388
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 87:
Line 87: + + + + +
→service animal etiquette
::::::: 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)
::::::: 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 ==
== Proposed New Policy Text ==