INNOVATION TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING SESSION TRANSCRIPT 3/11/15
Task Force Members Present:
City Staff Present:
Task Force Members not Present:
A note on this transcript:
These notes were taken by hand during the task force subcommittee working group meeting, and transcribed by Wynde Dyer, M.S. [A.B.T.], a former journalist, communications studies professor, ethnographic researcher, and current artist and permitted Portland taxi driver for Green Cab. Any factual or interpretive errors in these notes may be emailed to [email protected] for consideration.
- Jim Owens (Moderator, Cogan Owens Greene, LLC)
- Mike Greenfield (Chairman, retired State of Oregon Executive)
- Rihana Ansary (Portland Business Alliance)
- Dan Lenzen (Venture Hospitality and Real Estate)
- Joan Plank (Former ODOT Executive)
- Richard Lazar (Technology Association of Oregon)
City Staff Present:
- Bryan Hockaday (Policy Advisor to Commissioner Novick) [email protected]
- Frank Dufay (Private-For-Hire Transportation Manager) [email protected]
- City Lawyer, (Name and title unknown)
- Michael Jacobs (Smart Park General Manager) [email protected]
- Francesca Patricolo (PBOT) [email protected]
Task Force Members not Present:
- Leslie Carlson (Brink Communication)
- Chris Bebo (Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association)
- JoAnn Herrigel (Elders in Action)
- Kayse Jama (Center for Intercultural Organizing)
- Jeff Lang (Gales Creek Insurance Services)
- Jewel Mlnarik (Workform.co)
- Sue Stahl (Commission on Disability)
A note on this transcript:
These notes were taken by hand during the task force subcommittee working group meeting, and transcribed by Wynde Dyer, M.S. [A.B.T.], a former journalist, communications studies professor, ethnographic researcher, and current artist and permitted Portland taxi driver for Green Cab. Any factual or interpretive errors in these notes may be emailed to [email protected] for consideration.
- [Bracketed Communication] = paraphrased as heard, or used to fill in missing context
- [NOTE: Bolded Italics in Brackets] = transcriber’s input regarding omitted information
- I have no idea why that no. 1 is below this no. 3, but I can't seem to make it go away
OVERVIEW OF PURPOSE
Mike Greenfield: [The purpose of today is to discuss] have[ing] current code applied to TNCs, code modifications for some, apply rewritten code for both, or to defer to second phase. [What we produce today] is an administrative draft, not to be released to the public.
Richard Lazar: [I have some] concerns about the 5th criteria [which says] “. . . create an environment that provides a living wage.” That’s not a principal we can achieve, or the city.
Jim Owens: [I think we can say we’ll] be promoting that situation but not insuring it.
[Some discussion about how Novick has said over and over again that he wants to protect jobs]
Richard Lazar: Can we even identify that as a goal? We can’t regulate employment.
[Some discussion about the charter statement for the Innovation Task Force]
Richard Lazar: [I have some] concerns about the 5th criteria [which says] “. . . create an environment that provides a living wage.” That’s not a principal we can achieve, or the city.
Jim Owens: [I think we can say we’ll] be promoting that situation but not insuring it.
[Some discussion about how Novick has said over and over again that he wants to protect jobs]
Richard Lazar: Can we even identify that as a goal? We can’t regulate employment.
[Some discussion about the charter statement for the Innovation Task Force]
OUTSTANDING FINES
Joan Plank: [Here it says] “Fines paid in full before TNCs are allowed to operate?” [And something else about] “all city requirements fulfilled?” [Requirements and fines] for what?
Bryan Hockaday: The commissioner expects them to pay all their fines.
[Some discussion about whether payment of the fines can actually be enforced]
City Lawyer: The city’s my client, I do what they tell me, and I’ll try to get the money.
Frank Dufay: [Companies who have been fined] are always required to pay first before operating.
Richard Lazar: If the entity believes there are enforcement issues, they can just pay later.
City Lawyer: It’s tied to the April 9th.
Joan Plank: [With regards to what Frank said] at least it’s consistent.
[Some discussion about the additional scopes of the task force]
Mike Greenfield: [Can we agree] to do good, avoid evil?
Bryan Hockaday: The commissioner expects them to pay all their fines.
[Some discussion about whether payment of the fines can actually be enforced]
City Lawyer: The city’s my client, I do what they tell me, and I’ll try to get the money.
Frank Dufay: [Companies who have been fined] are always required to pay first before operating.
Richard Lazar: If the entity believes there are enforcement issues, they can just pay later.
City Lawyer: It’s tied to the April 9th.
Joan Plank: [With regards to what Frank said] at least it’s consistent.
[Some discussion about the additional scopes of the task force]
Mike Greenfield: [Can we agree] to do good, avoid evil?
INSURANCE
Mike Greenfield: Anyone have thoughts about extending?
Joan Plank: Is workers comp required now?
Frank: It’s only required for companies with employees.
[Some discussion about how taxi and TNC drivers are usually independent contractors.]
[NOTE: No mention of the city’s mandatory Accidental Occupational Insurance. This is a huge omission because currently permitted drivers are covered for lost wages, medical and legal fees, in additionl to death and dismemberment settlements via the city’s mandatory insurance. Also no mention of the fact that there are two class-action cases pending in California to re-classify TNC drivers as employees because of the employer-like stance Lyft and Uber take with them. If their drivers are reclassified as employees, they will have to pay for workers comp, so it would behoove Uber to have drivers permitted through the city, and to pay the $26-a-month for Accidental Occupational, because this is far less expensive for Uber, they’ll offset the cost to drivers]
[CORRECTION: According to a follow-up email with Frank Dufay, "It’s actually not mandatory yet. The intent was to put it in code and make it mandatory, but currently I got all the companies together and they agreed to voluntarily provide this."]
Richard Lazar: I’m comfortable with that. Current requirements can be applied to new companies.
[Some discussion about how they’re actually supposed to be looking at commercial coverage]
Bryan Hockaday: We need to assure it will cover accidents.
Raihana Ansary: We need an app on and app off clarification.
Mike Greenfield: What stuff does the state require?
Brian Hockaday: State will let us know by the 18th.
[Some discussion about how that’s not enough time for them to move forward with decisions. No mention of the pending bills in Salem that, if passed, will require TNCs to have commercial inssurance]
Richard Lazar: [I’d like to] propose a framework that meets both legal and policy needs. There are some differences between them.
Joan Plank: Do we have a preference for app on or app off?
Jim Owens: [This is a] hot button issue nationally, [one that has been] relatively unresolved.
Bryan Hockaday: There are differences between them. We’ll hear from the state on the 18th.
Joan Plank: I’m uncomfortable waiting until the 18th. If a passenger is in the vehicle, they need it, but what about when app is on and they don’t have a passenger, or are en route to passenger?
City Lawyer: Yes, there’s app on, and driver is matched to a passenger. Then there’s app activated, [when they’re just] out there waiting for a ride.
Richard Lazar: Nationally I see there are three cases: (1) app off, (2) app on, (3) rider engaged. I’m concerned about what the city rep raised, concerned that personal auto policy vendors would cancel drivers’ policies if they learned they were using it commercially.
[Some discussion about how “rider engaged” means either (a) the driver has been paired with a future passenger, and (b) once the passenger is actually in the car.]
Bryan Hockaday: I was speaking to Annabell Chung from Lyft. She says she’ll submit something offering her interpretation of this.
[Someone]: Since they could be cancelled the city could require TNC rider on insurance.
Joan Plank: With app on, but not engaged, what limits should be, primary or contingent? Obviously they need primary commercial coverage when the passenger is engaged.
Mike Greenfield: Insurance companies will have to calculate the risk between A and B and on the way back from a passenger. All three phases are different than insuring a private vehicle. The city has to decide the kind of coverage and if taxis are different from a TNC. I want to hear from the state before the 18th. This isn’t enough time.
[Some discussion about how they have to make their recommendations very shortly thereafter]
Bryan Hockaday: They don’t have the capacity to give it to us before then.
Mike Greenfield: Really, I used to work for the Oregon Insurance Division, you know?
Bryan Hockaday: That’s who I spoke to.
Joan Plank: [Somewhere in our files there’s a memo of recommendations] from SF Road Supervisors. On page 10-11 of this they include recommendations. We should reference them. TNCs should provide coverage for the driver and the passenger. The choice that is up to them is whether to have collision coverage. That’s optional, and that’s okay with me. They should have to provide notice to their insurance companies [that they’re driving commercially].
City Lawyer: The current code requires lapses of insurance to be reported, or for us to receive notifications, so do we want it to match up with that?
Richard Lazar: The only way to enforce this is to get proof of insurance.
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear] . . . decided to push this to the insurance division, or simply apply, apply everything consistently, but have . . . [unclear]
Joan Plank: Is workers comp required now?
Frank: It’s only required for companies with employees.
[Some discussion about how taxi and TNC drivers are usually independent contractors.]
[NOTE: No mention of the city’s mandatory Accidental Occupational Insurance. This is a huge omission because currently permitted drivers are covered for lost wages, medical and legal fees, in additionl to death and dismemberment settlements via the city’s mandatory insurance. Also no mention of the fact that there are two class-action cases pending in California to re-classify TNC drivers as employees because of the employer-like stance Lyft and Uber take with them. If their drivers are reclassified as employees, they will have to pay for workers comp, so it would behoove Uber to have drivers permitted through the city, and to pay the $26-a-month for Accidental Occupational, because this is far less expensive for Uber, they’ll offset the cost to drivers]
[CORRECTION: According to a follow-up email with Frank Dufay, "It’s actually not mandatory yet. The intent was to put it in code and make it mandatory, but currently I got all the companies together and they agreed to voluntarily provide this."]
Richard Lazar: I’m comfortable with that. Current requirements can be applied to new companies.
[Some discussion about how they’re actually supposed to be looking at commercial coverage]
Bryan Hockaday: We need to assure it will cover accidents.
Raihana Ansary: We need an app on and app off clarification.
Mike Greenfield: What stuff does the state require?
Brian Hockaday: State will let us know by the 18th.
[Some discussion about how that’s not enough time for them to move forward with decisions. No mention of the pending bills in Salem that, if passed, will require TNCs to have commercial inssurance]
Richard Lazar: [I’d like to] propose a framework that meets both legal and policy needs. There are some differences between them.
Joan Plank: Do we have a preference for app on or app off?
Jim Owens: [This is a] hot button issue nationally, [one that has been] relatively unresolved.
Bryan Hockaday: There are differences between them. We’ll hear from the state on the 18th.
Joan Plank: I’m uncomfortable waiting until the 18th. If a passenger is in the vehicle, they need it, but what about when app is on and they don’t have a passenger, or are en route to passenger?
City Lawyer: Yes, there’s app on, and driver is matched to a passenger. Then there’s app activated, [when they’re just] out there waiting for a ride.
Richard Lazar: Nationally I see there are three cases: (1) app off, (2) app on, (3) rider engaged. I’m concerned about what the city rep raised, concerned that personal auto policy vendors would cancel drivers’ policies if they learned they were using it commercially.
[Some discussion about how “rider engaged” means either (a) the driver has been paired with a future passenger, and (b) once the passenger is actually in the car.]
Bryan Hockaday: I was speaking to Annabell Chung from Lyft. She says she’ll submit something offering her interpretation of this.
[Someone]: Since they could be cancelled the city could require TNC rider on insurance.
Joan Plank: With app on, but not engaged, what limits should be, primary or contingent? Obviously they need primary commercial coverage when the passenger is engaged.
Mike Greenfield: Insurance companies will have to calculate the risk between A and B and on the way back from a passenger. All three phases are different than insuring a private vehicle. The city has to decide the kind of coverage and if taxis are different from a TNC. I want to hear from the state before the 18th. This isn’t enough time.
[Some discussion about how they have to make their recommendations very shortly thereafter]
Bryan Hockaday: They don’t have the capacity to give it to us before then.
Mike Greenfield: Really, I used to work for the Oregon Insurance Division, you know?
Bryan Hockaday: That’s who I spoke to.
Joan Plank: [Somewhere in our files there’s a memo of recommendations] from SF Road Supervisors. On page 10-11 of this they include recommendations. We should reference them. TNCs should provide coverage for the driver and the passenger. The choice that is up to them is whether to have collision coverage. That’s optional, and that’s okay with me. They should have to provide notice to their insurance companies [that they’re driving commercially].
City Lawyer: The current code requires lapses of insurance to be reported, or for us to receive notifications, so do we want it to match up with that?
Richard Lazar: The only way to enforce this is to get proof of insurance.
Mike Greenfield: [Unclear] . . . decided to push this to the insurance division, or simply apply, apply everything consistently, but have . . . [unclear]
VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
Mike Greenfield: How do we currently do inspections and report to the city?
Bryan Hockaday: I spoke to the city fleet manager, Uber and Lyft. The city currently requires an ASE inspection.
[Someone]: What does that stand for?
Bryan Hockaday: ASE, I don’t know, they’re the car guys, the master mechanics. I reviewed their requirements and they’re nearly identical to the inspections the TNC mechanics do.
[NOTE: No mention that ASE Master Mechanics do a 31-point evaluation, compared to the 19-point inspections Uber and Lyft do. Also no mention of the part where ASE Master Mechanics have to retrain and re-test annually to maintain their Master Mechanic certifications. Also no mention of the fact that Uber and Lyft have historically done “peer-to-peer” inspections, and only recently adopted mechanic inspections]
Bryan Hockaday: The only major differences are ASE checks for a spare tire, and a heating and cooling system. The city fleet guy didn’t think it was a safety issue not to have a spare tire. It’s not going to kill anyone if a tire blows, and it’s not like the passenger is going to wait for the driver to change the tire, they’ll get another car. Heating and cooling is a safety feature regarding defrosting, and it’s a comfort issue. The key difference is they’re a Master Certified Mechanic.
Mike Greenfield: Well, it is a safety issue if the tire blows on the freeway and they’re in traffic.
Bryan Hockaday: ASE said what’s really important for for-hire is to look for A1-A8, specifically, and A4-A6, which is breaks, electronics, steering, etc. What’s been suggested is to have the inspections done by Blue Seal Certified shops, or those shops that have a Master Mechanic.
[Someone]: Uber and Lyft are concerned they won’t be able to get all their cars inspected.
Bryan Hockaday: There are, I think 10 ASE Master Mechanics in Portland, one in Vancouver, one in Tigard, that’s about what there is for Master Mechanics. With Blue Seal there are about 60 shops that have Blue Seal Certified Mechanics.
Mike Greenfield: Would this be a change in standard for all, and make it apply to taxis?
Richard Lazar: What I’m concerned about is I wouldn’t want the city to do it. Blue Seal is good.
Riahana Ansary: I agree, let’s get a list of approved Blue Seal shops.
Bryan Hockaday: Blue Seal or ASE Master Mechanics.
Richard Lazar: The list will be always changing.
[Some discussion about rather than a list, city should just refer to Blue Seal and ASE, and let drivers find these mechanics themselves, the way taxis currently find ASE mechanics]
Frank Dufay: The other thing is the city does inspections for cosmetics, and safety things like fire extinguishers, first aid, etc.
Bryan Hockaday: And the city places a physical decal on the car.
Riahana Ansary: That would be cumbersome to the city to require [for all TNC cars].
Frank Dufay: It’s really just for aesthetics, which is less of an issue with newer cars. Back in the day we had a lot of old police cars, so we were checking for torn seats, wear and tear. With the newer cars we have now it’s less of an issue. It’s the wheelchair vans we’re really looking out for. Some of them are not in the best of shape. They get lots of wear and tear and get worn down.
[NOTE: What Frank Dufay did not say but was alluding to implicitly is that the city’s cosmetic/safety inspections take less than five minutes, only happen once a year, and could easily be replicated for TNCs without putting an undue burden on the city staff]
Joan Plank: I want consistency. If not for TNCs, then not for taxis. And maybe we give exemption for wheelchair vehicles?
Richard Lazar: If it doesn’t meet aesthetics [unclear] . . . I was in a cab the other day and the driver’s seats were all torn up.
Frank Dufay: That car should be decommissioned.
Dan Lenzen: Why wasn’t it decommissioned?
Richard Lazar: It wasn’t in Portland.
[NOTE: Lazar was, in my assessment, perfectly content to let us think this cab with torn seats was in Portland. If Lenzen hadn’t pushed the issue, Lazar would not have disclosed that this happened in another city. He showed his true colors when he paused for a moment before saying, “It wasn’t in Portland,” and had a look on his face like a little kid caught in a lie. ]
Mike Greenfield: As the city becomes more vigorous in [unclear] . . . . it could be designed to do a random sample for inspections. I propose we make this a second phase issue.
[NOTE: No mention of how random sampling, the gold standard for data sampling, could be applied across the board for all PFHT issues ranging from background check audits, drug and alcohol testing, hours worked, cleanliness of vehicles, safety inspections, customer service, response times, etc. Using random sampling--true random sampling, not convenience sampling as is currently used for enforcement now--would greatly reduce the administrative burden for the city.]
Jim Owens: Any opinions?
Richard Lazar: Move it to phase two.
Mike Greenfield: We can remove it for current taxi cabs, temporarily, and then reimpose it during the second phase.
Riahana Ansary: Are inspections yearly?
Frank Dufay: Yes.
Bryan Hockaday: Do we want explicit requirements for vehicles registered outside of Oregon who want to work here? Do we want them DEQ registered, if its a vehicle from Vancouver?
City Lawyer: Code says they have to follow all applicable city, state and federal laws.
Joan Plank: Why would Vancouver drivers [have to go through the DEQ]? Wouldn’t the DEQ be confused and turn them away?
[Mike Greenfield, I think]: As a businessman who lives in Oregon and works in Vancouver, I have to comply with all Vancouver statutes.
Bryan Hockaday: [The current cabs are] . . . all compliant here.
Mike Greenfield: Do we currently say cabs from Vancouver have to comply?
Bryan Hockaday: They can drop off, yes, but any company who picks up has to comply.
Joan Plank: The failure rate for cars newer than 10 years is probably pretty small. Seems like a hoop to jump through.
Richard Lazar: I’m comfortable saying permitted vehicles have to comply, and it’s up to the companies to make sure they’re in compliance.
Bryan Hockaday: I spoke to the city fleet manager, Uber and Lyft. The city currently requires an ASE inspection.
[Someone]: What does that stand for?
Bryan Hockaday: ASE, I don’t know, they’re the car guys, the master mechanics. I reviewed their requirements and they’re nearly identical to the inspections the TNC mechanics do.
[NOTE: No mention that ASE Master Mechanics do a 31-point evaluation, compared to the 19-point inspections Uber and Lyft do. Also no mention of the part where ASE Master Mechanics have to retrain and re-test annually to maintain their Master Mechanic certifications. Also no mention of the fact that Uber and Lyft have historically done “peer-to-peer” inspections, and only recently adopted mechanic inspections]
Bryan Hockaday: The only major differences are ASE checks for a spare tire, and a heating and cooling system. The city fleet guy didn’t think it was a safety issue not to have a spare tire. It’s not going to kill anyone if a tire blows, and it’s not like the passenger is going to wait for the driver to change the tire, they’ll get another car. Heating and cooling is a safety feature regarding defrosting, and it’s a comfort issue. The key difference is they’re a Master Certified Mechanic.
Mike Greenfield: Well, it is a safety issue if the tire blows on the freeway and they’re in traffic.
Bryan Hockaday: ASE said what’s really important for for-hire is to look for A1-A8, specifically, and A4-A6, which is breaks, electronics, steering, etc. What’s been suggested is to have the inspections done by Blue Seal Certified shops, or those shops that have a Master Mechanic.
[Someone]: Uber and Lyft are concerned they won’t be able to get all their cars inspected.
Bryan Hockaday: There are, I think 10 ASE Master Mechanics in Portland, one in Vancouver, one in Tigard, that’s about what there is for Master Mechanics. With Blue Seal there are about 60 shops that have Blue Seal Certified Mechanics.
Mike Greenfield: Would this be a change in standard for all, and make it apply to taxis?
Richard Lazar: What I’m concerned about is I wouldn’t want the city to do it. Blue Seal is good.
Riahana Ansary: I agree, let’s get a list of approved Blue Seal shops.
Bryan Hockaday: Blue Seal or ASE Master Mechanics.
Richard Lazar: The list will be always changing.
[Some discussion about rather than a list, city should just refer to Blue Seal and ASE, and let drivers find these mechanics themselves, the way taxis currently find ASE mechanics]
Frank Dufay: The other thing is the city does inspections for cosmetics, and safety things like fire extinguishers, first aid, etc.
Bryan Hockaday: And the city places a physical decal on the car.
Riahana Ansary: That would be cumbersome to the city to require [for all TNC cars].
Frank Dufay: It’s really just for aesthetics, which is less of an issue with newer cars. Back in the day we had a lot of old police cars, so we were checking for torn seats, wear and tear. With the newer cars we have now it’s less of an issue. It’s the wheelchair vans we’re really looking out for. Some of them are not in the best of shape. They get lots of wear and tear and get worn down.
[NOTE: What Frank Dufay did not say but was alluding to implicitly is that the city’s cosmetic/safety inspections take less than five minutes, only happen once a year, and could easily be replicated for TNCs without putting an undue burden on the city staff]
Joan Plank: I want consistency. If not for TNCs, then not for taxis. And maybe we give exemption for wheelchair vehicles?
Richard Lazar: If it doesn’t meet aesthetics [unclear] . . . I was in a cab the other day and the driver’s seats were all torn up.
Frank Dufay: That car should be decommissioned.
Dan Lenzen: Why wasn’t it decommissioned?
Richard Lazar: It wasn’t in Portland.
[NOTE: Lazar was, in my assessment, perfectly content to let us think this cab with torn seats was in Portland. If Lenzen hadn’t pushed the issue, Lazar would not have disclosed that this happened in another city. He showed his true colors when he paused for a moment before saying, “It wasn’t in Portland,” and had a look on his face like a little kid caught in a lie. ]
Mike Greenfield: As the city becomes more vigorous in [unclear] . . . . it could be designed to do a random sample for inspections. I propose we make this a second phase issue.
[NOTE: No mention of how random sampling, the gold standard for data sampling, could be applied across the board for all PFHT issues ranging from background check audits, drug and alcohol testing, hours worked, cleanliness of vehicles, safety inspections, customer service, response times, etc. Using random sampling--true random sampling, not convenience sampling as is currently used for enforcement now--would greatly reduce the administrative burden for the city.]
Jim Owens: Any opinions?
Richard Lazar: Move it to phase two.
Mike Greenfield: We can remove it for current taxi cabs, temporarily, and then reimpose it during the second phase.
Riahana Ansary: Are inspections yearly?
Frank Dufay: Yes.
Bryan Hockaday: Do we want explicit requirements for vehicles registered outside of Oregon who want to work here? Do we want them DEQ registered, if its a vehicle from Vancouver?
City Lawyer: Code says they have to follow all applicable city, state and federal laws.
Joan Plank: Why would Vancouver drivers [have to go through the DEQ]? Wouldn’t the DEQ be confused and turn them away?
[Mike Greenfield, I think]: As a businessman who lives in Oregon and works in Vancouver, I have to comply with all Vancouver statutes.
Bryan Hockaday: [The current cabs are] . . . all compliant here.
Mike Greenfield: Do we currently say cabs from Vancouver have to comply?
Bryan Hockaday: They can drop off, yes, but any company who picks up has to comply.
Joan Plank: The failure rate for cars newer than 10 years is probably pretty small. Seems like a hoop to jump through.
Richard Lazar: I’m comfortable saying permitted vehicles have to comply, and it’s up to the companies to make sure they’re in compliance.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Bryan Hockaday: Our requirements are nearly identical to Uber and Lyft. The difference is we look for any physical assault for all time, and any felonies for 10 years, whereas they only go back to 7 years.
Frank Dufay: They say they’re not allowed to go back past 7 years.
Richard Lazar: Is there any evidence that going back from 7 to 10 years improves safety?
Mike Greenfield: Well, there’s the history of felonies, and the record of all felonies. I like the 10 year standard.
[Some discussion about why Uber and Lyft only go back 7 years, possibly because HR/legal issues don’t allow them to go back farther than 7 years, it’s unclear at the moment]
Richard Lazar: It’s up to them to tell us why only 7 years.
Bryan Hockaday: We run through city, state, and federal databases. They use a 3rd party vendor. [The question becomes], “Do we leave it on the companies to do without the city, or do we require them to go through the city?”
[Some discussion about the length of time it takes to do city checks being prohibitive]
Frank Dufay: It’s 10-21 days, unless the multi-source/multi-state check comes back with a flag, then we have them do the FBI check, it usually takes another 21 days more. They bring it to us from the FBI in a sealed envelope, because we’re not authorized to run those ourselves.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes.
Joan Plank: Let’s just be consistent. [Can we use] a private company for taxis?
City Lawyer: If the private company is coming up with the same stuff as LEDs (the database the city uses), I think it’s fine. They need to explain what the private provider uses.
Mike Greenfield: If they want an alternative to LEDs, I want it to be better than LEDs.
Richard Lazar: How long do they take?
Riahana Ansary: The city can come up with a list of approved databases.
Mike Greenfield: LEDs is a specific database, the most reliable.
Richard Lazar: Are you saying [what they’re using] is not accessing accurately?
Mike Greenfield: LEDs is better.
Jim Owens: It’s a public perception issue.
[Some discussion about how Uber has let some bad seeds slip through the cracks]
Mike Greenfield: Are we suggesting we lower the standards? I wouldn’t suggest that.
Bryan Hockaday: We are discussing whether we’ll allow a 3rd party vendor.
Mike Greenfield: We must confirm it is equal or better to what we have.
Riahana Ansary: Well, come up with a list.
City Lawyer: LEDS only comes up with multistate. The FBI background check is the cadillac of background checks. [TNCs background checks] come up with multistate, too, but not up to par with the FBI background checks.
Mike Greenfield: Then we require an FBI check.
Joan Plank: When you get the FBI sealed packet, how often does it say yes or no?
Frank Dufay: Irony is LEDs tells police, but we can’t see it, there are legislative issues [that prevent us from seeing it], the FBI report usually validates what LEDs said. They’re usually the same.
Mike Greenfield: It’s that one time, though, that one time. It’s worth being thorough.
Richard Lazar: To be clear, cabs do bad things, too. There’s always going to be bad apples. But what’s the threshold to be allowed to drive? That’s what we are looking at.
Frank Dufay: It could be someone was arrested for pot possession in another state but not convicted 20 years ago. That would come up in the FBI background check.
Richard Lazar: Private companies, are they providing info from other states?
Bryan Hockaday: They do multistate.
Mike Greenfield: If we hit a trigger, then follow the FBI standard. If the city says we have licensed them, and they mess up, it’s the city who is liable. So for these newcomers, there could be the option of LEDs or they must demonstrate to the city theirs is better, or go to the FBI.
Dan Lenzen: What is the threshold for hits?
Mike Greenfield: Whatever is used for taxis.
Frank Dufay: The question is, are they going to share the background checks with us, or just tell us their drivers passed?
Richard Lazar: What’s required for cabs?
Frank Dufay: We do ours [at the city] and the companies do theirs.
City Lawyer: My sense is they are not going to give the info to us. They’ll say something about the privacy of their drivers. They’re not going to give it to us, so we want to have something.
Riahana Ansary: Will a verification letter suffice?
Mike Greenfield: So we’re having different levels? That’s what it sounds like.
Richard Lazar: I have privacy concerns. Unless the city is going to have people verify, submitting a report is not needed. If they hire bad, they’re in trouble. If the city requests the info and it comes back bad, then you’re liable.
Mike Greenfield: I’d like to see certification signed by management so we have someone on the hook. If we won’t get a report, I want a certification letter signed and in our files. Someone is going to have to answer.
Mike Jacobs: I’ll send a list of what they do in Seattle with background checks, inspections, etc., it’s a checklist of how they’re certified. The city maintains a right to audit those records [in Seattle], so we can, too.
City Lawyer: We have to have audit rights.
Richard Lazar: We have to have a balance between safety and operational efficiency.
Mike Greenfield: I propose these four criteria for new code: (1) Background checks must be equal or better than LEDs, (2) If there’s a trigger, we go to the FBI, (3) They provide a certified letter signed by a manager, and (4) We maintain the right to do an audit check.
Jim Owens: At what frequency?
Mike Greenfield: Yearly, the same as the city requires now.
City Lawyer: [unclear] . . . If FBI, we’re notified immediately.
Frank Dufay: [unclear] . . . We look locally, [unclear] . . . not doable.
Mike Greenfield: First judgment?
Frank Dufay: Yes, we agonize over these decisions sometimes. For example, say you were 17-years-old when you had sex with a 16-year-old, so you’re on the sex offenders list, is that relevant 20 years later?
Mike Greenfield: Are we comfortable delegating that decision-making to the companies, or do we ask them to apply our filters? Or is it based on a judgment call, we’ll issue a permit or not issue. We’re not going to see those records.
Richard Lazar: There are exclusionary criteria [in place with the companies].
Mike Greenfield: Do we say to the companies, “You must use our criteria.”
Frank Dufay: We always ask, “Was it a long time ago?” We agonize over these decisions sometimes. Maybe we let the companies do it?
Mike Greenfield: If they’re holding the bag, they’ll do it.
Someone: What is the exclusionary criteria?
City Lawyer: Felonies within 10 years, felony physical harm regardless of when it happened, misdemeanors for [lengthy list which can be found in the city code].
Frank Dufay: They say they’re not allowed to go back past 7 years.
Richard Lazar: Is there any evidence that going back from 7 to 10 years improves safety?
Mike Greenfield: Well, there’s the history of felonies, and the record of all felonies. I like the 10 year standard.
[Some discussion about why Uber and Lyft only go back 7 years, possibly because HR/legal issues don’t allow them to go back farther than 7 years, it’s unclear at the moment]
Richard Lazar: It’s up to them to tell us why only 7 years.
Bryan Hockaday: We run through city, state, and federal databases. They use a 3rd party vendor. [The question becomes], “Do we leave it on the companies to do without the city, or do we require them to go through the city?”
[Some discussion about the length of time it takes to do city checks being prohibitive]
Frank Dufay: It’s 10-21 days, unless the multi-source/multi-state check comes back with a flag, then we have them do the FBI check, it usually takes another 21 days more. They bring it to us from the FBI in a sealed envelope, because we’re not authorized to run those ourselves.
Bryan Hockaday: Yes.
Joan Plank: Let’s just be consistent. [Can we use] a private company for taxis?
City Lawyer: If the private company is coming up with the same stuff as LEDs (the database the city uses), I think it’s fine. They need to explain what the private provider uses.
Mike Greenfield: If they want an alternative to LEDs, I want it to be better than LEDs.
Richard Lazar: How long do they take?
Riahana Ansary: The city can come up with a list of approved databases.
Mike Greenfield: LEDs is a specific database, the most reliable.
Richard Lazar: Are you saying [what they’re using] is not accessing accurately?
Mike Greenfield: LEDs is better.
Jim Owens: It’s a public perception issue.
[Some discussion about how Uber has let some bad seeds slip through the cracks]
Mike Greenfield: Are we suggesting we lower the standards? I wouldn’t suggest that.
Bryan Hockaday: We are discussing whether we’ll allow a 3rd party vendor.
Mike Greenfield: We must confirm it is equal or better to what we have.
Riahana Ansary: Well, come up with a list.
City Lawyer: LEDS only comes up with multistate. The FBI background check is the cadillac of background checks. [TNCs background checks] come up with multistate, too, but not up to par with the FBI background checks.
Mike Greenfield: Then we require an FBI check.
Joan Plank: When you get the FBI sealed packet, how often does it say yes or no?
Frank Dufay: Irony is LEDs tells police, but we can’t see it, there are legislative issues [that prevent us from seeing it], the FBI report usually validates what LEDs said. They’re usually the same.
Mike Greenfield: It’s that one time, though, that one time. It’s worth being thorough.
Richard Lazar: To be clear, cabs do bad things, too. There’s always going to be bad apples. But what’s the threshold to be allowed to drive? That’s what we are looking at.
Frank Dufay: It could be someone was arrested for pot possession in another state but not convicted 20 years ago. That would come up in the FBI background check.
Richard Lazar: Private companies, are they providing info from other states?
Bryan Hockaday: They do multistate.
Mike Greenfield: If we hit a trigger, then follow the FBI standard. If the city says we have licensed them, and they mess up, it’s the city who is liable. So for these newcomers, there could be the option of LEDs or they must demonstrate to the city theirs is better, or go to the FBI.
Dan Lenzen: What is the threshold for hits?
Mike Greenfield: Whatever is used for taxis.
Frank Dufay: The question is, are they going to share the background checks with us, or just tell us their drivers passed?
Richard Lazar: What’s required for cabs?
Frank Dufay: We do ours [at the city] and the companies do theirs.
City Lawyer: My sense is they are not going to give the info to us. They’ll say something about the privacy of their drivers. They’re not going to give it to us, so we want to have something.
Riahana Ansary: Will a verification letter suffice?
Mike Greenfield: So we’re having different levels? That’s what it sounds like.
Richard Lazar: I have privacy concerns. Unless the city is going to have people verify, submitting a report is not needed. If they hire bad, they’re in trouble. If the city requests the info and it comes back bad, then you’re liable.
Mike Greenfield: I’d like to see certification signed by management so we have someone on the hook. If we won’t get a report, I want a certification letter signed and in our files. Someone is going to have to answer.
Mike Jacobs: I’ll send a list of what they do in Seattle with background checks, inspections, etc., it’s a checklist of how they’re certified. The city maintains a right to audit those records [in Seattle], so we can, too.
City Lawyer: We have to have audit rights.
Richard Lazar: We have to have a balance between safety and operational efficiency.
Mike Greenfield: I propose these four criteria for new code: (1) Background checks must be equal or better than LEDs, (2) If there’s a trigger, we go to the FBI, (3) They provide a certified letter signed by a manager, and (4) We maintain the right to do an audit check.
Jim Owens: At what frequency?
Mike Greenfield: Yearly, the same as the city requires now.
City Lawyer: [unclear] . . . If FBI, we’re notified immediately.
Frank Dufay: [unclear] . . . We look locally, [unclear] . . . not doable.
Mike Greenfield: First judgment?
Frank Dufay: Yes, we agonize over these decisions sometimes. For example, say you were 17-years-old when you had sex with a 16-year-old, so you’re on the sex offenders list, is that relevant 20 years later?
Mike Greenfield: Are we comfortable delegating that decision-making to the companies, or do we ask them to apply our filters? Or is it based on a judgment call, we’ll issue a permit or not issue. We’re not going to see those records.
Richard Lazar: There are exclusionary criteria [in place with the companies].
Mike Greenfield: Do we say to the companies, “You must use our criteria.”
Frank Dufay: We always ask, “Was it a long time ago?” We agonize over these decisions sometimes. Maybe we let the companies do it?
Mike Greenfield: If they’re holding the bag, they’ll do it.
Someone: What is the exclusionary criteria?
City Lawyer: Felonies within 10 years, felony physical harm regardless of when it happened, misdemeanors for [lengthy list which can be found in the city code].
TESTING & TRAINING
Bryan Hockaday: Currently we require drivers to go through customer service and driving safety classes. Do we require them?
Michael Jacobs: City requires companies, in the administrative rules. There are three safety classes, and the Travel Oregon Online customer service course. They must take them within 6 months, or the city can or has approved each company programs to be consistent with the approved training programs.
Mike Greenfield: Is there any reason not to apply them universally?
Michael Jacobs: Frank can approve them if they’re consistent.
Richard Lazar: They’ve already produced their training program.
Someone: How do the cab companies do it?
Frank Dufay: They have certified trainers [who lead classes and road training]. Then there’s the Knowledge Skills Test they take from the city.
[NOTE: No mention here that cab companies usually do an intro training class and three days of on the road training, whereas Uber only requires a 20-minute online class]
Richard Lazar: How long does it take?
Frank Dufay: It’s a matter of scheduling. Usually we get them in within a week or 10 days.
Michael Jacobs: One thing we could consider is what Seattle did, which is to make it online, so they don’t have to come in to take it. But it’s on an honor system, you don’t know who’s taking the test. It covers codes, geography, points of interest. If they take it and pass, the other issue is the English language testing. Seattle taxis and TNCs take a test, they created it with 5 questions in an audio format, so the drivers have to listen and answer in English.
Mike Greenfield: Is that a proposal?
Michael Jacobs: I haven’t talked to NCS, but we could do it web-based, which feeds into the licensing system.
Mike Greenfield: So do we prefer the current scenario, or go online?
Joan Plank: It takes time to go online. I’ve worked with a lot of IT people and they’re all very nice and all very busy. It takes about a year to build out something like this with IT people. We might want to head in that direction. There needs to be a time-frame, and long-term is it useful?
Mike Greenfield: Do we give it over to companies to administer to drivers?
Richard Lazar: Is the curriculum listed somewhere? I would like to take it out of the city’s hands. They can’t process thousands of drivers. I’d like to apply the same standard to taxis.
Mike Greenfield: So the companies can give certificates?
Richard Lazar: If it’s not a learning management software, if it’s just online, up there for anyone to take, [that’s an issue]. If it’s an account-based site where they have to log in, that’s better. As long as it meets or exceeds the current city requirements.
Mike Greenfield: I’d like to delegate this to phase two.
Michael Jacobs: If we require TNCs to do it with the city, we’ll be bombarded.
Mike Greenfield: They might just have to wait.
Riahana Ansary: How often is it required?
Frank Dufay: Only once.
Michael Jacobs: City requires companies, in the administrative rules. There are three safety classes, and the Travel Oregon Online customer service course. They must take them within 6 months, or the city can or has approved each company programs to be consistent with the approved training programs.
Mike Greenfield: Is there any reason not to apply them universally?
Michael Jacobs: Frank can approve them if they’re consistent.
Richard Lazar: They’ve already produced their training program.
Someone: How do the cab companies do it?
Frank Dufay: They have certified trainers [who lead classes and road training]. Then there’s the Knowledge Skills Test they take from the city.
[NOTE: No mention here that cab companies usually do an intro training class and three days of on the road training, whereas Uber only requires a 20-minute online class]
Richard Lazar: How long does it take?
Frank Dufay: It’s a matter of scheduling. Usually we get them in within a week or 10 days.
Michael Jacobs: One thing we could consider is what Seattle did, which is to make it online, so they don’t have to come in to take it. But it’s on an honor system, you don’t know who’s taking the test. It covers codes, geography, points of interest. If they take it and pass, the other issue is the English language testing. Seattle taxis and TNCs take a test, they created it with 5 questions in an audio format, so the drivers have to listen and answer in English.
Mike Greenfield: Is that a proposal?
Michael Jacobs: I haven’t talked to NCS, but we could do it web-based, which feeds into the licensing system.
Mike Greenfield: So do we prefer the current scenario, or go online?
Joan Plank: It takes time to go online. I’ve worked with a lot of IT people and they’re all very nice and all very busy. It takes about a year to build out something like this with IT people. We might want to head in that direction. There needs to be a time-frame, and long-term is it useful?
Mike Greenfield: Do we give it over to companies to administer to drivers?
Richard Lazar: Is the curriculum listed somewhere? I would like to take it out of the city’s hands. They can’t process thousands of drivers. I’d like to apply the same standard to taxis.
Mike Greenfield: So the companies can give certificates?
Richard Lazar: If it’s not a learning management software, if it’s just online, up there for anyone to take, [that’s an issue]. If it’s an account-based site where they have to log in, that’s better. As long as it meets or exceeds the current city requirements.
Mike Greenfield: I’d like to delegate this to phase two.
Michael Jacobs: If we require TNCs to do it with the city, we’ll be bombarded.
Mike Greenfield: They might just have to wait.
Riahana Ansary: How often is it required?
Frank Dufay: Only once.
DISABLED RIDERS
Richard Lazar: I move to push this to phase two after the interim period.
[Some discussion about the absence of Sue Stahl, channeling of Stahl, some concern expressed about tabling an issue that has been expressed by Novick as of urgent importance]
Mike Greenfield: Moved to phase 2.
[Some discussion about the absence of Sue Stahl, channeling of Stahl, some concern expressed about tabling an issue that has been expressed by Novick as of urgent importance]
Mike Greenfield: Moved to phase 2.
CAP ON HOURS
Frank Dufay: The current city code says [drivers can only work] 14 hours, but some companies do 12 hours so their cars can run on two shifts.
Joan Plank: My concern is what’s to stop a driver from working at Macy’s for 8 hours, then driving for 12-14 hours?
Frank Dufay: We count on companies to monitor for that.
Richard Lazar: What if a driver works for multiple companies? Is it applicable to the driver [or to the platform]? We should make it driving for any for-hire company. They can’t do 8 hours with one and 8 hours with another.
[Some discussion, agreed that hours are capped per driver, not per platform]
Joan Plank: My concern is what’s to stop a driver from working at Macy’s for 8 hours, then driving for 12-14 hours?
Frank Dufay: We count on companies to monitor for that.
Richard Lazar: What if a driver works for multiple companies? Is it applicable to the driver [or to the platform]? We should make it driving for any for-hire company. They can’t do 8 hours with one and 8 hours with another.
[Some discussion, agreed that hours are capped per driver, not per platform]
RESPONSE TO INCIDENTS
[Some discussion, pushed to phase two.]
City Lawyer: One thing, do we require a physical address for TNCs?
Mike Greenfield: That’s down the line.
City Lawyer: One thing, do we require a physical address for TNCs?
Mike Greenfield: That’s down the line.
PERMITS & FEES
Bryan Hockaday: It’s $1500 for the first offense, and then more after.
Richard Lazar: You’re talking about fines, we’re talking about permit fees.
Bryan Hockaday: The question is, “What are we permitting? Driver? Company? Vehicle?”
Mike Greenfield: Currently we do all three. Is there a reason to do differently?
Bryan Hockaday: They’re concerned about TNC drivers having to pay. [They’d like] flat fees for the whole company. Do we want it so each driver is still accounted for?
Richard Lazar: Or a flat fee for the company?
[Some discussion about how fees are paid now]
Frank Dufay: [Right now] it’s $100 for the [driver] application [and background check and testing] and $100 a year [for the driver’s permit renewal].
Joan Plank: All drivers?
Mike Greenfield: I presume they are all full-time at present? Are they at 8 hours?
Frank Dufay: There’s no good data on that.
[NOTE: In reality, there is available data. Radio and Broadway both have part-time lease options, and most owners at other companies have spare drivers who work either part- or full-time. It would not be complicated to get this data from MDT-based companies. Broadway, Green, Radio and Union can all provide driver hours-worked data.]
Mike Greenfield: Uber will say it’s not the same because their drivers are part time.
Jim Owens: Are they independent contractors?
Richard Lazar: Cabs are too. I’m comfortable with a flat fee per company. If the city wants to collect a fee for drivers [unclear] . . . What are your thoughts on other TNCS?
Bryan Hockaday: Do you know, Michael?
Michael Jacobs: Seattle requires driver, car and [unclear], and the companies send to the city.
Richard Lazar: What fees do they pay?
Bryan Hockaday: It’s a flat fee.
Mike Greenfield: So do we continue fees as a first phase agenda, or move to phase two?
Bryan Hockaday: There is an expectation.
Mike Greenfield: Could the task force have the city do it?
Bryan Hockaday: For the interim?
Mike Greenfield: We could struggle now, or we could have the city do it now, or in phase two we could do something else.
Richard Lazar: I’m comfortable if there are some differences. There needs to be a permitting process as a temporary thing. I’d be comfortable with some divergence.
Mike Greenfield: I wouldn’t want to give them a competitive advantage. It should be equal.
[NOTE: No mention of the fact that Portland drivers have already paid their $100 permit renewals, vehicles owners have already paid their $600 annual renewals, and companies have already paid their permitting fees. If the city applies a new rule for TNCs drivers and companies will want refunds, and will be willing and able to sue for refunds]
Joan Plank: I’m confused. Are we going to apply the same permits and fees to all?
Mike Greenfield: It would be universally applied.
Joan Plank: I’m still confused. If you decide not to, will existing companies not have to pay fees?
Mike Greenfield: Whether it’s Broadway or Uber, it should be applied equally.
Dan: Is there an incremental fee for drivers who take street hails?
Frank: They’d continue to have to get business licences.
City Lawyer: That’s the Revenue Office, not you or us, who will deal with that.
[Some laughter about how the PFHT division is no longer apart of the Revenue division]
Jim Owens: [We should be] asking staff to develop an interim fee schedule that can be applied across the board [during the interim period].
Mike Greenfield: There’s not enough time. We reconvene Friday at noon.
Richard Lazar: You’re talking about fines, we’re talking about permit fees.
Bryan Hockaday: The question is, “What are we permitting? Driver? Company? Vehicle?”
Mike Greenfield: Currently we do all three. Is there a reason to do differently?
Bryan Hockaday: They’re concerned about TNC drivers having to pay. [They’d like] flat fees for the whole company. Do we want it so each driver is still accounted for?
Richard Lazar: Or a flat fee for the company?
[Some discussion about how fees are paid now]
Frank Dufay: [Right now] it’s $100 for the [driver] application [and background check and testing] and $100 a year [for the driver’s permit renewal].
Joan Plank: All drivers?
Mike Greenfield: I presume they are all full-time at present? Are they at 8 hours?
Frank Dufay: There’s no good data on that.
[NOTE: In reality, there is available data. Radio and Broadway both have part-time lease options, and most owners at other companies have spare drivers who work either part- or full-time. It would not be complicated to get this data from MDT-based companies. Broadway, Green, Radio and Union can all provide driver hours-worked data.]
Mike Greenfield: Uber will say it’s not the same because their drivers are part time.
Jim Owens: Are they independent contractors?
Richard Lazar: Cabs are too. I’m comfortable with a flat fee per company. If the city wants to collect a fee for drivers [unclear] . . . What are your thoughts on other TNCS?
Bryan Hockaday: Do you know, Michael?
Michael Jacobs: Seattle requires driver, car and [unclear], and the companies send to the city.
Richard Lazar: What fees do they pay?
Bryan Hockaday: It’s a flat fee.
Mike Greenfield: So do we continue fees as a first phase agenda, or move to phase two?
Bryan Hockaday: There is an expectation.
Mike Greenfield: Could the task force have the city do it?
Bryan Hockaday: For the interim?
Mike Greenfield: We could struggle now, or we could have the city do it now, or in phase two we could do something else.
Richard Lazar: I’m comfortable if there are some differences. There needs to be a permitting process as a temporary thing. I’d be comfortable with some divergence.
Mike Greenfield: I wouldn’t want to give them a competitive advantage. It should be equal.
[NOTE: No mention of the fact that Portland drivers have already paid their $100 permit renewals, vehicles owners have already paid their $600 annual renewals, and companies have already paid their permitting fees. If the city applies a new rule for TNCs drivers and companies will want refunds, and will be willing and able to sue for refunds]
Joan Plank: I’m confused. Are we going to apply the same permits and fees to all?
Mike Greenfield: It would be universally applied.
Joan Plank: I’m still confused. If you decide not to, will existing companies not have to pay fees?
Mike Greenfield: Whether it’s Broadway or Uber, it should be applied equally.
Dan: Is there an incremental fee for drivers who take street hails?
Frank: They’d continue to have to get business licences.
City Lawyer: That’s the Revenue Office, not you or us, who will deal with that.
[Some laughter about how the PFHT division is no longer apart of the Revenue division]
Jim Owens: [We should be] asking staff to develop an interim fee schedule that can be applied across the board [during the interim period].
Mike Greenfield: There’s not enough time. We reconvene Friday at noon.
NUMBER OF CAB PERMITS
Jim Owens: We’ve heard a lot from the commissioner about this.
Bryan Hockaday: It’s a unique requirement to this industry that is not imposed on other industries. You don’t hear about them capping the number of doctors or lawyers, although there are certification requirements for those professions. [Novick] proposes lifting the cap.
Mike Greenfield: [Is this something] the commissioner can determine?
Bryan Hockaday: [Currently] the PFHT board recommends to the city council.
Mike Greenfield: So if the recommendations are for unlimited permits, is there any reason for this task force?
Bryan Hockaday: Frank?
Frank Dufay: I’d make a recommendation to the board, who makes a recommendation to council. It’s council’s call.
[NOTE: No mention of the fact that when Union Cab broke into the industry, in a tight regulatory market, the other cab companies were promised additional plates, as well, and the PFHT board recommended those plates for the several companies who provided documentation of unmet demand, and the city council denied approval of these recommended additions because they did not believe the demand was there. Yet now the commissioner wants no cap? The drivers and companies who have been waiting two years for those promised plates are now, ostensibly, going to be thrown into the fighting for scraps game with Uber. This is grounds for a potential suit against the city.]
[CORRECTION: According to a follow-up email with Frank Dufay, "The city did issue additional plates to some of the existing companies at the same time Union Cab was approved." But in reality, the PFHT Board approved the roll-out of new plates tied to the Union entry to happen over the course of three years. The city approved the first year's roll-out, so 1/3 of the plates recommended for the three years, but the last two years permits were not approved. Therefor, drivers like me, who purchased medical transportation (SAT) vehicles in 2013 under the assumption we'd have plates within 6-months to 1-year, are STILL waiting for plates two years later. After two years of diligently following the rules, serving medical and suburban clients only, not picking up within the city limits, I am aghast to be getting my plates only next week while Uber operates illegally and gets city access in less than three months.]
Mike Greenfield: We need to rethink that commission and make council [unclear] . . .
Richard Lazar: I have a strong opinion on this. There is no rational reason to limit the number of vehicles. There’s no data. Whether this board should or not, my recommendation is to remove all caps across all boards.
Mike Greenfield: Could you clarify that? [presumably a joke]
Joan Plank: I’m going to push back for the sake of pushing back. The restricted number of drivers keeps the wages up.
Richard Lazar: Up from what? $6.22 an hour.
[NOTE: No mention of the faulty methodology of the study that produced that $6.22-an-hour wage. This study relied on self-report data from drivers, which is notoriously unreliable, especially in a cash-based industry where underreporting is common. Additionally, the researchers pulled out Radio Cab data, because they were outliers, noting that Radio Cab drivers make substantially more than other drivers.]
Joan Plank: I want more time to discuss this, but in the mean time, no caps.
Riahana Ansary: I can hear Leslie, and since she’s not here, I’m going to channel Leslie and say she’ll have some concerns about the carbon [footprint].
Mike Greenfield: These are very important issues to be reviewed by a different advisory board. But I concur that the authority to issue permits be transferred to the commissioners.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear, but something about how we can’t know the environmental impact]
Mike Greenfield: I understand the density concerns. Is there some finite number of people wanting transportation to be spread out, or will increasing permits increase demand?
Richard Lazar: Until data is collected, no one knows the long-term reports. An unlimited number won’t show us, the companies will have to release the data.
Riahana Ansary: [And then there’s the argument] TNCs, actually, through their “last mile” claims [referring to how Uber claims their passengers take public transportation and then Uber from their last stop home], actually increase public transportation ridership.
[Someone]: The city has triggers to collect the data. It needs to be a process. If we don’t have any triggers . . . [unclear].
Richard Lazar: I don’t agree that the city has the right at any time. We don’t even know what the data is, let alone the triggers.
Mike Greenfield: The city is subject to special interest group pressures. Let’s collect data and make final decisions. I’m pushing back. This makes the city really vulnerable to special interest groups.
Richard Lazar: So do we have consensus to transfer power to the commissioners, no cap, and we will define the data and triggers at a later date?
Michael Jacobs: Phase one means phase one.
Mike Greenfield: April 9th ends phase one. Phase two is some time after that.
Frank Dufay: Do we include the 20% ADA requirement in that? I’m channeling Sue.
[NOTE: No mention about how Radio and Broadway have already purchased the new wheelchair vans they needed to come up to compliance for the new permits just released. That investment is huge. For Green Cab’s 6 new wheelchair vehicles, Tesfaye Aleme is taking out more than $200,000 in debt to bring the fleet up to 20% so he can implement the 80+ new plates Green Cab was promised, contingent upon ADA compliance. Is the city going to reimburse taxi companies for the investments they made to be ADA compliant? This is another area where companies have ground for suit]
Jim Owens: We’re going to recommend about that at the next meeting.
Mike Greenfield: Accessibility and non-discrimination is a hot topic. I wrote a long piece about it after I took drugs for my surgery. My feeling is it’s too complicated for phase one.
Bryan Hockaday: It’s a unique requirement to this industry that is not imposed on other industries. You don’t hear about them capping the number of doctors or lawyers, although there are certification requirements for those professions. [Novick] proposes lifting the cap.
Mike Greenfield: [Is this something] the commissioner can determine?
Bryan Hockaday: [Currently] the PFHT board recommends to the city council.
Mike Greenfield: So if the recommendations are for unlimited permits, is there any reason for this task force?
Bryan Hockaday: Frank?
Frank Dufay: I’d make a recommendation to the board, who makes a recommendation to council. It’s council’s call.
[NOTE: No mention of the fact that when Union Cab broke into the industry, in a tight regulatory market, the other cab companies were promised additional plates, as well, and the PFHT board recommended those plates for the several companies who provided documentation of unmet demand, and the city council denied approval of these recommended additions because they did not believe the demand was there. Yet now the commissioner wants no cap? The drivers and companies who have been waiting two years for those promised plates are now, ostensibly, going to be thrown into the fighting for scraps game with Uber. This is grounds for a potential suit against the city.]
[CORRECTION: According to a follow-up email with Frank Dufay, "The city did issue additional plates to some of the existing companies at the same time Union Cab was approved." But in reality, the PFHT Board approved the roll-out of new plates tied to the Union entry to happen over the course of three years. The city approved the first year's roll-out, so 1/3 of the plates recommended for the three years, but the last two years permits were not approved. Therefor, drivers like me, who purchased medical transportation (SAT) vehicles in 2013 under the assumption we'd have plates within 6-months to 1-year, are STILL waiting for plates two years later. After two years of diligently following the rules, serving medical and suburban clients only, not picking up within the city limits, I am aghast to be getting my plates only next week while Uber operates illegally and gets city access in less than three months.]
Mike Greenfield: We need to rethink that commission and make council [unclear] . . .
Richard Lazar: I have a strong opinion on this. There is no rational reason to limit the number of vehicles. There’s no data. Whether this board should or not, my recommendation is to remove all caps across all boards.
Mike Greenfield: Could you clarify that? [presumably a joke]
Joan Plank: I’m going to push back for the sake of pushing back. The restricted number of drivers keeps the wages up.
Richard Lazar: Up from what? $6.22 an hour.
[NOTE: No mention of the faulty methodology of the study that produced that $6.22-an-hour wage. This study relied on self-report data from drivers, which is notoriously unreliable, especially in a cash-based industry where underreporting is common. Additionally, the researchers pulled out Radio Cab data, because they were outliers, noting that Radio Cab drivers make substantially more than other drivers.]
Joan Plank: I want more time to discuss this, but in the mean time, no caps.
Riahana Ansary: I can hear Leslie, and since she’s not here, I’m going to channel Leslie and say she’ll have some concerns about the carbon [footprint].
Mike Greenfield: These are very important issues to be reviewed by a different advisory board. But I concur that the authority to issue permits be transferred to the commissioners.
Richard Lazar: [Unclear, but something about how we can’t know the environmental impact]
Mike Greenfield: I understand the density concerns. Is there some finite number of people wanting transportation to be spread out, or will increasing permits increase demand?
Richard Lazar: Until data is collected, no one knows the long-term reports. An unlimited number won’t show us, the companies will have to release the data.
Riahana Ansary: [And then there’s the argument] TNCs, actually, through their “last mile” claims [referring to how Uber claims their passengers take public transportation and then Uber from their last stop home], actually increase public transportation ridership.
[Someone]: The city has triggers to collect the data. It needs to be a process. If we don’t have any triggers . . . [unclear].
Richard Lazar: I don’t agree that the city has the right at any time. We don’t even know what the data is, let alone the triggers.
Mike Greenfield: The city is subject to special interest group pressures. Let’s collect data and make final decisions. I’m pushing back. This makes the city really vulnerable to special interest groups.
Richard Lazar: So do we have consensus to transfer power to the commissioners, no cap, and we will define the data and triggers at a later date?
Michael Jacobs: Phase one means phase one.
Mike Greenfield: April 9th ends phase one. Phase two is some time after that.
Frank Dufay: Do we include the 20% ADA requirement in that? I’m channeling Sue.
[NOTE: No mention about how Radio and Broadway have already purchased the new wheelchair vans they needed to come up to compliance for the new permits just released. That investment is huge. For Green Cab’s 6 new wheelchair vehicles, Tesfaye Aleme is taking out more than $200,000 in debt to bring the fleet up to 20% so he can implement the 80+ new plates Green Cab was promised, contingent upon ADA compliance. Is the city going to reimburse taxi companies for the investments they made to be ADA compliant? This is another area where companies have ground for suit]
Jim Owens: We’re going to recommend about that at the next meeting.
Mike Greenfield: Accessibility and non-discrimination is a hot topic. I wrote a long piece about it after I took drugs for my surgery. My feeling is it’s too complicated for phase one.
OTHER TOPICS
Jim Owens: What about drug and alcohol policies? Same standards? [nods] Same standards.
[NOTE: No mention of the lack of face-to-face oversight needed to ensure drivers are not visibly intoxicated, which cab companies provide, but TNC drivers cannot.]
Richard Lazar: The agreement Uber made with Boston for data sharing, can we get that?
[NOTE: No mention of the lack of face-to-face oversight needed to ensure drivers are not visibly intoxicated, which cab companies provide, but TNC drivers cannot.]
Richard Lazar: The agreement Uber made with Boston for data sharing, can we get that?