Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0335.012 1998-2000LIGHTPOST HCR #3 Box 10090 n Keaau, Hawaii 96749-9225 PRODUCTION N 1 Voice (808) 982-7472 COMPANY Internet address: keola@hilobay.com RECEIVED `4 Time--------- ----{- - BY--------'�^ Council member Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd,t� Ca,n Committee on Finance - Hawaii County Council Aloha Mr. Chairman and members of the Finance Committee, I am deeply concerned with the continued success of the Public Access Television Programming at the Hawaii County Council. If we are required to add the captions to our program, and that responsibility is made a part of an RFP, or a change order to my contract, I will be forced to end my service with the Council. The simple facts are that the cost for "Closed Captions" of County proceedings could be anywhere from a minium of sixty to over one hundred thousand dollars. I believe that the Hawaii County Council's Public Access programming fits the guidelines for "Public Access Television"! In conversation with the administration, however, Norm Oleson seems very sure that we are not exempt. I have heard many people refer to our County Council programming as "Broadcast Television", which it is not. My concern is that most people don't understand the difference between the two. Even a lawyer, who is not versed in the very complex issues which surround the communications industry, might not be able to help our county officials determine what our responsibilities actually are. The administration may not have found the perfect way to ask our county legal staff to find an exemption. For whatever reason, the administration has decided that these captions must be done and be done now! I tried to talk to both Norm Oleson and Al Konishi, but they seemed to be very sure that we are not exempt. The "fear the lawsuit" is pervasive. I believe that we must take more time to investigate this entire matter carefully and implement any action slowly as we go along. I seems however that the administration has made that decision, and has determined to "make it so"! Now the only question remaining is - "How should it be done?" Comm. No. ✓� 3Jr . D 12 File No. Cc 11 Ref. To: P, Irc� ■ Ref. Date nFG 1 4 299 The County must start to find a way to comply. My understanding is that courts and federal regulators almost always allow some period of time to get the requirements together, and non-compliance is usually dealt with in a reasonable and workable way so as to not cause undue disruption of services. Most of the time when the court gets involved in a compliance lawsuit, there would have to be a time to make a decision as to weather we are exempt or not and, even more time to determine what actions need to be taken to remedy any non-compliance. The Hawaii County Council must provide any and all requests for a disability person's needs, and I respect and support that. For example the County must stop a meeting from happening if a blind person is in attendance and cannot obtain a copy of the agenda in Braille, or have it read to them by County staff. Did you know that one? Norm Oleson told me about that. In the same regard, the County must stop the meeting if a deaf person has requested help and cannot see a sign interpreter or Real Time Captions on a monitor for that purpose in the Council Chambers. There is an interface devise which can use a "court reporters" input on an electric stenographer's machine for translating that input into a text file. It can display it as Video output in the Council Chambers at the same time. These text files can be used as "Real Time Captions" or later used to produce the "Closed or Open Captions". In the past the Hawaii County Council did verbatim minutes but the practice was discontinued. They are presently available by request. At this time the minutes as you know are a summary of the spoken word and are not transcribed into verbatim minutes until requested. Hawaii County's committee staff ( civil service employees of the County), are required to make verbatim minutes if called upon to do so. By using "Voice Recognition Software Transcription", Kauai County Council is presently paying Ho'iki, the Public Access Center on Kauai, to produce captions on their replay tapes. Ho'iki hires 2 people ( they are expanding that number to 4 people) to input the captions of the Council meetings by repeating everything said on the taped program to the "Voice Recognition Software" in a quiet place ( usually at their own home) and sending the generated text files by email to a second team of voice recognition editors who check the work again for accuracy and corrections. Finally the files are then used by specialized equipment that inserts the titles onto the program tape when the final caption editor pushes a button to key them to match the video program. On Kauai the captions are aired on the second airing of the program, usually two days later than the meeting date. Their average meetings are about two hours long. The budget for doing the programming at Ho'iki is about $150.00 per program hour, where the Hawaii County budget is only about $48.00 per hour. The Hawaii County budget does not include captions however. That is a very rough estimate of the cost, but that is the number that Charles Roessler at Wild gave to me in a phone call to him. 0 Page 2 of 13 S000.... The Hawaii County Council needs to figure a way to meet the requirements without causing the cost to be so prohibitive that the programming has to be eliminated. By the county's own figures we tape 30 hours of programming per month. That means 30 X 12 = 360 hours of programming per year. I wondered it that figure was correct, so I took the time to go over my own records, and it seems that the County's estimated number is very close to correct. Thirty hours a month is based on 3 hour meetings for 10 meetings per month ( 8 committee meetings & 2 full council meetings ) If we actually met all those meeting times, the number would be substantially higher than 30 hours per month. However the Committee on Human Services and Economic Development, for example, has only met I I times this year, and that brings the numbers down to just about 30 hours per month. So far in 1999 we averaged about 28 hours per month and over 300 hours of programming for the year. In 1998 & 1997 there was about 250 hours of programming in each year. There was more programming when we had 3 day sessions, but the most we have ever done was about 40 hours in any one month, since I have been doing the programming. Even using those rough numbers, ( which are not particularly accurate ) the number of hours of Council programming, would cost aproximately $54,000.00 dollars per year at Ho'iki's rates. ( 360 hours X $150 per hour) I would assume that for the budget purposes you would add some contingency funding. If the contingency amount was about ten to twenty percent, the county would have to increase the spending on programming to at least $59,400.00 to $64,800.00 per year respectively, using the least expensive method. If you add to the mix the court reporter cost and the equipment purchases, the cost would double, or about $129,800.00 for the first year. I would assume that somewhere down the line a staff member or two could be talked into a training program and a raise so that the county would have 2 or 3 committee clerks who could use the electric stenographers machine and interface for the computer system, whenever needed. That could reduce the cost in the upcoming years. In talking to my immediate superior, the County Clerk, he insisted ( just like Norm Oleson ) that it is better to have the final product completed by one contractor. That would place the responsibility for the County's compliance in my contract! He believes that the Public Access Television coverage of meetings ( including a copy with the captions ) should all done under a single contract. The television producer would just sub -contract out the work that is not done directly by him. Of course if he moves to China or parts abroad, or if he dies in an accident, the county is just as far from ready compliance as it is today with no real progress on the County's part at all. M Page 3 of 13 Why is this? I believe it is because people usually want to pass the buck and remove themselves from the fray. That seems to be a major part of this problem. The time has come for Hawaii County Council to take control of their own Public Access Television programming. This is a Council function and does not seem to be a part of the administration at all. I was surprised when I first came to work that the contract was signed by the Mayor and not a County Council official. These decisions should be made after careful study by the entire Council and should not be a knee jerk reaction to Norm Oleson's dooms day fears of lawsuit. If the County of Hawaii is guilty of not being fully in compliance with the ADA, then it would not be the first time. It seems that the County Council needs to make this ADA compliance a part of the regular County business. I cannot see why this is any different than any other compliance issue to be handled by the County. I don't think that passing on that responsibility to a Public Access Television "line producer" is the best answer. A line producer is only the person who actually tapes the video production in the field. I don't provide the services needed to comply with the ADA requirements, and the County has good council staff who can do the job right now! The Council's committee staff can be trained to do verbatim transcriptions with a little bit of time, training, and "Voice Recognition Software". "Voice Recognition Transcriptions" are turning up all around, and before my vacation to the Mainland, I had even suggested to some of the Council committee staff that this was our silver bullet for this whole problem. At that time Norm Oleson agreed with me that it would not be proper to place all the responsibility for captions in my contract. He actually assured me that it would involve a separate contract. I do not know when his opinion changed, but when I came home, I found out that it had. I cannot see why the contract for Public Access Television Coverage cannot continue on as is. I have also determined that I cannot, as a very small one man business, take on that kind of financial responsibility when the county has repeatedly left me waiting for my check for up to as much as 70 days. That concerns me because what kind of lawsuit would I get myself into, if I have a similar experience and need the funds for several new employees while my funding is held up for some reason. I can't do all of the work myself, and I doubt that I could easily find people with experience to do the job around here. I don't have the equipment, don't know anyone with that equipment, and doubt that the County would be able to just give that equipment to me as an independent contractor. It seems pretty locked into a "Stop Council Programming" mode to me. We all need to insure that this is not a political decision to stop the community's access to the meetings by way of Public Access Television. I suggest that the answer is to begin to take verbatim minutes using "Voice Recognition Software Transcriptions". The actual program would be taped on two S -VHS tapes and a VHS tape could be made for transcription use. The committee E Page 4 of 13 clerks' could be provided an additional VHS tape for use during their training in Voice Recognition Transcription of the meetings. It would not cost very much for each committee clerk to have and use their own Voice Recognition Software package and a VCR/Monitor, which, they could use at work or at home if preferred. A quiet booth and VCR/Monitor unit will have to be added to a terminal and microphone to be used with the software and LAN connection to make it all work. One or more of these stations could be set up in the Council offices. Another possibility is that the committee staff could be issued laptops to complete the work at home. The text files can be e-mailed anywhere or brought back to the Council offices on disk. At the same time, the long view would be to select three people who would receive the training to become the Hawaii County electric stenographer's machine operators ( they would get "Court Reporter" status after training), which by the way, would also mean increased pay and a new job description and title. All of these things seem very workable. For the first year, the training in "Voice Recognition Software" can start, and for the short haul all of the tapes could be sent directly to Kauai where the team at Ho'iki and their equipment (obtained by a CDBG grant) could produce the re -play tape with captions. They could be paid by the hour for this service until the County Council is able and ready to take over the process here. Myself, or another vendor could still do the "line video production, but there would have to be three times as many tapes (I.- an S -VHS air tape for the same night program, 2. - a VHS tape for Council staff to use for voice transcription, 3. - a second S -VHS tape for making the copy with the captions, and an additional VHS tape for the Ho'iki Voice Recognition Transcription Team ). All of that is again very workable. After the beginning training period is over ( both the computer and the operator require hours of training for the software to work), Council's committee staff could start doing the Voice Recognition Transcriptions at the same time as the meeting and that output could be sent to a monitor in the Council Chambers. This would include any errors made, but would be a beginning towards Real Time Captions in the Council Chambers. Remember that this is one of the most contested requirements mentioned by Norm Oleson. Once we have our own Hawaii County Council electric stenographer's machine operators ( court reporters ), for the Real Time Captions in the Council Chambers, we would be able to produce text files for captions, and we would only need to have another interface card to output to a Braille machine if that ever became necessary. The Voice Recognition Transcriptions, can also be read by a computer and converted to speech for the blind to hear the minutes as an alternative to a Braille transcription or agenda, if the blind individual could hear! Having the text files would also return us to the full verbatim minutes mode, only they would be ready at the end of the meeting. I hope that all of this does not just get added to my contract, because as I think you can see, I would not be able to provide the needed services. I view this as an opportunity to get started with compliance. Of course we need to address the 0 Page 5 of 13 needs of our citizens who have disabilities. We should attempt to take this responsibility on as a County service, as it should be. I support all of the efforts to make this county ADA compliant, and that is why I feel that it should be a county function. If you ask the members of the viewing public, the television coverage is very important. As an out -reach of the County Council, this is the way of the future. I would like to see the Hawaii County Council legislate some funds to get your own equipment and make the television coverage the official record of the meetings. It would be a very reasonable cost after these things are done, to also offer the Hawaii County Council proceedings on demand on the Internet. The minutes can be translated into Hypertext language for display on the net. This is as simple as cut and past to an HTML editor. They are free and are available from both Netscape and Internet Explorer. The programs themselves could be encoded and places on a server as Real Media ( internet streaming video ) and made available to anyone anywhere on the planet at anytime by using the Internet. I find this very exciting, because I have never seen my work on TV because we are out of the reception area. When the staff have finished using the tapes for voice transcription, they would be available to be viewed or copied by any interested member of the public. A VCR/Monitor unit could be provided right out on the Council's front desk. With a 24hour advanced request, a tape of a particular meeting could be made available to the public for watching. The Program Tape could be played by a County employee on a VCR behind the front desk, and never leave the Council's possession. on the other side of the counter, the VCR/Monitor unit could be used to watch the program, or it would be available to stick a tape in and hit record if any one wanted to copy the program. Most people know how to do this and therefore this kind of setup would not present much effort on the County employees' parts, other than starting the tape requested. That seems much better than the present method of paying the Public Access facility $10.00 per hour to copy the tapes. In other words, I don't think that this whole thing has to be the end of my employment at the Hawaii County Council. However, unless you take action to extend my contract for the third year of this round, and help me prevent a new RFP, the County Clerk will have most likely do just that. In any case, as I have said before, I have always considered it a real an honor and a privilege to be the Public Access Television Producer for the Hawaii County Council. I have always preferred that the County Council hire me as a member of the Council staff, but that is not my decision. I also want to say that I have enjoyed each and every one of you on the Council as a person working hard for me and all of the people of this island, and I hope to count you all among my long term friends for many years to come. Mahalo, Dr. Keola G A. Downing, Ph.D. 0 Page 6 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: Here are some of the things that made me believe that we are exempt from the requirements, or that we can apply for an exemption or waiver. This is where I go to find out the rules. I would think that we should be sending our County lawyers to review these sites as well. We have working time and we have a means to determine how and when we are required to provide closed captions for our Public Access Television Programming. I am quite sure that Na Leo'O Hawaii is exempt. If the County of Hawaii is not exempt, then what is the law that supersedes these clear directives. Do we not have the ability to site these rules as reason why we are exempt. This is certainly worthy of our investigation. Many times fear of the ADA demons can cause the smaller and exempt government entities to foolishly give away our very reasonable rights. Why would the larger "Government" under the guise of the "ADA" come down on the little players so hard, that the programming would disappear instead? Mahalo, KD 0 Page 7 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: (e) Responsibility for and Determination of Compliance. (9) Video programming distributors shall not be required to provide closed captioning for video programming that is by law not subject to their editorial control, including but not limited to the signals of television broadcast stations distributed pursuant to Sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act or pursuant to the compulsory copyright licensing provisions of Sections I I I and 119 of the Copyright Act (Title 17 U.S.C. Sections I I I and 119); programming involving candidates for public office covered by Sections 315 and 312 of the Communications Act and associated policies; commercial leased access, public access, governmental and educational access programming carried pursuant to Sections 611 and 612 of the Communications Act; video programming distributed by direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services in compliance with the noncommercial programming requirement pursuant to Section 335(b)(3) of the Communications Act to the extent such video programming is exempt from the editorial control of the video programming provider; and video programming distributed by a common carrier or that is distributed on an open video system pursuant to Section 653 of the Communications Act by an entity other than the open video system operator. To the extent such video programming isnot otherwise exempt from captioning, the entity that contracts for its distribution shall be required to comply with the closed captioning requirements of this section. (f Procedures for Exemptions Based on Undue Burden. (1) A video programming provider, video programming producer or video programming owner may petition the Commission for a full or partial exemption from the closed captioning requirements. Exemptions may be granted, in whole or in part, for a channel of video programming, a category or type of video programming, an individual video service, a specific video program or a video programming provider upon a finding that the closed captioning requirements will result in an undue burden. III Page 8 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: Here are some more quotations that don't seem to say that we have to cut off our nose to save our face. I was told by Norm Oleson that the simple requirements are right there in 28CFR A4. 1 have not been able to find that reference, so I hope that he actually brings the ruling or rule to the meeting so that we can actually see what he is talking about. While there at the website for Code of Federal Rules, I found the following information which seems to say that we have quite a bit of space to consider exactly what is required of Hawaii County. Mahalo, KD 0 Page 9 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: http//www.access.ipo.jov/nara/cfrrndex.htmi page TITLE 28 --JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER I --DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 35 --NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Sec. 35.164 Duties. This subpart does not require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with this subpart would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of the public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this subpart would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity. E Page 10 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: Sec. 36.303 Auxiliary aids and services. (a) General. A public accommodation shall take those steps that may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that taking those steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or would result in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense. (b) Examples. The term ' 'auxiliary aids and services" includes— (1) Qualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided transcription services, written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDD's), videotext displays, or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing im airments;__ (2) Qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Brailled materials, large print materials, or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals with visual impairments; a Page 11 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: Section 35.160 General Section 35.160 requires the public entity to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. Paragraph (b)(1) requires the public entity to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the public entity's service, program, or activity. The public entity must provide an opportunity for individuals with disabilities to request the auxiliary aids and services of their choice. This expressed choice shall be given primary consideration by the public entity (Sec. 35.160(b)(2)). The public entity shall honor the choice unless it can demonstrate that another effective means of communication exists or that use of the means chosen would not be required under Sec. 35.164. Deference to the request of the individual with a disability is desirable because of the range of disabilities, the variety of auxiliary aids and services, and different circumstances requiring effective communication. For instance, some courtrooms are now equipped for "computer-assisted transcripts," which allow virtually instantaneous transcripts of courtroom argument and testimony to appear on displays. Such a system might be an effective auxiliary aid or service for a person who is deaf or has a hearing loss who uses speech to communicate, but may be useless for someone who uses sign language. Although in some circumstances a notepad and written materials may be sufficient to permit effective communication, in other circumstances they may not be sufficient. For example, a qualified interpreter may be necessary when the information being communicated is complex, or is exchanged for a lengthy period of time. Generally, factors to be considered in determining whether an interpreter is required include the context in which the communication is taking place, the number of people involved, and the importance of the communication. Several commenters asked that the rule clarify that the provision of readers is sometimes necessary to ensure access to a public entity's services, programs or activities. Reading devices or readers should be provided when necessary for equal participation and opportunity to benefit from any governmental service, program, or activity, such as reviewing public documents, examining demonstrative evidence, and filling out voter registration forms or forms needed to receive public benefits. The importance of providing qualified readers for examinations 11111 Page 12 of 13 Reference Materials of interest: administered by public entities is discussed under Sec. 35.130. Reading devices and readers areappropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to permit an individual with a disability to participate in or benefit from a service, program, or activity. Section 35.160(b)(2) of the proposed rule, which provided that a public entity need not furnish individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature, has been deleted in favor of a new section in the final rule on personal devices and services (see Sec. 35.135). In response to comments, the term ' ' auxiliary aids and services" is used in place of ' ' auxiliary aids" in the final rule. This phrase better reflects the range of aids and services that may be required under this section. A number of comments raised questions about the extent of a public entity's obligation to provide access to television programming for persons with hearing impairments. Television and videotape programming produced by public entities are covered by this section. Access to audio portions of such programming may be provided by closed captioning. Section 35.161 Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf (TDD's) Section 35.161 requires that, where a public entity communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, TDD's or equally effective telecommunication systems be used to communicate with individuals with impaired speech or hearing. 0 Page 13 of 13