1,238
edits
Changes
From Pumping Station One
Talk:Board Policy on Animals (view source)
Revision as of 18:58, 30 January 2017
, 18:58, 30 January 2017→Some other resources
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. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (CDT)
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. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 08:38, 28 April 2015 (CDT)
--[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk: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.
[http://www.workinglikedogs.com/service-dog-resources/service-dog-etiquette/ Service Dog Etiquette] on chitchat:
[http://www.workinglikedogs.com/service-dog-resources/service-dog-etiquette/ Service Dog Etiquette] on chitchat:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
''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.''
''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.''
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 08:47, 28 April 2015 (CDT)
--[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 08:47, 28 April 2015 (CDT)
--[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (CDT)
::Jason, does your friend have a suggestion for content for the resource section? --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 13:36, 3 May 2015 (CDT)
<blockquote>
=== 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
</blockquote>
I suggest:<br>
:Live animals are not permitted on the premises of Pumping Station: One<s>.</s><span style="color: blue;">,</span> <s>No person may bring a live animal to Pumping Station: One.</s>
:<s>For the purposes of this policy, animals do not include humans.</s> <span style="color: blue;">except that</span> <s>S</s>service animals <span style="color: blue;">, as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act and applicable state law</span> are allowed on the premises<s> as defined under applicable law. Pumping Station: One recognizes service animals as defined by Title II and Title III of the ADA.</s>
:Persons must comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding service animals<s>, including limitations on questions one may ask persons with service animals</s>.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (CDT)
I like this --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 13:49, 7 May 2015 (CDT)
"....law <s> are allowed on the premises</s>" could be removed because it is redundant. --[[User:Rdoeksen|Rdoeksen]] ([[User talk: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.''
--[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 09:09, 22 July 2015 (CDT)
:: I don't know. It's poorly worded or maybe it's technical jargon. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 19:59, 22 July 2015 (CDT)
==Some other resources==
http://www.ag.state.il.us/rights/servanimals.html
https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet
