Single Operator Permits Hit the Streets

Dave Schneider, who is the thirteenth driver to be issued a Single Operator Permit (SOP), stands next to his taxi.

Schneider has driven cab for over thirty years in San Francisco but never put his name on the Waiting List. He sees these permits as correcting an injustice in the original Prop-K legislation. (For more of his thoughts on the subject see the end of the post.)

Dave seemed so excited that he reminded me of a fifteen year old who had just bought his first car and was trying to be cool. He says that he intends to drive Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday nights so that the other drivers of the cab will have some decent shifts. It's the first time in his career that he's had the choice to work when he wants.

The Evolution of an Idea into Reality.

The idea of "Peak Time" taxis has been around for at least as long as Schneider's been driving. It was given new life by driver and blogger John Han who first proposed "Single Operator Permits" during a Town Hall meeting a few years ago. Deputy Director Chris Hayashi liked the idea and ran with it. Why? It offered a solution to the eternal San Francisco problem of too much business at certain times and too little at others.

Han, Hayashi and others at the meetings originally proposed that the SOPs should be owned like an affiliate by a single driver who would be allowed to work a maximum of 60 hours per week. There would be no designation of what hours the driver should choose but it was assumed that he or she would naturally self-select to work busy times like Friday and Saturday Nights or conventions and avoid the slow times.

During the Town Hall meetings in the spring of 2011, the concept was modified. Hayashi thought that SOPs would be a good way to reward drivers like Dave who had not put their names on the List but nonetheless had driven cabs for 20 or 30 years. It was pointed out that older drivers might not want to put in 60 hours a week so the possibility of a second driver to share the cab was added.

The SOP's happened to mirror a longtime plan of SFMTA Director Malcom Heinicke for "Peak Time" taxis. The main difference was that Heinicke wanted the cabs to be driven at fixed times. There was some back and forth between the Director and the people at the Town Hall meetings. The argument that peak times actually fluctuated and changed with conventions, sporting events and so forth carried the day and 50 "Single Operator Permits" were approved by the SFMTA last summer.

The Current Plan: A Different Kettle of Fish.


The SOP's have morphed into a very different program.

1. They now have a single permit holder and will be run as gates&gas instead of affiliates.
2. The vehicles will be run for 90 hours instead of 60.
3. The vehicles will be bought and owned by color schemes.
4. The color scheme must be able to produce electronic trip data.
5. The color scheme will fill the shifts that the permit holder doesn't drive.
6. All conditions that apply to a regular medallion will apply to these permits.
1. The permit holder must drive 800 hours per year.
7. The permits are for a term of three years with an option to renew for three years. 
1. The permit holder and the SFMTA both have the right to reject renewal.
2. If the permit isn't being used properly, the MTA can terminate at any time.

What Happened?

I interviewed MTA Investigator Mike Harris who is running the program. He said the changes were made because:

1. None of the older drivers wanted to buy the cars themselves.
2. None wanted to work as affiliates or choose their own drivers.
3. The hours expanded from 60 to 90 hours because the cab companies complained that they couldn't make a profit at 60 hours.

When I pointed out that this defeated the purpose of the SOPs, Harris disagreed. He said that most of the old school drivers didn't want to drive at peak hours. They wanted to drive Sundays, Mondays or Tuesdays and leave the busy hours (along with the drunks) to younger drivers.

One Beauty of the Taxi Business ...

... is that if you do something for one group of people everyone else complains.

1. Company owners and managers don't like the SOPs because they think that they won't be profitable enough.

At Green Cab, Treasurer Joe Mirabile said that he didn't know how they were going to make money off the SOPs. On  the other hand, Green didn't have to buy new cars for the first two permits that they put out because the company recently lost a couple of medallions. All they had to do was invest in a new paint job.

Desoto Cab owner Hansu Kim said that the SOPs would make little or no profit.

"They should either have put them out with one driver/owner for the 60 hours or just given the older drivers regular medallions," he added.

However, he also said that he would pay $1,000 a month to any Single Operator Permit holder who ran the taxi through Desoto.

2. Non-medallion driver and TAC member Tone Lee, who had strongly supported the original plan of one or two drivers and 60 hours, is very upset by the expansion to 90 hours.

I ran into him at the Mariott Marquis on Thursday and he talked about how slow it was on a night that was supposed to be busy and predicted that the SOPs would have devastating effect on the Monday night business. He also thought that it was unfair to give out the permits by A-card seniority rather than to people on the Waiting List and he feared that the permits would eventually be turned into full time medallions.

Of course Tone has a right to his opinions but I think he's wrong on one of his complaints.

He said the MTA was giving the permits to former medallion holders who had already sold their medallions.

I put the subject to Mike Harris who said that two former medallion holders had applied but he turned them down. He added that allowing former medallion holders to get permits, "was not the plan and is not the plan."

He said that anybody who knew the name of a former medallion holder who was given a SOP should contact him at (415) 701-5493.

If you don't feel comfortable talking to Mr. Harris, you can send the name to me and I'll pass it on.

Lee is organizing a protest for the MTA on Tuesday July 17th at 1 PM. Refreshingly, he's asking the drivers NOT to drive around City Hall and NOT honk horns. He just wanted drivers who are upset by the SOPs to show up and speak.

If you're in favor of the SOPs, you should also show up and say your piece.

My Take

I have mixed feelings. Like Mr. Lee I liked the original plan - especially the 60 hour limit. But, I also like the idea of rewarding older drivers who have driven for years but aren't eligible for an earned medallion. Besides, 90 hours is 50 or 60 hours less than cabs are ordinarily driven. This means that drivers stuck with the really bad hours are unlikely to see much new competition.

I sympathize with the drivers who didn't sign up on the List because the only reason that I put my name on it was that I was living with a woman who used to greet me every morning by bitching,

"Did you put your name that list yet?... No! ... Boy are you stupid!"

I finally caved just to shut her up. If I hadn't had the good/bad luck to be hooked up with this Harpie, I'd be in the same situation as Mr. Schneider. I'm happy that these guys are finally getting a little something after all the the contributions they've made to the business.

As for the people on the List ... well, unless the MTA screws them (not a possibility to be discounted) in the final plan, they should be able to either earn their medallions or buy them.

I don't like the expansion of the hours but I think that fifty cabs added on Monday or Tuesday peak times aren't a real problem. Increasing the fleet by 3% isn't going to break anybody's bank.

The real reason that it was slow on Thursday (and almost every other day) are the hundreds of illegal limos and taxis either racing us down the streets or bribing doorman so they can steal our fares. My number one priority is to encourage the City and the MTA to stomp on them - while our medallions still have some value.

In the meantime, congratulations to Dave and the others.

Dave Schneider	10:45 AM (19 minutes ago)
to Dave

I'm appreciative to the SFMTA and also to Chris Hayashi who I heard was one of the prime architects of the single operator medallion.  It seems to me it CORRECTS AN INJUSTICE IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFTING OF PROP K by then Supervisor Kopp. The way Kopp wrote it and, as amended  by Daly Ma and subsequent legislation,  DID NOT CREATE A TRUE SWEAT EQUITY BASED CRITERIA for medallion qualification - you had to sign up in addition to doing the work.     But many worker drivers didn't sign up for whatever reason and, while there may be some truth in "you snooze, you lose," still they did THE REAL WORK carrying thousands of passengers, driving lots of hours, shifts and miles.     They did the work by the seat of their pants.    Now with the single operator medallion, there's a chance the working poor might be able to move into at least the lower middle class and even pay off a few bills in what remaining time remains for these often elderly and impoverished drivers for whom the so called American dream has been, more often than not, a real social and economic nightmare.    In one San Francisco appellate court decision awarding cab drivers workers' compensation, the court compared cab drivers to sharecroppers working in the fields.    Today the taxi worker struggle in many fields continue and the the single operator medallion is one drop of welcome rain in the parched taxi driver fields.  Not only single operators, but all drivers should have fair working conditions, real wages and benefits beyond "independent contractor" poorhouse status. Dave S.

TAC 10.24.11

The Monday 10/24/11 TAC meeting covered a variety of topics.

The photo shows (from left) driver and dispatcher Bill Minikel, driver and blogger John Han, medallion holder and Yellow Cab representative Tim Lapp.

In what other industry can you find councilors of such uniqueness and diversity?


Illegal Taxi & Limo Update

SFMTA Investigator Eric Richholt thanked all the drivers who have sent him photos and videos of bandit cabs and limos and said to keep the info coming.  He can be reached at: eric.richholt@sfmta.com or 510-867-4694.

Richholt stated that he and his partners have handed out over one hundred $90 white zone citations to limos and nine $5,000 tickets to illegal cabs, including three for not having A-cards.

A few of the drivers expressed impatience with what has been done. They wanted a bigger crackdown on limos and town cars acting as cabs. Eric said that it was more difficult to prove that limos were making illegal pick-ups but that he and his colleagues would be going after them in the near future.

These drivers appeared to forget that this is the first systematic attack on illegal vehicles in memory (mine anyway) and is just getting underway. It wouldn't exist at all if Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi hadn't written legislation to allow MTA investigators to give these citations and hadn't gotten the law passed by a hostile Board of Supervisors that thinks illegal taxis and limos serve the public. She also had to hire and train the investigators. Taxi Services needs a few more of them in order to maintain a presence on the streets both night and day.

Richholt said that they were prioritizing illegal taxis because they often have substandard equipment, rarely have insurance and thus are a danger to the public.

We Can Finally Use the Bike Lanes - Sometimes

After over a year of discussions, Hayashi has finally talked the powers that be into allowing cabs restricted use of bike lanes for picking up and dropping off customers.

Taxicabs will be issued bumper stickers indicating that the cabs have the right to be in the bike lanes for the above purposes. Taxis are supposed to use the lanes only as a last resort if there are no other safe locations nearby. We can only use separated bike lanes to drop off disabled or elderly customers. (Click photo for more detail.)

We are only supposed to pick customers up in a separated bike lane if the dispatcher tells us that the customer is disabled. Does this mean that we have to blow off disabled customers who try to flag us down from these areas? I think this item needs a bit more thought and discussion.

At any rate, we are only supposed to enter a separated bike lane at the beginning of the block and exit at the end.

For more information contact the SFMTA.

TAC Will Finally Be Able to Present Proposals to the SFMTA Board

After an exchange of letters between Taxi Advisory Council Chair Chris Sweis and SFMTA Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose, it has been decided that Sweis will be able to present TAC's recommendations directly to the SFMTA Board at the their bi-weekly meetings.

This should put an end to a period when no recommendations were acted upon by the Board.

For background see TAC: or, Whatever Happened to Our Recommendations?...


New Town Hall Meeting Schedule

SFMTA Board Okays Meter Increase and 87 New Taxis

The threatened honkathon was a non-event yesterday.


Tariq Mehmood claimed that he called off his taxi strike to give the SFMTA to make changes he liked. But, I think he was really reading the same tea leaves I was. I had lunch in the plaza across from City Hall at 12:30 P.M and, in the half hour I sat eating, only 3 cabs came by looking for a protest.


But on to the business that was.


1. The Meter Increase


The topic for a vote by the SFMTA Board was actually whether or not to increase the flag drop by 40 cents to $3.50. The MTA had already okayed a meter increase of 10 cents for every 1/5th of a mile and 10 cents per minute of waiting time.


The measure was a slam dunk. Not only did the board pass it with a unanimous voice vote but hardly anyone spoke against it. A few people expressed fears that the raise would lose business and others asked for cost of living reviews every couple of years but that was it.


The raise of both the meter and the drop will equal about a 24% increase in the cost of a fare.


2. The second vote was on whether not to put out 50 new Single Operator part-time medallion permits, 25 new medallions to drivers on the List, 2 temporary electric vehicles and to sell 10 new medallions to drivers on the list.


The measure passed 6 to 1, but the ideas of the MTA selling medallions and leasing the  Single Operator Permits proved controversial.


Mark Gruberg  and Barry Korengold both attacked the idea of the SFMTA setting a precedent by selling medallions saying that the organization had a conflict of interest. Possibly - but neither of these speakers addressed the fact that the 10 new medallion would be part of the 60 medallions that the Pilot Plan allows the MTA sell - more than 20 of which have already been sold.


 The 50 Single Operator Permits, on the other, took a lot of flak.

• Rebecca Lytle of the San Francisco Federal Credit Union and Desoto Cab owner Hansu Kim both experssed fears that allowing the MTA to lease taxis would undermine the value of taxicabs as well as lead to a future takeover of the taxicab business by the MTA.
• Desoto manager Athan Rebelos thought that the idea of the permits was not sound from a business standpoint. 
• Medallion holder Christopher Fulkerson expressed fears that the drivers of these vehicles would lose money.

The most entertaining objections, however, were put forth by John Lazar  of Luxor Cab and Jim Gillespie of Yellow Cab. 

First, they tried to delay the measure by claiming a legal technicality that the MTA's attorney noted but thought unimportant.

Then, the owners claimed that they hadn't had time to study the plan for Single Operators and said that the permits should not be put out without PC and N hearings. Gillespie also claimed that the subject hadn't been discussed at Town Hall or TAC meetings.

Tara Housman, John Han and I all pointed out that the measure had been debated at several Town Hall meetings in addition to being debated, voted on and passed by the Taxi Advisory Council, of which Gillespie is a member.

The idea of Lazar and Gillespie asking for PC and N hearing is comic. This dynamic duo has spent much of the last year knocking on back-doors trying to get 500 cabs put on the street WITHOUT PC and N hearings.

President Nolan of the MTA Board said that both PC and N hearing and cost of living meter increases should be done on a regular basis.

John Han (photo) was praised by members of the board for his efforts to make the Single Operator Permits a reality.

TAC Advises Taxi Companies, "Pass No Mas!"

Monday afternoon 7/25/11, by a count of 8  to 7, the Taxi Advisory Council voted to advise the SFMTA Board to no longer allow taxicab companies to pass on credit card fees to their drivers. You read right. No more credit card charges for the drivers. Now - this is a reason for honking and dancing in the streets. Only I don't hear any horns. Maybe because nobody is sure what this means ... It's complicated.

But first the play by play.

The meeting started with Tariq Mehmood loudly launching one of his patented, semi-coherent, cretinous, psychopathic rants against "staff" and was allowed to do this by Chair Chris Sweis because Mehmood didn't mention his victim by name although we all knew who he was spewing out his hatred at.

Then Councilor John Lazar and his sidekick Charles Rathbone tried to have Councilor Barry Korengold dismissed from the Council for talking during a vote at the previous meeting to limit the right of the MTA to sell medallions. When this failed Lazar tied to get a re-vote only to be told that only the winning side could ask for one.

This drama was followed by about three hours of excruciating boredom as everyone recapped their positions on 5% credit card charges and back-seat terminals (PIM's). Not that I'm knocking boredom. It's part of the democratic process.

The theme of the meeting was set by Councilor John Han who seems to have read every document, note or e-mail ever written on the subject of credit card fees and back-seat terminals. Han's research has convinced him that, if the back-sear terminals were trashed and burned, the driver's fees could be lowered to 3% or 3.5%.

John Lazar, on the other hand, claimed that the companies were treading water at 5%. An idea seconded by Councilor Athan Rebelos and Desoto President Hansu Kim although Kim did admit to John Han that the rear-seat terminals might indeed add to the charges.

Barry Korengold said that he'd never met a driver who liked the PIM's. Councilor Tim Lapp of Yellow Cab countered him by saying he had been one of the drivers testing the terminals at Yellow and loved them. He said that he was making $12 to $15 more a shift using them and wasn't going to let anyone take the one in his cab away. Hansu Kim added that he had completed his study of the PIM's vs front seat terminals and that it showed that the PIM's earned drivers about 20% more.

Councilor and owner of Metro Cab, Richard Hybels said that his drivers were making a lot more money since he'd installed front-seat terminals in his taxis. Before that Metro didn't take credit cards. Hybels also said that he'd be forced out of business unless he could pass the charges on to the drivers.

Councilor Dan Hinds said that the companies should use whatever they earned from the PIM advertisements for the relief of driver's fees.

Councilor William Minikel thought that the credit card fees should be passed on to the customers - an idea that other people in the room liked.

Penultimately, a motion was made by John Han to end the requirement for rear-seat terminals in order to pass on credit card fees to drivers and limit the fees to 3.5%. A vote was taken and the motion failed by a count of 10 to 5.

Shortly afterwards Councilor David Kahn (photo) made his motion to stop allowing taxi companies to pass any credit card processing fees on to the drivers.

Yellow Cab driver Murai, who sat next to me, and I both thought that the measure was doomed to failure and half wondered why TAC was even bothering to vote. We foresaw another 10 to 5 defeat.

Then, Wham! The motion passed 8 to 7. I mean it was staggering. The idea had hardly even been discussed because it seemed so random.

Tara Housman, who voted for the measure, later told me that she didn't even know if she liked the idea. She said that the only reason she voted as she did was to make Kahn feel better about losing.

Nobody really knows what this means. TAC is an ADVISORY council and I'm sure that (even as I'm finishing this post at 9 am)  the MTA is fielding calls from desperate owners pleading, "say it isn't so."

If nothing else this vote should help the Taxi Services negotiate lower fees from the vendors.

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.

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.