Showing posts with label Hearing officer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hearing officer. Show all posts

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Taxi Services Speeds Up the Medallion Applicant Process


Medallion applicants will no longer necessarily have to have a hearing in order to be issued a medallion. In the future the process will go like this:

1. The SFMTA will notify the applicant of the availability of a medallion.
2.  They will concurrently post the notices on the SFMTA website and several other places inviting the public to assist in its investigation of the applicant.
3.The applicant will supply proof that he or she is qualified for a medallion.
4. SFMTA investigators will review the materials and decide whether to issue or deny the application for a medallion.
5. If they decide to issue the medallion, a member of public will have 20 business days to protest the issuance and request a hearing.
6. The SFMTA must set the hearing within 60 days.
7. The burden of proof for not issuing the medallion would be on the member of the public.

If, on the other hand, the applicant is denied issuance, he or she has 20 business to request a hearing and the SFMTA must set the hearing within 60 days. The burden of proof would be on the applicant.

These procedural changes were presented by Jarvis Murray (photo, standing) at this week's TAC meeting.

The official explanation is that the change is being made because the hearings have become a bottleneck slowing down the entire process. But I suspect that the ignorance of the taxi business exhibited by many of the hearing officers (an officer at a recent hearing reputedly berated an applicant for NOT playing the airport) may also have had something to do with the decision. Hopefully, with fewer cases to be heard, only officers schooled in the cab business will be presiding from now on.

A Change in the Public Speaking Format


Also at the Taxi Advisory Council meeting, Chairperson Chris Sweis announced a change in the order in which the public will be allowed to speak on an item. Prior to Monday's meeting, the public spoke first. From the last meeting on, the order will now be:
  1. Reports on a subject will be given.
  2. The council members will discuss the subject.
  3. The public will be allowed to comment (without asking specific questions).
  4. The council members will be allowed to make motions and vote.
The change was made because many members of the public, including myself, felt that they were unable to address a subject properly unless they were given the opportunity to speak after the council members had spoken. And, indeed, I think that the public contributed much more to this weeks discussions than they had in the past.


I also think that Chris Sweis (photo) is to be commended for showing the largeness of mind to change his procedures in order to suit us.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

The Application Hearing Process - A New Set of Rules?



The July 24, 2009 hearings for medallion applicants turned out to be a radical event.

In the old days (before the MTA took over), a medallion applicant merely had to stand up before the Taxi Commission and tell them that the city needed to give him or her the medallion for some reason or other. I think I told them that they needed to give one to me because, in all humility, I was the best taxi driver there was.

The new Director of Taxis and Accessible Services, Christiane Hayashi, looked at this process and decided that it was laughably "ridiculous." She thus instituted a new procedure where a hearing officer and one of her investigators would actually look at the applicant's waybills.

The unfortunate object of this new vigor was medallion applicant Leonid Slootsky who has owned a ramp medallion for the last four years. Four years ago Slootsky worked 165 shifts and three years ago he totaled over 1200 hours but, for the last few years, he apparently decided to coast and put in only a little over 800 hours per. In the old days, that might have been okay but this is now.

Slootsky's waybills were closely examined by MTA Hearing Officer Harry Epstein and Taxis and Available Services investigator Scott Leon. On Slootsky's behalf, it should be said that neither Epstein nor Leon appeared to have the foggiest notion of what it was like to actually drive a taxi. As dilligent as they were clueless, the two of them took Slootsky's waybill apart line by line.

Epstein wanted to know why Slootsky only worked two days a week and why he started every shift with a ride at Geary and Taylor. "Is there a hotel there or something?" he asked.

Both Leon and Epstein want to know why Slootsky spend an hour or two every day waiting at the airport. Noting that he stopped taking rides an hour or two before he turned in the cab, both Epstein and Leon pared down Slootsky's time to a little over 700 hours.

The befuddled Slootsky, talking through a Russian interpreter, could only say that his wife and family worked; and promise to put in more days in the future.

I had to leave to start my shift so I didn't hear the end but I think a final determination was put off until August 14th.

As I walked out, a driver who had also watched the ceremony told me,
  • "I used to tell everybody cab driving was a great job. I'm telling 'em that any more."
He had a point. According to Epstein and Leon, working is no longer enough - one has to work successfully. It isn't enough to desperately look for rides during those desperately slow recession days and nights. You have to find them.

On the other hand, both Epstein and Leon appeared to be dedicated men with inquiring, open minds. If they asked stupid questions, it was because they wanted to know how things worked. I'm sure they'll soon get up to speed and have a better sense of what it's like to drive a cab.

But the rules have changed. While it's clear that Slootsky often got his waybills stamped long after he actually quit working, such behavior would have been acceptable last year. From now on drivers will have to completely work their shifts to get their time. I don't see where that's a bad thing.

The moral of this tale is that it's a good idea to be safe. I don't have a problem because I put in at least 1,200 hours a year. I don't know if you need that many but every driver should now put in a 1,000 hours per - just to be sure.