Library Seeking Input on Accessibility for Disabled

Library board asking residents to share suggestions.

In order to meet certain requirements as well as make the more accessible for patrons, the library board is turning to residents for suggestions, as reported by the Morton Grove Champion.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lists various standards for building designs in order to assist those with disabilities including wheelchair ramps and accessible routes. The library currently doesn’t meet certain accessibility code standards for those with disabilities.

Earlier: .

Priority areas include entrance and exits, as well as the Baxter Room where library board meetings and programs take place. 

Trustee Paul Berg told the Champion the committee was still researching the project.

“And we welcome all input — from the community, the board, employees,” he said. “The more comments, the better.”

To read the entire article, visit the Morton Grove Champion.

Pat Craig December 21, 2011 at 09:59 PM
Imagine that, a public board listening to their constituents! Amazing! next thing you know, they'll lower the tax bite they take... wait a minute, they already did that!
Tony Kovacs December 21, 2011 at 10:42 PM
Okay we get it, how much longer are the BPAC and their allies going to keep bashing the old Board? Talk about scorched earth! Happy Holidays.
Pat Craig December 21, 2011 at 10:57 PM
I don't understand your comment Tony, are you saying listening to constituents and lowering taxes is a bad thing? Or that giving a compliment to those who are responsible is somehow "bashing"? Happy holidays to one and all.
Lizzy T December 22, 2011 at 02:02 AM
I have to disagree with Mr. Kovacs impression about the current library board members bashing the old ones and once again talking about elections. It seems there were a number of mistakes in the past with the library's management that seens to have been corrected by the new people. Perhaps it would be better if those still wishing their side won would not keep bringing up political issues, which just incites more division. If we don't all look at and learn from our mistakes, how can we, or those we elect, contnue to work for a better future?
Daniel Marconi December 22, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Really Mr. Kansoer? is that what Mr. Kovacs said or your unbiased (BPAC) interpretation. Mr. Town Crier, give it a rest for all of us during the Holidays please. I'm pretty sure the previous board collected plenty of community commentary on this topic but of course you refuse to acknowledge this. Mr. Scorched earth, give it a rest.
Daniel Marconi December 22, 2011 at 04:32 PM
Really Lizzy T? I'm of the opinion that your'e not very informed. Mistakes have happened in the past and are happening now w/BPAC board. Let's just ignore these though like the rest of the BPAC followers. BPAC chose to "sensationalize" their run to control the Libary so lets at least admit this. I personally like your suggestion to work for a better future; but Mr. Kansoer's comments continue to take us back. Very disappointing.
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 04:45 PM
Apparently Mr. Marconi you have nothing to say on the subject so you attack another commenter. Bottom line here is that, unlike the school board, both the library and the village did NOT raise taxes and the library is apparently making an effort to listen to their constituents. Regarding the previous board collecting commentary that is an assertion you have no evidence to back up. What can be proven is that the previous board spent large sums on consultants and there is evidence that the result was steered toward a predetermined conclusion. I am quite capable of documenting those facts, as is any citizen who is willing to file a Freedom of Information request. I was praising the work of the board... if you wish to revisit the shortcomings of the previous one, I will be glad to continue to pursue that subject.
Casey Faust December 22, 2011 at 06:15 PM
This is really sad. Even during the holidays there is nastiness towards each other. I can not wait to see what the bill will be if there is any updating of the library to make it ADA compliant. It was grandfathered in and if anything significant is changed the entire library must be compliant. It is not like they can just put a ramp or hand bar here or there. Then the existing consultant report will come back to shed light again.
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 06:34 PM
Casey; That bit of misinformation regarding ADA compliance has been repeated over and over but that doesn't make it true. The following is from http://www.ada.gov - Q. What changes must a public entity make to its existing facilities to make them accessible? A. A public entity must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from services, programs, and activities because existing buildings are inaccessible. A State or local government's programs, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This standard, known as "program accessibility," applies to facilities of a public entity that existed on January 26, 1992. Public entities do not necessarily have to make each of their existing facilities accessible. They may provide program accessibility by a number of methods including alteration of existing facilities, acquisition or construction of additional facilities, relocation of a service or program to an accessible facility, or provision of services at alternate accessible sites.
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 06:35 PM
Part 2 Q. What does title II require for new construction and alterations? A. The ADA requires that all new buildings constructed by a State or local government be accessible. In addition, when a State or local government undertakes alterations to a building, it must make the altered portions accessible. Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's barrier removal requirements for existing facilities? A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is "readily achievable" to do so. Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean? A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense." Q. What are examples of the types of modifications that would be readily achievable in most cases? A. Examples include the simple ramping of a few steps, the installation of grab bars where only routine reinforcement of the wall is required, the lowering of telephones, and similar modest adjustments. Q. What are examples of the types of modifications that would be readily achievable in most cases? A. Examples include the simple ramping of a few steps, the installation of grab bars where only routine reinforcement of the wall is required, the lowering of telephones, and similar modest adjustments. Not nastiness... just fact.
Daniel Marconi December 22, 2011 at 06:41 PM
There you go again "Mr. Town Crier", must you continue to have an opinion on everything that transpires in this community. I"m tired of it. Give it a rest or find a true hobby or something. Further, there is plenty of evidence to backup what the previous administration collected in terms of data on ADA compliance you choose to ignore it. Large sums of money on consultants pales in comparison to the fees now paid for an attorney stipend (do you know this monthly figure?) and now fees to have an outside institute provide financial advice. Give me a break... Continue to "praise the work of the board" and I cherish the opportunity to debate the shortcomings of the previous one. Bring it on...
Daniel Marconi December 22, 2011 at 06:43 PM
Thanks for shedding light onthe existing "consultant report" amongst other data that is already captured but Mr. Kansoer chooses to "praise" the board for reaching out to us in the community to capture additional data points when this has already been done. What a con.
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 06:54 PM
Mr. Marconi; 1)If you are tired of reading my opinions on Patch I suggest you stop reading my opinions on Patch. You may not have gotten the memo, but this is a public forum. 2) The attorney was hired to keep the new board from making the errors the old board made, such as violations of the open meetings act which the State's Attorney would have prosecuted had the board not self-reported the deficiencies. Those deficiencies can and should be laid at the feet of the previous board secretary Mr. Hoffman who, based on recent transgressions regarding recording rules and library by-laws still seems to have a problem comprehending. 3) The employment of the outside financial adviser is mandated by library by-laws... a fact that the previous board seems to have ignored. Seems like the only "con" here is Mr. Marconi trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Daniel Marconi December 22, 2011 at 07:11 PM
If I could get close enough to you then yes, I would pull out my wife's lipstick... Ready?
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Childish Daniel... about what I would expect.
sherwin dubren December 22, 2011 at 08:49 PM
Interesting that Pat is defending people's right to post on Patch. He has criticized me many times in the past for my commentaries, so his posting seems a bit hypocritical. In his view, it is not what is being posted, but who is doing the posting.
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 08:55 PM
Sherwin, I never said you shouldn't post on Patch, what I said was most of the time what you post is wrong. There is a difference. I will defend to the death your right to be totally off the mark.
sherwin dubren December 22, 2011 at 09:47 PM
Pat, I think you have to go back and re-read some of your replies to my postings. They were jabs, somewhat subtle about my posting too many criticisms. You seem to have a very narrow view on things, where only your thoughts are real story. I hope you will be more tolerant of my and other's views in the future.
Pat Craig December 22, 2011 at 09:55 PM
Sherwin; What I have criticized was the seemingly continual negative tenor of your postings, not your right to post them. There are times when some things are over the top and demand criticism and there are times when things are done right and deserve praise. Case in point is the original subject of this thread. It is my contention that when a public body, such as the library board makes and effort to listen to the taxpayers and actually lowers the bite that such behavior should be encouraged with praise. Conversely, when a public body such as the Niles Township High School board raises the levy by 8+% for no other reason than to get every cent they can, they should be excoriated. The real story is the real story, my commentary is just that... commentary. My opinions are just that... opinions. Some agree, some disagree. I tend to be intolerant of fools and dishonesty.
Daniel Marconi December 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Mr. Kansoer; you might want to educate yourself on how public school funding occurs and how differently this is from an institution e.g. a Village or a Library. It might open your eyes and you might be a little more acceptable to their line of reasoning, but that would of course require a fair amount of objectivity on your part versus a "black and white" view of how taxes are collected on behalf of local jurisdictions.
Dan Goldberg December 23, 2011 at 12:00 AM
The legislature hasn't addressed funding problems that have plagued the state's public schools for decades. Illinois’ current public school funding formula relies primarily on local property tax revenue within school districts to support local schools. Under the current scheme, approximately sixty percent of a district’s income is generated by local property taxes. Illinois state funds comprise only 28% of total public school funding, placing our state last nationally in terms of state contributions toward public education. Such extreme reliance on property taxes with the State’s reluctance to provide centralized funding is what has led to our problems. This means school boards and administrators are not asking for what they want, but end up increasing taxes to avoid not getting what they need. The schools in this state are operating with a broken system that no other local government should copy (and we're lucky some elements of government "get it" and haven't increased taxes). The best education for children that also doesn't break the back of their parents working more and spending less time with their kids while trying to keep their house is what's really important.
Lizzy T December 23, 2011 at 12:27 AM
Not informed Mr. Marconi? I beg to differ. In the spirit of the holidays I will forgive rude remarks. At least we agree that we should all work for a better future, but that is hard to do when one group of people keep clinging to a lost cause. In all I have read here since the library became an issue a year ago is what appears to be support of those who lost trying to poke at those who won to defend what has been reported to be at the very least, bad management. Maybe it is time to look at what is being accomplished now and stop casting dispersions? So, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!
M. Kim Jr. December 23, 2011 at 01:03 PM
Maybe this Champion article tells more about what's happening at the library and the progress made there than those commenting here with bias viewpoints? A good read: http://mortongrove.suntimes.com/9603682-417/library-board-president-stays-positive-in-year-end-review.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something