Talk:Board Policy on Animals

The wording on this policy is overly broad, and states things are illegal when they are not.

Regarding this: "If a member brings a service animal into the space, persons may only ask the owner the following 2 questions (defined by federal law) about the animal and its service to the owner:

• Is the animal required because of a disability?
• What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

Questions outside of these two are a breach of federal and state law and will be considered a violation of the Pumping Station: One membership agreement."

The way this is worded, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANIMAL ARE SAID TO BE ILLEGAL. This is ONLY true if the questions are pertaining to whether the animal is, in fact, a service animal. The way this is worded, if a person said "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" would be considered grounds for removing a member, and called illegal. The wording should be clearer. --Davidfell (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT)

I asked not to include the language in the policy because it is confusing, but I did not want to block consensus and didn't object to leaving it in. Originally I was for only stating that we allow service animals as defined by <the list of laws> because the laws will have the details. It got pointed out to me that members might harass someone with a service animal by grilling them on its status. That's a good point. So, maybe the actual policy language could be changed to remove the questions bit, and we have a non policy section on the policy page with advice on how to talk to people with service animals. --Skm (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2015 (CDT)

First off, disability law is really complicated. Here is what I've been able to find regarding the actual text of the regulations for ADA Title III, source: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm

(c) Service animals.

    (1) General. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
    (2) Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:
        (i) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
        (ii) The animal is not housebroken.
    (3) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public accommodation properly excludes a service animal under § 36.302(c)(2), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain goods, services, and accommodations without having the service animal on the premises.
    (4) Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).
    (5) Care or supervision. A public accommodation is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.
    (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).
    (7) Access to areas of a public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a place of public accommodation where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.
    (8) Surcharges. A public accommodation shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
    (9) Miniature horses.
        (i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
        (ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider –
            (A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
            (B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
            (C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
            (D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
        (iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

I originally quoted a summary of the rules to the mailing list which prohibited "staff" asking questions. You questioned whether it would apply to us because PS:One has no staff. The text in (6) above makes no mention of "staff" and just speaks of the "public accommodation". This begs the question of what person should be considered the public accommodation. If a restaurant waiter asks a patron intrusive questions about their disability or animal, that's clearly a violation. If a fellow diner asks the same questions, it's rude, but not a violation against the restaurant. Because PS:One has no staff, it isn't clear who is or is not bound by this. Sure, you could say it would apply to the Board. But what about the Area Hosts? Volunteer Authorizers? Additionally, members may host events. What about the person in charge of the event? What if the disabled person is at the space for an authorization run by a random member and the random member asks the questions? Etc. All of these could result in litigation against the space if the disabled person felt offended and was inclined to do so. So it makes sense to apply the PS:One policy to everyone.

Now the way (6) is worded above is extremely broad! It seems the intention is to protect the privacy of the disabled person, and to make sure the public accommodation isn't trying to impose additional requirements on the animal beyond what the law allows (e.g. can you make the animal demonstrate its task, where are its training papers, do you you have a note from your doctor, etc.) So "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" could potentially be illegal, especially if they are followed up by "What is your disability? Where was your dog trained and for how long? Etc." That's why the PS:One policy is, likewise, broad, so that it matches Federal rules.

That said, "I respect your amazing service dog. Is it a boy or a girl," or "what breed is your beautiful dog" asked alone will almost certainly not offend the disabled person and not result in a lawsuit! PS:One policies are interpreted by humans who are rational, have common sense, and who find the discipline process of the membership agreement painful to follow; if the disabled person wasn't offended and no lawsuit results, then there is no chance any disciplinary action would be taken against a person who asked those two questions.

Keeping this as part of PS:One's policies is beneficial. First, I don't think anyone knows about this. I didn't before researching this issue. A well-meaning person could ask questions of a disabled person that are illegal and could result in litigation. We don't want that. Making this a PS:One policy helps educate our own membership about federal law. Second, if someone does ask these questions and the organization does gets sued, we can assert as a defence that the organization itself took efforts to prevent this from happening, and that the person asking the questions did so while violating our policy. --Rdpierce (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (CDT)

We are not lawyers, and the board of directors are not lawyers. We should not be trying to interpret the law and make policies that interpret the law. If you are concerned about the liability of the space in regards to asking questions about service animals, this is what lawyers are for. The fact of the matter is that we don't actually know if this language serves any purpose. The questions to ask (to a lawyer) would be "Who does this law cover, as far as inquiring is concerned?" and "Would having a policy about what our members are allowed to ask actually do anything to limit our liability in the case that someone actually does make an illegal inquiry?" Another good question to ask would be "Who gets in trouble if someone asks these questions?" Undoubtedly any lawyer worth his scruff would try to sue as many parties as possible, which would include PS:1, whether we have a policy or not. The suit may get thrown out, but someone will have to at least step foot in a courtroom. Justin (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2015 (CDT)

If we need a policy about animals, then excerpts from the law will be helpful, but shouldn't be a part of the policy. Have a related information section on the policy page that discusses the nuances of the law or even quotes the law. --Skm (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2015 (CDT) --Skm (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (CDT)

Proposal: delete the 3rd paragraph onwards. Replace with "Persons must comply.with all.applicable laws and regulations regarding service animals, including limitations on questions one may ask persons with service animals." Add a section outside the policy for resources, and link the document above. --Rdpierce (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2015 (CDT)

This seems like a good idea. This also means we don't have to keep up with changes to the law and continuously update our policies to suit them. Note that this would not excuse us from keeping up with knowing about said changes, but it would reduce the burden on the policymakers at PS:1. Justin (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2015 (CDT)

service animal etiquette

IF we end up with a non-policy clarification on the page that quotes the relevant section on the law about the questions, then we also might want to have a link to service animal etiquette advice. Aside from legal compliance, people may not realize that they are being rude to someone by wanting to talk about a service animal. I don't know much about how to be an ally to people with service animals specially, so I did a search to check my assumptions.

Service Dog Etiquette on chitchat:

Do not be offended if the person does not feel like discussing his/her disability or the assistance the Service Animal provides. Not everyone wants to be a walking-talking “show and tell” exhibit.

Service Dog Etiquette on invisible disabilities:

Many handlers have “invisible disabilities,” such as diabetes, hearing loss or other symptoms not readily apparent and if a Service Dog is paying attention to someone who’s distracting her, she’s not doing her job for her handler.

My guess is that discussing someone's service animal may be perfectly okay but it might not always be okay, so pay attention and be considerate.

--Skm (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2015 (CDT) --Skm (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2015 (CDT)

I just asked a close friend who's pretty nearly blind and who previously worked for the Chicago Lighthouse how to handle this.

It's rude to ask about a service animal if what you're really doing is imposing on someone to talk about their disability, which is none of our business. It's necessary and appropriate to ask someone if you can touch their animal, whether or not it's a service animal, if you're not bugging them, etc. People generally love petting dogs. Some dogs love getting petted. Some dogs are dicks. Some people don't want us touching their dogs, whether or not they're service animals, for reasons that are none of our business. But I don't think we need to make any assumptions about the way we already reasonably expect people to behave because the insurance company is directing PS:1 to exclude all but service animals. Jason (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (CDT)

Jason, does your friend have a suggestion for content for the resource section? --Skm (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2015 (CDT)

No content mentioning etiquette or what questions one may or may not ask is necessary or appropriate. Just look at what real corporations use and adopt that. This page is 500 times longer than it needs to be. Jason (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

Jason, see the revised vote text. The policy itself is simple, and doesn't go into specifics. Resources are linked, and are not part of the policy itself. I would bet that corporations who forbid animals except service animals make sure customer service personnel who would encounter disabled customers have some kind of training so someone doesn't grill someone about their service animal and turn them away. At PS:One, any of us could host events, so in effect anyone could be in that role. I think this brings the issue to people's attention without binding the policy with specific language that may or may not be correct, or could become outdated. --Rdpierce (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

This is really stupid. When is this going to be discussed at a public meeting so I can attend? Jason (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

Correction: the policy you guys already enacted is really stupid. Remove from this one a vague mention of unspecified questions and it's fine. You don't really need a written policy that states that you're going to comply with the law. If you want people using service animals to feel welcome, tell them their service animals are welcome. That's better than a policy all day. There are no legally prohibited questions. The reason the organization might not be permitted to ask questions is completely different than why it might, as a matter of etiquette, hope members don't ask questions. Getting smart with compliance language is dumb. Just state that you comply with the law and leave it at that. We can deal with members who harass others because of their disabilities. Jason (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

Jason, this will probably be discussed at tonight's Board meeting. These are open to the membership. You've got some great points here. Would you be willing to stop by the meeting? --Rdpierce (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

Jason, you didn't come by the board meeting, and I didn't follow up here because I was waiting for f2f comments. I'll add a comment here. To follow up from Ryan, I got a little training at a job because I'd be interviewing people and I don't remember exactly what questions they told us were verboten, but they did cover some. I think at the space it's fuzzy since people aren't staff and aren't interviewing people for jobs. Anyway, originally I asked that we only make a policy that indicates service animals are welcome according to laws x,y,z but compromised to allow the extra language after some board discussion. I'm still not certain whether to include resources about that outside of a policy being that we don't interview people as paid staff. The board interviews people for non-paid positions. --Skm (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2015 (CDT)

I got busy. Here's what I would have said. A a caveat, I'm only commenting because I find policies that are unnecessary or purport to regulate unspecified behavior to be inappropriate. As drafted, this policy is a problem, not a solution.

With regard to who must comply with applicable law, there's nothing fuzzy about the organizational structure of PS:One — the ADA requires a business that serves the public to make reasonable accommodations, including accommodating service animals. PS:One is the entity that must comply with all applicable laws. Nobody else. There shouldn't be anything fuzzy about whether members have anything to do with PS:One's compliance. A corporation acts through its officers and directors. Thus, PS:One does have staff. I am not staff. I am not responsible for ensuring PS:One is in compliance with the law. I am responsible for abiding by PS:One policy. I accept the additional responsibility of being a decent guy and looking out for PS:One's best interests, as I do.

As to questions, no applicable law regulates what one may ask persons with service animals Not PS:One through its officers or directors, and certainly not through the members. It's sometimes appropriate to ask if animals even are service animals, which entails asking a person about his or her disability.

The need to implement a policy with regard to pets comes solely from PS:One's CGL policy not covering incidents involving certain kinds of animals ("live animals", although that seems overbroad — is that the actual language of the insurance policy?). PS:One already had a legal obligation to comply with the ADA and Illinois Human Rights Act, so this policy only needs to make clear that certain kinds of animals are not permitted, except that all service animals as defined by the ADA are permitted.

As a practical matter, I don't know why you all want to regulate unspecified speech. I also don't think it's appropriate to purport to regulate etiquette. Jason (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2015 (CDT)

Proposed New Policy Text

Here's the new language that Ryan suggested based on reading our discussion. --Skm (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2015 (CDT)

Policy

Live animals are not permitted on the premises of Pumping Station: One. No person may bring a live animal to Pumping Station: One.

For the purposes of this policy, animals do not include humans. Service animals are allowed on the premises as defined under applicable law. Pumping Station: One recognizes service animals as defined by Title II and Title III of the ADA.

Persons must comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding service animals, including limitations on questions one may ask persons with service animals.

Resources

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm - ADA Title III Regulations

http://www.ag.state.il.us/rights/servanimals.html - Illinois Attorney General Service Animal Guide

http://www.workinglikedogs.com/service-dog-resources/service-dog-etiquette/ - Discussion of Service Animal etiquette

http://www.anythingpawsable.com/service-animals/what-should-i-do-when-i-see-a-service-dog/ - Discussion of Service Animal etiquette

I suggest:

Live animals are not permitted on the premises of Pumping Station: One., No person may bring a live animal to Pumping Station: One.

For the purposes of this policy, animals do not include humans. except that Sservice animals , as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act and applicable state law are allowed on the premises as defined under applicable law. Pumping Station: One recognizes service animals as defined by Title II and Title III of the ADA.

Persons must comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding service animals, including limitations on questions one may ask persons with service animals.

Jason (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (CDT)

I like this --Skm (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2015 (CDT)

"....law are allowed on the premises" could be removed because it is redundant. --Rdoeksen (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (CDT)

Taking into account what Jason and Ray have said, I propose the Board replace this policy with the following text:

Live animals are not permitted on the premises of Pumping Station: One, except for service animals as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act and applicable state law. Persons must comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding service animals.

--Rdpierce (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2015 (CDT)

Insurance discussion history

For posterity sake, here is what the insurance agent told us: The animal one is going to be tough as well. I have inquired about keeping the exotic animals exclusion on and removing domestic animals exclusion but they wont budge on this. This will go on the individuals responsibility of Personal Liability.

What does "the individuals responsibility of Personal Liability" mean? Justin (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2015 (CDT)

I don't know. It's poorly worded or maybe it's technical jargon. Skm (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2015 (CDT)

Just imagine! One day you might have the ability to "member curate" this and you can make it say anything you want before my bot starts edit warring you so I can curate too! Jason (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2015 (CDT)