himself will say, is to impose a fine. or suspend him for a period of 250i78 and rather than take away the entire business and i suggest that the commission, choose one of those remedies. fine him. and fine him $10,000 which will be a big big hit to him. a big enough hit for the kind of infractions of which he was accused. but don't take away his livelihood and his ability to support his family. i am going to keep the rest of my time available to him who wants to address you personally about this matter, thank you. >> i am number 651 and i work as a cab driver for 18 years and i had a chance to purchase my medallion eight years ago and three years ago and these

purchase i had the ability to be a more independent, and more and make more money and have a chance to, to with the right and so, if and the sfmta believe that i made, i had a three, person and the customer and so i speak in the customers that i help with and sfmta believed that i all of those times i transport fragile but my grandmother is taken care of and she is 91 and she is the special care and the trip to the car and it is for the people who do so. and so, i apologize for those transactions. i was wrong and i... if my medallion is going to be taken

away it is going to hurt my family a lot. thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. mr. murray? >> >> good commissioners, jarvis can the sfmta and we are here related not because of something that is a minor infraction, i think that the average person you would have to ask yourself, how would that person feel if they found out that a driver a taxi driver who owned the vehicle was using their credit card when they were not in the vehicle and running it and charging money on that credit card.

i think it is our duty as the sfmta, to up hold our drivers and especially our medallion holders who have complete ownership and control of that vehicle to a standard that says you can't do this to the riding public. you can't do this to our most vulnerable population which is the elderly and disabled. what we have here is the usage of the para transit card and now i explained it in my brief but to quickly so that you can understand again, the para transit program is a program that is being used here in san francisco to allow our elderly and disabled population to take rides in vans and taxis throughout the city so they can do various errands would be do physician beingly demanding and difficult and it allows the drivers to take them at a subsidized cost to whatever they have to go in the city and

county of san francisco. and as part of that program, they are issued this card, and it is a subsidized card and as long as they qualify, and they used those cards at each taxi and we have about 1800 taxis in the city at this point is required to be a part of this para transit program and which means that every patron has the assurance of knowing that i can get a ride, a personal ride, a private ride in the taxi to my destination. now what he was accused of and what was found in the hearing was he was taking those cards without the patron in the vehicle, he had several cards and he was running them. and now in our previous hearing, it is true, we showed video. of two of those transactions taking place without the para transit patron in the vehicle. the patron has their photo on the card so our drivers are able to identify that you are

the appropriate person using that card, our driver can look in the backseat and verify, yes this is the right person who should be on this card and once they do that, they run the card, after they take the person for the ride and obtain a receipt and as long as the person is physically able that person can sign the receipt. and what, the video showed him doing was taking the individual, and i got into a taxi and my ride was say, $20. and then, once i leave, he would take a second card, after i had already paid my fare, he would take the card of an elderly and disabled person and run that card again, getting and doubling up on that fare and now he has turned a $20 ride to a $40 ride for his own personal gain and now i have with us, and he provided a declaration, of the services of where we get the documentations related to these rides because

the cards show the identification and pick up location and drop off and the id of the customer and the id of the driver as well. mr. san der son is going to come up to you and explain what he saw in that system which is more than just two rides, but a pattern of conduct that happen before he obtained his medallion and continues until we issued a complaint against him. and so go ahead mr. san der son and he is going to use some of our time to discuss what he found. >> thank you, i'm john san der son, operation's director with the billy transportation which is the broker in san francisco. and we administer the programs including the taxi debit card program. and sorry, basically the evidence that we found consists of a number of patterns that we sao in the transactional record that consists of the

transactions that were performed in the taxi cab and mr. murray mentioned a bunch of the data points that are captured in that record. and we noticed a few things and we noticed that there were a number of riders and turned out to be 7 riders when we had done all of the math, who almost exclusively used him and at least three cases there were the riders only ever traveled with him during the period we looked at and they never rode with another cab driver at all. at the same time for the same period, those riders in their travel, never appeared to go home. they only traveled between other places but they never went back to their home address and to us that was very unusual and then we also noticed in a number of cases, and i believe

that 67 separate instances where multiple cards had their balances checked, using the electronic equipment in the taxi cab, by him at almost the exact same time so we can say based on that record which i would like to put up on the overhead here. the striping on this report, which i believe that you all have copies of indicates different days and times, and that these balance checks were conducted and that tell us that all of those cards were in the cab at the same time. and although, it is not credible to us that all of the patrons were in the cab at the same time. in addition, to that, i have another thing here. these are transactions that originate or end at town taxi

facility. and based on the toe at patterns the cards were his possession and none of the trips that were recorded during this time period actually transported those patrons. >> thank you. >> so just really quickly in the interest of time. we just want to point out that the inconsistentcy that include numerous balance checks and the trips not being taken at or near their home address and we do have video available if you care to see it at a different point. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> please. >> i am a little confused. if i am eligible for the program, is the card issued to me? >> that is correct. >> so it should be on me at all times and then i give it to the driver, the driver swipes it and would you say if i am capable i sign a receipt and i am supposed to get it back. >> sometimes when they are with the care giver as well. they are always together, the

person should be in the vehicle. >> you would always be in the vehicle. >> i guess i am not clear on how he was able to do all of this swiping is it alleged then that these people allowed him to keep the card? >> we do not know why, or how he obtained the cards, but it is alleged that he had the cards without the presence of those people. so they can be insin you ated that they allowed him to keep it but we did not go that far into it. >> and one other thing, that there is a reference that i think to potentially as much as $21,000 of suspicious transactions. >> that is correct. >> i was not clear if that was over a two year period or a three year period? >> i think at one point it says since the program was instituted in 2009 and at another point it happened from maybe just in 2013. >> he can answer that. >> our reporting period covered

september 2009 through september of this year. and the reason for that was that the debit card program itself started in about september of 2009. and the para transit taxi program existed previously but we used the paper script and so we used the electronic record go to september of 2009. >> so the 21,000 dollars is from 2009 forward. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> i have further questions if you are finished. to what extent are these cards subsidized by the public? >> depending on the person's income? >> no the rate of subsidy is fixed. currently the rate is for every $5 of cash that the person that the card is issued to is paid to our office and we load the $30 of ride value on to the debit card account and so it is

about one 6th of the cost that the patron is bearing. >> okay. >> and are there for the did he bit card holders, the rider are there any particular policies with respect to how they are supposed to keep their card? >> yes. our riders guide and another policy that are very, very clear that it is, a major violation to provide your card to another person, for them to use. >> okay. and did you do, as part of your investigation, interviews? >> we did. >> and can you summarize, there were a number of instances of explanations that were not credible at all. and we had people who told us i don't know how these transactions got in there but i use my card all of the time and i use it to go to the doctor, they never started at home and never go to the doctor. and we also have one person who did tell us a very credible story. that she had lost her card for

a period of some months. she was able to recall the date of the ride and the date sha she requested a reprint card and when we matched up those dates, the pattern of the suspicious behavior was squarely between them. >> it happened during the period that she contended that the card was out of her possession. >> and is the amount of money on these cards, electronically loaded? >> >> yes, it is linked back to an account but it is not a stored value card. >> it is automatic reload? >> pretty much. yes, that is correct. >> if we issue a new card, the

old balance rolls over automatically. >> that is not my question. >> i am an account holder and i am a debit card holder. >> okay. >> and i use of the para transit system and i gave you $5, and i got $25, or 3eds $30. >> i have $35 card it is not loaded on to the card. >> no, it has a 15 digit card number, which goes to the account where the money lives and it is debited against that account >> so if i want to have, that constant debit, does that lend tied to my bank or credit source so that i don't have to come in with a $5 check. >> not athis time, we accept the payment in the lobby and by mail, cash or check we recently started accepting credit cards but we don't have an automatic

payment. >> if i wanted to be efficient, i would say here is $100. >> correct. >> okay. >> you differentiate in your analysis in terms of those transactions which you deem to be suspicious because of destination and pick up point? >> how about related to where a taxi client would have paid in cash? and then, a card is swiped? is that included in any guess work there? in these total? s >> i am not sure that i understand your question, sorry. >> somewhere in the brief, it was discussed that if somebody had paid in cash, and then the card was swiped, to create a double payment at the same time, there is no way to track that, is there?

>> there is no way to track the cash payment. >> and we have the debit card record, but that is it. >> all right. >> and you are talking about a cash payment by someone? >> someone who was different. >> a non-para transit. >> or any other client before that point in time. >> yeah. >> okay. >> there were something in your brief that referenced something similar to that. >> there is no way to actually track what was basically happened is that you would have to leave the meter on, rather than canceling it so that you could run a different card on the same transaction? >> understood. >> i have one more quick question, was there any criminal prosecution related to this? >> not related to this individual, we did submit several others to the da's office. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i have another question. mr. goldstein is saying that he is his client is having his medallion lifted for two

fraudulent transactions totals less than $30. is that your case, or is it that roughly $21,000 over a period of four years? >> right, it is not even necessarily the amount, it is the activity, over that period of time. the $30 is that we have video of two transactions. and those two transactions totaled, probably about $27 to $30. give or take >> that relates to the video. >> that is correct. >> and we did use the video in our previous hearing, as the crux of all of our evidence of the additional conduct. >> and has he has his medallion since 2011. >> that is correct. >> were you able to determine what the amount of the transactions was since he got it to the present? >> well, we have determined what we believe the fraudulent transactions to be and the para transit office can tell you how many he has done completely over time and i am interested from 2011 the time of the medallion, and until now,

because that is what is relevant to me, any way. >> yeah. i don't have that exact number. >> number of transactions? >> even of that the amounts? >> not since that time period, and we are materials are all back to the beginning of the program and so i can say from 2009, but... >> right, but your position is that it is a course of conduct over many years. >> 4 years. >> that is the appearance, yeah. >> okay. >> and with respect to the $21,000, assuming that the figure is something that the department can prove out in a precise manner, how is it, is it the department's position that it is going to go forward and enforce recouplement? >> no, we are not in a position to enforce the institution and we are not in that position so we don't have that ability to

do that. >> that would be the da. >> okay. >> okay. >> so, it is revocation is solely the remedy and the determination at issue and there is no fines associated? >> we can take the public comment on this and we want to make a reminder to those in the room that the public comment is for the persons who are not parties to an appeal or representatives or the board's representatives of a party to include the family or household numbers and so if there is anyone here who does not fall under those categories who would like to speak under the public comment, step forward. >> you will have the rebuttal. >> after the public comment.

>> and family members can speak during that period. >> i am jacob and i am the manager of downtown taxi and i am trying to stay as... >> how many people are going to speak on this? >> just one, three minutes, then. >> thank you. >> i have been known for 15 years, and he was working as a cab driver. and it is the critical of his career was the taxi cab medallion two years ago. and i am sure that we all in our lives, at least once, made some mistakes, or exercise some poor judgment, we wanted to know, and we work and he is an exceptional cab driver and i don't have in my memory that i have heard ever a complaint from the public or sfmta and i doubt that sfmta has anything

on him that related to failure to convey, or other things that are associated with that. the punishment here that as sfmta chose to have is way over weighed the crime. we, the mistake the effect of the punishment is that, usually it is life long, and in that, you are given just one chance, to buy this medallion. and they just it is way too much, behind that medallion in his family. and so, i am pleading with you commissioners to exercise leniency and come up with the

solution that will prevent similar situations in the future. and also, send a message to everybody else around that. and i don't think that the punishment for that is equal. and so what has happened. >> any additional public comment? >> seeing none, we will start with our rebuttal. mr. goldstein. >> he comes from a different culture where some of these kinds of things go on all of the time and i just want to mention that to you. and in this case, the sfmta is overstated the case.

the balance checks were made on credit cards of his grandmother, his grandmother's best friend and their friend all of whom are over 80 years old and he held their cards because they were exclusive users and he served them all of time, and he took them to the doctor and to the store and to see their friends and they relied on them because they could not rely on other drivers because nobody would pay the kind of attention to him or could speak russian like he could and otherwise would be as accommodating to them as he would. >> so those balance checks are on the cards of the people that were intimate to his family including his grandmother and. and the sfmta tries to make something pernicious out of making the balance checks but it does not amount to any dead triment to anybody the only one that we know about for sure is the $27 worth of over charges

and he admits to that. the other stuff is speculative and he has discovered the patterns and he defines that the patterns mean and they have been in the suspicious activity has been wrong doing which amount to maybe $21,000. but no one is sure about that. that is speculation. and in this country, we don't put people in jail and we don't take property rights away on speculation or surmise. we do it on hard proof. and the only hard proof there is in this case, which i think that mr. jarvis admitted is two incidents which were corroborated by the women in the car, the rest is speculation because so and so was taken from point a to b and that does not look like and therefore we conclude that this was some sort of a pernicious activity and that is all speculation. and so, based on the proof that we have, we have a very little,

amount of money, and in that, is involved in these transactions. and the punishment is way over the top. and way over the top. and you can't take this man's livelihood and his business away and his ability to support his family on the basis of this kind of proof. you got to give him a chance to... and a little bit. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question, actually. i have a question for you. >> so this is the difficulty that i am having, so you are stating that it was a very small amount, $20 something but you are suggesting a $10,000 fine and can you explain your reasoning there? >> i thought if you want to punish him that is a big punishment, that is a huge punishment for him. >> and so i would rather it be less. >> it is not grounded in anything factual. >> no, it is like there are statutory penalties for doing certain things. >> i understand that. you answered my questions. and my other question is the

other difficulty that i am having, is this is an issue of trust. because if we don't up hold this suspension, presumably and impose the revocation, then, and impose the fine instead, what is to guarantee that this will not happen again? >> from my viewpoint that is probably the concern here and the reason for the revocation. >> yes. and he told me that he has not slept for six nights because he is so worried about this and losing his business and so worried about what has happened to him about his transgression and he has been punished by the procedure and by the fine and he will not do anything like

this again. >> do you know if your client was aware of the potential consequences. >> i don't know, i don't know if he was schooled in the particular law that applied or to the particular statute that applied. >> and he is a taxi cab driver, you know he has worked hard to make a buck to keep his family going. >> okay. >> any other questions? >> okay, thank you. >> >> thank you. >> mr. murray? >> we are done, thank you. >> we are going to hear from the department now with rebuttal. thank you. >> and yeah, well. >> and thank you commissioners. again i am going to add that this is for us, for the mta is

an issue of public trust and it is our duty to protect our public from these type of activities. and i am sure as you are all aware for those of you who live here in the city our taxi drivers are, you know, they are in trouble as an industry with the rise of the technology such as lift, and side car and part of that success is because many people in our city feel like they can't trust our system. they can't trust our taxi drivers and what we are trying to do is instill in our public, and in everyone else that no, yes, you can and things that happen to you in a taxi if you have a problem in the taxi the mta is here to help you, with those issues, and that is why we are here today. and this is not about him as a person, this is about the activity. that was done. we frankly believe that there are many other drivers involved in this activity, and unfortunately he was the first person that he brought against

the medallion holders. and we believe that there are many others and they will bring the actions against them as well. we did submit many to the da's office and just to determine what they would like to do. with these action and the only reason that we waited on those is because we wanted to wait for their response, and beyond that, this is an issue where we are trying to protect our riding public from this kind of activity, we don't want our drivers to believe that they can get away with doing these kinds of things. and then, come out and protest and say, don't drive side car when we have allowed and stole a little money let it go, we can't do that. that is not our place, our place here is to protect our public from that kind of activity. and this is for us, i mean, it may, and it is heavy, but it is going to send a chill in the industry and we believe that this is happening more, than with just him, we going to stop everyone that we find with this mat and her we are going to

find what is happening with him and understand that this will stop and it is not going to happen and in san francisco, and you are not going to be a san francisco taxi driver or a medallion holder regardless of how much you spent on it and be allowed to get away with this type of conduct. >> mr. murray, this analysis of suspect trips and the influence between destination and drop off points was done by the para transit vendor. >> that is correct. >> has your agency reviewed their methodology and verified the results. >> you mean have we verified the trips? >> the methodology that they did for the search? and then the actual lifting of suspect trips did you folks review those and concur with that? >> well, not for each and every one, but for ex