Tuesday, July 12, 2005 | 10:46 a.m.
If it weren't such a serious subject, it would be comical watching how the state Taxicab Authority Board has lost control of the camera issue.
Monday's public workshop was supposed to help the five-member board gather evidence to reshape a faulty regulation ordering cameras in cabs to protect the drivers from acts of violence.
Instead, almost unbelievably, it turned into a seminar on how companies can use video cameras capable of recording sound as a management tool against the drivers.
Once again, the debate lost its focus.
"This is a regulatory agency," said Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, as he sat astonished in the back of the room. "Its job is to regulate in the public's interests. It isn't supposed to regulate in a manner that increases the bottom line of the cab companies."
Peck is opposed to any regulation that includes cameras with sound.
The board put itself in this predicament by not taking steps long ago to prohibit the use of sound.
In February 2004 it refused to adopt a simple regulation that would have required only still digital cameras, something in use in other cities with much success and little controversy.
Eight months later in October, after two cabbies were killed on the job, the board finally passed a regulation. But it was an ambiguous measure that allowed companies to install the high-tech video cameras, if they desired, to not only protect the drivers, but keep track of them, too.
The ultimate kick in the pants came last month when the Legislature formally rejected the regulation because of, you guessed it, concerns about the board's failure to put safeguards in place to protect the privacy of the riding public.
The problem for the board is that, when it opened the floodgates in October, a couple of companies actually took advantage of the opportunity and put in video cameras.
Those companies, Whittlesea Blue and Desert, which aren't about to let the hundreds of thousands of dollars they've invested go down the drain, spent a lot of time Monday criticizing the provisions of the new camera proposal that seek restrictions on sound.
They did it for selfish reasons, saying it would hinder their ability to monitor the driving habits of their cabbies -- hardly a reason to support an intrusion on the privacy of passengers.
The Taxicab Authority Board, meanwhile, did nothing Monday to set Whittlesea and Desert straight.
The board left me with the impression that it has no idea how badly it has allowed the debate to veer off course and also that it may be incapable of guiding the bitterly divided industry through this mess.
While Whittlesea and Desert are looking to protect their high-end investment in video cameras, the Frias companies, which make up 33 percent of the industry, are looking to shoot down the camera regulation altogether. Those companies haven't installed any cameras yet.
Owner Charlie Frias sent some high-priced lawyers -- former state Sen. Mark James and seasoned labor-management expert Kevin Efroymson -- to the workshop to put the board on notice that it's in for a lengthy fight, especially on the sound issue.
Sound drowned out the first regulation, and it's threatening to do it again.
If only the Taxicab Authority Board could hear it this time.
archive
