Advocates tell committee state websites and materials are inaccessible to people with disabilities
Loading...
Summary
Advocates told the committee Vermont.gov and agency pages lack audio/video and accessible document options, excluding people with vision, literacy or processing disabilities. Witnesses asked lawmakers to require accessibility, involve disability experts in bill drafting and improve accommodation practices.
Brenda Siegel, executive director of Advent Homelessness Vermont, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that state websites and documents are frequently inaccessible to people with disabilities and to people experiencing homelessness.
“We have to ask for that accommodation and then be denied it when it's literally the only way that you can do your job,” Siegel said, describing repeated requests for accessible versions of documents that were replied to with links rather than emailed files.
Siegel said agency pages such as Department for Children and Families (DCF) remain difficult to use for people who cannot read or who lack internet access. She cited a draft phase of a multi‑year study, saying roughly "9.5 of the people that we interviewed could not read or write," and urged the committee to require audio and video alternatives and clearer, document‑based accommodation paths.
Committee members noted the state is under pressure to upgrade many agency pages for accessibility, and members discussed the cost and implementation hurdles for broad IT updates. Witnesses recommended several practical first steps: ensure color contrast and basic accessibility features, provide audio/video and downloadable documents, and involve disability experts and people with lived experience when drafting bills.
Siegel identified organizations the committee should consult, including the Vermont Center for Independent Living, Disability Rights Vermont, the Developmental Disability Coalition, the Human Rights Commission and Homelessness Vermont. She urged explicit statutory language so disability accommodations are not left to discretionary practice.
The committee took no formal action during the hearing but said it would follow up on accessibility questions; members and witnesses agreed to continue the conversation and to include disability advocates in future drafting and oversight.
