Our civic group says everyone is welcome but every meeting quietly assumes everyone can hear, stand, and stay late

I joined a local civic group that regularly describes itself as open to everyone. The members are sincere. They greet newcomers warmly, publish the address, and never charge admission. They also hold every meeting in the back room of a restaurant with two steps, poor sound, and chairs packed so tightly that leaving early requires half the row to stand.

Last month a resident emailed asking whether remote participation or captions were available. The organizer replied that the group was too small for "special production." At the meeting, another member said people who cared would find a way to attend. Nobody sounded cruel. That almost made it worse. Exclusion was being described as evidence of insufficient commitment.

I brought up changing venues and was immediately handed the problem. Find a free room, they said. Learn the technology. Run the remote link. I understand that volunteer groups have limited time and money, but the person who names an access barrier should not automatically become unpaid infrastructure.

I can help with a first step. We could ask attendees anonymously what prevents participation, list the essential requirements, and compare a few venues. We could publish materials before the meeting, use microphones consistently, set a firm end time, and provide a phone or online option only if someone can support it reliably. We should not promise accessibility we have not tested.

The political irony is obvious: the group spends meetings demanding that public institutions listen to residents, while its own format selects for people who can climb steps, hear across a noisy room, arrange evening transport, and stay indefinitely.

How do I push this without turning accessibility into a side project assigned to me? What minimum changes should an all-volunteer civic group make before it can honestly say everyone is welcome?