Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission, A Decade Of Violating The Law

[gunny]

We find ourselves in familiar company with brethren in Philly:

LCT

Philly Operators Try To Rein In Their Regulatory Daddy
May 5, 2010

A recent court decision boosts the PRLA’s legislative push to make sure Philadelphia operators no longer have to follow excessive rules and fees that don’t apply to all other operators in Pennsylvania.

PHILADELPHIA — The PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL LIMOUSINE ASSOCIATION (PRLA) is one step closer to success on changing the way they are regulated in city limits.

Pennsylvania House Representative Thaddeus Kirkland (D) has introduced HB2434 which has identical language to the PRLA’s previously introduced Senate Bill SB759. If approved by the Pennsylvania State House and Senate, the bills will require the Philadelphia Parking Authority to be able to enforce only those laws which are enacted by the state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

The PUC regulates the entire state, except for Philadelphia. The association would like to remove the onerous fines and fees that are assessed by the PPA. The PPA rules occur without the benefit of public hearings, as is the case with the Public Utilities Commission.

PRLA members will be visiting their state representatives to garner their support on these bills. Operators in the Philadelphia region continue to struggle to compete because of the high cost to operate due in part to the fees levied by the PPA. They believe the new bills will provide relief while still maintaining the high levels of service provided by the industry to the consumers.

The PRLA received good news on Wednesday, April 28 when the Commonwealth Court ruled the PPA could not enforce its taxi regulations because it had not followed the rules of the Commonwealth when establishing them, including the need for public hearings before enactment.

Germantown Cab took the agency to court to uphold that it was a Commonwealth agency and therefore must follow state rules, including posts in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and allowing for comment and hearings. Additionally they must then be vetted by the state attorney general or the independent Regulatory Review Board.

Philip Jagiela, president of the PRLA, said, “This brings us one step closer to rid our industry of the onerous fines and redundant fees that we must pay to both the PPA and the Public Utilities Commission. We believe that the rules that the remainder of the state abide by should be more then sufficient for Philadelphia. The Philadelphia Parking Authority would still enforce the laws but they would be set by the PUC.”

— Reported by Linda Jagiela, PRLA member and industry writer

http://www.lctmag.com/news/news-story.cfm?id=3141

Posted on Thu, Apr. 29, 2010

Phila. taxi rules wrongly set up, court says
By Robert Moran

Inquirer Staff Writer

Commonwealth Court ruled Wednesday that the Philadelphia Parking Authority could not enforce its taxi regulations because it improperly established the rules.

For the time being, taxi drivers will adhere to the regulations, said Ronald Blount, president of the Taxi Workers Alliance of Pennsylvania.

"We're definitely going to follow the Parking Authority rules for now," Blount said. "We can't allow chaos in the taxi industry."

Blount said there will be a meeting of drivers, owners, radio dispatchers, and lawyers on Thursday to discuss the ruling and "see what our options are."

Parking Authority spokeswoman Linda Miller read a statement saying that the agency "respectfully disagrees with the court's decision" and would immediately file an appeal. She declined further comment.

At issue is what happened after the Pennsylvania legislature in 2004 approved a takeover of taxi regulation in Philadelphia by the Parking Authority.

Previously, the state Public Utility Commission had oversight of taxis across Pennsylvania.

In 2005, the Parking Authority established regulations for the taxi industry.

Unlike other state agencies, the Parking Authority did not publish its proposed regulations in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and allow for comments and possible hearings. The regulations also were not vetted by the state attorney general or the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.

"They didn't follow the system of checks and balances," said attorney Michael Henry, who represents many taxi industry clients.

Blount said that state law for establishing regulations allows for more input from the parties that are being regulated and ensures oversight of the regulating agency.

In court, the Parking Authority argued that it was "a unique hybrid agency with a local focus" exempt from state law dealing with the creation of regulations.

Prior to Wednesday's ruling, the state Supreme Court had determined that the Parking Authority "is a commonwealth agency for the purposes of regulating taxicabs."

In its 19-page ruling, Commonwealth Court Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt wrote that the "Philadelphia Parking Authority may have a unique mission but, then, so does the gaming board. The mission of the agency is not determinative."

Leavitt wrote that the General Assembly did not specifically exempt the Parking Authority from state requirements, though it has done so on many other occasions with legislation
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local...ourt_says.html

[gunny]

Announced today at the HCPTC monthly meeting as part of several rule changes. $5k per certificate non-refundable application fees meaning operators running limos & small buses will have to shell out $10k plus another $600 hearing officer fee to get their foot in the door plus the additional vehicle permit fees with both certificate and permit fees an annual event.

With my attention now being amending their act to provide regulatory exclusion of prearranged interstate & intercounty ops, I will not fight this fee increase but use it as a selling tool when I solicit Florida Reps outside of Hillsborough County.

After-all $10k non-refund fee has a lot more shock value than $1k.

[gunny]

HB 1629, giving citizens the ability to challenge illegal HCPTC Rules through the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings has been signed off by Gov Charlie & is now law!

05/26/10 Approved by Governor Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:36 PM

[Dick Hall]

Marines 1 - HCPTC 0

Well done Marine

Dick Hall (Army)

[TBLIMO]

Marines 1 - HCPTC 0

Well done Marine

Dick Hall (Army)

It was a joint operation between the Marines and the Israeli Army special forces!

[gunny]

Marines 1 - HCPTC 0

Well done Marine

Dick Hall (Army)

Thanks Sarge,

On the Political Front it's more like:

Malcontents - 4
HCPTC -0

What we oppose, doesn't pass

What they oppose, passes

Malcontents Rule!!!

[Geoff Levine]

Congrats!

[Dick Hall]

Shalom Moshe,

Sorry I forgot you in the joy of the moment.

Dick Hall (Army)

[gunny]

Signed into law are provisions that "any person with a substantial interest may challenge a rule or a proposed rule of the PTC before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)".

So what exactly constitutes an illegal rule or what is deemed an uinlawful exercise of delegated authority? From Chapter 120.52 Florida Statutes:

(8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action that goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one of the following applies:

(a) The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter;

(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency;

(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious. A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational; or

(f) The rule imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives.

A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement or interpret the specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious or is within the agency's class of powers and duties, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than implementing or interpreting the specific powers and duties conferred by the enabling statute.

In addition to laying out what constitutes an illegall rule, Ch 120 provides who may challenge agency rules:

120.56 Challenges to rules.--

(1) GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF A RULE OR A PROPOSED RULE.--

(a) Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

(b) The petition seeking an administrative determination must state with particularity the provisions alleged to be invalid with sufficient explanation of the facts or grounds for the alleged invalidity and facts sufficient to show that the person challenging a rule is substantially affected by it, or that the person challenging a proposed rule would be substantially affected by it.

(c) The petition shall be filed with the division which shall, immediately upon filing, forward copies to the agency whose rule is challenged, the Department of State, and the committee. Within 10 days after receiving the petition, the division director shall, if the petition complies with the requirements of paragraph (b), assign an administrative law judge who shall conduct a hearing within 30 days thereafter, unless the petition is withdrawn or a continuance is granted by agreement of the parties or for good cause shown. Evidence of good cause includes, but is not limited to, written notice of an agency's decision to modify or withdraw the proposed rule or a written notice from the chair of the committee stating that the committee will consider an objection to the rule at its next scheduled meeting. The failure of an agency to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter shall be presumed to be material; however, the agency may rebut this presumption by showing that the substantial interests of the petitioner and the fairness of the proceedings have not been impaired.

(d) Within 30 days after the hearing, the administrative law judge shall render a decision and state the reasons therefor in writing. The division shall forthwith transmit copies of the administrative law judge's decision to the agency, the Department of State, and the committee.

[gunny]

And the HCPTC 'Jerry Springer' show continues to rock on!

White sues county to recoup legal fees
TAMPA - In his quest to recoup legal fees related to his sexual harassment lawsuit, Commissioner Kevin White has filed a lawsuit against Hillsborough County.

The lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Tampa. White also filed a countersuit against the county's insurer.

"I'm suing to recover legal fees incurred by me, in defense of myself during the trial, that should have been covered by the insurance that the county had," White said.

A civil jury last year determined White had sexually harassed Alyssa Ogden, his aide. A jury awarded her $75,000 and attorney fees. The judge held that the county was jointly liable because it had no sexual harassment policies in place at the time

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun...up-legal-fees/

[Wade Randolph]

And the HCPTC 'Jerry Springer' show continues to rock on!

White sues county to recoup legal fees
TAMPA - In his quest to recoup legal fees related to his sexual harassment lawsuit, Commissioner Kevin White has filed a lawsuit against Hillsborough County.

The lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Tampa. White also filed a countersuit against the county's insurer.

"I'm suing to recover legal fees incurred by me, in defense of myself during the trial, that should have been covered by the insurance that the county had," White said.

A civil jury last year determined White had sexually harassed Alyssa Ogden, his aide. A jury awarded her $75,000 and attorney fees. The judge held that the county was jointly liable because it had no sexual harassment policies in place at the time

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun...up-legal-fees/

Usually the state or municipal area only pays if your not guilty.

[gunny]

Usually the state or municipal area only pays if your not guilty.

As I understand it, liability coverage does not cover actions whereas the entity/official knows its action violate the law & the reason for payment denial to Hillsborough County by the insurer. Plus, the arrogant farks play with taxpayer dollars by not offering a righteous settlement & instead have no problem blowing half a million in legal fees.

Case in point. My new case challenges deprivation of liberty based on HCPTC Rules which violate the law. The HCPTC knows these rules violates the law. In fact I need to get off my ass & advise the payers of the HCPTC's lawyers (League of Cities) that the PTC has been informed by JAPC that the rule I'm predicating my deprivation claim on is illegal.

[gunny]

Commission accepts lawyer's offer to sue Kevin White for free
TAMPA - Hillsborough County's lawsuit against commissioner Kevin White will probably take a year to resolve, said attorney Richard Harrison, who agreed Thursday to handle the county's case free of charge.

Commissioners voted 6-0 Thursday to accept Harrison's offer to donate his legal skills free of charge with White abstaining. Harrison said he will only ask the county for reimbursement of his costs, which he estimated at no more than $5,000.

Commissioners are suing White in order to recover some of the $425,000 in legal costs incurred when White's former aide sued him for sexual harassment. A jury last August found in favor of the aide, Alyssa Ogden, awarding her $75,000 plus legal costs.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun...news-breaking/

[Krdalstr]

And with Elections coming soon...they will elect this guy back to office you watch---I dont get it

[gunny]

On 7/15 a rules challenge was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This is the 1st one filed since the law was amended 2 months ago which allows any person affected by PTC rules to bring forth a challenge to those rules.