1
CAPTIONING
NOVEMBER 12, 2014
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING - UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate.
>VICTOR CRIST: WELCOME BACK TO THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
THIS IS NOT A REGULAR MEETING, THIS WILL BE A HEARING.
I'M NOW GOING TO ASK OUR ATTORNEY TO DEFINE WHAT THE ROLE AND SCOPE OF OUR TIME TOGETHER HERE WILL BE AND WHAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT WILL BE, AND I ASK THAT EVERYONE PLEASE LISTEN ATTENTIVELY AND FOLLOW.
>CINDY OSTER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING REGARDING FIVE CITATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES BY INSPECTORS WITH THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, WHICH I'LL REFER TO AS THE PTC GOING FORWARD.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(1)(A) OF CHAPTER 2001-299, LAWS OF FLORIDA, WHICH IS THE SPECIAL ACT THAT CREATED THE PTC, THE PTC ISSUED SEVERAL CITATIONS TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE PREMISE THAT IT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT UBER TECHNOLOGIES HAD VIOLATED PTC RULES.
OF THESE CITATIONS, ONLY CITATIONS NUMBERS 005525, 05572, 05561, 005579, AND 05662 ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING TODAY.
ORIGINALLY, THERE WERE NINE CITATIONS THAT WERE CHALLENGED BY UBER TECHNOLOGIES; HOWEVER, THE HEARING OFFICER DISMISSED FOUR OF THOSE CITATIONS, UPHELD FIVE OF THOSE, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY UBER TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TODAY.
CITATIONS --CITATION NUMBER 05525, 05572, 05561, AND 05579 WERE ISSUED TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PTC RULE 1-5.001, PARAGRAPH 1, WHICH PROHIBITS CAUSING OR ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC VEHICLE BY A DRIVER WITHOUT A PUBLIC VEHICLE DRIVER'S LICENSE.
CITATION NUMBER 05662 WAS ISSUED TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES FOR AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PTC RULE 1-3.001, PARAGRAPH 2, WHICH PROHIBITS CAUSING OR ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC VEHICLE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES REQUESTED A HEARING TO CHALLENGE THESE CITATIONS AND WERE AFFORDED A HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER, SUSAN MORE, ON SEPTEMBER 8th, 2014.
AT THAT TIME, UBER TECHNOLOGIES AND THE PTC WERE EACH REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES WAS TAKEN.
ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 17th, 2014, MS.MORE ISSUED AN ORDER FINDING THAT UBER TECHNOLOGIES WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE PTC RULES AND UPHELD THE FIVE CITATIONS I JUST SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED.
MS.MORE ADDITIONALLY ORDERED UBER TECHNOLOGIES TO PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF $200 PER CITATION AND A HEARING FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $300.
SUBSEQUENTLY, AS I REFERENCED EARLIER, UBER APPEALED THE HEARING OFFICER'S ORDER, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE HEARING THAT IS SCHEDULED BEFORE YOU TODAY.
I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO DESCRIBE THE RULES OF THE PARTIES DURING THIS PROCEEDING.
THIS PROCEEDING IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ITS REGULAR MEETINGS SERVES AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY AND AN ENFORCEMENT ENTITY, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING, THIS COMMISSION SERVES THE ROLE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL SITTING IN AN APPELLATE CAPACITY.
THIS ROLE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF AN APPELLATE JUDGE.
THE CHAIR'S ROLE IN THIS PROCEEDING IS TO OVERSEE THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE HEARING AND FACILITATE DELIBERATION.
MY ROLE IS TO PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE EXCLUSIVELY TO THIS COMMISSION DURING THIS HEARING.
NOW, THERE ARE A FEW PRELIMINARY MATTERS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AND HAVE PLACED ON THE RECORD.
THE FIRST IS THAT LATE YESTERDAY, I THINK IT WAS AROUND --BETWEEN 3:00 AND 3:30, UBER TECHNOLOGIES SUBMITTED A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS CHALLENGE TO THE CITATIONS, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE LATE SUBMISSION AND YESTERDAY'S GOVERNMENT HOLIDAY, I HAVE PROVIDED EACH OF YOU WITH A COPY OF THAT BRIEFING, AND ALBEIT BRIEF, YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT.
THE SECOND MATTER THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IS UBER TECHNOLOGIES' MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEYS.
THAT DOCUMENT, UBER SEEKS TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY BOTH THE PTC AND BOTH COUNTY ATTORNEYS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
EACH OF YOU, LIKEWISE, HAS BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS MOTION AND HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MOTION.
I, LIKEWISE, HAVE REVIEWED THE MOTION.
MY OPINION IS THAT THE MOTION IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AS IT RELATES TO RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION OF EITHER THE PTC OR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND SHOULD BE DENIED.
IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THAT ASSESSMENT, THEN THE PROPER PROCESS WOULD BE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DENY UBER'S MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY THE PTC AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEYS.
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
MEMBERS, THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLARITY.
COUNCILMAN REDDICK.
>FRANK REDDICK: MR. CHAIR, I WAS PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR REMOVAL.
>DAVID POGORILICH: [INAUDIBLE]
TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY UBER'S MOTION TO RECUSE PTC AND ITS ATTORNEYS?
>FRANK REDDICK: AND ATTORNEYS, RIGHT.
>DAVID POGORILICH: THANK YOU.
DREW SORRELL: MR. CRIST, WE'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY PRESENT OUR MOTION.
>VICTOR CRIST: I UNDERSTAND.
>CINDY OSTER: MR. CHAIR, AT THIS TIME, ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE.
THE WAY THIS PROCESS WOULD WORK, AS SIMILAR WITH A COURT PROCEEDING IN A JUDICIAL REVIEW, IS THAT ARGUMENTS AND PLACING FACTUAL INFORMATION ON THE RECORD IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME.
IT IS BASED ON THE PLEADINGS AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.
>VICTOR CRIST: ARE THEY ABLE TO DISCUSS OR TALK ABOUT THE PLEADINGS?
>CINDY OSTER: AGAIN, SIMILAR TO A COURT PROCEEDING, THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IS THAT A JUDGE WOULD TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT, REVIEW THE PLEADINGS ON ITS FACE.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE INFORMATION AND THE PLEADINGS AS FACTUALLY CORRECT, AND IT IS ESSENTIALLY A LEGAL ASSESSMENT, AND ARGUMENTS ARE TRADITIONALLY NOT PERMITTED AND ARE NOT RECOMMENDED.
>DAVID POGORILICH: SECOND THE MOTION.
>YVONNE CAPIN: THANK YOU.
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION?
OKAY.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DISCUSSION.
IS THERE ANY DEBATE?
OKAY.
THEN WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY.
ALL IN FAVOR.
[CHORUS OF AYES]
THOSE OPPOSED.
SHOW IT UNANIMOUS.
>CINDY OSTER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THE NEXT--
DREW SORRELL: SO JUST FOR THE RECORD'S PURPOSES, WHAT I THINK YOU'RE TELLING ME, AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR, IS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN ANY ARGUMENT, ANY DISCUSSION, ANY REVIEW OF A MOTION THAT HAS BEEN PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU, THE METES AND BOUNDS OF WHICH ARE WRITTEN, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET US ARGUE THAT POINT, YOU'RE SHUTTING THAT DOWN COMPLETELY?
THAT'S THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING?
>VICTOR CRIST: I'M GOING TO, AGAIN, DEFER TO OUR COUNSEL.
>CINDY OSTER: MR. CHAIR, THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE YES, AND THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE PROCESS OF A COURTROOM SETTING WHERE THERE IS A MOTION TO RECUSE A JUDGE.
DREW SORRELL: AND AS MS.OSTER SAID, THERE IS HOW IT CAN BE DONE VERSUS WHAT SHE'S RECOMMENDING, AND I'M REQUESTING ARGUMENT.
>YVONNE CAPIN: I THINK WE HAVE MOVED.
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
I DON'T SEE ANY DESIRE TO DO THAT HERE.
I THINK THE BOARD HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE STANDARD PROCEDURES OF THE COURTS ON THE APPELLATE LEVEL AND OPERATE AS SUCH, AND WE HAVE.
DREW SORRELL: YOU HAVE NOT.
I DISAGREE, AND I OBJECT TO THAT.
JUST ALSO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US TOO IS THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY, WHO ARE IN AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP, ONE IS SUPERIOR, ONE IS INFERIOR--
>CINDY OSTER: MR. CHAIR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMEND--
DREW SORRELL: LET ME FINISH, PLEASE.
>CINDY OSTER:-- THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
DREW SORRELL: AND I'D LIKE TOFINISH --
>VICTOR CRIST: SIR, WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE A COMMISSION, AND WE ARE HELD UNDER OUR OWN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND TO OUR RESPECTIVE OFFICE TO DO THE JOB OF THE PEOPLE THE BEST THAT WE CAN AND AS OBJECTIVELY AS WE CAN.
WE HAVE COUNSEL.
WE PAY FOR THIS COUNSEL, AND OUR COUNSEL HAS ADVISED US ON HOW THE PROCESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF BEST PRACTICES OF THE APPELLATE COURT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE.
THERE ARE --SIR, THERE ARE REMEDIES FOR YOU AND YOUR CLIENT.
AT THIS POINT IT'S UP TO YOU AND THEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU WISH TO SEEK THEM AT NOT, BUT AT THIS LEVEL, THE MATTER IS CLOSED.
>YVONNE CAPIN: RIGHT.
>VICTOR CRIST: AND I WILL ASK THAT YOU PLEASE STEP DOWN.
DREW SORRELL: OKAY.
SO YOU'RE DEFERRING TO YOUR ATTORNEY IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>VICTOR CRIST: WHAT I'M SAYING IS, SIR, THE MATTER IS CLOSED HERE, AND I'M ASKING YOU TO STEP DOWN.
DREW SORRELL: YOU WON'T HEAR ANY ARGUMENT OR ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER YOUR ATTORNEY IS LABORING UNDER A CONFLICT AND SHOULD NOT BE REPRESENTING THIS BOARD?
>VICTOR CRIST: AS I SAID, I'M ASKING YOU TO STEP DOWN AT THIS POINT.
DREW SORRELL: OKAY.
>VICTOR CRIST: THANK YOU.
>CINDY OSTER: OKAY.
AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIR, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO COVER THE PROCEDURES FOR THIS HEARING.
THESE PROCEDURES ARE BASED UPON THE SPECIAL ACT AND THE RULES AS IT APPLIES TO CITATION APPELLATE PROCEDURES, AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE COMMISSION SERVES AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL SITTING IN AN APPELLATE CAPACITY.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THIS COMMISSION MAY NOT CONSIDER FACTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE HEARING OFFICER.
THEREFORE, THIS IS NOT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE ANY TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN OR ANY EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.
THAT PROCESS HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER ON SEPTEMBER 8th.
THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, MUST BASE ITS DECISION ON RECORD EVIDENCE THAT IS BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER AND THE WRITTEN FINDINGS IN ORDER OF THE HEARING OFFICER.
EACH OF YOU HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THIS RECORD UNDER SEPARATE COVER AND HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS RECORD.
DURING THIS HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER, ONE, WHETHER THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENTSUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 8th HEARING; AND TWO, HOW THOSE FACTS APPLY TO THE LAW.
THE LAW THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING IS THAT OF THE SPECIAL ACT AND THE PTC RULES, IN PARTICULAR RULE DASH 3.001, PARAGRAPH 2, WHICH I REFERENCED EARLIER, WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE OR CAUSE OR ALLOW THE OPERATION OF ANY PUBLIC VEHICLE WITHOUT A VALID PERMIT, AND RULE 1-5.001, PARAGRAPH 1, WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE, CAUSE TO OPERATE, OR ALLOW ANOTHER TO OPERATE A PUBLIC VEHICLE UNLESS THE DRIVER HAS A CURRENT PUBLIC VEHICLE DRIVER'S LICENSE.
THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION'S DELIBERATION SHOULD FOCUS ON WHETHER THERE IS ENOUGH FACTUAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD FROM BELOW TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT UBER TECHNOLOGIES VIOLATED RULES 1-3.001 AND 1-5.001.
ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION CANNOT ELICIT ADDITIONAL FACTUAL EVIDENCE, IT CAN INTERPRET THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL ACT AND THE PTC RULES AND ITS APPLICABILITY OF THE CONDUCT OF UBER TECHNOLOGIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
THE COMMISSION MAY AFFIRM THE HEARING OFFICER'S ORDER IN FINDING THAT UBER TECHNOLOGIES VIOLATEDTHE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED RULES THAT UPHOLD THE CITATIONS.
THE COMMISSION CAN REJECT THE HEARING OFFICER'S ORDER AND DISMISS THE CITATIONS.
THE COMMISSION MAY REMAND THE CITATIONS BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ONLY IF NEW AND RELEVANT FACTS ARE PRESENTED THAT HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING OFFICER'S HEARING OR IF THE COMMISSION OPINES THAT RELEVANT FACTS WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ASCERTAINED AT THE HEARING.
THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PRESENTATION IS SUGGESTED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING, AND THESE, OF COURSE, ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED TO ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL AND, AGAIN, NOT --EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE TAKEN OR TESTIMONY TAKEN.
INITIALLY, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPELLANT, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, WOULD PRESENT ARGUMENT FOR 15 MINUTES; THE APPELLEE WOULD PRESENT ARGUMENTS FOR 15 MINUTES, THAT WOULD BE THE AGENCY REPRESENTED BY MR. BRAZEL; THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A REBUTTAL FOR FIVE MINUTES; AND THE PTC WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT REBUTTAL FOR FIVE MINUTES.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE FOUR AREAS OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE PTC WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DELIBERATE.
NOW, MEMBERS OF THE PTC MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE LAWYERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY THAT ARE GOING TO BE ARGUING THIS MATTER, AND THE TIME TAKEN TO ASK AND ANSWER QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE TIME LIMITATIONS ALLOTTED.
THE PTC MAY ALSO ASK QUESTIONS OF ME AS YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL AT ANY POINT DURING THE HEARING.
NOW, THE CLERK FROM THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, MS.CHERYL MOONEY, HAS GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO SERVE AS OUR TIMEKEEPER FOR TODAY'S HEARING, AND SHE IS SEATED AT THE END OF THE DAIS OVER THERE, AND WITH HER SHE HAS SIGNS THAT SHE'LL BE HOLDING UP TO ASSIST COUNSEL TO KEEP THEM ON TRACK IN TERM OF THE TIME FRAMES.
THEY ARE IN INCREMENTS OF FIVE MINUTES, MEANING FIVE MINUTES LEFT TO ARGUE --PRESENT ARGUMENTS, THREE MINUTES, AND ONE MINUTE RESPECTIVELY.
SHE ALSO HAS A TIME CLOCK OVER THERE THAT SHE WILL STOP AND START IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ASKED OF COUNSEL SO THAT THOSE TIME ALLOTTED FOR ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE TIME LIMITS PROVIDED FOR EACH PARTY.
AS THIS HEARING IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND HAS THE CHAIRMAN HAS REFERENCED EARLIER, PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT REQUIRED, AND, FURTHER, IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT PUBLIC COMMENT NOT BE ALLOWED DURING THIS HEARING.
THERE WAS PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE REGULAR PORTION OF THE MEETING, AND BECAUSE THAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT PART OF THIS RECORD, IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS DELIBERATION.
SHOULD THERE BE THE UNLIKELY NEED TO TAKE A BREAK DURING THE HEARING, JUST AS WE HAD REFERENCED EARLIER, THE COMMISSION MEMBERS MAY NOT SPEAK TO ONE ANOTHER, TO ANY OF THE STAFFPERSONS, ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES, OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING; HOWEVER, AGAIN, YOU MAY SPEAK TO ME DURING THAT PORTION OF THE BREAK.
AND AT THIS TIME, I WILL TURN THE HEARING OVER TO MR. CHAIR TO BEGIN THE PROCESSAND ALERT MS.MOONEY TO GET READY TO START TAKING TIME.
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
EVERYONE'S HEARD THE RULES AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE TODAY.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
COUNSEL AND COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS THERE?
DREW SORRELL: I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
>VICTOR CRIST: YOU MAY.
DREW SORRELL: ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH MR. MILLS' MOTION?
>CINDY OSTER: MY POSITION ON MR. MILLS' MOTION IS THAT IT WAS HEARD BELOW BY THE HEARING OFFICER.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER APPEAL OR CHALLENGE ON THE PART OF MR. MILLS IN RELATION TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FEEL THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATELY DECIDED AT THE LOWER LEVEL, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
MEMBERS, DO YOU CONCUR?
>DAVID POGORILICH: YES.
>YVONNE CAPIN: YES.
>VICTOR CRIST: WE HAVE A MOTION OF CONCURRENCE?
>DAVID POGORILICH: SO MOVED.
>YVONNE CAPIN: SECOND.
>VICTOR CRIST: SECOND?
ALL IN FAVOR.
[CHORUS OF AYES]
THE WILL OF THE BOARD AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
DREW SORRELL: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. CRIST, EXCUSE ME.
>VICTOR CRIST: IT ALL WORKS.
OKAY.
I THINK AT THIS POINT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD.
I BELIEVE THAT UBER'S COUNSEL STARTS OFF WITH 15 MINUTES; CORRECT?
>CINDY OSTER: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>VICTOR CRIST: WILL OUR BUZZERS GO OFF, OR WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK FOR THE FLAG?
CHERYL MOONEY: [INAUDIBLE]
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
SO THE BUZZER WILL GO OFF.
YOU'LL GET A ONE-MINUTE WARNING, WHICH IS THE YELLOW LIGHT, AND AT THAT POINT YOU NEED TO START CLOSING, AND I'VE GOT THE GAVEL HERE.
I'M GOING TO RUN THIS THING VERY TIGHT.
DREW SORRELL: IS IT OKAY IF I --I DON'T ANTICIPATE USING ALL 15 MINUTES.
MAY I, AT THE END OF MY TIME SPEAKING, RESERVE THE BALANCE OF THAT FOR MY REBUTTAL?
>VICTOR CRIST: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER AGAIN TO COUNSEL, US NOT BEING LAWYERS AND THIS NOT BEING OUR USUAL--
>CINDY OSTER: I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AS LONG AS THE SAME OFFER OF A PROCEDURE WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PTC.
>VICTOR CRIST: ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION UP HERE?
I DON'T SEE ANY OBJECTIONS.
BY VIRTUE OF NOT SEEING AN OBJECTION, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
DREW SORRELL: THANK YOU.
>VICTOR CRIST: OKAY.
IS THERE AN OBJECTION FROM OUR COUNSEL?
ROB BRAZEL: [INAUDIBLE]
>VICTOR CRIST: ALL RIGHT.
I WASN'T REFERRING TO YOU, I WAS REFERRING TO HER.