Reporter Volume 25, No.10 November 4, 1993

By MARK WALLACE
Reporter Staff

The Faculty Senate passed resolutions last week calling for the
University at Buffalo to take the necessary steps to remove all
architectural barriers to facilities access for persons with
disabilities, despite the fact that UB is not legally required to do
so.
	The Senate passed all three resolutions suggested by Scott
Danford of Architecture and Planning in his report as chair of the
Faculty Senate Standing Committee on Facilities Planning.
	Under the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) of 1990, UB is
covered by Title II, Danford said, which legally requires it only to
provide access to its programs for persons with disabilities. But the
Faculty Senate resolutions nonetheless called for UB to conduct an
accessibility assessment survey of its facilities and to pursue
dedicated state funding for the systematic removal of all barriers to
access from its facilities.
	The resolutions also called for SUNY to stop current budget
practices that force accessibility projects to compete directly with
maintenance projects for the same pool of monies.
	According to Danford, the accessibility assessment survey
called for by the resolutions would enable UB to identify all its
architectural barriers and to put an accurate price tag on the cost of
their removal, information which, Danford said, UB does not currently
have. Up to this point in time, UB has not even done the more limited
assessment survey which Title II requires them to do, Danford said.
	The resolutions also called for UB to pursue state funding for
the removal of such barriers through either legislative intervention
that would permit the combining of low-cost accessibility projects so
that they can qualify for funding through the SUNY Construction Fund,
or through appropriations targeted specifically by the State
Legislature for the purpose of removing barriers to access.
	John Boot of Management Science and Systems said that he had
information that many students with disabilities were happy with UB's
current policies, and that many such students felt that UB had been
quite responsive in dealing with their particular concerns. He said
that UB had "gone a long way" on improving its accessibility for such
students, and he questioned whether an attempt to remove all
architectural barriers to access was more important than other
concerns.
	Danford responded by saying that, at UB, the onus is still on
students to identify themselves as having a disability and that,
"unfortunately, there's still a stigma attached." He said also that it
was not the goal of his committee's report to compare the importance
of removing architectural barriers to access with other concerns at
UB.
	In other business, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to
strongly urge UB administrators and community and state leaders to "do
their utmost to support the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra," and
Michael Cowen of Mathematics suggested that the faculty might want to
be involved in the issues surrounding the proposed implementation of
the Schedule 25 computer program at UB.
	"It's being presented as only a technical issue, but I'm not
sure that's clear," Cowen said. He mentioned several concerns which he
felt might involve the faculty, including the problem of how
scheduling will be changed by the new system.
	The faculty had not been asked to participate in the decision
to implement Schedule 25, Cowen said, and added that he believed it
was a decision in which the faculty was "concerned vitally. We
shouldn't just be told about it," he said. He said that he was worried
that Schedule 25 would be implemented before the faculty had a chance
to act.
	Samuel Schack of Mathematics suggested that the FSEC should
consider a resolution to enter into decisions about Schedule 25, and
Peter Nickerson, chair of the Faculty Senate, agreed that it was a
concern and that he would look into it.