There's an overlooked disability aspect of the media furor over the cookie smell ad promotion in bus shelters. It goes to the professionalism and awareness--or lack thereof--of those in power or working for the city. It happened during the December 5th MTA Board of Directors meeting discussion about the requested ending of the cookie smell ad promotion in MUNI bus shelters.Two of the MTA Board members talked about "not going overboard" on this issue and also asking for some scientific evidence, rather than just hearsay and allegations, about "multiple chemical sensitivities" / environmental illness". This MAY have sounded prudent to the public, but got no follow-up comment from either MTA management nor from any of the deputy city attorneys attending the meeting. So?

The comments, but more so the silence, says that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON from within or responsible to MTA pays attention to their own meeting announcement. Rather, they pay attention to their experience and feelings, without regard to the long-standing formalities of open meeting process here in San Francisco.

For nearly a decade, it has been city policy to have all public meeting notices indicate a need to be aware of those with "...severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities.." so that "...attendees at public meetings...may be sensitive to various chemical based products."

While some may think it's unnecessary for members of boards and commissions to be aware of the specific text on their own meeting notices, here's where MTA systemwide shows its neglect and bias.

Item 3 is a standing item on the MTA calendar of business; it calls for "announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices during the meeting." Sounds prudent.

So, how does this relate to a meeting announcement about environmental illness / multiple chemical sensitivity?

Look carefully at the MTA meeting announcement's 2nd page, which has two topics: Accessible Meeting Policy and Know Your Rights under The Sunshine Ordinance.

The very last paragraph of the Accessible Meeting Policy is the prohibition on sound-producing devices, while the paragraph immediately above it details the need for awareness of and responsiveness to those dealing with environmental illness / multiple chemical sensitivity. The section on prohibiting sound-producing devices was added at the request of the MTA Board.

Why and how the prohibition on sound-producing devices was considered part of an Accessible Meeting Policy may be part of a future discussion. What's important is that this topic deliberately required by the MTA board is part of that Accessible Meeting Policy.

Which means the MTA Board, management, and even legal counsel can't pick and choose what aspects of an Accessible Meeting Policy to adhere to and which NOT to adhere to. Yet, the MTA board members' comments on December 5th, as well as the silence from MTA management and from legal counsel, indicates just that--they want to focus on what bothers them, but not on what might bother the public.

Readers also must remember there has been recent discussions about and legislation on prohibiting smoking in and around MUNI bus shelters. So, if smoking cigarettes in and around a bus shelter is to be banned, then why would any sort of odor-emitting activity automatically be allowable? What would be the type of allowable smells? And, who would make such a determination? Would MTA come up with a "smell police"?

The latter questions are asked rhetorically, to again make the point of how selective and inattentive the MTA board members, MTA management, and MTA legal counsel are about what is long-standing city policy about accommodating ALL constituencies to MTA meetings and facilities.

Finally, if the MTA board and management aren't even familiar with their own meeting notice policies, then how good an analysis and familiarity will they exhibit when it comes to complicated and sophisticated matters that absolutely require detailed scrutiny and prudent judgment?

Are we stuck with people running MTA who are inattentive, and selectively so?

What else will they let slip by them, then?