ILNews

Lawyer sees Super Bowl as moment to showcase inclusiveness

Jenny Montgomery
February 1, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney Greg Fehribach is looking forward to Super Bowl XLVI, when thousands of visitors to Indianapolis will make their way through downtown, thanks in part to infrastructure he helped design. For Fehribach, who uses a wheelchair as a mobility aid, the hallmark of any great city is its ability to offer everyone the same experiences.

A different world

When Fehribach was a child growing up in the Circle City – before the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – getting from point A to point B required a bit more planning.
 

Fehribach03-15col.jpg (From L to R) Mary Beth and Greg Fehribach, Juli Paini and Jennifer Mendoza look forward to an accessible Super Bowl where curb cuts, like the one shown below, will allow visitors to move freely throughout Indianapolis. (IL Photos/ Perry Reichanadter)
street-ramp03-15col.jpg

“There was no accessibility – actually you didn’t even have to be accessible in the United States until 1990. In the ’70s, education required more accessible features, but cities and towns didn’t have to have curb cuts or anything to that effect,” he said.

Reflecting on his decision to become a lawyer, Fehribach smiled and said that because his mother emphati-

cally told him he could not become a ditch digger, he had to come up with a different plan. And he said law seemed like a good career for a person with a disability.

“Plus, law is still one of the only professions in the world where you can actually change the world with a pen and paper, and that had an awful lot of interest to me,” he said.

So Fehribach became a lawyer, sworn in to practice four years before “ADA compliance” had become part of the American vocabulary. He continues to serve as of counsel for Doninger Tuohy & Bailey, and he leads his own consulting firm, The Fehribach Group. In that role, he has helped engineers, project managers and architects shape the kind of all-inclusive environments that didn’t exist when he was a child – among them, Lucas Oil Stadium.

Before Lucas Oil Stadium was built, the Indianapolis Colts played at the RCA Dome. Built before the days of ADA, the RCA Dome’s accessible seating was cordoned off from other seating, and visitors had to enter through a separate door to reach it. Lucas Oil Stadium was designed so that all of its entryways are wheelchair-friendly, and its accessible seating is found throughout the venue, allowing people who use mobility aids to be part of the crowd.

It’s not just the buildings and sidewalks that have changed over time; societal attitudes have changed, too.

Fehribach said in the past, the question on most business owners’ minds was: What do we have to do to be ADA-compliant? But now, savvy business owners ask, “How can we do more?” Because they understand that people with disabilities have money to spend.

The economics of inclusion

Sitting at a table with his wife and business manager Mary Beth Fehribach; his administrative and communications coordinator Jennifer Mendoza; and Juli Paini, attorney and director of the Office of Disability Affairs for the City of Indianapolis; Greg Fehribach explained that years ago, the public perception of people with disabilities was that they needed help.

“Typically, from a social service perspective, you look at a health care model or a health care philosophy with people with disabilities – they were sick, and so how do you care for sick people?” he said. “Now, it’s more of an economic model, meaning people with disabilities – Juli and I are two of them – we’d like to buy a cup of coffee, or we’d like to buy a ticket to a ballgame or to a show or an event. It’s not so much: Do we have to let them in? It’s: Of course we want them in; we want to get into their pockets!”

Fehribach said lawyers can help shift the focus for their business clients away from being so worried about costs that they fail to see the benefits people with disabilities can offer as members of the workforce and as consumers.

A study by disability advocacy group Open Doors Organization estimated in 2003 that people with disabilities would spend $35 billion dining at restaurants that year. And the study found that more than 75 percent of people with disabilities eat at restaurants at least once a week.

Defining good design

On an icy, blustery day, Paini wraps her hands around her Starbucks cup as she ponders what factors constitute an accessible environment.

“You know that you’ve created a universally accessible space or program when people don’t notice,” she said. “For me, with my particular disability, to walk down a street that’s accessible, my disability really doesn’t come into play. It’s when you have those barriers and you have to address them that disability comes into play, and so a universally accessible environment – which we’ve created here in Indianapolis – everyone’s going to be able to enjoy.”

Paini, the Fehribachs and Mendoza are all members of the ADA Disability Inclusion Subcommittee of the 2012 Indianapolis Super Bowl Host Committee. Other members include Larry Markle, director of disabled student development for Ball State University; Carlos Taylor, director of adaptive technology for Ball State University; and Peter Bisbecos, an attorney who was the first official to oversee ADA compliance in Indianapolis in a role that later developed into the one Paini fulfills now.

In 1992, Bisbecos’ first task was ensuring city buses were accessible. Of the many gains Indianapolis has made over the years in allowing all people to share in the same experiences, Bisbecos seems most impressed with the design of Bankers Life Fieldhouse, home court for the Indiana Pacers and Indiana Fever.

“If you look at the fieldhouse, if you look at the decks between the levels, that’s the best accessible seating in the country,” he said. “Because there is no fixed seating there, a person can interact more with a person who comes with them. Accessible seating used to be so limited that only a few people could go.”

Bisbecos said that another benefit the mezzanine-level seating offers is that when fans closer to the court leap to their feet in excitement, they aren’t blocking the view of people sitting in the middle level.

“That was Greg’s idea,” Bisbecos said. “He may say it was somebody else’s idea, but I think it was his.”

Bisbecos said he’s excited that so many people around the world will turn their focus to Indianapolis for the Super Bowl.

“Indianapolis has got a lot to be proud of,” he said.

Learning opportunities

In his blog, Greg Fehribach wrote about a recent experience where he was part of a group that was receiving an honor, and when honorees were called to the stage – due to the tight clearance between tables – he wasn’t able to join his colleagues. Even if he had been able to maneuver through the narrow aisles, he could not have accessed the elevated stage.

While some people may interpret that event as unfortunate and disappointing, Fehribach sees it as a way to bring people closer together.

“Education is a fascinating trade, and often times when you’re a learner, you can read a textbook, but the learner doesn’t always grasp it until they actually see the issue being negative or positive in motion, so there’s suddenly an ‘a-ha’ moment when a learner and educator have that opportunity to share mutual experiences,” he said. “I think the Super Bowl is that mutual experience for Indianapolis at this time. Sport has always been that bridging of social, economic and other factors because we all cheer for the same things or for the same team – or half cheer for one, and half cheer for the other – and that cheering for a common cause is what breaks down barriers.”

More work to be done

Fehribach takes pride in the many projects the city has completed in order to be more accommodating of its residents. And in 2009, the National Organization on Disability named Indianapolis the most disability-friendly city in the United States. But Fehribach is quick to point out that the progress he’s seen so far is just the beginning.

“It’s fun to watch the project and the space mature because then that allows more people to use the space, the facility or the program more inclusively every single day,” he said. “So when you open up a project, when you begin a project, you don’t go for the expectation of this is the end. It’s only the beginning.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT