Comments on: AHEAD Analysis of Section 121: Chafee Amendment http://fairuselab.net/2009/04/10/ahead-analysis-of-section-121-chafee-amendment/ Re-Imagining Accessibility, Disability & the Public Sphere Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:05:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: john e miller http://fairuselab.net/2009/04/10/ahead-analysis-of-section-121-chafee-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-211 john e miller Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:22:44 +0000 http://fairuselab.net/?p=195#comment-211 According to correspondence I have had directly with Counsel for the AAP on another matter related to the Chafee Amendment, AHEAD members might very well be able to qualify as 'authorized entities'. This is because Counsel for the AAP, in other portions of the AHEAD position paper that you have referenced, argues for a strict interpretation of the wording in the Chafee Amendment. However, in the matter of contention -- regarding another section of the Chafee amendment --that I have with the AAP, he says IN WRITING that a strict interpretation would not reflect the INTENT of the legislation drafters. AHEAD argues in the Position paper that, while a strict interpretation of 'authorized entity' under the Chafee amendment would exclude its members -- in that they do not have a 'primary mission' of supplying reading materials in a 'specialized format', it would not have been the INTENT of the legislation drafters to exclude universities et al who provide large amounts of such 'specialized format' materials to their students and/or faculty. In arguing the case for their member's designation as an 'authorized entity' AHEAD could quote the arguments as AAP argued against me -- and use those arguments to defend their position. According to correspondence I have had directly with Counsel for the AAP on another matter related to the Chafee Amendment, AHEAD members might very well be able to qualify as ‘authorized entities’. This is because Counsel for the AAP, in other portions of the AHEAD position paper that you have referenced, argues for a strict interpretation of the wording in the Chafee Amendment. However, in the matter of contention — regarding another section of the Chafee amendment –that I have with the AAP, he says IN WRITING that a strict interpretation would not reflect the INTENT of the legislation drafters.

AHEAD argues in the Position paper that, while a strict interpretation of ‘authorized entity’ under the Chafee amendment would exclude its members — in that they do not have a ‘primary mission’ of supplying reading materials in a ‘specialized format’, it would not have been the INTENT of the legislation drafters to exclude universities et al who provide large amounts of such ‘specialized format’ materials to their students and/or faculty.

In arguing the case for their member’s designation as an ‘authorized entity’ AHEAD could quote the arguments as AAP argued against me — and use those arguments to defend their position.

]]>