Welcome everybody to the passenger vehicle for higher board meeting.

Um today's D U A-N with that the E.

Okay.

Absolutely.

And I also need to make a correction.

Um when the let's see here, um, where it says Andrew Trundle is the board's chairperson was absent.

Um I was also absent, Mary Westbrook, the vice chairman last meeting, and that's not noted in the minutes.

And Mary Westbrook.

All right.

Moving on, we've got the new driver uh transportation inspectors reports.

Um do you have the minutes?

What's that?

With those corrections.

Oh, with those correctly.

Oh, I've got to read the vote.

Okay, do I have a motion to accept the corrections of the new minutes correcting?

I would like to make a motion to accept the reading of the minutes with the necessary corrections.

Absolutely.

Does anybody second that?

Okay.

Perfect.

And moving to the transportation inspector's report.

The first item is new driver permits and temps that were issued.

We do have uh two renewals.

Okay.

Um the request for driver's permits renewals.

Um, was Tony Hatton, Mercury Cab?

We need to motion.

And Anthony DuGard A B taxi.

Okay.

Um, I'm going to make a motion.

Um I'm gonna make a motion or can does somebody want to make a motion to approve the new driver's permits issued and like to make a motion?

So move.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving to the request for driver permits for the motion.

Yeah.

That's right.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, this is like my first time doing this.

Um who would like to make a vote on the motion?

All in favor.

All in favor?

Aye.

Excellent.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Moving to the request for driver's permits and the renewals.

Okay, uh updated taxi inspections for vehicle insurance, Mercury Cabin of 267.

Uh, we're inspecting and for the big brand insurance again.

And that's it.

Does anybody want to make a motion to approve the request for driver's permits renewals with Tony Haddy's and Anthony Dugard?

No, we probably did the one before.

All right, does everybody approve it again?

Okay.

Updated taxi inspection, vehicle insurance, mercury cab.

That's done too.

Yeah, that's the one I was talking about.

And that's the one you were talking about.

Approving on those.

All right.

Is there any old business that needs to be discussed?

I'm looking at a motion to approve the updated taxi inspection.

Second.

Okay.

Any new business?

Well, we got please take a vote on that motion.

Okay.

Taking a vote on that motion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

New business.

Is there any new business to discuss?

All right.

Discussion.

A the tow truck's rate increase were approved by city council and are in effect.

Correct.

And taxi rate increases are still being worked on.

Okay.

Anyone want to make a motion to approve?

I don't think we need a motion there.

What is the motion?

To approve that the taxi trucks rate increase were approved by the city council and are in effect, and the taxi rate increases are still being worked on.

Where do you have that?

Where is that?

Under discussions?

Under number seven discussion.

Yeah.

There was no old business and there was no new business.

To move on.

Yeah.

Okay.

We don't need a motion.

We don't need a motion on that.

No.

I think it's just for discretion for y'all for one.

Okay.

Does do you know anything about I I don't have any updates on either of those?

I mean the toll rates are new tow rates are being utilized, I believe.

Okay.

And taxi rate increases are still being worked on.

Is there any news on that?

I I don't have any moves on that.

No.

Um all I know is they're still looking into what they're gonna do.

The range of taxes.

Okay.

Okay.

This is um an open time for public comment.

Does anybody have anything to discuss?

That's very nice.

No, I said do you want me to know this is more of a question for the attorney because they roll over calls on the test point.

Is that better?

Just speaking louder, too.

In regard to the Mercury versus Mercury of that and others now to I guess court things going on with Mercury versus Mercury, whether she owes the money or not.

Not really discussing whether the ownership of the name, which is what that lawsuit clearly is about, about money owed her.

Nothing to do with legal entity name ownership.

And the second one, of course, is the recent one where I think he's alleging the city and former inspector view whatever.

Um question is that there was a times-free article that came out, and I think you have commented on it.

And um there's a section here, and I was for clarification, because of course newspapers the city requested dismissal of Boston's lawsuit against Chanu that arguing the defendants were immune to many of Boston's claims, among other defenses, the city said in a court response that the lawsuit was filed too late, made similar complaints with another action already pending in court, and failed to appeal with the city's regulatory board in a timely manner.

My question is, what is that ending part of that statement referring to what they failed to appeal in a timely manner to regulatory board?

Uh well, our our motion was that um not to get too into the the details of the lawsuit, but um that if they wanted to uh dispute whether or not the board or dispute the fact that the board had renewed uh the license, there is a statutory framework for for how that is done, and it's required to be filed within 60 days, um, and they missed that window.

Is that for the original application for the certificate of convenience?

Is that what that's well it would be for the original one or for any renewal gotcha?

So basically, in effect, uh to not confuse the board because there's the two different things.

Mercury transportation, honey, Boston is not approved because of lack of feel.

So should he still in effect shouldn't be operating with taxes?

I know the argument is like transportation, he can do whatever he wants, but as far as like the taxi-specific function, is he still able to do that in that regard?

I guess there's a little bit of gray area confusion.

Well, the so the lawsuit he is challenging the lawsuit was regarding the city's issuance of the Mercury cab uh certificate.

Um for various reasons that he has presented to the board previously that he thinks um she should not be operating a cab company.

Um essentially, one of our defenses was that if to appeal if you're going to appeal the decision to renew her license or her certificate, it should have been done in accordance with the statute within that 60-day time frame, and that was not done.

That was all that that was too.

So that was more about him appealing to her approval of certificate convenience really understood.

Um, and I'm assuming that original Mercury versus Mercury is still pending.

Barring any very recent uh developments, yes, that is still going forward.

And is it still the opinion of the board that because he's in a act of litigation that it's nothing to do with the operation or based on the claims that are still pending, of course, we don't have them on our own business, though, so we kind of forget about what's still pending.

And there's still a public convenience approval public hearing that was put on hold pending that, but as we've kind of recently find out, isn't it really have anything to do with entity named ownership but has to do with money owed to him?

So how does that not any regulatory infractions?

How does that implicate him not being held accountable or even addressed?

Um the board essentially tabled those issues or put those issues on hold.

Um the and I guess my argument is where in the ordinance does it say if there's a business under act of litigation or lawsuit based on money owed, we can ignore infractions and not address them.

Sorry.

Um I mean going on for quite some time as well.

I am aware, yes.

Um yeah, I think the board, if the board chose to um could take up the the infraction issues um if if those were added back to the agenda I agree with you, Mr.

Easter.

Honestly, I mean I I fail to see why if this board has jurisdiction over a regulatory issue, why a company should be able to file a lawsuit to prevent the board from taking any action that has nothing to do with what the lawsuit's about.

And I understand this predates my time on the board, so there could be some history I'm unaware of, but I haven't really understood why we haven't been discussing it or taking a vote on it.

Um yes.

Well, I've been on the board for a minute, and the reason why is because we made a motion and it was second that we would wait until the court hearing and situation was done before we would make any decision on anything, and that's what we've been waiting on.

Understood.

Well, in that case, I would make a motion just to add it back to our old business for discussion at the next meeting.

Would anybody like to make the motion to discuss?

Yeah, so second.

I can't say, yeah, does anybody want to second that motion?

I mean, I'll second it, I think we need to discuss it.

What oh I had a question.

And yes.

What are we gonna discuss that we haven't already discussed?

We still waiting on a lot of it is tied in until um the two entities that we are talking about.

Well that's so what is it new that we're gonna discuss that we haven't already beat it to death?

Well, I guess that would be my question because I don't know how this procedurally ended up in front of the board to begin with, because that was before my time on the board.

I don't know if it was a regulatory complaint, if it was some kind of you know, citation from Inspector Mosier here.

I really don't know, and it's just been pending for a while.

So, what is it that's actually pending that we that we've just tabled indefinitely?

I have nothing to do with that.

He might know more about the other inspector.

Now this is not biased.

The issue lies with, and the only reason why I brought it up was because the the tax award with the board of the time didn't really effectively apply ordinance regulatory standards to approvals of company, whether that be anybody that came.

Well, in this situation, he was approved, and that unfortunately it was the one meeting that I've haven't been to in the last 13 years.

It happened on, so I couldn't make a comment on whether or not the board could actually approve a company without having a public hearing.

So he was effectively approved, I believe, in I want to say June of 2024 or 20, yeah, 2024, in a meeting that was not publicly notified to the general public within, I think a 30-day minimum, and there was no public hearing to where you couldn't hear the public's complaints or well, not really complaints, but it I went through the same process.

It's basically people coming in to speak pro and cons of supporting or not supporting the company that's seeking approval.

Well, that never happened, they were approved in just a meeting without any notice publicly, without any open discussion for public commentary, being that the city has that regulatory authority to uh you know uh approve and denied taxi services specifically.

That process wasn't then happening the next month, was the next meeting where I was able to make it known that that process wasn't followed.

Mr.

Chundle, you'll have to figure out for me, but it was about what five or six months later they finally scheduled the public hearing.

So we're going into eight months since they approved the Mercury Transportation Tony Boston to be on the road as a taxi service, but didn't have a public hearing for I'm guessing anywhere between five and seven months later, and then public commentary was mentioned.

The owners of Mercury, Treacy, and James, they brought allegations of like you know, harassment and different things that had happened.

I know Inspector Few was supposed to follow up with some of the reports that were filed.

I don't think we were really ever got a conclusion out of that because it was tabled.

And my claims were that the regulatory ordinances as far as like insignia color scheme, because they were both very similar, both white and dark color letters, blue and black, plus the name itself, Mercury, plus all the other definitions in the ordinance where it specifically states what a limo is and it excludes taxi, and it says what a shuttle is, it excludes taxis, it says what a transportation is and then excludes taxi.

And in the taxi definition, it excludes limo shuttle transportation because the function of a taxi is different than those types of, which is not part of my allegation.

My allegation is that there's some guidelines in the ordinance that weren't followed.

Those are the things that are on the table for discussion that had never been discussed, they got tabled because of the of the current lawsuit that she's talking about where you guys voted to table the discussion.

And my argument has always been from the very beginning of that decision was more so for Mercury Cab for Miss Treacy, any violations that she may have.

Is she immune to any board discussion or because they're in the same lawsuit?

See where I'm getting at?

That's kind of weird.

Like, are they in a situation where if there are infractions made, any any infractions are put on hold indefinitely until that lawsuit, you know?

That's kind of the if y'all get my drift there.

But those were the main points of the allegations of regulatory standards weren't being upheld in a sense of approval of what they have, name, color, insignia, business name, and then of course Ms.

Treese and Mr.

James with their drivers and harassment allegations.

I think the last time didn't be this up there.

I do remember adding before to um he was coming up for a rule.

I do believe I think we were once it's rigid being looking at that table or that box.

That's exactly right.

So does he have a pending renewal application?

It's pent that's still pending, it's just been tabled.

Uh I have no idea.

Well, does he have an active I guess license?

I would have to look into it.

I don't okay.

I'd have to find this files and stuff.

Well, I guess that I mean, that would be something I would like to discuss, I guess.

I mean, if there is a pending renewal, and it sounds like there are some questions about the renewal application, then it's worth looking at.

I mean, clearly they're not in here prosecuting the renewal, so you know, it's not at the top of their priority, pretty clearly.

So I mean, if there is a pending application renewal, we could put it on the agenda and vote yes or no, and then that would be the end of it, as far as I'm concerned, unless there are other violations that I'm not aware of.

But is that we have been in a violation?

Right, not table.

As far as taxis, nobody has any violations right now.

But I'm aware of it is the problem.

Should we do?

I guess is is he operating without a license right now, or that company?

I have no idea because I have not dealt with that company at all.

I have not dealt with I don't I've heard the name, I don't even know who Mr.

Boston is.

So who would have that information?

I would have to look at the files and see when last time he had stuff under I guess it's Mercury transportation.

So I had to go through all the files for taxes and look.

Is there a way that you can get that information and send it to us?

Yeah.

I I guess in order for us to to move on with the decision that we might need to make.

Well, I I made a motion, and I think it was seconded that if there is a pending renewal or whatever related to this company that goes on our next agenda for old business.

And I don't think we voted on it up or down, like yay or nay.

Yeah, I guess we're still in discussion about regarding that motion.

Um so yeah, a motion or a vote needs to be held on that on the motion to add it to next month's agenda.

And I don't know if there's a way to see what it is that we're adding back.

I mean, I know this predates at least my time on the board and certainly several others.

So I don't know if there is an application that's pending or what it is that was tabled, but if there's any way to figure that out so we can at least clean it up procedurally, absolutely well.

The there we still have the motion pending to add it back or to add it to the agenda for next month's meeting.

Okay, so who would like to make a motion?

Motion is okay.

Well, who would like to second that motion?

Uh and a second, you second it.

Okay.

So take take the vote.

So who all in favor say yay?

Yay.

No.

I think you need to do a roll call vote.

Do a roll call vote.

Okay.

Okay.

Ums Lawrence, can you call out the names for the vote?

Christine.

Yes.

Richard.

Yes.

Bart.

Yes.

Dwayne.

Yes.

Mary.

Yes.

Cynthia?

No.

Like motion passed.

All right.

Motion's passed.

Five to one.

Absolutely.

Um, I would like to bring up, you know, touching on having time where we gather to have an educational because we have new members, and I think there's a lot of confusion.

Um I would like to ask that we meet after our next meeting to be able to ask questions and to understand a little bit more of what's going on.

Okay.

Um, I mean it.

Yeah, we can do a training after the next meeting, that's fine.

Who would like to make a motion for training?

Next after next meeting?

Who would like to second that motion?

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All in favor, say yay.

Quest.

Yeah.

My question is, is it gonna require her to be here?

Because she has been here all day on Thursday.

She has morning and this in the evening, and to keep her here past.

Okay, but it's still on the case.

You sure break you okay with it?

Uh-huh.

Okay.

You're sure.

Okay.

Okay.

So all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

There's put your hand up, please.

Those that said aye.

Okay.

So we will be having a meeting next um a training session after our next meeting.

Question.

Will that journey would that be in here or in the smaller?

Uh it can be either place.

I do have one more thing uh that was mentioned, which we got to put on the agenda for the old business.

The report of the taxi city limits that did not have a permit.

Uh that owner for uptown taxi is working on getting his permit.

There's some confusion with him about what he's actually supposed to do.

Because he had the business license and stuff in the city and county, and he thought that was what he's supposed to have, but we've discussed it, so he is now taking the proper steps to get everything done for the city.

Just want to mention that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any comments to make?

Are we good?

Does somebody want to make a motion to have a question?

It's not a comment.

Um back to the two entities that we're talking about.

Isn't part of that what we're gonna be discussing?

Isn't that also part of that?

Um lawsuit is the colors and uh the name and all of that.

Isn't that part of that?

Uh why I'm saying that if it's over here in court, what we're gonna discuss what causes out of our control, because it's in court, so no decision we can make on the colours the name or anything until it comes from over here.

It's been going on for a minute, that's why, but that's my question.

Isn't that part of it?

Um, what Mr.

Boston and the other young lady isn't that part of the problem over in court.

I mean it's hard.

I'm asking the um I I know that yeah, there's some part of the lawsuit is is dealing with the usage of the Mercury name.

Yeah, um, there are some other issues.

Um I would have to go back and look at the um the complaint to see exactly what all that entails, but uh there are certainly some uh issues outside of the scope of that lawsuit um that have been brought up before the board previously that that could be discussed.

I think what Bart was wanting to do was put it back on the agenda um to look at to see if he is uh in compliance.

Does he have a permit uh active?

That's right, or does he have a pending application to get a remote?

Yeah, right, yeah, and as far as you know, like the pre-draft stuff or lack of better word.

I mean, I don't think that's really the purview of this board, but I mean, we certainly have the ability to license or not licensed taxi companies, and if they have a pending back to license, then don't vote on or not.

So y'all know absolutely does anybody have any more questions, concerns all right, and it looks like we do have the room in here for for the next meeting for the training after the next meeting.

Okay, thank you so much, Bertha.

That can be open to the public.

That's it's a training session, so that can be closed, I presume.

That's the impression I'm under.

It could be open to the public, it will be outside of the actual meeting, so um we won't have make the court reporter write down everything I'm saying, but um I yeah, I mean it doesn't necessarily need to be restricted.

There's okay, um, unless yeah, it it's it's not really an attorney client meeting or anything, it's just uh a training instruction.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean I wasn't advocating it should be, I was just curious.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, so then we can have the training um out not having it be public, correct?

If we want that option, uh yes.

Okay, is that a do I need to make a motion for that too then making a motion that we have it private and not open to the public?

Okay, we're not working, but all right.

Any more questions, concerns?

Who would like to make a motion to adjourn?

Oh, we already did that.

Yeah, okay.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Okay, anyone second, say all in favor?

Aye, uh