TAC 9-12-11: Or, What Happened to Civility?

Barry Korengold (photo) of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association (SFCDA) had the dual and unenviable task of both chairing the meeting and explaining his proposal for modifying the Pilot Plan called, Limited Driving Requirement. Since John Han has already done a good job of covering Korengold's plan and other aspects of the meeting Taxi TownSF, all that's left to me to do is editorialize.

However, one idea that Han did not emphasize enough was that the reason for the MTA not to sell medallions outright was that "each one deprives a career working cabdriver from obtaining their medallion..." Indeed, the thrust of the proposal is to help the drivers at the top of Waiting List get their "earned" medallions and to keep the List going into the future. Korengold's plan could work, if you wanted it to work, and aspects of it were actually part of the Pilot Plan prior to the final cut.

Therefore, the behavior of TAC's Owners and Managers block toward Korengold's proposal was rude and inappropriate. This ranged from the patronizing sarcasm ("I can see that you've worked very hard on this but ...") of the Medallion Holders Association's (MHA) Carl Macmurdo to the open hostility of Athan Rebelos of Desoto Cab, Dan Hinds of National Cab and John Lazar of Luxor Cab. 



On top of this, Rebelos appears to have borrowed a page from Tariq Mehmood and packed the TAC with a group of eight or ten drivers. 


But, gosh, am I slandering Athan? Of course they could have all spontaneously showed up. The fact that they were all young, all on The List, all worked for Desoto, were all attending their first meeting and all wanted open transferability doesn't necessarily mean a thing. 


They all were also ignorant. One speaker after another said he was in favor of the "Pilot Plan" when what they really wanted was to end the part of the plan that "gives" medallions to drivers on the basis of their position on the Waiting List.


One of them said a couple of amazing things. 


He appeared to be about 40, said that he'd been on the List for 13 years and couldn't see any difference between his situation and that of Councilor Bill Mounsey who's been on the List for 15 years but is 65 years old. They could both buy couldn't they?


The Desoto driver also said that he was number 2004 on the Waiting List but 97 on the Buyer's List. Struck by the disparity of the figures, Korengold tried to find out where the driver got those numbers (which seemed to annoy some people) but he didn't get a satisfactory answer.


At any rate, the driver clearly hadn't thought his position through. If the MTA stops giving away "earned" medallions, the Waiting List and the Buyer's List would become one and the same and he'd have 2003 buyers in front of him. The best outcome for him would be a continuation of things as they are.


The main person in the room actually defending the Pilot Plan was Barry Korengold. He's also one of the few people on the TAC who's interested in doing anything other than feeding his own face. From a personal standpoint, the best outcome for Korengold would be an open auction with no age limit. Instead, he remembers his roots and is trying to do something for people who are in the same situation as he was in a few years ago. Whether you like his ideas or not, he deserved a hell of a lot more respect than he was shown at the TAC meeting Monday.


Some people told me that they thought Korengold shouldn't have chaired a meeting where he was presenting a proposal. He would probably agree but he didn't have a choice. Chris Sweis, the usual chair, couldn't be there. Some people thought that Korengold got a little angry but he was dealing with a lot of hostility and probably did better than I would have under the same circumstances. Some people thought Barry talked too much but he'd been waiting a year to speak and look at who's complaining:

Dan Hinds and Carl Macmurdo who took up three whole meetings forcing a vote on a subject that wasn't even on the agenda. And, Athan Rebelos and John Lazar who voted to make themselves and their children eligible for medallions without having to follow the same rules as a working taxi driver. 

Lazar's sidekick, Charles Rathbone (photo), topped them all by rudely shouting out that Korengold had already spoken 30 times - A ridiculous and asinine accusation since he was both chairing the meeting and explaining his proposal. As Korengold pointed out, Rathbone shouldn't have been speaking at all. It wasn't during public comment and he isn't even on the council - for good reason. The only person Rathbone represents is his master.


But I digress ...


Dan Hinds tried to force a vote on Korengold's proposal but Barry said that he was only trying to open up a discussion. Indeed, I think he's the only member of the TAC to even address the problems of the people on the Waiting List or the Driver's Fund.


The Owners and Managers Block, on the other hand, doesn't see a problem. Hinds and Macmurdo, both of whom got their own medallions by waiting on the List, along with  Lazar and company want to stop the MTA from giving out any more "earned" medallions to working drivers and make everybody buyers.


I ended my first post on the Taxi Advisory Council by writing, 


"Given the make-up of the council, it would behoove drivers on the Waiting List and ordinary drivers to attend. It's a good idea anyway."


I would add a note of urgency. If you guys don't start showing up at the TAC and MTA Board meetings, nobody's going to know you exist.


And, if anybody has any ideas or proposals about the Waiting List, the Driver's Fund, driver retirement, medical insurance or any other subject relating to the Pilot Plan you should send them to Chair Chris Sweis before the next TAC meeting on Monday the 26th.

TAC Interm Medallion Sales Pilot Program Report

This report was put together by Taxi Advisory Council Chair Chris Sweis (Photo between councilors Richard Hybels and John Han). It summarizes and points out problems arising from the Medallion Sales Pilot Program as well as listing TAC's recommendations to the SFMTA Board.

The report focuses on the effects that Pilot Program has had on various groups in the Taxi industry. I'd like to highlight  (with of course my own views) a few things.

The Effect on Cab Companies.

• A movement away from Gate and Gas to Affiliate operations.
• A concern because Affiliates are less profitable for the cab companies.
• A tendency of Affiliates to hire new and inexperienced drivers.
• A concern about inexperienced drivers "negatively impacting" service - i.e. drivers deadheading downtown and to the airport instead of taking dispatched calls.

The Effect on Drivers.

• A loss of shifts for Gate and Gas drivers.
• Slower movement of the Medallion Waiting List.

The main, negative effect of the list slowing down has been felt on drivers closer to the top of the List. This is because medallions formerly became available to the List as older medallion holders died off. As many of the older medallion holders sell their medallions, the pool of medallions going to the list naturally becomes smaller.

The main, positive effect is that drivers on the list can now buy a medallion at a controlled price that allows the medallion to pay for itself.

The Effect on Medallion Holders.

Aging medallion holders are clearly the biggest winners of the Pilot Program. Medallions, that were worth nothing excect in terms of the monthly rental that they brought in, are now worth $250,000.

This has been a special boon to Post-K drivers who are either disabled or over the age of 70. Prior to the program, they either had to work 800 hours per year or face losing their medallions. Instead, these drivers now have a chance, as the phrase goes, "to retire with dignity."

The program has also reduced the stress level for younger Post-K drivers like myself (a kid of 66) because we now know that we won't be forced to drive (or pretend to drive) for the rest of our lives.

Perhaps the biggest winners, though are the Pre-K medallion holders. Having already made from between $800,000 to $1,000,000 from leasing their cabs over the last 33 years, they can now collect an additional $250,000 for exiting the taxi business.

The Driver's Fund.

The drivers fund was originally intended for non-medallion holders. It was to be a Quid Pro Quo (i.e. something that is given or taken in return for something else.)

The medallion holders were to get $250,000 and the non-medallion holders would get the Driver's Fund - now totaling over $1,000,000 with great potential depending upon how it may be fed in the future.

This intent, however, was wiped out by one of the first TAC votes.

Barry Korengold had called for a motion that would insure that the fund's money would go to non-medallion holders.

President and General Manager of Luxor Cab John Lazar, on the other hand, argued that "medallion holders are drivers too" and that the fund should therefore go to all drivers. This carried the day by an 11 to 4 margin despite the fact that some medallion holders are actually not drivers and a few, like John Lazar, have never driven a cab for a living.

What's going to happen to the Driver's Fund, as well as who will benefit from it, will be decided at future TAC meetings.

One possible use of the Driver's Fund that has been discussed would be using the money as an investment fund for drivers.

Recommendations.

The TAC has made several recommendations that it will urge the SFMTA Board to adopt. 

1. To merge the taxi wrap fund and any new income into the Driver's Fund.
2. To move the Driver's Fund into a managed account that allows the money to grow.
3. To have the Key Personnel Exemption apply to people on the Waiting List. (See Below.)
4. To have the down payment assistance program be made available only to buyers who operate their permits as Gates and Gas cabs.
5. To monitor Affiliate run medallions more closely and to have all medallions issued to the Waiting List be run as Gates and Gas taxis for the first 3 years.
6. Preliminary recommendation that the sales program continue after the Medallion Sales Program is complete. (See below.)

Not Recommended.

There were also several motions that the TAC either failed to pass or refused to even discuss in addition to the vote not to give the Driver's Fund to non-medallion holding drivers.

1. Failed to pass a motion by Councilor Barry Korengold to limit the number of medallions that the MTA could sell outright to the sixty agreed upon in Pilot Plan.
2. Failed to pass a motion by Councilor William Mounsey that would have changed the ratio of medallions sold outright by the MTA to medallion give to the Waiting List from 1:1 to 1:2. In other words, 2 medallions would given to the Waiting List for every medallion sold by the MTA. 
3. Failed to discuss a plan by Councilor Barry Korengold that would preserve the Waiting List by allowing medallion holders to retire and give the medallions back to the City when they died.
4. Refused to even discuss discussing replacing the current leasing system with a split meter (along with employee rights) despite the high probability that such a change would drastically improve service to the neighborhoods.

A closer look at two recommendations.

6. The explanation written in the report says that "many members of the council are pleased with ... Sales Pilot Program and would like to see it continue ... "

Possibly but, if this is true why did it take the better part of three TAC meetings to pass the recommendation? The truth is that Dan Hinds kept on bringing the motion up over and over again until he bludgeoned it though. He basically paralyzed the proceedings by constantly calling for a vote about medallion sales no matter what other subject was being discussed. In effect, Hinds filibustered the TAC making it impossible for the council to do any other business until the voted on his measure.

In my opinion, the vote was taken more to shut Hinds up than for any other reason.

3. I'm amazed that TAC Chair Chris Sweis had the temerity to include extending the Key Personnel Exemption to people on the Waiting List in his report after being told that such a vote was inappropriate and would probably have been illegal if TAC actually had the power to put the recommendation into effect.

To put it simply - Chair Chris Sweis, Councilor Athan Rebelos and Councilor John Lazar are all on the Waiting List and thus voted to make it easier on themselves to get medallions worth $250,000 than it would be for other people on the list. In addition, Councilor John Lazar has two sons working for him who are on the Waiting List and would thus qualify for the Key Personnel Exemption.

Let me expand on this last point. Lazar's sons have never driven a taxicab. Lazar is thus trying to use a public office to try to give his children medallions worth $250,000 without the two of them ever having to drive a cab for a living.

Supervisors Lack a Resolution

The Board of Supervisors failed to pass a resolution "opposing proposed taxi fare increase under consideration by the Municipal Transportation Agency in the absence of improved taxi service" yesterday because it did not have unanimous support.

Sponsored by Supervisors Scott Weiner, Malia Cohen and Mark Farrell, the measure required a unanamous vote because it had not been discussed in a committee.

We didn't realize that the public would be able to address the subject until the Board was already in session so only Mark Gruberg of the United Taxicab Workers, Barry Korengold of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and myself argued against the resolution.

Gruberg said that we needed a raise because we hadn't had one in eight years; Korengold mentioned that the SFMTA Board had failed to implement Open Taxi Access which would immediately improve service to the neighborhoods; and I commented on the weirdness of Democratic politicians, the party of labor, refusing to back a cost-of-living raise to working people. We all expressed a sense of unfairness at being punished for problems beyond our control.

The Board, however, had already decided the issue behind closed doors - this time to our advantage. Supervisor Weiner said that the resolution did not have the necessary support so no vote was taken and the measure was tabled until the Board's next meeting.

Weiner went on to say that the resolution was not intended as a criticism of cab drivers but that we needed more taxis on the street. He just thought that any meter increase should be coupled with peak time cabs.

Supervisor John Avalos, from my District 11, true to his labor roots, spoke against the measure saying that taxi drivers needed a fare increase.

Supervisor Malia Cohen, from District 10, remained adamant in her belief that there should be no meter increase until cab drivers start picking up in the Bayview.

LIMITED DRIVING REQUIREMENT - A Proposal by the SFCDA

The Taxi Advisory Council is still collecting data and reviewing some effects of the Pilot Program so far.   Because of delays in the implementation of the program and the many issues presented to the council, we have not yet discussed long term medallion reform.  I feel much further thought and discussion is necessary before making a final recommendation to the SFMTA  Board.

There are many who would like to see all medallions eventually transferable.  I would like to point out that if all medallions become transferable, there will no longer be the advantage of jumping the line by purchasing.  Everyone will have to wait again, only now when their name comes up, they'll have to split their medallion income with the bank.  This will exclude many older veteran drivers from owning a medallion.  We therefore feel a significant cap on the number of transferable medallions is essential.

Barry Korengold
President, SFCDA
Vice Chair, Taxi Advisory Council

Medallion Reform Proposal by the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association

We believe that as in most occupations, career cab drivers deserve a dignified end to their career. This plan will benefit a broad spectrum of interests. It will benefit the city by putting money into the SFMTA, it will benefit all cab drivers by contributing money to the driver's fund, maintaining gas and gate shifts, as well as continuing San Francisco’s long honored system of earning a medallion through time spent on the road, rather than by having to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. This plan will keep medallions going to veteran drivers at the top of the list and allows for elder and disabled medallion holders to reduce or eliminate their driving requirement or to sell their medallion. It benefits the public by maintaining quality, career cabdrivers in the industry.

We feel that although purchasing a medallion might be a good choice for some younger drivers early in their careers, many other drivers have already invested 20 years or more of their lives servicing the public for low pay, long hours, with no benefits, doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Therefore, there needs to be a way for drivers who have made a career of driving a cab to be able to obtain a medallion.

In order for medallions to continue going to veteran drivers, as has been the respected practice in San Francisco for the last 32 years, there needs to be a cap on the number of transferable medallions. We suggest a third. Because of the slow movement of the list, we feel two thirds of the medallions should continue to go to the top of the list without purchase. When new medallions are issued, one third of that number would become transferable. In other words, if 30 medallions are issued, 10 more medallions could become transferable.

The City should sell no more medallions outright, as each one deprives a career working cab driver from obtaining their medallion, which can be compared in other industries with tenure or a management position after usually at least 20 years on the road.

We propose that when a medallion holder reaches the age of 55, the driving requirement could be voluntarily reduced to 600 hours and the holder would contribute $100 a month or $1,200 a year to be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches the age of 60, the driving requirement could voluntarily be reduced to 400 hours and a contribution of $200 a month ($2,400 a year) would be split between the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund.

When a medallion holder reaches 65 or becomes disabled, the driving requirement could voluntarily be eliminated with a $400 monthly contribution ($4,800 a year) to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. The medallion holder would still retain the medallion and still be able to drive.

To allow for inflation and market changes, these payments could also be set at a comparable percentage to medallion income instead of a dollar figure.

All reduced or eliminated driving requirement medallions would be run as a gate and gas cabs. This would create stability for companies as well as maintain available shifts for drivers.

A medallion holder would have the option to sell when they reach 65. If they chose to hold on to their medallion with a reduced or eliminated driving requirement, they would retain their medallion the rest of their lives, but would no longer have the option to sell. When these medallion holders die, their medallions would go back to the list. A medallion holder over 65 who continues driving, could make their decision at the time they wish to stop driving.

Since there would be a cap on transferable medallions, eventually there could be a waiting list to sell. A qualified medallion holder waiting to sell would not have to pay to eliminate their driving requirement until able to so, at which time they would make their decision.

We’d like to make this comparison of revenue from the current transfer fee of $50,000 per medallion to the revenue from this Limited Driving Requirement plan. With the amount of debt undertaken when buying a medallion, the purchaser will likely hold onto their new medallion for more than 10 years, probably closer to 20 or 30 years. After 10 years of participation in our recommended program, a 75 year old driver will have contributed $48,000 to the SFMTA and the Drivers Fund. If the same driver took advantage of the plan starting at the age of 55 he will have paid in $66,000, and still be contributing to the fund and the SFMTA.

We feel this plan is healthier for the industry overall. It will allow senior and disabled medallion holders to stop driving and allows older career drivers to still obtain a medallion. This will also help color schemes maintain gas and gate medallions, and provide more available shifts for non-medallion holding drivers.

Airport Commission Nixes Airport Plan

President of the San Francisco Airport Commission, Larry Mazzola, sent the Airport's plan to end shorts back to the drawing board after listening to airport and MTA spokesmen as well as seventeen members of the public.

Tyg McCoy, Deputy Airport Director, presented the plan saying that the airport had worked together with a committee of twelve people from all aspects of the taxi industry to formulate the plan which would pay cab drivers a minimum of $17 for all rides, pass $3 of the $4 airport fee back to the drivers, and eliminate shorts. He said that, although there were numerous ideas floated during the committee meetings, the "vast majority" of the drivers were behind the SFO plan.

Linda S. Crayton, Vice President of Airport Commission, asked him if he'd done a survey of the taxi drivers. He said that he hadn't but felt confident that the plan had a broad consensus in its favor.

Then, during public comment, all 17 of the  speakers trashed the plan. Medallion holder and advertising star Brad Newsham, even threatened to lead a strike against the SFO on February 5, 2010 if the plan went into effect on February 1st.

The opposition to the plan was not a case of one group organizing a protest but rather a true consensus of the real "vast majority" of the industry. Speakers against the airport's plan included: members of the United Taxicab Workers, the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and the Medallion Holders Association as well as Marty Smith, who is a manager at Luxor Cab, and myself.

Among the reasons given for attacking the plan were:

• It would drastically reduce driver income.
• It would stop many drivers from working the airport.
• It would thus hurt service to the public.
• It would not stop cab drivers from racing.

President Mazzola, reading the writing on the wall, ended public comment after one hour and instructed McCoy (and presumably us) to come back with a plan that actually had the support of the drivers.

Even Javis Murray of the MTA, who spoke in favor of the plan, told me after the meeting that he and the MTA backed the plan primarily because it would end "time-based shorts." He added that he would back any plan that would stop dangerous driving on the part of cab drivers.

Both Barry Korengold of the SFCDA and medallion holder Murai, who were on the Airport Committee, told me that that the Airport's presentation was misleading.

It sounded, for instance, as if the plan called for a minimum of $17 plus a $3 charge back on the $4 airport fee which would equal $16 (17+3-4) to the driver.

Actually, the plan calls for the $17 figure to include the $3 charge back, meaning that the drivers would only get $13 (17-4). ($13 an hour is approximately how much is costs a cab driver to operate a taxi.)

The SFO also plans to move airport shuttles down to the same level as the cabs thus putting them in direct competition with the taxis. This wasn't mentioned during the presentation and is vehemently opposed by cab drivers.

Most of the people I talked with who attended the Airport Committee meetings felt that (with the exception of McCoy) SFO spokesman negotiated in bad faith and used the committee to create the illusion of a consensus. SFO officials pretended to listen to the drivers and then went ahead with basically the same plan that they started with in the first place.

Korengold and Murai also pointed out the Airport Committee had voted overwhelmingly to support a distance-based short system like they have in New York City - only to have the SFO shoot it down without further discussion.

Taxi Advisory Council - Two

At the Taxi Advisory Council meeting on August 30, 2010 Chris Sweis of Royal Taxi and Big Dog City was elected as the Chair and Barry Korengold of the San Francisco Cab Driver's Association as the Vice Chair.
 
The primary emphasis of the meeting was how to decide what to study as well as how to limit the study so that they could finish a report to the SFMTA by 12-31-2010

Studying the Pilot Plan

John Lazar of Luxor Cab pointed out that the process of selling medallions was already causing problems because the companies were being given no advance warning as to when a new medallion holder might take over a taxicab. He added that many of the buyers were choosing to run their cabs as "long term" leases instead of "gates and gas"  and this was causing regular drivers to lose their shifts.

Another potential problem could be what would happen to someone who had bought a cab under a long term leasing arrangement only to have the medallion sold out from underneath him or her.

It was agreed by the council that they should deal with the above problems in future meetings as well as the more general problems of the "long term" lease vs the "gates and gas" lease.

Athan Rebelos said that they should study what effects the Pilot Plan had on:

1. Buyers
2. Sellers
3. The Riding Public

Dan Hinds thought that they should create "accountability" from future medallion holders by setting high standards for people on the list.

Jane Bolig thought that the the possibility of raising the Fixed Price might have to be explored if potential sellers held on to their medallions because they thought that the price was not high enough.

Director Chris Hayahsi said that the Pilot Plan ends when you "transition through all the buyers and sellers. Watch what happens and make recommendations."

One of Hayashi's famous visual aids (see photo) summarizes some of the things that the council will be studying.

During the public comments Mark Gruberg said that he was worried that the Driver's Fund hadn't been defined. He also said that the was offended by being left off the council. "The UTW is the oldest driver's organization," he said. "The MHA and the SFCDA both have representatives. The UTW should have one too."

MTA Board member Bruce Oka gave a short talk saying, "If the Pilot Plan fails, we're in a lot of trouble. We can't afford for that to happen ... the more input (from the Taxi Advisory Council) the better," he added, "we are listening."

Elections

For me, this was the most interesting aspect of the afternoon. After watching the last meeting, I posited the theory that TAC appeared to be controlled by an "old boys' and girls' network" of owners, stockholders and managers that outnumbered everyone else by an 8 to 7 margin.

This week my idea did not cut the mustard.

The 8 to 7 margin did hold for the election of the Chair but Chris Sweis was elected instead of one of the "old boys" like Jim Gillespie or Dan Hinds.  The real surprise, however, was that Barry Korengold was elected as Vice Chair when Athan Rebelos and Laurie Graham voted for Barry instead of Carl Macmurdo.

These people think for themselves. In fact, during the various ballots, at least five or six council members cast votes contrary to what my theory predicted. Well ... that's what trash cans are for.

Bill Mounsey said that there were a lot of talented, intelligent people on the council with contrary opinions and that, instead of belonging to one group or another, they needed to work together to evaluate the Pilot Plan and improve the industry.

Indeed, Chris Hayashi has put together a dynamic, talented and knowledgeable group of people. If they do end up working to improve the business instead of just serving themselves, no one would be happier than I.

On the Agenda

In his first real test as Chair, Chris Swies showed a little uncertainty as to how to proceed.

Athan Rebelos wanted to add the Driver's Fund to the agenda for the next meeting. Swies clearly did not want to do so. Under the rules that the council had established the week before, the TAC sets the agenda, not the Chair.  I think that Swies should have either asked Rebelos for a motion or opened the subject up for discussion. Instead he said that the Driver's Fund was something to be studied later and acted as if the matter was tabled.

However, Swies did acknowledge Barry Korengold, who also wanted to discuss the Driver's Fund, and said that they needed to determine on whom the monies in the fund were supposed to be spent. Korengold made a motion to add the matter to the agenda, it was seconded by Rebelos and the motion was overwhelming passed by the council.

TAC will also look at the new credit card plan and take on the question of whether or not a 5% charge should be passed on the drivers.

  

The First Taxi Advisory Council (TAC) Meeting

The first Taxi Advisory Council meeting took place Wednesday, August 18, 2010 with Director Chris Hayashi acting as temporary chair. Although most of its business was administrative in nature, there were a few things worth noting.

Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morley gave a brief talk on the rules of San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance which begins by stating,  "Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public."

Morley went on to explain that, under the rules of the ordinance, members of the council should not discuss council business, aside from official meetings, if more than a quorum of eight or more of the fifteen members are present. This means:

• They shouldn't discuss official business at group meals or other similar gatherings.
• There should no be mass e-mailings or mass chats among the members.
• The members should be careful even about discussing council business in small groups because (let me do the math) if 3 members discuss an issue, than each of the 3 talks about it with 2 other members, they would be violating the Sunshine Ordinance.

A righteous ideal.

The council also had its first skirmish when Barry Korengold of the SFCDA motioned that, instead of appointing one Chair to head the council, the Chair should rotate with a different member leading each meeting. Korengold said that he was concerned that a permanent Chair would have too much power to affect the proceedings.

Such a plan probably would be unique and difficult to work with but I believe that Barry was reacting to the bias favoring ownership that is built into this council. While Chris Hayashi clearly has bent over backwards to fill the council with a "variety of voices and viewpoints," it can't be denied that either seven or eight of the council members own, manage or own stock in cab companies. (I'm not sure if Ramp Taxi Medallion Holder Laurie Graham owns stock in Yellow or not.)

Indeed, sides in the fray were drawn up along class lines with six of the seven members of the Owner's and Manager's Block (as I shall call it until proved otherwise) lining up for a single Chair and most of the non-medallion holders backing the idea of a rotating Chair. Laurie Graham, I think it was, suggested compromising by having four rotating Chairs to cover the two year period of the TAC. Jane Bolig of Desoto Cab Co-op agreed to the compromise as did Barry Korengold, drivers John Han and Bill Mounsey and most other non-medallion holders while most of the Owners and Managers Block initially held out for a single Chair.

Dan Hines of National/Veterns Cab said the he "didn't like the direction" that the conversation was going and that the important thing was for everyone to come together to save the cab industry.

If this was intended to be a unifying speech, it appeared to backfire because Hinds was clearly unwilling to accept the other side's point of view.

The members went around and around before finally arriving at a compromise. There will be three Chairs for periods of six months each, meaning that there will be a single Chair from next meeting until the council makes its report to the MTA on the Pilot Plan.  However, the power of the Chair will be greatly limited.

• The Chair must give every member who wants to comment a chance to speak.
• Every member of the public who wants to speak during the public comment periods must be given a chance to do so.
• The Agenda for the next meeting will be set by the council at the end of every meeting instead of letting the Chair do it.

Call it a draw. 

The next meeting will be held on Monday, August 30, 2010 at 1 pm in the 2nd fl Atrium at the MTA building #1 South Van Ness and every second Monday after that.

Given the make-up of the council, it would behoove drivers on the Waiting List and ordinary drivers to attend. It's a good idea anyway.

Players & Plans: SFCDA

Although they are the new kids on the block, the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association is the only group to consistently protest against the MTA's plans to extort money either by selling cabs or imposing fees on medallion holders. With refreshingly openness, President Barry Korengold consults with the general membership in order to formulate policies or plan actions.

SFCDA's plan calls for:

• The preservation of Proposition K.
• An "exit strategy" that would entail a gradual relaxation of the driving requirement. Korengold suggests that the requirement be reduced by 25% every five years and an additional 25% when a driver reaches 65.
• Changes in the waiting list that include: drivers being automatically placed on the list when receiving an A-Card and the idea that drivers should be able to remain qualified once they meet a basic requirement of driving 9 out 10 continuous years.
• A serious crack down on illegal limos that would create significant revenue for the City and allow for the issuance of "hundreds more permits" for legitimate taxicabs.

The proposal should appeal both to medallions holders who don't want transferability and to people high on The List.

Medallion holders who want to sell and regular drivers who want to buy of course will dislike it.

The plan also doesn't really address the fact that the waiting list moves much too slowly for many people - except once again by putting more taxis on the street.