one cannot get satisfaction for the cab company or insurance company. the mta should may be looked into it. but 99% of the claims, people hit the cab or the cab hit somebody, and they are settled. the other things are the privacy issue, requiring security camera data. i do not think there is an objection to a case by case basis, but this looks like a blanket thing. everything they do in the cab could be viewed by someone other than the police, other than related to a crime. lastly, you keep talking about color scheme. the color scheme permit holder is responsible for the gates being charged. it is appropriate that the color scheme be appropriate for that, not the medallion holder. thank you.

secretary boomer: [names are called] >> good afternoon. very toronto -- barry toronto. giving us two minutes to comment on something as complicated as 15 -- a lot of them makes sense or are important, but they have not been vetted at town meetings. we did not talk about electronic waybills at the town hall meeting. it became more amenable toward the taxi industry. today, there were a lot of concerns. some should be brought before town hall meetings, so they can be vented properly. there were genuine concerns about the wording. we have not seen these changes until the last few days.

i cannot even react well to that. regarding 14, they make a lot of housekeeping changes, except for the one about the board of appeals. i have a concern about due process. all the permits issued by the city go to the board of appeals. if you do this, you have a legal precedent. you may have to say that means other permits should skip the board of appeals. you should have no more board of appeals. this is looked at by the rest of the city government as permits the go to the board of appeals. you will have to change the charter, possibly. the city attorney should look into that. the other part is it is part of our fees that go toward the expenses of the board of appeals. that means you should send refund checks to everybody.

a lot of them have paid in advance for the next year and a half, and some of that goes to the board of appeals. so give us our refund check, if you agree with that. you can take that out, but hold off on 15 until we have had town hall meetings. >> mark greuber, speaking on behalf of united taxicab workers. these items, neither of them is ready for prime time. the other items you had before you at least had a long history of previous discussion. these are new. i saw this late saturday morning, after driving might friday night shift. i get up. i turn on my computer saturday. it is the first time i saw these

items. there is devastating stuff. this business with the board of appeals, taking away the right to go to the board of appeals. let us say your card is suspended for two months. it means s you will not make any money for two months. your only alternative will be to hire a lawyer for $5,000 or $10,000 and take them to superior court? ridiculous. some of these other things, there is a repeal in the tax regulations code that governs the amount that can be charged to somebody who renews their card or permanently. that is a very important protection. i do not know if there is anything else in these rules that would replace that. it has been abused in the past. there was a point at which a

notice went out with some ridiculous fee for failure to renew, doubling the fee or who knows what. i call the attention of taxi services to this part of the regulations code and they immediately took back that notice. there is other stuff in here. i have at least a dozen commons i could put in writing. if you are voting today, you are not voting knowledgeably on these items. secretary boomer: [names are called] >> good afternoon. my name is hossein. i am from iran. i worked in the industry over 42 years in this country. i used to work at bettering cab company as a mechanic.

i purchased a yellow cab and started driving. one person on site is fired from my job. i am asking you to let our medallions be transferable. capitalism is work. i paid for my medallion. i am asking you to give me the same right to sell my medallion. that is all i asked. thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been driving for yellow almost for 25 years. i would like to say some day i

am going to be able to sell my medallion, to give it to my family the day i pass away. because i have it, big family right now. i am from central america. i have been driving a long time for yellow cab. but the way we are, almost 90% of people are happy how cabdrivers are handled. >> good evening once again. amendments. you only have 27 amendments to the u.s. constitution, but we have thousands of amendments to taxi rules and regulations. they come nonstop every month, every year.

more and more amendments. half the drivers, or two-thirds, have no idea what is going on at any given time, because the have not looked at the last version of the amendments. i see amendments under 15. i have a medallion. i have owned it for two years. three transmissions later, you are still setting rules on regular taxes reverses a red band medallions and taxes. stop. when is it going to end? no more amendments. the talk of more visual and audio -- drivers put gum over the top of the viewer.

they put gum on the microphone to make sure it is not hearing a voice. if you are going to change the rules, going back to 2006, make sure it is not a taxi company representative selling us that equipment. i do not see that in the new amendment to the amendments. we know who that is. thank you for your time on these issues. secretary boomer: [names are called] >> good afternoon. i would like to give very good credit to the director and his

team, and doing very well a job for 2.5 years. we have more than 200 drivers plying their own medallion, running as their own business. there are a whole series of amendments for it most of them are preventing abuse from the cab company to the cabdriver. as a cabdriver, always losing their jobs by the cab company, they have no rights. all of these amendments are good. some of them are fair and some of them are not fair. most of them are ok. 1113, requires should be going to optional. the credit card machine -- we already have one in the front. we do not need another one in the back. we are chinese.

i have a wife and another girlfriend. nobody makes me a case. you're white man, it is a big case for you. please, i only need one credit card machine. it is in the front and the customer has to give the credit card and let me slide it. i do not know what they do, where they take their credit card from. a lot of issues in the town hall meeting were already mentioned. if you are a mcdonald's franchise, you have to do the same food. but we are independent, small, individual people. we have our own small restaurant. you have to eat for it -- you have to eat. this is really unreasonable. thank you. vice chairman brinkman: thank

you. let's hope your wife never finds sfgov tv. >> i agree. if you're going to eliminate the board of appeals, we want a refund. we want our money back. the board of appeals have a -- has a 2-3 month time frame. the current officer drags on his case is forever, sometimes as much as two years. you are still using this hearing officer. your sample is a bad one. i sat on that case originally and that person was an attorney. he could carry it to the higher courts without any higher expense. even so, this person still could not carry it to the higher courts even if they had the means. do not eliminate the board of appeals. it is not right. i would like to speak on item

15. the single operator permits. there is a requirement that is the same as a full-time medallion. someone who attended last week's town hall meeting was told that the medallions would be given out by june 15. the way bills will be checked after the fact. after a lengthy discussion -- how long have you been talking about this? two years. why the rush? it is june 5. in 10 days, your right to issue these medallions and then check the weigh bills? i think it is very hard to take something away from someone once they have it in their hands, from my experience. we never give up the medallion. i sat as commissioner for seven years. someone will have also purchased the vehicle, insurance, maybe

there is another driver on the shift. which brings in the subject of workers' compensation. what are the requirements for this permits and how are they going to make that expense? >> veteran is a word i will have to look up in the dictionary. if you mean more discussion -- vetted is a word i will have to look up in the dictionary. if you mean more discussion, i think we need a town hall meeting in order to properly vet this issue. thank you. >> i agree that there has been very little time to review all

of this for it there was like 180 pages of stuff to review. most of us are working and doing other stuff. there is not enough time for us to go over it. i understand the problem of people endlessly appealing permit revocation. i do not think it is right that we should not have the right to go to the board of appeals. cabdrivers should be allowed due process. the other thing i noticed is there is a requirement in their that prohibits tampering with required equipment in taxicabs. there should be an exception to the current taxicab cameras. as you might be aware, there was recently a hearing at the state senate and transportation housing committee where the law was intended to be changed but the committee voted 7-1. the cab drivers continue to have the right to disable or turn off these devices. there is no switch on the

current cameras to turn them off. it is also illegal to record audio as california law states you need expressed consent before recording a conversation. a lot of the companies in san francisco continue to record audio in the cabs. putting a sign on the window is not enough. that is not expressed consent. you have asked every passenger when they come in if they mind being recorded. if they do not, how else are they supposed to get to where they are going? out -- >> i do not have much to say. mainly, because i did not read any of this stuff. [laughter] that kind of speaks to it. we work. i have to take short shifts. normally, i would be working, but i had a short shift to come

to this meeting. it is not part of our full-time job description to read this material. there is a lot of it. i am noticing that the taxi industry, which is often totally at odds, is actually all in agreement that to vote on items 14 and 15 would be too hasty. everybody is saying they did not have a chance to thoroughly review it. it seemed like the one about the appeals seems to be kind of important and the industry seems united in wanting more time to look at that it thank you. >> directors, the drivers should have the right to appeal. as a matter of fact, anyone should have the right to appeal. about the security camera -- any criminal activity that happens

in the taxicab for any accident should only be reviewed by the law enforcement and not by the cab companies. the cab companies should not have access to real-time video. if you allow the cab companies to average out the fee, you should allow the medallion- holders to average out the fee in favor of them. to solve this matter, have the fee average every day, whatever the gate fee is. directors, driving 23 years and on the dalia list for 13 years, -- on the medallion list for 13 years, your policies are hurting drivers like me. we have been suffering from the medallion pilot program giving

single operator permits to drivers who never signed up for it. you are bypassing the entire waiting list and giving medallions to those who never ask for it. those who have the medallions already, you should only issue medallions to qualified drivers 3 it i am asking for your help. now, not 15 years from now, because i will be retired. i lost the page. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. with an item number 15, i want to speak about a tiny portion of that, subpart number 5, which authorizes the director to impose a moratorium on the issuance of color schemes. most people do not know what

color schemes are. it is a business license. it allows businesses like yellow cab, desoto, green taxi to operate using medallions that are issued by the mta. as an attorney who represents small businesses and businesses in the immigrant community, i can say that this is bad policy that has not been justified in any way. yes, there are public safety reasons. for instance, limiting liquor licenses. this one is simply an anti- competition policy that i urge you to reconsider. it has created a black market in the existing color schemes. there are transfers taking place right now. people who want one of these color scheme permits are paying exorbitant amounts of money to get them.

also, it is a disingenuous request from staff to be authorized to place this moratorium because staff has been denying new color schemes for at least the last year. according to testimony at the board of appeals, they have been denying it for the past two years. i can provide documentation to that effect. as a policy proposal, it is a very bad policy. at the very least, i ask you to put some sort of a sunset on this. not saying we are going to place some new requirements so that they can qualify, it is saying that only the existing 30 color schemes will be allowed to benefit from future issuance medallions. thank you. vice chairman brinkman: that is the last person who has turned in a speaker card. thank you very much. director heinicke: i was

surprised again. i saw these cabdriver's all take the same position on an issue. it was not in my day planner today. [laughter] >> can we get a photo? director heinicke: i would love a photo. we might need a wide lens. these are important changes. it is important to recognize that a great deal of the industry input on them was positive. many are geared to make the industry work better. i will say that on one of the more contentious issues, the board of appeals process, i have seen, in my experience, the really deleterious effect that

lengthy permit revocations can have. it hurts faults on the prop k ist. if someone is waiting to get his medallion and he has to wait longer because of an unfounded appeal, that is a problem. we have heard some very strong proponents of prop k, that it is not a good idea and does not save time. similarly, there is questions about the single operator permit, which i am a big advocate of. one question i have come to revisit is whether we should be going from a-card security to permits. this is a very good start. i am pleased with a lot of it. usually, when we hear the request for more time, it is from a segment of the industry that does not like what we are going to do even though we have given it far more than enough time.

today, we are hearing from throughout the industry for more time. frankly, this is not a cut and dry policy issue. these are largely technical or specific changes. my question, noting that a lot of the reaction to this is positive and many speakers have commended the director on her hard work, i wonder if this is something that staff would be open to taking back to a town hall meeting or having a discussion. or if you feel, and i do not ask this as a leading question, that these issues have been discussed enough or that this is something we can continue to change organically as we go forward? >> first of all, you have two pieces that you're considering. one has to do with police code amendments, bringing former police code sections into the transportation code.

i would represent to you that the removal of the board of appeals jurisdiction as part of the amendment of the police code -- [microphone feedback] you would not be adopting here today. you would be forwarding recommendation to the board of supervisors. the reason you are doing that is to clean up legislation. the board of supervisors, all of these things are coming out of the police code because they no longer belong there. because they are no longer within the purview of the board of supervisors. the reason the board of appeals has jurisdiction over the taxi providers is that existing police code 2.13. an ordinance of the board of supervisors, not a section of the charter from the city and county of san francisco, which is currently in the police code. if it continues to exist, it should be in the transportation

code. the board is free to ask staff to bring legislation that would adopt the board's own requirements, that permits heard -- be heard by the board of appeals. what used to happen under the taxi commission and what happens today. under the taxi commission, there was a staff recommendation. that would go to a hearing before the taxi commission. this board, when we transition in 2009, asked that staff lee what the hearing procedures -- asked the staff rewrite the hearing procedures on revoking medallion issuances. that has been moved to a hearing before our professional hearing staff. when they are not hearing permit issues related to taxi permits,

they are well-versed in the code of administrative procedures. i find them not always instantaneous. i think we could improve that part of it. i find them thoughtful and careful with their opinions. then, i am sorry. i am getting confused. the taxi commission hearing, which would be your sfmta board hearing if it were still done this way today, once that hearing is done, you go to the board of appeals. then, if you do not like the result of the board of appeals, you pay for a lawyer to go to court. the way that i have proposed this legislation is that there is an sfmta staff decision. there is no change there. number two, there is a hearing. instead of the taxi commission or this board, it is in front of the hearing officers that are part of our sfmta staff and have experience in the various types

of hearings. third, if you do not like that result, you can pay for a lawyer and go to court. i do not believe there is any limitation on due fact, i thinkd by the professionalism of our hearing section. if there is a problem with the perception of the fact that our hearing officers are within the sfmta, first of all, we face that with respect to all of our hearings. second, i want to refer you to our experience in one event where we had a hearing by the hearing section and there was strong, repeated requests for a rehearing. the staff referred that to an independent hearing officer of the rent board. $40,000 later, we had one decision. we are happy to follow any

procedures of due process that this board and agency see fit to impose. we like due process and we like transparency. we like to get it done correctly and efficiently. director heinicke: that goes to my question. everything you just described it sounds fine to me for it if we had not heard all of this public comment, i would probably vote for it because it makes sense. to the point of due process and transparency on these highly technical things, when we're talking about people who own permits, i am wondering if another month's time to get input from the community -- i am not saying we will not do this. we should do this. we should do all this stuff. i have heard such uniform comments, that folks wake up on saturday morning -- you get what i am getting at. i am not questioning the merits of what is in here. i am questioningwh