In a memo dated January 4, Pima County administrator Chuck Huckelberry appears to have unilaterally disregarded the Americans with Disability Act by changing the definition of accommodation to “special favor.” Huckelberry’s move has raised concerns for advocates of the physically challenged and many elderly in the community who rely on accommodations in order to live full life.
In the memo regarding an accommodation made for Ms. Geri Ottoboni, whose physical challenge makes walking long distances nearly impossible, Huckelberry writes that the Clerk of the Board, Robin Brigode has not been contacted by “any other member of the public requesting special accessibility.” Yet, Huckelberry concludes that Ottoboni’s accommodation is a “favor not granted to members of the public…”
According to the ADA guidelines, “An individual with disabilities’ right of access to “reasonable accommodation” is truly at the heart of the ADA. In essence, an “accommodation” is a modification of established procedures or existing physical space to allow full access to and participation in those activities enjoyed by the general public. Accommodations may be as simple as placing blocks of wood under a table’s legs to make it high enough for use by a person who uses a wheelchair, or as complicated as widening doorways, or rewiring light switches so they can be lowered to wheelchair height. It is important to note that accommodations need not be expensive, and as long as employers and others subject to ADA regulations made a reasonable effort to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities they will (usually) find themselves in compliance. “
It is unclear how, with no one else having requested and having been denied a similar accommodation, Huckelberry deems the accommodation a “special favor,” as opposed to what is legally expected of those entities subject to ADA regulations.
According to DOJ ADA Fact Sheet, accommodations can cost an entity thousands of dollars, but the average (51%) like that made for Ottoboni cost less than $500.
In his memo, Huckelberry claims that Miller ordered County staff to make the accommodation, however, Miller is quite clear in her email to County Parking administration Manager, Jim Garrison, that she is asking for – not ordering that an accommodation be made. Miller goes so far as to ask Garrison, “Please let me know if Pima County has another policy or option for this individual if that is necessary.”
As we reported in December, initially Miller received a response from Garrison that the request would be honored without further incident. After permission was again granted by Parking administration personnel, the Sergeant at Arms, Eric Johnson, forwarded the email to Huckelberry notifying him that Ottoboni had been granted permission to park in the disabled parking twice monthly for the board meetings.
Huckelberry admits in his memo that instructions for the public seeking accommodations are only found on the Clerk of the Board’s Meeting Agenda cover page. In fact, a quick review of the Pima County website shows that the only apparent reference to accessibility is a tab on the home page that leads the public to rules regarding the accessibility of the website. As a result, it would not be surprising that a member of the public seeking an accommodation would contact the supervisor requesting assistance.
Many say that Huckelberry’s latest move is strictly intended to intimidate Miller and silence Ottoboni. Both women have been highly critical of the County administrator and the special favors granted by a majority of the County Board of Supervisors. Huckelberry, and his vast public relations team along with the County Attorney has effectively silenced any opposition over the years – that is until Miller was elected.
Related article: Pima County Parking Decision Smacks Of Retaliation