because of its past rule to fix it. something adopted last year reads as follows. "in the event that sfmta requires original records, they will provide a receipt for any original document that is removed from the permit holders premises or that are otherwise provided -- from the permit holder's promises -- premise s." that is not what happened here. it is undisputed that a recently hired a probationary employee of the taxi commission picked up mr. it ar to mr. -- picked up mr. arvin's bills, and he was

not given a receipt. we do not even know if she made it back with them. in the file is a notes document is intended to go out and get the bill. -- is a note document. there is no record. there is no list. there is no audit report. she was terminated after only two months on the job. we do not know what happened to any bill that went into the commission offices or if they made it to the mta after they and the commission merged korea in february 2010, rummaging through files or boxes -- the commission merged. in said uri 2010, rummaging through files or boxes -- in february 2010, rummaging through commission files or boxes, they

found some items that belonged to mr. arvin. it is a complete break in the chain of custody with sfmta. they are in violation of their own policies. it is a fundamental fairness to make a record if you take something from someone, and it is fundamentally unfair if you do not and then say it was on somebody else's watch. this should not depend upon the timing of a much needed change in the law, which now protects the way evidence is protected. -- collected. the actual violation is that the medallion holder ceased to be a full time driver. there is a conflict in evidence as to how much mr. arvin drove.

they are the dispatchers that heard him on a weekend night come out driving, -- night, out driving, and inflation -- and the implementation of a penalty -- that used to be mandatory and is now a discretionary is an indication it should only be imposed in the most egregious of circumstances. that is not what you have here. given the conflicts in the evidence, the most he should have been facing was a moderate suspension, even if the mta evidence was believed, given the problems with the mta evidence. this should never have been allowed. they are just winging it, seeing if they can get a free medallion out of it. and they know they have a problem. thank you. vice president garcia: very briefly, mr. alexander, you referenced in mr. -- a mr. leon.

>> i apologize, commissioner garcia. i went out on a limb, assuming that the m.t.a. would put out a complaint the way they normally do, and they did not. it is attached, and i can read from it if you would permit. vice president garcia: i wa to ask about something. is that policy or a practice that sfmta only tries to go after drivers in certain circumstances? >> as far as i know, that is an unwritten practice. vice president garcia: then the other thing i would ask you to talk about is that a point was raised about medallion 997 being totally idle, according to records, police records, from

january to wrote june. >> it was not. -- from january to june. >> it was not. there was no record in their schedules of it having been driven at all, but that is not what happened. it was being driven during the day and not at night, and that is not what happens. they are interested in making money. 365 days a year, someone driving at night, whether it is mr. arvin or someone else. recordkeeping that mr. arvin cannot be held responsible for. someone had to be let go because they were ill or did not do their job. the point i want to stress is that having been given the burden of proof, the mta has to

make its case before mr. arvin has to explain anything. they have to come forward with something that is credible. finding information in a box that makes no note of what you selected is not reliable evidence. under most situations, you would have to introduce some preliminary testimony as to how this evidence was collected, how it was maintained, where it was kept, how it was kept. i cannot think of any other fact fighting arena, that they could wander in and say, "well, here is some stuff we found in the evidence room. i do not know how it got here, so here you go? " that is essentially what they are doing. -- that is essentially what they are doing. "we have found some stuff." that is essentially what they

are doing. ok, thank you. director goldstein: mr. murray? >> good evening, commissioners. this matter relates to mr.arvin -- mr. arvin not fulfilling his full time driving requirement for 2007 and 2008. despite the fact that he thinks this is sabir, -- is severe, the sfmta is able to do this, in much the way we are able to deny permits the failed to -- who failed to have the driving requirements. one man reviewed the evidence besides the bills, and he simply

did not find evidence to be credible for mr. arvin. mr. arvin has not presented any evidence that he drove in the years 2007 and 2008, which are the years that are in issue -- which are an issue. a poor record keeping situation on the part of himself or another company. the fact of the matter is, mr. arvin himself is a licensed insurance agent, and it is difficult to believe an insurance agent who handles policies, who handles all kinds of documentation from his clients, bills, checks, all types of other things has a problem with personal record keeping. mr.arvin -- mr. arvin had an issue with another company before because of their faulty record-keeping, so he has

already experienced this before. we are not debating his 2006 driving year, but even after that event, ms. arvin claims he began to take better care of his bills and that he began to keep copies, but he only kept some, not a full year's worth? or the central fact that he did not maintain these business records. these are business records. he is a businessman. he is not only an insurance person, he is a medallion older. this is not an entitlement. it is a permit you must keep and use. you must drive under this permit. you must accept all of the rules for this permit, and as part of that, full time driving is a requirement for him. also at the hearing, royal submitted a driver roster that

included mr.arvin -- mr. arvin. in that record, as vice president garcia mentioned, there was some record of sitting idle. that is unusual. that would not normally happen. they would not make any money with a car sitting idle, particularly on a weekend night, but that does not prove that that was mr. arvin that was driving the car. it means someone could have driven it, but, again, there is no evidence that that particular person was mr. arvin, and that is why we are here. the sfmta does not believe he was driving during that time period, and we have the right to revoke the medallion of anyone who does not fulfill the full- time driving requirements.

-- requirement. beyond that, we believe it is simply just red herring arguments. more bills were looked at by mr. chin. mr. arvin, who is already a businessman on his own, has poor record-keeping, supposedly. we do not find that to be credible, and we look forward to the board's decision as to whether mr. arvin should maintain his medallion or not. vice president garcia: how many medallions have been revoked by the sfmta or drivers that have not fulfilled the requirements? >> there are several, but they are under litigation. under the secure -- superior court. so there is no final. there has not been a final

determination on those revocations. vice president garcia: so the number would be zero? >> that would be correct, for driving alone, correct. right. vice president garcia: and then the other thing is, you may be arguments that mr. arvin has a poor record keeping, and that is not reasonable for someone who is an insurance agent. maybe i am confused. it seems to me that mr. arvin was depending on real -- royal to have his bills, and everything gets clouded by the fact that somebody from sfmta goes over and gets the records from royal, and there are no records. 2007 and 2008.

>> that is correct. there was no receipt or record at that time. the current procedure would be to issue a receipt to the driver or applicant, medallion older, for anything we take in from them or if we take it directly from the company. we also issue a receipt, as well. vice president garcia: you mean that was not a policy at the time? >> it was not a rule at the time, but we have made it a rule as policy. vice president garcia: what would your comment be about their not having been a receipt, and the bills being taken. is that equally troubling? >> yes, it is troubling, but the issue for us is that there has not been any other evidence given by mr. arvin to refute

that we do not believe he had enough bills for 2007 and 2008. vice president garcia: that he was relying on royal to keep them, and when he goes to get them, they do not have them, because they gave the record to sfmta and did not get a receipt. that is still possible, right? he is getting the death penalty. >> he is getting the death penalty, that is correct. commissioner hwang: let me back up. when you apply the same sort of standard -- would you apply the same sort of standard for purposes of terminating or revoking a medallion versus granting a medallion? are you help line the exact same level of scrutiny, review,

borden -- are you employed in the exact same level? >> -- are you employed in the exact same level of scrutiny, review, burden -- are you employing the exact same? >> yes. commissioner hwang: this review was done in response to a complaint, correct? >> no, this was also part of an audit for 2007, 2008. the complaint was not issued until later in 2008. commissioner hwang: ok, thank you. commissioner fung: mr. murray, this was not my original question, but based on what was just said, the full time

requirement for a medallion holder is different than for an applicant. >> no, it is the same 800-hour requirement. commissioner fung: in terms of numbers of years. >> this is every year. in order to obtain the medallion. commissioner fung: that was not my main question anyways, but i forgot my main question. >> but it is an 800-hour requirement for each year. commissioner fung: it came back. the appellant has made statements in their brief that the medallion holder has been driving full time in the years subsequent to '08. do you dispute that?

>> no, particularly 2010. i have not had a chance to review his 2009 bills, but i do not recognize him in any of the current audience -- audits with complaints. vice president garcia: the full time driving requirements is that you draw up a certain number of hours? >> that is correct. vice president garcia: what about those two? >> the 156 ships -- shifts is about 100 short. but you are driving at least 156 days, give or take, so you are driving still almost half a year. to get the 800-hour requirement, you could do it really in a few months, so it is really a matter of how much you are driving throughout the year, and that is

what we are trying to get. even if you cannot drive a full 10 hours a shift, but you can do four for half of the year, we take that into account. vice president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: thank you. so we will move first to public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item? ok, then, mr. alexander, you have your three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. first, i wanted to clarify something. the way it sounded. there was evidence that a mr. -- that mr. arvin drove. the sfmta put in evidence, and he did. the rules are changing almost

daily, hourly, and it is amazing that anyone knows what is required, but at the end of a shift, all drivers, including -- you turn them into the color scheme -- in to the color scheme. i want to reemphasize that all of this came up in late 2008, when he was admonish for the first time -- at monished -- admonished, and they never spoke to him again. they just went in for the kill based on an employee who was passing through and made no record of what she did. so mr. -- so mr. arvin turned

his bills in to royal, and they are trying to shift the burden back to mr. arvin. my glasses. the sfmta shall make the initial presentation of its case at the hearing and shall have the burden of proof by preponderant of evidence the facts alleged in the complaint. so i am not sure what records they think the at mr. -- think that mr. arvin should have after turning in to royal. that is all. director goldstein: thank you. mr. murray, you have rebuttal, three minutes.

>> the mta is not required to actually contact the medallion holder or to let them know there may be an issue. one of the issues we have with these bills, particularly if we contact you earlier and say, "there is a problem. we are going to file on you in one month." there is a way to go out and falsified them. we are trying to modernize the industry. by july, the entire industry will be on electronic bills, so there will be no more people writing the is -- these bills at all. mr. alexander has done a good job injecting doubt into this process, but we are not looking at mr. arvin as a criminal, it

just whether or not he fulfill the obligations, and we are satisfied based on the evidence that we found in the audits. there was no new evidence that rebutted ours, and our evidence was a certain amount of bills for one year and a certain amount of bills for another year. there was nothing else that was brought in to counter and say, "no, no, no, i drove more than this." there is no indication that he claims he is in compliance, so with that being said, the sfmta does have the authority to revoke someone who has not met the driving requirements, whether it is one year, two years, or five years in a row. we have that authority, and we felt we could not make an exception in this circumstance. thank you. ecker director goldstein: -- director goldstein: thank you.

commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner hwang: i will start. it seems to me -- this case is different to me than a case where i believe it is more that an applicant falsified records in order to get a medallion. this looks like to be an audit, and i would have to agree that the punishment is pretty severe, the complete revocation of the medallion. that seems intense. i mean, if you are audited, if your work is audited, you would hope that you would have an opportunity to improve first, so those are just some general thoughts that i have. vice president garcia: i totally agree with commissioner hwang.

the council for the appellant. it seems like an odd case for the mta to bring forward for a relocation. something like a fine. prior to 2006. that is a little bit cloudy. certainly, his record since then. i would be opposed to upholding the department depending on the comments of others. commissioner fung: i am in agreement with the department in a sense that it is the responsibility of the medallion holder and the drivers to

document their driving records. their licenses are predicate it upon that. excuse me, there permits are predicate on that -- their permits. contrary to what might be stated in the code, both have continuously made reliance upon the record keeping at the color schemes calm -- schemes, and they both make requests to document driving records, so putting the burden on the driver who cannot produce driving records, in this case, when those records, the original

bills, which are to be maintained by the color scheme, were removed, so similarly, as the other commissioners said, i have a problem with that, because there is no way to definitively say onpresident got has been said. is there a motion? vice president garcia: it is unfortunate that we were not given some alternatives, because if we overturn, that means -- commissioner fung: continue this for them to negotiate something different. vice president garcia: i like that. i like that idea very well. someone want to make that motion? i will make it then. for them to work out some form

of penalty for the 2007, 2008, but with emphasis, and i hope other members of the board will agree, that revocation is not appropriate. commissioner hwang: does that include suspension? fines were not imposed. vice president garcia: a, b, and c. in other words, what we are hoping to get a negotiation by the two parties. director goldstein: commissioner garcia, how do you want that brought back? testimony? vice president garcia:

testimony? president goh: testimony is fine. vice president garcia: testimony. saying that the appellate wants to pay fine or be suspended for x -- the appellant wants to pay a fine. possibly, they will come back with both of them. commissioner hwang: also, they could come to an agreement, and this could be withdrawn. that could be another option. president goh: really, that would be the best. march 23? director goldstein: that is fine with the department. president goh: march 23 to continue. the party said indicated that march 23 works. director goldstein: we are looking for submittal prior to that date, i am assuming?

vice president garcia: does anybody want more? director goldstein: they could be done at the same time. i think we have a motion. secretary pacheco: i believe the motion is from the vice president, to continue the matter to march 23? the public hearing is held and closed. it is to allow parties time to negotiate an alternative penalty. additional briefing is allowed at two pages per party, all due one thursday prior to the hearing. on that motion, commissioner goh: ,