Polaneczky: A disabling admissions policy

IT GOES WITHOUT saying that if your institution is named for Benjamin Franklin, you shouldn't engage in practices that would make America's founding Everyman puke with revulsion on his buckled shoes.

So shame on the Franklin Institute for demanding admissions fees for personal-care attendants who must accompany their disabled clients to the museum.

And - mwah! - a big, fat kiss to U.S. District Judge Gerald A. McHugh, who just ruled against the institute, which was sued for its nasty, petty, mean-spirited penny-pinching.

The complaint was filed in 2013 by lead plaintiff Michael Anderson, 35 - a local man with cerebral palsy - and the wonderful disability-rights group Vision for Equality.

Anderson uses an electric wheelchair and, according to his lawsuit, needs help 24/7 with "eating, dressing, toileting, bathing, manual dexterity, safety, and physical mobility, including transfer to and from bed and wheelchair direction, among other activities."

In other words, he is entirely dependent on another human being, at all times, for all the things that the able-bodied among us blissfully take for granted.

Without his government-funded personal-care assistant (or PCA), Anderson would be unable to visit the Franklin Institute, or any venue, for that matter.

For the institute to charge him an admission fee for his PCA is to charge him double to visit the museum.

So much for the playing field that was supposed to have been leveled by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In its callow defense, the museum argued that Anderson's PCA was a "guest." But the PCA, whom Anderson relies upon for every single activity of daily living, was no more a "guest" than Anderson's own wheelchair was.

The institute, in an awful, condescending assessment, even likened Anderson's PCA to a child's chaperone or nanny. Thank God that Judge McHugh, a decent man, responded that the museum's "insistence on equating disabled individuals to children not only misstates plaintiff's legal position, it runs counter to one of the goals of the ADA."

Which is to not infantilize adults just because they're disabled. I mean, how does the institute plan to insult Anderson next - pronounce him "adorable" and tickle him under the chin?

You know what else is galling?

The institute argued that waiving fees for PCAs would throw the museum off a financial cliff, leading to budget cuts, layoffs, and the elimination of services.

That's a helluva claim. So the judge, reasonably, wanted to know just how many of the institute's 760,000-plus annual visitors were PCAs anyway.

To threaten the museum's very solvency, they had to number in the thousands.

But in the course of defending the lawsuit, the institute's own staffers admitted they don't track how many disabled people attend the museum, or how many bring a PCA with them.

So they couldn't even give a ballpark estimate of the cost of admitting PCAs at no charge. Nor could they offer a guess whether the institute's IMAX theaters ever fill their wheelchair-accessible spots to capacity during show times.

Bizarrely, the institute's own understanding of its PCA admissions policy waffled wildly during the 32 months the museum fought the lawsuit. Judge McHugh generously referred to the waffling as "evolving," but trust me, it was waffling.

The museum went from defending its no-free-admissions policy, to saying it actually had one that needed tweaking (not that it was written down anywhere), to dissembling again, in a letter to Anderson's mother, that reiterated a no-free-ride policy.

I can't imagine what the Franklin Institute paid in legal fees to defend a suit that Anderson's attorney, Stephen Gold, told me he thought would be resolved within months. But I'll bet my copy of Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac" it's a bajillion dollars more than a thousand waived $19.95 general admissions to the institute.

The institute was defended by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, whose highest hourly rates are $1,200. (What does a client get for that, I wonder? Lawn service? McMuffins in bed?) Maybe lead attorney Anne Marie Estavez, a Miami-based partner with the firm, charged half that. (An institute spokeswoman, Stefanie Santo, couldn't comment on legal fees.)

But c'mon. This thing consumed 32 months' worth of written and oral filings in federal court. And the institute is threatening to appeal the judge's decision, another expense.

Unless it's all pro bono, that's quite a penny earned, to paraphrase Franklin himself.

Speaking of which, Franklin Institute president and CEO Larry Dubinski, himself a former Morgan Lewis lawyer, pockets a very pretty salary.

In 2014, according to the institute's most recent tax filings, he was paid $417,165. But that was while outgoing president Dennis Wint was working his way toward the door. I don't know what Dubinski is making now that he's alone at the helm, but nonprofits sure pay well, don't they?

Much more money than a severely disabled man has at his disposal once he and his family have tapped into all they have for his basic survival tools. Like a wheelchair. And 24-hour supervision so he doesn't die while trying to live a life with as much dignity as possible when every physical need is handled by someone else.

In its defense, the institute has good physical accommodations for disabled visitors: Multiple ramps, elevators, and handicapped-accessible restrooms. Headsets and closed-captioning devices for the hearing-impaired. Availability of sign-language interpreters (with restrictions).

The museum stands behind its compliance with ADA standards in spirit and deed.

"The Franklin Institute is proud of its long history of serving the disabled community, and we have done so with respect through access programs, and far-reaching education and outreach initiatives," said museum spokeswoman Santo in a statement.

"We disagree with the decision of the District Court, and will explore all of our options. Since the start of this unprecedented case, the Institute made numerous attempts to resolve this matter with the Plaintiffs. We are committed to continuing to serve the disabled community as we always have."

It's that last phrase - "as we always have" - that needs a tweaking. Museum leaders need to grow in their understanding of what severely disabled people are up against. They should start by abandoning the thought of appealing the judge's decision and learning more about people like Michael Anderson.

As Franklin sometimes is quoted as saying, "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

Which is definitely true. Even if he didn't say it.

So now that your eyes have been opened, Franklin Institute, you can stop working so hard.

polaner@phillynews.com

215-854-2217 @RonniePhilly

Blog: ph.ly/RonnieBlog

Columns: ph.ly/Ronnie