Page One

When Karen Craig and other disabled members of various city commissions have health or wheelchair emergencies, they would like to attend meetings via speaker phone.  

City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque ruled that this is OK, but only as long as the accommodation is requested 72 hours in advance – that’s the time the state’s open meeting law requires for public posting of meetings. She also said the place from which the disabled person would be calling would have to be open to the public. 

Craig, a former chair of the Commission on Disability, learned the hard way, how problematic the city attorney’s Brown Act interpretation could be. 

In mid July, Craig’s wheelchair got stuck in an uneven gap at the Ashby BART station. The chair lost power. The disabled woman eventually got home from BART via emergency transportation, but found it would take some time to have the chair back in working order.  

Meanwhile Craig had a subcommittee meeting to attend the next day. 

But Albuquerque nixed Craig’s proposed use of the speakerphone to participate in the meeting, contending that it would violate the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, since she had not made the request 72 hours before the meeting was to take place. 

In response, Craig has filed a grievance with the city, contending that, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act “my rights to accommodations have been denied.” 

“The Brown Act of the State of California ensures that no function of government is held in secret,” Craig wrote. “An accommodation under Title II of the ADA, especially a last minute one, namely a speaker phone, where everyone at the meeting, including the public, knows that a qualified disabled person is on the speaker phone and all discussions and votes are heard publicly by everyone attending, is an accommodation under the ADA and does not fall under the intent and definition of teleconferencing in the Brown Act.” 

In an Aug. 15 response, Albuquerque stuck to her original interpretation of the Brown Act. However, she said, she is waiting for input from experts on the ADA and, given their input, she might reconsider her opinion. 

In her response to the grievance, Albuquerque explained that the city is obliged to follow the Brown Act.  

Its rules “help ensure that the functions of government are carried out publicly, rather than in secret, and...insulate governmental action from apparent or actual impropriety due to favoritism, corruption or undue influence from special interests....Full compliance with the Brown Act is the very essence of the operation and function of state and local government,” Albuquerque wrote. 

The city is obligated to follow both the Americans with Disabilities Act, which says that disabled people need reasonable accommodation to participate in meetings, and the Brown Act, she said. 

But waiving the Brown Act requirements for 72-hour notice of meetings “is not required under the ADA.” 

“If members of any city commission, board, committee or the City Council wish to participate in meetings of their respective governing bodies by telephone, the Brown Act must be strictly followed in all respects; including provision of 72 hours’ notice of the teleconference and permitting the public access to the remote teleconference location,” she concluded. 

Ken Stein, manager of the U.S. Department of Justice-funded ADA information line, disagrees with Albuquerque. Under the ADA, there is an obligation to modify policies to accommodate people with disabilities, he said. That would include the Brown Act. 

“It is a violation of the ADA to not allow parties (access to meetings) via speaker phone,” he said. 

Stein said the Department of Justice would be responding to Albuquerque’s decision. Albuquerque said she would welcome that. 

“I could have turned tail and run (away from the problem),” Craig said, explaining why she’s pushing forward with the complaint. “I chose not to do so.”