case of workers getting sick for somebody else's convenience. a woman died of cancer last week. is it related? a woman started getting sick after they put the back seat terminals in. in 20 years, when people start getting sick, they are gone. >> i use an app that works wonderful. i do not need any more units in my cab.

square works wonderful. about the electronic waybills, i have been driving 22 years and have never once been asked to show my way bill to anyone. they are ridiculous. they make no sense. the cab company has to store them for years. it takes up space. i do not understand the point of a way bill. >> there are too many laws. we are a very little guy. a lot of rules. we are a little guy. ceo's lose their jobs if they improperly file the paperwork.

they can lose their job. last year and this year, the view is like this. this department knows a taxi driver has to do their job. an electronic waybill is just like tracking you. the division already knows the will follow a lot of rules and regulation to comply with our job. i saw one guy in and one guy out. they picked out a lot of customers. a taxi driver, even better. we change shift at gas stations, on and on, something like that. this is like the technology of

how many buses to get in a second. we do not need to fill up the paperwork. that is fine for us as well. mega not even know -- we do not even know how to spell it in the street. maybe it is too long. on and on. i hope that a driver and you -- we are making a living. >> are you going to speak on this? >> good afternoon, directors. >> he is an incapable director. did you see the crisis?

you did not see it. there are electronic waybills to every company to insure money. you can type in the name of a politician. here is a copy. i took some of the part out. they do not want electronic waybills. are you ready? you are incapable people. chairperson nolan: the public hearing will be closed. [applause] if you keep it up, i will have you removed from the room. members of the board, do you want to take these together? it seems to me the first item 12

has a lot of consensus around it. anybody have any problems or comments on this? >> i do want to recognize the idea of the way bills. chairperson nolan: any further discussion? all in favor? the ayes have it. item 13. director heinicke: i have some questions. how you respond to the question that maybe we should follow the nilson report and let the companies decide. are we trying to create a uniform access for all customers? >> it comes from the board of supervisors asking our staff, our agency, what we have done as we go to regulatory changes to try to make improvements for the

benefit of the industry. the public is not always at this table for the conversation. next time you get into a san francisco taxi, i advise you to look at the rate card and see if you can read it at all and if you can get any information that is useful to you as a passenger. if not, you might think about the benefits of signs to tax the customers. a consistent problem in the taxi industry is that one gets into a taxi. one does not know what taxi one is in. many things can happen -- something as small as getting away from a stolen. you do not know how to respond to that situation.

one was taken from the headlines of last week. >> we would impose it across the board rather than letting the color schemes jews as they go? >> there are various compromises in crafting this policy. it is wired to the meter and can provide this kind of information to all customers. i did not feel there was a consensus on that point, especially given the squared device in the recent move to install some tablet devices that are connected to the meter. the can be handed back to the customer in order to process their payment. those devices may not be

available as signs to the taxi customers. nevertheless, they fulfilled what became the bottom line for staff. can the customer choose the tip amount from the back seat? we prefer there be a uniform solution connected to the meter. but given the wide range of preferences on the part of customers and the industry, this is a compromise solution that would allow the company as small as green to provide a solution that would not be over burdensome, while at the same time using some of the comprehensive technology such as cmt has provided. director heinicke: a conversation that was repeated by several -- i do not think it is in this now.

do you anticipate that it will be a problem to roll these systems out in a way so that, for example, the default is the thing is not on audibly unless it needs to be for that particular customer? also, customer choices with regard to whether to turn the lights down, turn the machine off. those should not be a problem as we roll this out. is that correct? >> i believe we put that into the standards for the legislation. the sound of course should go completely off at the election of the people inside the car. i have no objection to those being the default as long as there is the ability of the customer to take advantage of the utility in the back seat unit. finally, we did in fact conduct several rounds of testing of several vehicles with different

configurations, conducted by the sf mta safety staff with various different equipment designed to measure radiofrequency emissions. the units that are connected to the meters are wired, so we would not expect to see a lot. in fact, the results were far below any regulatory levels, and in most cases not even detectable. chairperson nolan: anything else? other members of the board? >> thank you for clearing up the radiofrequency exposure. for those of the following along in the book, page 6 of the attachment. i am ready to make a motion to approve. chairperson nolan: is there a second? all in favor? we will take a 10 minute break.

>> we are going to go ahead and get started again. chairman nolan has to leave for an engagement. he had to leave for another event, so i am taking over for him. before we start on items 14 and 15, which i believe we will combine, i would like to go ahead and ask ms. morley from the city attorney's office to give us a legal opinion on the idea that we perhaps violated sunshine regulations with our

amendment on item 11. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from the city attorney's office. the amendment to item 11 was proper under the sunshine ordinance. the item as it was agenda is to reject agend - - as it was agendized would allow drivers to use their own merchants. the board was free to decide that or to decide they were not going to allow it. they were free to allow it but subject to conditions. there was no violation. thank you very much. >> i think we can combine items 14 and 15. -- vice chairperson brinkman:

secretary boomer: recommending that the department repeal police" provisions, in designating that staff may enforce parking laws, deleting a section which makes such designations. it authorizes the mta to subpoena evidence and testimony relevant to enforcement of motor vehicle for hire regulations. it increases penalties for operating a motor vehicle for higher without a permit, remembering various sections for clarity and eliminating outdated provisions of the business tax and regulations code. item 15 amends various sections of division two of the transportation code to add definitions, amend definitions, add requirements for renewal of color scheme permits, and render

permits inactive if not completed in 60 days, requiring all gas and gates medallion vehicles change shifts on color scheme property, to authorize the director to impose a moratorium on the issuance or provide retaliation. it deletes a requirement that taxis taken out of service be returned to service within 30 days or be permanently replaced. it makes unauthorized use of a spur vehicle a separate offense. it requires color schemes to report insurance claims filed to the mta to insure that are not violating laws limiting shift length. it prohibits certain practices in connection with accepting payment by paratransit debit card. it prohibits drivers from tampering with required

equipment, requires security cameras manufactured after 2006, up with that data available to the mta and sfpd. it makes changes to procedures for hearings. it clarifies procedures on citations issued to permit holders. it clarifies procedures for providing public notice. it makes color scheme permit holders responsible for insuring that all gate fees charged are within the cap. those are the two items. vice chairperson brinkman: we have speakers on those items? any comment before public comment? >> i will reiterate that both of these, moving provisions from the police code to the transportation code, and the cleanup items, are the result of many years of experience in working through these codes and

identifying problems or loopholes, or other things that have been part of an ongoing process to clean up and stabilize regulation so that everybody knows exactly what the rule book is. i will remind you that you did approve additional enforcement capability for the taxi services division that will help us in force -- enforce those regulations. director bridges: -- secretary boomer: name[names are called] >> i speak to item 14. on your pbs file material -- on your file material, all these clauses -- if you look at the

final whereas clause, it says the proposed ordinance would remove the jurisdiction of the board of appeals from taxi hearings. if this goes forward without that being taken away and severed, the medallion holder association and other medallion holders that are not in our association will have little choice but to bombard the board of supervisors and implore them to not let our due process rights be taken away by fiat. section 4.106 b of the city charter, established in 1932, provides the city have an appeals board as arbiter when ever permits are granted or revoked. it applies to the department of public works, public health, taxi, and many other entities. for you to be defending your

decision to have an ordinance to take away a board of appeals protection, we could have unscrupulous regulators, if we do not now. i have sympathy with the idea that we do not want people who do not have legitimate cases to get charged for fraud. they should be able to go to superior court and keep their income flowing for five years. that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed separately. i think the board of appeals made a super majority to overturn. i think these will be slam dunk cases for the taxi. this is a separate issue. thank you very much. >> good afternoon again, directors. a lot of stuff in item 15, so

excuse me for talking fast. some taxis are operated by companies such as look sir. -- such as luxor. other cabs are operated directly by the medallion holder. the drivers pay their dates directly to the medallion holder. we asked to make the medallion holder responsible for those particular cabs. they are not going to apply to the transaction. we are a little alarmed with being responsible for that. there is a burdensome requirements. many of the claims have no

merits whatsoever. the statistics about claims have little bearing on reality. we already prepare a loss-run statements to the insurer. be careful about treading on that sensitive area of our business. other sections require us to make weekly and monthly accountings to paratransit regarding certain equipment. these are burdensome and not necessary to the public interest. these are details that are appropriately left for us to negotiate the contract on. we ask that you drop section 1114 a altogether. director bridges: -- vice chairperson brinkman: thank you.

>> good afternoon. there is a lot of stuff here. i do not have a lot to do with the permitting. i appreciate the increase in the level of enforcement. i have seen taxi's offer a white over green crown victoria with the words "bay cab." i do not know how many times i have lost a fair to him pulling up and driving away. it is ridiculous. i was talking to enforcement about that on thursday. the other is the black and gold guy. he is everywhere. i know he has a oodles of money he owes you guys as it is, but

he is operating with impunity. you cannot take his wheels. i do not know how else to do that. i am going to air the complaint. i assume that most drivers are accepting payment. an issue that came up at town hall -- a meeting we had at desoto cab is that a lot of times, wanting to be helpful, you spend a lot of time on the front end and the back end. use secure the passenger in the back. the also have bags and things like that. you cannot initiate the button until you start to go. something we would like to see as a driver is consideration of that through the paratransit program. thank you for your time.

>> i have a reservation about items 14 and 15. the board of appeals is an inefficient process right now. the rewriting of the legislation allows representation by lawyers. what really is happening is the persons who want an inefficient process is bucking these improvements. i strongly recommend you vote in favor of item 14. with regard to item 15, if the director of transportation imposes a moratorium on the color scheme this badge permits that would not be a permanent sort of thing. the moratorium would depend upon

circumstances, and so forth. i strongly believe it should be impossible. there are various intuitively derived calendars by which people could go into business. as i understand, it is a big one. >> two minutes to discuss all this stuff is not enough. please do not eliminate the access to the board of appeals. the director tends to wield power like a scalpel.

within the industry and the transportation industry, future directors have wielded power like a bludgeon. excuse me. previous directors. that may be the case with a future director. the regulations must also protect the persons being prosecuted. the board of appeals is outside the sf mta looper -- loop, unlike the hearing officer. if you eliminate the board of appeals, the mta is judge, jury, executioner, and cash register. the board of appeals is relatively affordable. if you eliminate them, the only thing left is the courts, which are prohibitively expensive to a cab driver. please do not make it so that a person can only get the justice

they can afford. failure to appear makes action final and not subject to further judicial review? just for not showing up? what if you have a vindictive ex-roommate or ex-spouse and do not get the information you have to appear? the year to appear precludes responding from asserting standing for judicial review. do not preclude judicial review just because somebody does not show up. please let it be the same notice as every other item. secretary boomer: [names are called. ] >> i am going to start my

comments about process again. put yourself in my shoes. i received all these changes that are going to moment asleep affect the industry this week, and on tuesday, we are voting on it. there are some issues that need to be vetted. more accountability, higher standards, and being held accountable for services. but when all of this is thrown upon me within the week, and we are voting on tuesday, it is really out of line. i can go into specifics. overall, i support this type of changes. i think if it was affected properly, you would have a better piece of legislation in front of you. you could have had even more tools. i want to give the agency tools to enforce this industry and to make inroads. it is the wild west of there, in

my opinion. my business is dependent on high-quality standards for this industry. at the same time, to throw this out in this manner, with less than a week, consolidating two agenda items, speaking two minutes here and two there, is out of line. i hope you will take more time in the future so we can give much-needed input. given the time, i can already see different recommendations you might think would be appropriate when you put these rules in. i will leave it at that. i support what charles said. i support changes. i think there should be even stronger rules of enforcement. but please put yourself in my shoes. less than a week, all these momentous changes. it is going to affect my 500 plus drivers in my company.

you have to make a decision now. >> good afternoon again. i hope by the next time it might be good evening, but i will say good afternoon. i want to cover a couple of quick things on item 15. subsection four requires only the gas and kate medallions to change shifts on the property. long-term leases can do what they want. yellow cab changes on the property. this is trying to separate us, just like the gas and gates from the affiliates and color schemes. i think it is appropriate if there is