Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 11, 2010 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

7:00 pm
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
7:03 pm
have an investment of $1,000, to get skills and educational background. you could have an operator that have people doing things they would absolutely disapprove of. what absolutely was known, however, was the room. it is a difficult job, probably, being an attorney, to represent something with elements of the case that are probably distasteful, even to that person who has to defend the actions of his client.
7:04 pm
it does not matter whether there was only one room. there was a room. the purpose of that room, as stated by the attorney, was to hide operators who were not properly permitted. there were not properly permitted as masseuses. there might have been other purposes of the room. you do not need a mattress in order to hide something because there is an inspector from dbi on the premises. it leads one to wonder what else might have been going on. i am not attacking the attorney. when i read the brief, most of the issues that were raised had to do with procedural issues. he should have recused himself over evidentiary issues. it was here said. i am trying -- it was hearsay.
7:05 pm
i am trying to remember what some of the other ones were. facts were not proven. the issue came up again early tonight having to do with aegis. how behold the proprietor responsible for something done by someone employed by them. it is your responsibility, to your community, to the people who work for you, to make sure things are done as they should be done. i do not understand why somebody thinks it is a good approach to attack the processes overall that dictate how decisions are to be made, but in particular to if not vilify, to say that certain individuals that were associated with some of these terminations were cited.
7:06 pm
she has other people working for her. in these tough economic times, who wants to do anything that will exacerbate unemployment her? these various problems carefully constructed a case around this. the department of public health, dbi, #doy2ní3n'iñ their teas were crossed and their eyes -- their t's were crossed and their i's were dotted. i tend to uphold the department. it is so moved.
7:07 pm
president peterson: on that motion, would the commission be making findings adapting the -- adopting the hearing officer's findings? commissioner garcia: those would be my feelings. commissioner fung: you want to indicate we require no abuse and no error in this decision. >> i think he would need to make some findings of fact that it was warranted. if you agree with the findings in the hearing officer's decision, you could incorporate those into your findings. or the board could meet its own findings. commissioner fung: i think that is important. i will recommend it. is that part of your mission? commissioner garcia: it was. president peterson: call the
7:08 pm
roll on that motion. >> this is a motion to uphold the revocation. the hearing officer's findings are adopted. again, the motion was from commissioner garcia to uphold this replication with adoption of the hearing officer's findings. on that motion, commissioner fung aye. the vice president is absent. president peterson and commissioner hwant,g, agye. -- aye. the motion is adopted four to zero. president peterson: why do we take a short break?
7:09 pm
-- why don't we take a short break?
7:10 pm
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
7:19 pm
7:20 pm
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
president peterson: welcome back. we will move on to item eight. call that item, please. appeal no. 10-021, linus oha vs the department of texas. it is an appeal of the denial on to europe 18, 2010 of a taxicab medallion, permit type p16. president peterson: i will start with the department. >> good evening, members of the board. i am with enforcement and legal affairs for the sfmta. this is the issue regarding linus oha's application for a regular medallion, which was
7:24 pm
properly denied by the the hearing officer in the earlier proceeding. there is only one thing at issue here. the issue is whether mr. linus oha fulfilled the requirements. in order to qualify for the medallion, the applicant must be able to prove that he is driving 1564-hour shifts per year or four out -- 156 4-hour shift per year for four out of the last five years. he had to under 27 hours in 2006. -- he had 227 hours in 2006. in none of the years did he satisfy april time driving requirement. -- a full time driving requirement.
7:25 pm
mr. linus oha claims there should not be a full-time driving requirement for him because of the legislation, but that is an incorrect. the board of supervisors has the authority or the right to adopt regulations that operate in the same province. commissioner garcia: i did not hear your last words. >> they have the authority to adopt legislation that regulates the same process as a voter ordinance. the only difference is the board of supervisors cannot create legislation that conflict with the ordinance. the establishment of that criteria, the 800 hours, does not conflict with the ordinance providing for a driver requirement of a medallion. one of the other issues is that mr. linus oha currently has a
7:26 pm
wrap taxi. that is a medallion to operate for paratransit. he is also the owner of the color scheme in operation under our regulations. if we are going to claim he is unaware of the regulations or does not have any knowledge of how their work, he is someone who is part of the industry. he is a color scheme owner. he is also someone who has had a ramp medallion for almost 10 years. as i stated in my brief, proposition k is meant for the working cabdriver. we want to discourage that class of absentee medallion holders who write a check or collect a check but do not participate in
7:27 pm
the industry as drivers. we do not want to favor the non- drivers over the drivers. one of the most and will the issues we have is we had this 3000 people wait list of people who have been waiting 15 years or longer in order to obtain a medallion, who are doing everything they can to drive a taxi to demonstrate they are qualified. for someone in linus oha's position to obtain a taxi medallion without having to drive, that is wrong to everyone behind him who is trying to do everything they can. he would keep his medallion for the rest of his life and that person who is doing everything right and abiding by all the rules has to wait. that is unfair for the majority of our drivers who are on this list. one of the last things i think
7:28 pm
we need to put before the board of appeals is that mr. linus oha already has a position with the sfmta and parking control office. that presents an inherent conflict. there is a complete prohibition for him being a parking patrol officer, but it has to be approved by the department of transportation. even if he were able to demonstrate he drive that many hours, he would still have to obtain approval from the director of transportation in order to be able to meet obtain a medallion. again, because i think it is pretty clear he did not meet the driving requirement, i believe the board should up hold the hearing officer picked decision and continue the denial of the medallion and take him off the list.
7:29 pm
commissioner fung: toward the end of your brief, you included a comment related to the paratransit system and things related to whether there were any there's picked up by the appellant. is that system required as part of the paratransit? >> the debit system is required, yes. at this point, i believe all taxes are equipped with it. the best cab, i am not quite sure. all of them are required to have it. commissioner garcia: not to jump ahead to the attorney for the appellate's arguments,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on