By Elizabeth A. Richter
DATA CONTINUED
As I previously mentioned, I had been speaking by email to Attorney Maureen Finn, the spokesperson for the CT Judicial Branch in regard to the ADA, attempting to find out how a person with a disability could obtain the reasonable modification of audiorecordings for his or her disability. I had asked, "Would there ever be a reasonable basis for turning down such a request?" On September 9, 2014, her response had been, "I prefer not to speculate about possibilities."
Of course, this is not so much about "possibilities" so much as it is a question of what I can say as an ADA advocate to a person with a disability who is trying to establish what reasonable modifications he or she is entitled to. Simply put, I would like to be able to say with some measure of clarity that "yes" audiorecordings are available or "no" they are not!
Naturally, this was all very discouraging to me and so I shut down for a few days and spent some time on researching the subject of audiorecordings on the internet. I am the kind of person who has been trained to advocate and to ask questions, so no matter what barriers I face, I am likely to return with further questions as needed. However, what about some of the others who are members of this vulnerable population of individuals with disabilities. Many of these folks do not have the ability to deal with the kind of obstruction that the Judicial Branch gets up to, particularly the use of bureaucratic double talk which prevents people from figuring out what their rights are.
After gathering together my emotional resources, on September 15, 2014, I sent out another email to Attorney Maureen Finn where I stated, "I think it is reasonable to request information from the Judicial Branch regarding what criteria an individual would have to meet in regard to a disability in order to qualify for the reasonable modification of the use of audiorecordings."
I further stated, "Without specific standards from the CT Judicial Branch regarding what would be a legitimate basis for a request for audiorecordings and what would not be a legitimate basis...,a litigant with a disability is really placed in a the very difficult position of guessing or being forced him or herself to speculate regarding the possibilities since you refuse to provide specific guidelines."
I then ended with the request, "Could you please provide me with a clear and understandable response to my question."
In response, one week later on September 22, 2014, Attorney Maureen Finn got back to me with the statement, "As I said before, I do not want to speculate as to possible outcomes because each person and situation is different. As you know, there is a specific process in place for ADA requests."
Just to catch you up on where we are time wise, it is now one month since my original inquiry!
The very next day, on September 23, 2014, I again sent an email to Attorney Finn asking the following question, "Let me put this another way, why aren't audio recordings included on the list of auxiliary aids and services provided by the CT Judicial Branch listed on the website. See link."
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/cl085_ADA.pdf
Of course, this is not so much about "possibilities" so much as it is a question of what I can say as an ADA advocate to a person with a disability who is trying to establish what reasonable modifications he or she is entitled to. Simply put, I would like to be able to say with some measure of clarity that "yes" audiorecordings are available or "no" they are not!
Naturally, this was all very discouraging to me and so I shut down for a few days and spent some time on researching the subject of audiorecordings on the internet. I am the kind of person who has been trained to advocate and to ask questions, so no matter what barriers I face, I am likely to return with further questions as needed. However, what about some of the others who are members of this vulnerable population of individuals with disabilities. Many of these folks do not have the ability to deal with the kind of obstruction that the Judicial Branch gets up to, particularly the use of bureaucratic double talk which prevents people from figuring out what their rights are.
After gathering together my emotional resources, on September 15, 2014, I sent out another email to Attorney Maureen Finn where I stated, "I think it is reasonable to request information from the Judicial Branch regarding what criteria an individual would have to meet in regard to a disability in order to qualify for the reasonable modification of the use of audiorecordings."
I further stated, "Without specific standards from the CT Judicial Branch regarding what would be a legitimate basis for a request for audiorecordings and what would not be a legitimate basis...,a litigant with a disability is really placed in a the very difficult position of guessing or being forced him or herself to speculate regarding the possibilities since you refuse to provide specific guidelines."
I then ended with the request, "Could you please provide me with a clear and understandable response to my question."
In response, one week later on September 22, 2014, Attorney Maureen Finn got back to me with the statement, "As I said before, I do not want to speculate as to possible outcomes because each person and situation is different. As you know, there is a specific process in place for ADA requests."
Just to catch you up on where we are time wise, it is now one month since my original inquiry!
The very next day, on September 23, 2014, I again sent an email to Attorney Finn asking the following question, "Let me put this another way, why aren't audio recordings included on the list of auxiliary aids and services provided by the CT Judicial Branch listed on the website. See link."
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/cl085_ADA.pdf
On September 26, 2014, Attorney Finn responded by saying, "The list of auxiliary aids and services is not a comprehensive one...As Technologies change and advance, new options may become possible." And it is true, above the list of auxiliary aids and services provided there is the statement, "These are some of the services/aids the Judicial Branch offers." The word "some" appears to indicate that there are more.
On October 1, 2014, I then sent an email to Attorney Maureen Finn asking the following question, "So if the list of auxiliary aids and services were comprehensive it would include audiorecordings on it. Is that what you are stating?"
I never received a response to that question, with either a yes or no, or any of Attorney Finn's favorite type answers such as, "I don't care to speculate."
I also asked Attorney Finn another vital question. Given that there are Connecticut Practice Book policies in place under Chapter 1-10a and 1-10b for the public to request the right to make audiorecordings from the judge, would it then be correct for a litigant with a disability to go through a judge to obtain his or her reasonable modification, since the administration, as represented by Attorney Finn, was refusing to answer my questions. However, I noted for Attorney Finn, there could be a problem in this situation because were a judge to rule improperly in response to such a request for reasonable modification, under the ADA that judge would be liable for damages and would lose his or her judicial immunity. "What would she suggest?", I asked.
In response, Attorney Finn stated, "As to your new question, I cannot advise you as to the best course of action."
So in total, it took a little over five weeks to go absolutely nowhere. If I had been having this correspondence with a serious need to obtain audiorecording as a reasonable modification for an upcoming hearing, this back and forth conversation full of obstruction and obscure responses would have been incredibly stressful. In my own case, I had conversations like this for three years and still didn't get anywhere while parallel legal proceedings were continuing on in my case. This was incredibly difficult for me as it would be for any individual with a disability.
CONCLUSION:
The bottom line of this study is it showed quite clearly that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has no idea how to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer.
Throughout this communication with the CT Judicial Branch in regard to audiorecordings, Attorney Maureen Finn in her own person, and on behalf of all the others who were listed as receiving copies of our correspondence, was deliberately obstructive and obscure when I tried to get answers to questions in regard to the reasonable modification of audiorecordings, which it is my understanding the Branch is obligated to provide.
The Connecticut Judicial Branch is simply not in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 or the Amendments Act to the ADA of 2008. Specifically, it is not in compliance with providing equally effective communication with people who have disabilities or those advocating for those who have disabilities.
Under Title II of the ADA, the Connecticut Judicial Branch is required to take steps to ensure that their
communications with people with disabilities are as effective as communications
with others. Title II of the ADA requires government entities, such as the Connecticut Judicial Branch, to
make appropriate auxiliary aids and services available to ensure effective
communication. In other words, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, should, upon request, provide appropriate aids and
services leading to effective communication for qualified individuals with
disabilities and their advocates so they can participate equally in The Connecticut Judicial Branch's programs, services, and
activities.
In their report on audiorecordings dated 2009, the Subcommittee on Audio Recording of Court Proceedings acknowledged that audiorecordings are the property of the citizens of Connecticut, and I would further note the important role audiorecordings could play in assisting persons with disabilities when it comes to obtaining access to legal proceedings. Under those circumstances, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has no business denying people with disabilities access to these audiorecordings or obscuring information on whether such audiorecordings are available.
No comments:
Post a Comment