ComplianceClose-up

Are you listening, Mrs. Adelman?

Many years ago, although it doesn't seem so, I was regularly invited to participate in the jazzercise class by the many seniors who observed me as I passed through the community room to grab my morning cup of coffee.  I always declined, citing appointments or professional distance.  Those things were true as was the unspoken reason I wouldn't participate: I didn't want to be embarrassed by people in their 70's and 80's who were in better shape than me. 

One resident, Mrs. Ida Adelman, was particularly aggressive in her efforts to recruit me to the class.  "Some day, you'll wish you were part of this class," she said, finally giving up her efforts -- but not before serving up a plate of guilt with my morning coffee, and giving me her best "I know something you don't know" look.

Are you listening, Mrs. Adelman, wherever you are?  If so, please know that you were right!

Which leads me to today's posting.  Now, I am not going to serve up any guilt to go with your morning (or afternoon) coffee, but several of you took issue with my last post where I wrote that stating in the tenant selection plan that management would pay for unit transfers as a reasonable accommodation was a bad idea.  I am not authoritarian, and I welcome opposing views.

I was not saying that management should not make any reference to paying costs of a unit transfer as a reasonable accommodation.  I did indicate that making an absolute statement to this effect was a bad idea with regard to the tenant selection plan.  Certainly, any reasonable accommodations policy must state that owners will pay costs connected to a unit transfer if the request would not result in an undue financial and administrative burden.

My work here is done.  I now resume my morning coffee, sans any guilt.  But no, there is no jazzercise class where I am now.

Sleep well, Mrs. Adelman.  Sleep well.

More on "Are You Willing to Testify....?"

I appreciate the many comments that were sent in response to my "Are you willing to testify...?" post.  This includes posts from those who didn't agree with me...I would never make a claim to always being right.  I hope you'll agree with my feeling that reasonable accommodations is an important topic to discuss.

One of the things I intentionally left out of my earlier post were the guidelines on reasonable accommodation issued jointly by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development-US Department of Justice on May 17, 2004 (similar guidelines have recently been issued on the related topic of reasonable modification).

I want to draw your attention to Question 17 of the May 17, 2004 document that sates as follows: "....If a person's disability is obvious or otherwise known to the [housing] provider, and if the need for the requested accommodation is also readily apparent or known, then the [housing] provider may not request any additional information about the requester's disability or the disability-related need for accommodation. [HUD-Justice Department Guidelines of 5/17/04, pages 12-13, emphasis added].

The guidelines go on to state that you could verify only the disability-related need for accommodation if the disability was "known or obvious," but the need for the accommodation was not as readily apparent.

Finally, since so many of the responses focused on Medical Doctors, Question 18 states that when verification of disability is necessary this can come from "....a doctor or other medical professional, peer support group, a non-medical service agency or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual's disability..." [HUD-Justice Department Guidelines of 5/17/04, pages 13-14].

The full HUD-Justice Department guidelines can be accessed using the following URL: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/huddojstatement.pdf

'Are You Willing To Testify ...?'

Several years ago while in the process of doing a policy review, I noticed the following question on a verification form used for reasonable accommodation: "Are you willing to testify to the truth of these statements in a court of law?"  When I asked why this question was on the form, the management company told me that it had been suggested by their attorney since "doctors will write anything their patient asks them to write."  I have a high regard for most attorneys-at-law and generally don't second guess their advice, since I am not an attorney.  And I am not unfamiliar with the other concern the management company expressed.

What leads me to write about this now, and in this forum, is that I believe the practice of asking the question "Are you willing to testify....?" is more widespread than I had imagined.

Splitting families?

Let me suggest a couple of scenarios:

In the first, a husband and wife are divorcing.  One of the couple wants to move into another unit at the site, while their spouse retains the existing unit.

In the second, two people who live in the same unit approach management to request, as a reasonable accommodation, that one of the household members leave the unit and occupy another unit at the property.

Do these scenarios sound familiar to you?

The fact of the matter is that HUD has historically not looked favorably on the splitting of families into different, federally assisted units with the possible exception of the Demo-Dispo program.  In the first scenario, the best way to handle the matter would probably be to request the individual who wants their own apartment at the property to complete an application (this assumes you have a waiting list that is open).  But, you probably want to develop a written policy for such circumstances as the one described in the first scenario.