 |
|
San Francisco Taxicab Commission
Full-Time Driving Requirement
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FULL-TIME DRIVING REQUIREMENT:
STANDARDS FOR PERMIT REVOCATION
REVISED FOR 2/26/02 MEETING
Taxicab and ramped taxi permitholders (medallion holders) who initially received their permit (medallion) after the effective date of Proposition K in July 1978 must be full-time drivers. When the full-time driving requirement ("the driving requirement") has been violated, the Commission has discretion to revoke the violator's permit. The Commission shall exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the underlying purposes of Proposition K, including most particularly the basic principle, central to Proposition K and this rule, that permitholders be full-time drivers rather than absentees.
This rule provides a framework to govern adjudications of cases in which the Commission finds a violation of the driving requirement. As a guide to its exercise of discretion in such cases, the Commission shall follow the standards stated in this rule. Appendix A summarizes these standards.1
I. Structure of Rule
A. Step 1: Determining The Number Of Violations. This rule is keyed to the number of times the permitholder violated the driving requirement during the seven calendar years preceding the calendar year in which the Commission hears the case.2 Because compliance with the driving requirement is measured on a calendar year basis, there can be only one violation per calendar year.3 This rule does not create an entitlement to hold a permit for seven years; the permit of any permitholder, including short-term permitholders, may be subject to revocation in accordance with this rule.4 The seven-year period comes into play only when the permit of a long-term permitholder is subject to possible revocation. A long-term permitholder's record of full-time driving (or lack thereof) during the recent past (i.e., the last seven years) is far more relevant to the Commission's revocation decision than the permitholder's driving record in the distant past.5
B. Step 2: Determining What Presumption, If Any, Applies. This rule states presumptions that apply in specific cases. The Commission shall take seriously all presumptions stated in this rule. It is not intended that the Commission casually or routinely override presumptions. If it overrides a presumption, the Commission shall adopt findings that identify the presumption and specifically explain why it overrode the presumption. To emphasize the importance of the presumptions, none is characterized merely as a presumption; each is a "strong" presumption or an "extremely strong" presumption.
1. Strong presumptions. To override this type of presumption, the Commission must have a justification that is clear, substantial, and persuasive, in light of all the evidence. Minor justifications that might, in the absence of the presumption, tip the balance in favor of a particular result in a close case, will not do.
2. Extremely strong presumptions. To override this type of presumption, the Commission must have an absolutely compelling justification. It is intended that the Commission will override this presumption only in the rarest of circumstances; that this presumption approaches being a conclusive presumption but falls just short, thus preserving the Commission's discretion in a truly extraordinary case.
C. Step 3: Weighing Facts And Circumstances. In every case, the Commission shall weigh the facts and circumstances relevant to the violation(s). Where a presumption applies, however, the weighing of facts and circumstances does not begin with an empty scale. Depending on the presumption, the scale is weighted in favor of or against revocation, and is weighted strongly, or extremely strongly, in the direction the presumption points.
II. One Violation
A. Strong Presumption Against Revocation. In cases involving one violation of the driving requirement, there is a strong presumption against revocation, except as specified in subsections II(B), II(C), and II(D) below.
B. No Presumption. In the following cases, no presumption favors or disfavors revocation.
1. Written Notice Of A Potential Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That The Violation, Should It Occur, May Be Cause For Revocation. During the calendar year in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice that, based on the permitholder's driving record up to that point in the year, the permitholder was in danger of violating the requirement, and that such violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided the violation.
2. Egregious Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement. The permitholder (a) drove no more than one-fourth of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement; or (b) drove no more than one-half of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement and evidenced a willful disregard for that requirement. "Willful disregard" means that the permitholder made no effort to drive full-time, and has offered no minimally plausible explanation for the failure to make an effort to drive full-time.
C. Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is a strong presumption favoring revocation:
1. The Two Circumstances Raising No Presumption. The two circumstances raising no presumption (see subsections II(B)(1) and II(B)(2) above) are both present.
2. Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement, Coupled With Another Serious Violation Of Law Or Serious Misconduct. The permitholder also committed another serious violation of law or some other serious misconduct. The other violation or misconduct may relate to the violation of the driving requirement (e.g., falsifying waybills in an attempt to show compliance), or may be unrelated; and it may have occurred in a calendar year other than that in which the driving requirement was violated.
3. Non-Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future; but the evidence does not clearly convince the Commission that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
D. Extremely Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. There is an extremely strong presumption favoring revocation if the evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
III. Two Violations
A. No Presumption. In cases involving two violations of the driving requirement, no presumption favors or disfavors revocation, except as specified in subsections III(B) and III(C) below.
B. Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is a strong presumption favoring revocation.
1. Written Notice Of A Prior Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That Another Violation May Be Cause For Revocation. The Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice of a prior violation of the driving requirement, and that another violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided another violation.
2. Written Notice Of A Potential Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That The Violation, Should It Occur, May Be Cause For Revocation. During the second of the calendar years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice that, based on the permitholder's driving record up to that point in the year, the permitholder was in danger of violating the requirement, and that such violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided the violation.
3. Egregious Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement. In one of the two years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the permitholder (a) drove no more than one-fourth of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement; or (b) drove no more than one-half of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement and evidenced a willful disregard for that requirement. "Willful disregard" means that the permitholder made no effort to drive full-time during the year in question, and has offered no minimally plausible explanation for the failure to make an effort to drive full-time.
4. Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement, Coupled With Another Serious Violation Of Law Or Serious Misconduct. The permitholder also committed another serious violation of law or some other serious misconduct. The other violation or misconduct may relate to the violation of the driving requirement, or may be unrelated; and it may have occurred in a calendar year other than those in which the driving requirement was violated.
C. Extremely Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is an extremely strong presumption favoring revocation.
1. Two Circumstances Raising A Strong Presumption. Any two of the circumstances raising a strong presumption (see subsections III(B)(1), III(B)(2), III(B)(3) and III(B)(4) above) are present; provided, that the two circumstances relating to notice/warning (subsections III(B)(1) and III(B)(2)) are considered as one for this purpose.
2. Non-Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future; but the evidence need not clearly convince the Commission that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
3. Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
IV. Three Violations
A. Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In cases involving three violations of the driving requirement, there is a strong presumption favoring revocation, except as specified in subsection IV(B).
B. Extremely Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is an extremely strong presumption favoring revocation.
1. Written Notice Of A Prior Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That Another Violation May Be Cause For Revocation. The Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice of a prior violation of the driving requirement, and that another violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided another violation.
2. Written Notice Of A Potential Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That The Violation, Should It Occur, May Be Cause For Revocation. During the third of the calendar years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice that, based on the permitholder's driving record up to that point in the year, the permitholder was in danger of violating the requirement, and that such violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided the violation. The Commission or any agent of the Commission may issue the notice.
3. Egregious Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement. In one of the three years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the permitholder (a) drove no more than one-fourth of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement, or (b) drove no more than one-half of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement and evidenced a willful disregard for that requirement. "Willful disregard" means that the permitholder made no effort to drive full-time during the year in question, and has offered no minimally plausible explanation for the failure to make an effort to drive full-time.
4. Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement, Coupled With Another Serious Violation Of Law Or Serious Misconduct. The permitholder also committed another serious violation of law or some other serious misconduct. The other violation or misconduct may relate to the violation of the driving requirement, or may be unrelated; and it may have occurred in a calendar year different than those in which the driving requirement was violated.
5. Non-Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future; but the evidence need not clearly convince the Commission that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
6. Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
V. Weighing Facts and Circumstances
Relevant facts and circumstances that the Commission may consider in determining whether or not to revoke the permit, include, but are not limited to, the following (phrased in the singular term, "violation," but applicable to multiple violations as well):
1. The magnitude of the violation of the driving requirement.
2. Whether the violation would not have occurred had the permitholder made a timely request for suspension of the driving requirement for up to ninety days per calendar year, as allowed by law.
3. The extensiveness of the permitholder's driving since receiving formal notice of the Commission's hearing to consider revocation of the permit; the extensiveness of the permitholder's driving in any calendar year subsequent to the last calendar year during which it is charged that the permitholder violated the driving requirement.
4. To the extent it has predictive value as to the permitholder's likelihood of future compliance with the driving requirement, the number of years the permitholder has been an active taxicab/ramped taxi driver and the permitholder's past record of compliance or noncompliance with the driving requirement.
5. Whether there are credible and compelling mitigating circumstances that explain the violation. A "credible and compelling mitigating circumstance" is (a) a compelling circumstance, based on credible evidence, (b) pertaining to the permittee's health or the health of a member of the permittee's immediate family, or to some other serious personal or family hardship, (c) that places an unusually heavy burden on the permittee, as compared to an average permittee, in complying with the driving requirement. Many things do not qualify as "credible and compelling mitigating circumstances."7
It is not the Commission's intention that a credible and compelling mitigating circumstance, or a series of such circumstances, would justify failure to revoke a violator's permit for an extensive or indefinite number of years, or permanently. For example, a credible and compelling mitigating circumstance, or a series of such circumstances, does not override the extremely strong presumption favoring revocation where the evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
6. Whether, because of a paucity of persons on the medallion waiting list or ramped taxi medallion waiting list, revocation would disserve the public interest by keeping a taxi or ramped taxi off the streets, when public convenience and necessity warrants its being on the streets.
VI. Note on Scope of Rule
This rule does not abrogate the Commission's power to suspend rather than revoke a permit. This rule does not supersede legal requirements, if any, imposed on the Commission by state or federal law.
1 Appendix A is for illustrative purposes only; it does not supersede the text of this rule.
2 Evidence of the permitholder's driving record during the calendar year in which the Commission hears the case is admissible to give the Commission the fullest possible factual perspective on the violation(s) in question. See subsection V.
3 Thus, for example, a permitholder who fails to meet the driving requirement in 2001 has committed one violation of that requirement; a permitholder who fails to meet the requirement in 2001 and 2002 has committed two violations.
4 For example, a one-year permitholder's permit may be revoked in accordance with the standards set in subsection II; a two-year permitholder's permit may be revoked in accordance with the standards set in subsection III; a three-year permitholder's permit may be revoked in accordance with the standards set in subsection IV.
5 Evidence of the permitholder's driving record prior to the seven years immediately preceding the Commission's hearing is admissible if relevant, to give the Commission the fullest possible factual perspective on the violation(s) in question. See subsection V.
6 As stated in subsection I(C) above, where a presumption applies, the weighing of facts and circumstances does not begin with an empty scale. Depending on the presumption, the scale is weighted in favor of or against revocation, and is weighted strongly, or extremely strongly, in the direction the presumption points.
7 A "credible and compelling mitigating circumstance" does not include, among other things, demands placed on a permittee's time by non-taxi driving employment or educational pursuits. Nor does it include a variety of personal preferences, such as a desire to retire or pursue a new career.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FULL-TIME DRIVING REQUIREMENT:
STANDARDS FOR PERMIT REVOCATION
REVISED FOR 2/26/02 MEETING
Taxicab and ramped taxi permitholders (medallion holders) who initially received their permit (medallion) after the effective date of Proposition K in July 1978 must be full-time drivers. When the full-time driving requirement ("the driving requirement") has been violated, the Commission has discretion to revoke the violator's permit. The Commission shall exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the underlying purposes of Proposition K, including most particularly the basic principle, central to Proposition K and this rule, that permitholders be full-time drivers rather than absentees.
This rule provides a framework to govern adjudications of cases in which the Commission finds a violation of the driving requirement. As a guide to its exercise of discretion in such cases, the Commission shall follow the standards stated in this rule. Appendix A summarizes these standards.1
I. Structure of Rule
A. Step 1: Determining The Number Of Violations. This rule is keyed to the number of times the permitholder violated the driving requirement during the seven calendar years preceding the calendar year in which the Commission hears the case.2 Because compliance with the driving requirement is measured on a calendar year basis, there can be only one violation per calendar year.3 This rule does not create an entitlement to hold a permit for seven years; the permit of any permitholder, including short-term permitholders, may be subject to revocation in accordance with this rule.4 The seven-year period comes into play only when the permit of a long-term permitholder is subject to possible revocation. A long-term permitholder's record of full-time driving (or lack thereof) during the recent past (i.e., the last seven years) is far more relevant to the Commission's revocation decision than the permitholder's driving record in the distant past.5
B. Step 2: Determining What Presumption, If Any, Applies. This rule states presumptions that apply in specific cases. The Commission shall take seriously all presumptions stated in this rule. It is not intended that the Commission casually or routinely override presumptions. If it overrides a presumption, the Commission shall adopt findings that identify the presumption and specifically explain why it overrode the presumption. To emphasize the importance of the presumptions, none is characterized merely as a presumption; each is a "strong" presumption or an "extremely strong" presumption.
1. Strong presumptions. To override this type of presumption, the Commission must have a justification that is clear, substantial, and persuasive, in light of all the evidence. Minor justifications that might, in the absence of the presumption, tip the balance in favor of a particular result in a close case, will not do.
2. Extremely strong presumptions. To override this type of presumption, the Commission must have an absolutely compelling justification. It is intended that the Commission will override this presumption only in the rarest of circumstances; that this presumption approaches being a conclusive presumption but falls just short, thus preserving the Commission's discretion in a truly extraordinary case.
C. Step 3: Weighing Facts And Circumstances. In every case, the Commission shall weigh the facts and circumstances relevant to the violation(s). Where a presumption applies, however, the weighing of facts and circumstances does not begin with an empty scale. Depending on the presumption, the scale is weighted in favor of or against revocation, and is weighted strongly, or extremely strongly, in the direction the presumption points.
II. One Violation
A. Strong Presumption Against Revocation. In cases involving one violation of the driving requirement, there is a strong presumption against revocation, except as specified in subsections II(B), II(C), and II(D) below.
B. No Presumption. In the following cases, no presumption favors or disfavors revocation.
1. Written Notice Of A Potential Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That The Violation, Should It Occur, May Be Cause For Revocation. During the calendar year in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice that, based on the permitholder's driving record up to that point in the year, the permitholder was in danger of violating the requirement, and that such violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided the violation.
2. Egregious Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement. The permitholder (a) drove no more than one-fourth of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement; or (b) drove no more than one-half of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement and evidenced a willful disregard for that requirement. "Willful disregard" means that the permitholder made no effort to drive full-time, and has offered no minimally plausible explanation for the failure to make an effort to drive full-time.
C. Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is a strong presumption favoring revocation:
1. The Two Circumstances Raising No Presumption. The two circumstances raising no presumption (see subsections II(B)(1) and II(B)(2) above) are both present.
2. Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement, Coupled With Another Serious Violation Of Law Or Serious Misconduct. The permitholder also committed another serious violation of law or some other serious misconduct. The other violation or misconduct may relate to the violation of the driving requirement (e.g., falsifying waybills in an attempt to show compliance), or may be unrelated; and it may have occurred in a calendar year other than that in which the driving requirement was violated.
3. Non-Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future; but the evidence does not clearly convince the Commission that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
D. Extremely Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. There is an extremely strong presumption favoring revocation if the evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
III. Two Violations
A. No Presumption. In cases involving two violations of the driving requirement, no presumption favors or disfavors revocation, except as specified in subsections III(B) and III(C) below.
B. Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is a strong presumption favoring revocation.
1. Written Notice Of A Prior Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That Another Violation May Be Cause For Revocation. The Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice of a prior violation of the driving requirement, and that another violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided another violation.
2. Written Notice Of A Potential Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That The Violation, Should It Occur, May Be Cause For Revocation. During the second of the calendar years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice that, based on the permitholder's driving record up to that point in the year, the permitholder was in danger of violating the requirement, and that such violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided the violation.
3. Egregious Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement. In one of the two years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the permitholder (a) drove no more than one-fourth of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement; or (b) drove no more than one-half of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement and evidenced a willful disregard for that requirement. "Willful disregard" means that the permitholder made no effort to drive full-time during the year in question, and has offered no minimally plausible explanation for the failure to make an effort to drive full-time.
4. Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement, Coupled With Another Serious Violation Of Law Or Serious Misconduct. The permitholder also committed another serious violation of law or some other serious misconduct. The other violation or misconduct may relate to the violation of the driving requirement, or may be unrelated; and it may have occurred in a calendar year other than those in which the driving requirement was violated.
C. Extremely Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is an extremely strong presumption favoring revocation.
1. Two Circumstances Raising A Strong Presumption. Any two of the circumstances raising a strong presumption (see subsections III(B)(1), III(B)(2), III(B)(3) and III(B)(4) above) are present; provided, that the two circumstances relating to notice/warning (subsections III(B)(1) and III(B)(2)) are considered as one for this purpose.
2. Non-Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future; but the evidence need not clearly convince the Commission that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
3. Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
IV. Three Violations
A. Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In cases involving three violations of the driving requirement, there is a strong presumption favoring revocation, except as specified in subsection IV(B).
B. Extremely Strong Presumption Favoring Revocation. In the following cases, there is an extremely strong presumption favoring revocation.
1. Written Notice Of A Prior Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That Another Violation May Be Cause For Revocation. The Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice of a prior violation of the driving requirement, and that another violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided another violation.
2. Written Notice Of A Potential Violation Of The Driving Requirement And Written Warning That The Violation, Should It Occur, May Be Cause For Revocation. During the third of the calendar years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the Commission (including any agent of the Commission) gave the permitholder written notice that, based on the permitholder's driving record up to that point in the year, the permitholder was in danger of violating the requirement, and that such violation may be cause for revocation; provided, that the notice was given in sufficient time that the permitholder, by heeding the notice, could have avoided the violation. The Commission or any agent of the Commission may issue the notice.
3. Egregious Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement. In one of the three years in which the permitholder violated the driving requirement, the permitholder (a) drove no more than one-fourth of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement, or (b) drove no more than one-half of the shifts necessary to satisfy the driving requirement and evidenced a willful disregard for that requirement. "Willful disregard" means that the permitholder made no effort to drive full-time during the year in question, and has offered no minimally plausible explanation for the failure to make an effort to drive full-time.
4. Noncompliance With The Driving Requirement, Coupled With Another Serious Violation Of Law Or Serious Misconduct. The permitholder also committed another serious violation of law or some other serious misconduct. The other violation or misconduct may relate to the violation of the driving requirement, or may be unrelated; and it may have occurred in a calendar year different than those in which the driving requirement was violated.
5. Non-Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future; but the evidence need not clearly convince the Commission that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
6. Permanent Inability To Drive Full-Time. The evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, in the future, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
V. Weighing Facts and Circumstances
Relevant facts and circumstances that the Commission may consider in determining whether or not to revoke the permit, include, but are not limited to, the following (phrased in the singular term, "violation," but applicable to multiple violations as well):
1. The magnitude of the violation of the driving requirement.
2. Whether the violation would not have occurred had the permitholder made a timely request for suspension of the driving requirement for up to ninety days per calendar year, as allowed by law.
3. The extensiveness of the permitholder's driving since receiving formal notice of the Commission's hearing to consider revocation of the permit; the extensiveness of the permitholder's driving in any calendar year subsequent to the last calendar year during which it is charged that the permitholder violated the driving requirement.
4. To the extent it has predictive value as to the permitholder's likelihood of future compliance with the driving requirement, the number of years the permitholder has been an active taxicab/ramped taxi driver and the permitholder's past record of compliance or noncompliance with the driving requirement.
5. Whether there are credible and compelling mitigating circumstances that explain the violation. A "credible and compelling mitigating circumstance" is (a) a compelling circumstance, based on credible evidence, (b) pertaining to the permittee's health or the health of a member of the permittee's immediate family, or to some other serious personal or family hardship, (c) that places an unusually heavy burden on the permittee, as compared to an average permittee, in complying with the driving requirement. Many things do not qualify as "credible and compelling mitigating circumstances."7
It is not the Commission's intention that a credible and compelling mitigating circumstance, or a series of such circumstances, would justify failure to revoke a violator's permit for an extensive or indefinite number of years, or permanently. For example, a credible and compelling mitigating circumstance, or a series of such circumstances, does not override the extremely strong presumption favoring revocation where the evidence clearly convinces the Commission that the permitholder cannot drive full-time, or safely drive full-time, and that the permitholder will be permanently unable to drive full-time or safely drive full-time.
6. Whether, because of a paucity of persons on the medallion waiting list or ramped taxi medallion waiting list, revocation would disserve the public interest by keeping a taxi or ramped taxi off the streets, when public convenience and necessity warrants its being on the streets.
VI. Note on Scope of Rule
This rule does not abrogate the Commission's power to suspend rather than revoke a permit. This rule does not supersede legal requirements, if any, imposed on the Commission by state or federal law.
1 Appendix A is for illustrative purposes only; it does not supersede the text of this rule.
2 Evidence of the permitholder's driving record during the calendar year in which the Commission hears the case is admissible to give the Commission the fullest possible factual perspective on the violation(s) in question. See subsection V.
3 Thus, for example, a permitholder who fails to meet the driving requirement in 2001 has committed one violation of that requirement; a permitholder who fails to meet the requirement in 2001 and 2002 has committed two violations.
4 For example, a one-year permitholder's permit may be revoked in accordance with the standards set in subsection II; a two-year permitholder's permit may be revoked in accordance with the standards set in subsection III; a three-year permitholder's permit may be revoked in accordance with the standards set in subsection IV.
5 Evidence of the permitholder's driving record prior to the seven years immediately preceding the Commission's hearing is admissible if relevant, to give the Commission the fullest possible factual perspective on the violation(s) in question. See subsection V.
6 As stated in subsection I(C) above, where a presumption applies, the weighing of facts and circumstances does not begin with an empty scale. Depending on the presumption, the scale is weighted in favor of or against revocation, and is weighted strongly, or extremely strongly, in the direction the presumption points.
7 A "credible and compelling mitigating circumstance" does not include, among other things, demands placed on a permittee's time by non-taxi driving employment or educational pursuits. Nor does it include a variety of personal preferences, such as a desire to retire or pursue a new career.
|
|
|