City of Cambridge's ADA Self-evaluation given reprieve In City Council Monday night!

The City of Cambridge was required to conduct a Self-evaluation by the Department of Justice, as spelled out in Public Law 101-336, the Civil Rights Act of 1990, otherwise known as the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Section 35.105 Self-evaluation.
(a) A public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modifications of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
(b) A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments.
(c) A public entity that employes 50 or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection:
(1) A list of the interested persons consulted
(2) A description of the areas examined and any problems identified; and
93) A description of any modifications made.
(d) If a public entity has already complied with the self-evaluation requirement of a regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilition Act of 1973, then the requirements of this section shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous self-evaluation.

EFFECTIVE DATES

Requirement
1. Designate a Responsible Employee as ADA Coordinator 1/26/92
2. Provide Notice 1/26/92
3. Establish Grieveance Proceedure 1/26/92
4. Conduct Self-Evaluation completed by 1/26/93
5. Develop Transition Plan completed by 7/26/92
6. Complete Structural Changes completed by 1/26/95

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF COMPLIANCE PROCEEDURES

Three-Phase Process

Phase I: Planning for compliance
Phase II: Conducting the self-evaluation
Phase III: Implementing modifications

The three phases are not chronologically distinct. Phases II and III, in particular, overlap extensively. Discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures identified in the self-evaluation should be modified as soon as possible, even before the self-evaluation is completed.

On Monday evening the City Council, on a voice vote, referred the City Manager's report back to City Council, re requesting that the City's ADA Self-evaluation be placed on the City's web site, to next year's City Council and placed the matter on unfinished business.

Thanks to everyone who is helping with this.

Senior Computer Lab closed most of the day

The Computer Lab at the Senior Center in Cambridge, MA. has two rows of computers, making a total of ten. We have three printers.


This photo was taken at 1:12pm, after several folks came in to the lab, only to be disapointed because it was closed. IE, not staffed. The pool room ajacent to the computer lab is open, however, as staff need not monitor the pool tables.


The hours of the city of Cambridge's Senior center computer lab are quite limited. Currently they are Mon: 9am-12 and 3pm-5; Tues: 1-3pm; Wed; 1-4:15pm; Thurs: 9-11:15am; Fri: 1-3pm; and Sat 9:30 -11:15am. Actually, they are sometimes cut short, because, in most cases it is volunteers who staff the computer lab. Sometimes the lab time will be cancelled without notice, whit seniors who arrive, expecting to be able to check their email, without access. Total schedualled hours this week = 16 1/4 hrs!!!

The Sr Center is closed Friday afternoons, which we used to have access to the computers from 1-4;30pm. There are schedualed computer classes on some mornings: this week for 1 1/2 hrs on Wed and informally on Friday morning.

The computer lab at the Sr center is a great resorce and provides acces to the web, email, education, keep in touch with family across the country, and world wide, access to City Council meetings, and other city services and programs, information, entertainment, photography, etc. We have 10 computers, which are usb capable, and 3 printers, one blk and wt, and two colour. This is truely a wonderful recorce, but....

What a shame that it goes to waste most of the time. Out of a possible 48+ hours, the lab is available less than 1/3rd the time. I have many times observed seniors come to the center expecting to be able to use the computers, only to discover the schedual on the black board, showing when the lab is open. Most folks are surprised, and have expressed frustration. But seniors don't want to complain, they don't want to be a burdon.

Perhaps the city could solve two "problems" with one program? Why not employ youths part time one afternoon per week each, to keep the lab open, and provide quality employment for students with computer skills? why not seek a private partnership to "fund" this worthy effort? gee, how much could it cost? Lets see, @10 per hour, from 2pm-5pm, that is 3 hours, 5 days a week, that would be, oh my, $150.

Would providing the necessary resorces to staff the Senior Center lab fully, so seniors can access the computers even as folks who play pool have access to the pool tables be such a burdon to the City of Cambridge? Are we that poor?

Is Cambridge Really the Most Walkable City??

The Cambridge Chronicle has a story on their web site, see link below, reporting about the "survey" done by the AARP. However, as yopu can see in my comments, it is not the survey done by the AARP that is relevant, but the survey done by the Mass Architectural Access Board that counts. The City of Cambridge has been maintaining or sidewalks in violation of Mass State Safety Code for years, and we have been paying for this faulty work.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/homepage/x1633042978

Here is the comment I left on the Chronicle's blog...

The City of Cambridge has been ignoring both the Mass State Safety Code and the Federal Standards mandated by the Americane With Disabilities Act of 1990 for years now. Even after
I, and others, complained to the City in writing, and in testimony at various hearings, the City continued to reconstruct and maintain the sidewalks in violation of regulations and standards.

Many folks fell and suffered serious injuries during this period of trying to get the City to repair and maintain the sidewalks legally. The City, even with injured folks coming to City Council meetings to testify, continued to defy all laws governing how sidewalks should be reconstructed or maintained. Therefore, last year, March 2006, I began filing a series of Mass Safety Board complaints with the MAAB. In order to review such complaints, the MAAB must determing jurisdiction. To do that they request information from the City, namely, the date and permitting records for the most recent alterations of the sidewalk complained about. When a City allows a sidewalk to be dug up, and concrete or bricks removed, and a new surface to be installed, a permit should be issued. These records, when they are kept by the City of Cambridge, are kept by date and not be location, making it exceedingly hard to "find."

However, it seems that the City of Cambridge never issued permits for the illegally repaired sidewalks, because, as was explained to me, "We paid for it out of the minor repair budget." I was told that because they used the minor repair budget, the alterations didn't trigger compliance with safety board regulations. However, the City is wrong. It is the extent of the work performed, and not the budget that was used to pay the contractor that is at issue. After all, why would the Taxpayers want to pay millions of dollars to fix our sidewalks, and do the work wrong, so pedestrians safety was still a problem?

In spite of the City's failure to issue or "find" permitting information, I was able to supply the Safety Board with enough factual information, including photos, so the Board was able to determing jurisdiction in half the complaints I filed. The City continued avoid the issue, and finally the Safety Board came to Cambridge and surveyed the sidewalks in question. Result? Many outstanding violations. Although the AAPD may be wellmeaning, they may lack the expertise, and the knowledge of safety standards, and access standards required by both State and Federal Law, therefore, it is not the AAPD survey that is important, but the survey conducted by the MAAB that is relavent.

The MAAB ordered the City of Cambridge to fix the bad sidewalks by december 1, 2006, and provide photos, or a plan to prove the violations were corrected, or impossible to correct. To date, the City has not complied with the MAAB's orders. I will update folks on this issue on my blog, at http://fromtheport.blogspot.com, or my All About City Council blog at http://votekathy.blogspot.com.

Leaf Blowers, Noise and Fumes

This is the City's landscape maintainance company, with a truck spewing black fumes into the air. This was taken at Dana Park on a hot day, when folks who like to save energy were keeping their windows open to get a breath of fresh air instead of using the air conditioner. As you can see, the puff of black smoke got bigger and bigger and the breeze blew it right into the open windows of the homes of folks who lived across from the park. This is a "high tech" application of mulch, which is blown out through hugh tubes onto the base of the trees in the park. The black fumes are from the engine.

I oppose leaf blowers for the same reason. Although both this truck and the leaf blowers make a huge racket, it is the fumes, dust and debris, containing small particles, including virus, bacteria and fungus that I really am concerned about. let me ask you this, would you use a leaf blower in your living room?

Katie and Friends

My, what big ears you have, Katie!

No matter how hot it is, these pooches love going out to the Dog Park in Cambridge.

Sweet, sweet sweeties...

Cambridge Dogs are just beautiful!!

Take Me Out To The Dog Park!!

Here are some photos of dogs living it up in the Fort Washington Dog Park in Cambridge MA. below please find my answers to questions posed by The Cambridge Dog owner's group.

CAMBRIDGE DOG OWNERS’ GROUP
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES
OCTOBER 2007

Candidate’s Name:
Kathy Podgers

Area of City in which you reside:
Cambridgeport

Have you served on Cambridge City Council before? If yes, for how many years have you served (including this one)?

Although I have never served on Cambridge City Council before, I have attended City Council meetings regularly for the past six years or so. I have also attended committee meetings, testified at hearings, provided written testimony, complete with accurate information, and attended various board and commission meetings. I understand how the current City Council works, and that is one reason that I am running for City Council.

Question 1:
What do you see as the most important issues facing Cambridge right now?

Unfortunately, there are many important issues facing Cambridge that have not been addressed or resolved in previous years by the Current City Council. They include, but are not limited to, Transparency and Truth in City Government, the proper balance of the Built Up Environment with the Natural Environment, Effective Community Policing, Quality of Life Issues, such as Dog Parks and Snow Clearance, Housing, Budget Management and Taxes, and Transportation and Traffic, such as the impending decision about the Urban Ring, among others.

If you were elected, how would you begin to address the above-mentioned issues? Briefly describe using measurable goals and objectives.

The City Council is responsible for Policy Making in the City, and the City Manager charged with implementing the Policies set by the City Council. Currently the Council adopts goals every two years, and the City Manager forwards these to the Departments where, if they do write measurable objectives, I have never seen them.

I would, if elected, recommend a plan where Council sets goals, and sends a Policy Order to the City manager, requesting he have the pertinent department/s write measurable objectives to meet the goals that are set. Then, periodically, the Council can send the Manager a Policy Order requesting a progress report. This will result in better management and oversight, and result in issues and concerns actually being resolved in a timely way.

Question 2:

Would you support the creation of “dedicated dog parks” (safe, fenced parks created for families with dogs to recreate with one another and their pets) in Cambridge?

Yes, I support Dog Parks.

If YES, please list measurable goals and objectives you, as a city councilor, would pursue If NO, please state why not.

I would set goals by working with others, all the stake holders, such as providing a Dog Park within walking distance in each major neighborhood in the City. Then I would write a policy order requesting the City Manager to have the relevant Departments to write measurable objectives, including but not limited to, a time line, obtaining the space, developing a budget, and including community input, etc, with a provision that these objectives be reported back In City Council, and with periodic progress reports to City Council.

Question 3:

Would you support the creation of “shared use parks” for families with dogs (allowing dog owners to engage recreationally with one another and their pets during specified hours in specified parks and athletic fields) in Cambridge?

Yes, I support shared use parks. This must be managed wisely to avoid complaints and unintended consequences.

If YES, please list measurable goals and objectives you, as a city councilor, would pursue If NO, please state why not.

Please see above…I do not believe in setting goals by one person or group, but goal setting, to work properly, must be done in such a way that the community as a whole is agreeable. The City Manager is by law responsible for implementing policy, and he should have his departments write the measurable objectives. This should be reported back In City Council, and if there are concerns, then referred to Committee for resolution, or returned back to the City Manager for more work. The City Council should not just vote to accept and place on file, the Manager’s reports, especially when they are not responsive to the Policy Order.

Question 4:

Do you typically spend time in Cambridge parks, playgrounds or athletic fields?

Yes, I enjoy the outdoors, and spend much of my time there.

If YES, please list the parks you visit, an approximate number of times you visit in the average week, and the general activity/ies in which you engage
(e.g., watching soccer games, reading, picnicking)

NAME OF PARK/FIELD/ PLAYGROUND
HOW OFTEN FREQUENTED?
GENERAL ACTIVITY

Dana Park
daily
Walking dog, photography, socializing

Pacific St Dog Park
5x weekly
Enjoying my dog running free, socializing

Magazine Beach
2x weekly
Photography, enjoying natural environment, viewing wildlife

Question 5:

Have you visited Pacific Street Park, Cambridge’s first dedicated dog park? Fort Washington? Fresh Pond or the Danehy Park dog run?

Yes, I used to go to Fort Washington, but after the death of the little dog who and the fencing issues, I now go to Pacific St Park. I have been to Fresh Pond several times.

Question 6:

Are you or a member of your household responsible for the care of a pet?
I own and care for my Service Animal, a Siberian Husky, which by law is not a pet. Service Animals, which include guide dogs, need to run and socialize as much as pets.

Question 7:

Is there anything else you would like Cambridge dog owners to know?

I have always supported Dog Parks, and the integration of dogs in society. I have never equivocated on this issue. Dogs are an essential aspect for human health. Please see the link on my campaign blog to Delta Society, which has a wealth of information on the value of dogs in society. In addition, we must realize that dogs are dumb, that is they are unable to speak for themselves, and we should, therefore, speak up for them and their welfare.

Kathy Podgers
148 Pearl Street, 02139

vote.kathy@yahoo.com