc
Develop mandate and terms of reference, etc for a "Joint Municipal AAC" that
could also include representation from other local municipalities that have
obligations under the ODA and participate in a "Joint Municipal Annual
Accessibility Plan" arrangement in conjunction with the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and the municipalities of Wellesley, Woolwich, North Dumfries.
· Either of the above with a networking arrangement that provided support to the
planning process.
Roger asked about the requirement for representation of persons with disabilities
on a joint committee. The representation of persons with disabilities is to be a
minimum of 50% of committee makeup - joint or otherwise.
· More information can be found on the web site www'g°v'°n'ca/citizenship/accessibili-ty
Additional discussion was held debating joint committee and plans structures -
the requirement for a joint accessibility plan to meet the "sector specific" needs
of the broader public sector organizations with ODA obligations- e.g. Hospitals,
universities, colleges, school boards and public transit organizations and the
municipal requirements. Attendees present agreed that these details would need
to be developed prior to presenting to councils, boards of governors, etc.
Expectations:
Where joint plans are established by two or more organizations/partners:
· The committees should include representation (reflect the issues identified by each
organization) from those areas and partners.
\ODA\ODA January 2003 Meeting 2
· Each partner must approve (through board or council) the joint plan every year.
· Each partner must implement its components of the plan.
· Each partner must make the joint plan public.
· All participating organizations pay their fair share portion of the costs of maintaining
the committee (municipalities), development of plan/forum for consultation
(scheduled organizations).
· Any partner in a joint committee/plan can opt out of joint plan, provided they carry
out individual plan (or have individual AAC if municipality) that meets ODA
requirements.
Discussion and identification of costs of maintaining a Joint AAC occurred. Costs
identified include, but may not be limited to, can include the following:
· Accommodations such as provision of ASL interpreters, Braille transcription, etc
· Tn-kind costs/financial costs - administrative support, meeting space, costs for
public consultation, staffing, etc.
· Currently Kitchener and Waterloo have provided first year start up costs for the
maintenance of a Joint K-W AAC Committee.
4. Affirming 3oint Accessibility Advisory Committee - Planning Partnership
Tn order to move ahead in the process of joint planning, the IVlinistry ODA material
recommends gathering partners together to (1) discuss and plan parameters for the
development of a joint AAC prior (2) to the development of a joint plan. Parameters
and expectations (such as mandate and terms of reference) need to be agreed upon,
drafted and approved (by Boards and Councils) before joint planning can proceed.
Tssues raised about this next step by those in attendance included:
Tf groups participated in a joint plan could implementation timeframes differ slightly
for each organization? E.g. could municipalities have a different timeframe than
hospitals, school boards, etc? Laura Lee advised that organizations don't have to do
the same thing at the same time, but each organization is responsible to implement
its components of the plan. Plans can unfold at a pace comfortable for all partners.
All groups present agreed they would need to have input into design of committee
parameters, scope of issues of committee etc, to present to their boards and
councils prior to commitment. Tt is important for all partners to how a joint plan can
work for their organization. For example where there are issues that cross
boundaries; (public transportation/university access for students) - discussion needs
to occur as to how this issue could be addressed by the Joint AAC.
5. Creation of Working Group to Define Parameters of 3oint AAC
Following review of earlier joint models, Kevin (Conestoga College) suggested a
"hybrid" model - features include:
· As all municipalities require an AAC and a plan, municipalities would make up the
"core" membership. Public organizations such as hospitals, school boards, public
\ODA\ODA January 2003 Meeting 3
transit, colleges and universities, could come together within the model to
network/consult with the AAC regarding plans, joint interests, and potentially
utilizing the AAC as a consultative group representing a cross section of persons
with disabilities from the broader community.
"Like sectors" for example hospitals could come together to form a joint plan (all 3
hospitals within community develop one joint plan) or each institution (individual
board) make individual plans under such a model and engage with the
IVlunicipalities' AAC within the model.
Val and Paula spoke about the importance of seeing continuity across the
community when removing barriers- i.e. Whether it is curb cuts, door way size, etc.
a model such as this would generate consistency across our community and an
opportunity for a seamless "barrier free community".
.]ames suggested a hybrid model would be an excellent way to share best practices
regarding "barrier removal" from each area and to encourage the private sector to
adopt sound barrier free accessibility standards. Lori used the example of Kitchener
and Waterloo developing barrier free accessibility design standards - meet the
universal needs of persons with disabilities, older adults and new Canadians.
.]ames closed the meeting affirming support for the "hybrid model" and suggesting a
group representative of interested ODA stakeholders meet to begin to draft a
framework on how this model could work in our community.
All attending the meeting agreed to meet again on February 20 to begin drafting
framework/terms of reference of.]oint AAC. One representative from each municipality
or organization will be requested to attend. IVlargaret and Lori will "draft" a hybrid
model and forward prior to the next meeting to be then reviewed at February meeting.
Attendees were asked to contact Margaret (margaret. sanderson~ci_ty.kitchener, on. ca) or Lori
(lori.ludwig~ci_ty.waterloo.on.ca) with any feedback or suggestions.
_lames thanked everyone for coming. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday February
20 from 9:30-11:30 Room 200 at the Waterloo I~lemorial Recreation Complex,
\ODA\ODA January 2003 IVleeting 4