Keeping a dated accessibility record

What an accessibility record is

An accessibility record is a dated file that shows what a town checked, fixed, decided and answered about its web content, month by month. It is not a certificate or a score. It is the town’s own account of the work, written down when the work happened rather than pieced together later.

The ADA Title II web rule never uses the phrase. The reason to keep one comes from how the rule assigns proof. For the rule itself, start with the pillar guide.

Why 35.205 says “can demonstrate”

Section 35.205 says “can demonstrate” because the burden of proof sits with the town. If a document or page falls short of WCAG 2.1 Level AA, the town is treated as meeting the rule only if it can show the gap has minimal impact on access. Showing something takes evidence.

A public entity that is not in full compliance with the requirements of § 35.200(b) will be deemed to have met the requirements of § 35.200 in the limited circumstance in which the public entity can demonstrate that the noncompliance has such a minimal impact on access that it would not affect the ability of individuals with disabilities to use the public entity’s web content or mobile app to do any of the following in a manner that provides substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy, independence, and ease of use: (a) Access the same information as individuals without disabilities; (b) Engage in the same interactions as individuals without disabilities; (c) Conduct the same transactions as individuals without disabilities; and (d) Otherwise participate in or benefit from the same services, programs, and activities as individuals without disabilities.

28 CFR 35.205

The Department’s explanation leaves no doubt about who carries the load:

Further, as “demonstrate” indicates, the public entity must provide evidence that all of the criteria described in § 35.205 are satisfied in order to substantiate its reliance on this provision.

Appendix to the 2024 rule, 89 FR 31387

The same passage says it “would not be sufficient for a public entity to show only that it has not received any complaints regarding the nonconformance.” Silence is not evidence. A dated note of what was checked, what was found and what was done is.

What the rule requires on paper

The rule requires one kind of written record by name: a written statement of reasons when a town decides that meeting the standard would cause an undue burden or a fundamental alteration. Beyond that, it asks for evidence without fixing its form. The Department said 35.205 “does not require a particular type of evidence.”

The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or their designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

28 CFR 35.204

Colorado asks for something similar. OIT’s guide to the state rules says the head of the entity, or a designee, “needs to make that decision and write down why” (OIT plain language guide). OIT also publishes optional examples for documenting exceptions and for a yearly accessibility plan; see our Colorado guide.

What a record could contain

A record could contain a dated list of what was posted and scanned each month, what was fixed and how it was checked, which older documents fall under an exception and why, requests from residents and the answers, vendor correspondence, and each version of the accessibility statement. Every entry carries a date.

• Monthly scan log. The date of the scan and the documents found, marking which are new since last month.
• Fix log. For each document: the problems found, such as no text layer or an untagged table, what was changed, who checked it, and when it went back up.
• Exception decisions. Which exception applies, which conditions were checked, and why. The archived content guide shows how.
• Requests and answers. When a resident asked, what they needed, what the town provided and when. The effective communication duty in 28 CFR 35.160 applies even to excepted content.
• Known gaps. What is not fixed yet, and the plan for it.
• Vendor letters. Requests to your website or agenda software vendor for information about the accessibility of their product, and their replies.
• Statement versions. Each version of your accessibility statement, with the date it went up.

The Department’s small entity compliance guide suggests policies that “Explain the steps staff will take if a person with a disability asks them to make accessible content that falls under an exception to the rule.” A record is where you see whether those steps happened.

What a record cannot do

A record cannot guarantee an outcome. It does not make a document accessible, and it does not bind a court or an agency. The Justice Department said full conformance to WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the only definitive way to guarantee being treated as meeting the rule. A record simply shows the work, with dates.

In the Department’s words, full conformance “is the only definitive way to guarantee that outcome” (89 FR 31387). It added that 35.205 “does not alter existing ADA enforcement mechanisms.”

Be careful with anyone who sells certainty. In April 2025 the Federal Trade Commission finalized an order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million and barring it from claiming, without evidence, that its automated products can make any website meet WCAG or keep it meeting WCAG over time (FTC).

A worked example: a complaint in month seven

A worked example shows how a record gets used. Picture a hypothetical town of 3,000, seven months into keeping a monthly record after its 2028 compliance date. A resident who uses a screen reader emails the clerk: last week’s council packet has a budget table that reads as a jumble of numbers.

The clerk opens the record. That month’s entry shows the packet was found in the scan, its scanned pages were given real text and tags, and the budget table was flagged for a closer check that had not finished when the packet went up.

The clerk logs the request, sends the resident a readable version of the table, reposts the fixed packet, and adds each step with its date.

The record does not decide whether that gap had minimal impact. A table that reads as a jumble probably was not a minimal gap. What the record does show is that the town had flagged the table, answered the resident and fixed the file, and when. An honest record sometimes shows a gap. It is still worth keeping.

What we do about it

What we do about it is keep this file for you. Each month we scan your site, fix the new agendas, packets, minutes and notices, and write every step into the Readable Record with its date. The record shows the work; it does not promise an outcome. See how it works.

This guide explains the rule in plain language. It is not legal advice. For decisions about your town, talk to your attorney.