them from the board of supervisors? supervisor campos: should muni riders pay for the entire program which is happening now? the totality is coming out of the muni ridership. there is a policy argument that muni should pay for some of it. it does benefit from the traffic controls and management and the congestion work that is done by the unit. i do think that the city as a whole also benefits from it and it is not fair to expect the muni writer -- rider to pay for the whole thing. you have as a board of an opportunity to make sure that you protect the funding that muni has, the limited funding muni has and i in my view, there is no reason why 100% of that funding should come from the mta

budget. i am wondering if you could talk about the issue of four quarters, where you are on that. >> i think it is important to know the fact that there has been heightened scrutiny on this. it began with this body. it was supervisor dufty when he was supervisor held the first hearings and helped increase my awareness as a board member and others. i know you have been vigilant on this issue. it has improved through the mou process as you have talked about, but that is a gradual change. what needs to happen is a discussion to make sure that everything we're paying for out of muni's funds, transit sponsored funds do indeed support the nexus. on tuesday, when we passed their budget, i have previously asked the director to look at and provide seven or eight things. i got a fair number of the things i had on my list. work order revisiting and the motorcycle officer work order was not. we engaged in a discussion on tuesday.

the director candidly said, this is an issue of balancing. i think he and i fully agree this is not a situation where the money is going down or rabbit hole. these are our police officers out there doing valuable services and we want that funded. i want that funded. the only question is where and when it comes from. the director was under the impression that a grander, larger citywide decision had been made that muni would pay for this. that may be the right decision. what i encouraged him to remember is we as an independent agency have a duty to which that decision on our own and we have not fully had that discussion about that were quarter and maybe some others. it was a high-minded discussion. the director took it very well and understood immediately and we will revisit that issue. i think that is a very good example where things in large part to the spotlight you have put on it, we will force a discussion to make sure that

something muni should be paying for completely. and if it is not, we're going to have to not just say we will pay for, we will come out of our body and engage with you all to make sure those services are paid for. procedurally as i noted, we could just refuse to pay. and force the issue. it could conceivably come to that. with something as important as our police officers, i think that should be a matter of last resort. we need to commit to over the next several months is a discussion to make sure there is that nexus and muni is properly paying for this which it may very well be. that is not a discussion we have had and the conclusion i am ready to reach. supervisor avalos: i look forward to that discussion. i hope it takes less than a few months. i think that is something that requires immediate attention. i hope that we engage in that discussion at all level of the board of supervisors and we engage in that with the mayor.

and to the extent that the decision was made that came out of the budget process, i do not know that there was an actual discussion on that item or the other items that are there. it is not an issue that we're going to abandon. is something we have to pay attention to. the maintenance needs, the service needs, they are not going away. they are there. we need to address them very quickly. the last question, my colleagues have questions also. on the issue of taxis and camps. i know we have not had an in- depth discussion about that. one of the things i have to say, i do worry about. i want to make sure that we keep in mind as we are moving forward with the various reforms that have been proposed, i think that and you know the issue better

than i do. i am relatively new to these issues. one thing that i do now is cabdrivers have a difficult job. it is not an easy job. it is one of the toughest and one of the most dangerous jobs you can have. one of the things that i have been bothered by and whether it is a perception or reality, is that there has not been enough of a recognition of how difficult that job is and when reforms have been put in place, the burden in my view has been put on the cabdriver. that i think has consequences for the customer. one example of that is the way that the credit-card charge has been handled. the reality of having

cabdrivers pay for that or cover the cost and we can talk about the specifics and the substance and merits of that. i do not think it is the right approach but it did impact the kind of service that people get because i have had experience where you get on a cab and you cannot use that. it cannot use your credit card. i hope that as we move forward with reforms that you do take in mind the interests and concerns of the cab driver. i think it is not as simple as having a solution that disproportionately impact one group. everyone has to -- their interests have to be taken into consideration. i look forward to working with you but i want to make sure that you understand that is one of the concerns i have had in terms of the approach i have seen. >> yes, that is totally understood.

i am mindful and proud to say when i give the basic statement about taxi service that i did at the beginning, the problem we do not have in this industry, there is no problem with the cabdrivers. that is something i have closely in mind. there will be kept in mind and the idea will be to create a better cab system for everyone. i believe that if we make the system better and more responsive, it will lead to more demand and we will have more opportunities for the cabdrivers to do as you point out, undertake a very difficult job, often for very limited pay and they need to be appreciated. i do my best. i always have that in mind. i do my best when i expand upon what the problems are in the industry. to be clear to comment that is

not one of them. supervisor avalos: thank you -- supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor kim: think you. we're discussing one of the main priorities of our offices, pedestrian safety. particularly for our safe -- seniors. and the most vulnerable pedestrians. how would you improve the record in san francisco? >> i am glad you asked that question. a lot of people when they hear that i am on the board of muni or in a parking and traffic director, they might think, pedestrians are not in your jurisdiction. that is absolutely not the case. we have taken a lot of measures since i have been a director to improve pedestrian safety. and things that we do with respect to many traffic, regular traffic and parking have very

significant effects on pedestrian safety. my answer to you and i think the staff has been very good about this is we need to continue planning for pedestrian safety improvements and with considerations in all the developments and the changes we carry out, whether they be new bike lanes or new traffic lanes or new muni programs. the other thing we need to do is simply to use our bully pulpit and specific project designed to continue reminding that community this is an issue that affects everyone. everyone at some point is crossing the street. children and elderly people are more vulnerable when they do so. people tend to focus on bigger items like st. redesign or central subway projects and those are offering an opportunity in policy and with a bully pulpit to remind san franciscans pedestrian safety is something that affects all bus and is part of the overall transportation network. supervisor kim: thank you.

my second question is around, how do you include meaningful public participation? representing an incredibly diverse constituency in san francisco, from seniors to low- income families to our disabled. how do you -- what is your process in terms of including that in your decision making process? >> the tail and is lots of public comment but it goes beyond public comment, of course. our agency and our board, i cannot take credit for this but certainly support the notion that when we undergo these projects, we are engaging in town hall meetings, and outreach before any of this happens. i would point to the atp as one specific example. -- tep as one specific example.

we have made changes that affect people's lives on a daily basis. through that process, you have heard a couple of stray comments i did not know about -- i did not know about this. it was hard to not know what was going on. i was sure as a director to complement the stack -- staff and tell the staff, as frustrating or slowing as it may become a process is important and out of that process, we were not only able to educate people and bring them on board with the changes but we really learned some things. i would say that tep provides a good example of how he -- we have made efforts to go out and communicate to people what is going on. in this most recent budget cycle, to take a very controversial issue, we had a chance to talk with members of the business community about the impact that sunday parking

enforcement would have. i know i talked to several business leaders around the areas where my wife and i shop and go out to eat. those meetings had an effect. business leaders understood parking turning over would help their business. it did not come as a complete surprise. it is not -- going into effect until january. this was a good opportunity to reach out and explain not only -- what we were doing but why. supervisor kim: thank you. i see no further questions from committee. we will open it up for public comment and we have a number of cards and item number four. i will call you up. we have have brad -- and christopher, and other speakers.

>> i am a cabdriver and a permit holder for seven years. i would like to think i am speaking for thousands of people who are not here. that would be the many thousands of cabdrivers who join me in vigorously opposing the renomination of mr. heinicke. he has been in my mind the most divisive force in the cab world since he arrived. he talks about the outrage that has been done, the town hall meetings, they're mostly window dressing. we have expressed ourselves many times and have had the media turn around to see our input dismissed. my main thing right now is, imagine a situation with is the governing bodies of darfur or south africa toward china that divided their population into half and they get one half of

the goodies and -- sick pay, retirement, health, city- guaranteed or government -- darrent -- the government- guaranteed paychecks. the other half got nothing. they were expected to pay for the benefits and paychecks of the other group. that is what we have at the mta. they have 10 dozen workers under their umbrella and what is being -- 10,000 workers under their umbrella and what is being proposed is to have 5000 of us, the cab drivers, pay $15 million or $20 million every year to get money from the cab industry to pay for the benefits and the paychecks of the other people under the mta's umbrella. it is completely unacceptable. i wish i had more time. there are a lot of people who are afraid of this man and you cannot go to a meeting where you do not hear, we cannot do that.

malcolm heinicke will do this or that. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a cabdriver and medallion holder and soon i will have my 23rd anniversary as a professional behind the wheel in san francisco. malcolm heinicke is an architect who is [unintelligible] and its functioning. his presence on the board has left a very bad relationship between the cab drivers and the city. a protest his reappointment. it is a conflict of interest for the mta to pursue policies that involve the city and taxicab businesses. it is not in the city's interest to do that. the city attorney's office has received a letter pointing out the conflict of interest and the legal liability that the board is ignoring, thanks to heinicke. we know that office does not have a facile reply to that letter.

on the subject of town hall meetings, it is ludicrous that man can say town hall meetings are doing any good. they're being flagrantly ignored. on a 24-or bases, -- our bases, meetings were completely ignored. the mta board has reminded repeatedly that it is in a conflict of interest. that is bald faced political incest. the city cannot be incentivized to start and stop. it is beyond the proposition a mandate. requiring performance of the duties of the taxi commission is dissolved. it sets the city of for unfavorable attention and liability in the event of problems. i am not saying he is a bad man because he is a union buster. he was appointed to the taxi commission and reappointed to the board because of his legal

background in union busting. what i am here to convince you about is his presence is counterproductive, even if you want union busting. management resist wage increases but heinicke politicized the review even after we waited eight years for an increase. this sort of politics makes the city into management. if you will -- allow that, you will regret it. >> thank you. on the question of service, some of us have been crying in the wilderness for 20 years for improvedment and direct electronic access. the mta has done nothing in this direction. let me take you back to 2009 when the m.t.a. was about to

take over taxing regulation from the taxi commission. many of us were concerned that we would be targeted as an easy source of revenue for the agency. i recall the day when gavin newsom said -- came before the board to address those concerns. he said the taxi industry will not be a cash cow for the mta. meet farmer brown over here. malcolm heinicke has been proposing and supporting ways of milking the taxi drivers for city purposes. as an mta director, he and his agency have the tools to do this. he is the living embodiment of a conflict of interest between the regulatory responsibilities and its revenue generating powers. without knowing his exact role, it is safe to say that mr. heinicke is a godfather of mta staff's current proposal to lease one-third of taxing medallions to cap companies, cutting off 500 drivers from

this one path forward in their lives. is the san francisco where a proposed city policy would exploit low-income workers without benefits, without bargaining power, for the benefit of the city itself? you have very little influence over the mta, but here is an opportunity to send them a clear message. denied this appointment and stand up for what is right. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you -- supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am dean clark and i am here in support for the reprimand of malcolm heinicke. there is one reason as to why i am. actually, several. as you know, i've sent e-mails to you telling you about an accident i had, i drove a taxi in san francisco for approximately seven years.

i got into a horrific accidents. and while -- when we have the town hall meetings, i've brought of these issues about uninsured motorist coverage is. how about make sure the drivers are covered? under the current with the taxi companies, the medallion system, none -- is happening for some of the cab companies but my company i was working for, there was no protections there. in addition to that, under the current system, i experienced property damage, assaults on my person, threats, i get ripped off from tipping, tipping the dispatchers, and deposits. the property damage and the assaults on my person and threats came out once they discovered i was gay. some -- it is uncalled for. when the mta got involved with the taxi industry, i thought

someone could listen to these concerns. today standing here, some of these other guys who are hot p istols out here, they -- where are they supporting us? i have faith that the mta will help correct these situations and break up this corrected taxi industry as we have today. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> thank you for having me here. my name is edwin santiago. i am a medallion holder. i have been the driver in san francisco for over 30 years. i am opposed to malcolm heinicke's reappointment based on the track record. it is my opinion. first, proposition k was created

to keep corporate medallions from happening. right now, the sfmta is in a way trying to talk about adding 500 cabs on the street and creating another form of corporate medallions to be leased to the cab companies. these medallions go to the drivers on the list. i know proposition a was created this election year and most of the voters who voted had no idea it would overturn prop k. i think the cab industry is becoming a cash cow for the sfmta. the more important issues out there are health benefits, illegal flow activity in san francisco, which is running rampant, and there is a lot of issues that go along those types of lines right there.

as i said before, it is a big cash cow for the city of san francisco. it is only to bail out the muni and they should [unintelligible] thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i was wondering if you could read what i have submitted. wsupervisor kim: we have a copy. we will read this letter. >> that should be done before voting for his reelection. these are are -- abuse of power that has been done. you need to verify these, the

laws that has been broken. he has been in the taxi commission before and he has done nothing about the industry. you saw the illegal limos and the public crying poor enough transportation. then he moved to sfmta. it is the same old same old. is all empty promises and breaking the law after law. there should be some regulatory body looking at all these abuses and see if it is [unintelligible] or not. if you approve him for the election, all these crimes would go on red, and notice. please make an educated guess. read and confirm if these are

valued or not. supervisor kim: thank you. thank you for submitting this letter. i have one more card. dave schneider. please line of if you have public comment on this item. >> good afternoon. for purposes of identification, i am the co-founder of utw but i am not an active member. i have to pay the dues. i am a lawyer by background and a journalist. i have had the chance to observe the sfmta both in person and quite frequently, by watching the proceedings on sftv. i have to say, i may be wrong. i would not support the confirmation of the appointment

of mr. heinicke to serve another term. for one thing, are there any term limits around here? he has hopped over to the sfmta. enough to question that. on terms of policy, i think that what is is he has lost confidence of all lot of the cab driver community. while he has great rhetoric, great personal rhetoric, what is the record of accomplishment progressivism? i do not see it. it could be me. i also feel that has been employed by munger and olson as an employer lawyer raises certain questions about him -- treatment of employees. that is a big concern for me.

at this point, i will stop here. i could be wrong. but i do not think his reappointment is in the benefit of the public interest. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. there is a term limit of three terms on the mta board of directors. >> i am a taxi driver 10 years and i am the -- am on the taxi advisory council. last year he did respond to some of the complaints, the demands from the cab drivers regarding the 5% credit-card fees and some of the other issues. he did call for town hall meetings and acknowledged the 5% fees are too high. i do not think we should pay any credit card fees but there is a lot of -- anyway. there is that.

i will say that about heinicke. but i will also say that there is the problem the mta thinks the taxi industry is a cash cow and i will disagree with the idea of the public does not complain about the taxi drivers. the public does complain. they complain about rude drivers, not be able to pay with credit card. what i would have to say about that is that does not show anybody that cabdrivers in general are road or on reasonable people. in my view with 10 years of experience in the industry, it reflects the poor working conditions that are in the taxi industry. the biggest problem you have with the taxi industry being a cash cow for the mta, we're to subsidize the mta and none of that revenue the city is getting is being reinvested back into our business.

to improve working conditions for drivers. that is my biggest disagreement. it may be heard about this idea for one-third directly -- direct lease medallions. that would the second proposal that has drawn a lot of protests from cabdrivers. it goes for the way it is drafted, it probably will draw more protests. it has potential but not the way it is now. supervisor kim: thank you. i want to recognize one of our other mta directors is a here as well. >> i am in support of the april employment. he is a valuable part of our board and i appreciate not only his legal knowledge but his graciousness to his fellow directors. the mta staff, and the public. also has great dedication to all forms of transportation in this city which he has shown by truly living as a muni writer. -- rider.