The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-06-09

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (20,009 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Good afternoon. It is 301 on Tuesday, June 9th. I am calling to order today's meeting of the city life committee. Wendy, could you please call the roll?

Thank you. Ryan. Here. Morillo. Here. Zimmerman here. Avalos.

Present.

Pirtle-guiney here.

And, christopher, could you please read our statement of conduct?

Welcome to the meeting of the city life committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at www.Portland.gov/council/agendae or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting in person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization represents virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues. We have two items on the agenda today. Our regular session for public communication, and then one ordinance which is being brought forward by myself, councilor Novick councilor Dunphy and councilor Morillo. Wendy, could you please call our first agenda item?

Item number one public input on city life committee topics 2026-191.

Thank you. And could you call up our testifiers, please?

We have one person that signed up, marshall mcfarland.

Welcome. Mr. Mcfarland. Thanks for being here today.

Usually not so nervous this time I am. Good afternoon, councilors and committee members. I am caleb ben imhotep, l before this council on June 3rd, I affirmed the harsh truth that our city's financial body remains frozen in fear. Autocracy. We're fumbling over a deflated budget while our public infrastructures face a near billion dollar maintenance backlog in our bureaus absorb million dollar budget cuts in their manpower. For this, the public suffers. I exist at ground zero. I see with my eyes and feel with my hands. The portland's that numbers can't qualify. While the finger of blame is not a solution oriented tool, the responsibility of solution remains solely on us as a community. I do firmly believe that the most essential tools for solution are accountability, transparency, and diligence tools at everyone's disposal. So let's refine and replace our tools. Instead of using tax to burden our businesses and residents, why not create resources that promote portland's natural assets? Physical identity, I'm sorry. Athletic identity and cultural spaces. Through robust public private partnerships and unified automated accounting architectures that completely eliminate administrative error and leakage. It will be these resources, partnerships, and architectures that provide critical buoyancy as Portland navigates these treacherous currents of the economy. I'm not offering just basic financial projections. The data in the proposes, they speak for themselves. They're very basic. What I'm offering is absolute commitment. I'm offering my passion to promote a better Portland as a show of good faith. Three documents that I submitted to the clerk of the committee's review. They're yours. Do with them as you please. It's my hope that that absolute commitment grows to communal proportions. Portland would benefit in perpetuity. I am prepared to personally invest my time, my drive and my self to shepherd every single one of those initiatives, from the conceptual stage to actual physical execution. Committee members, we can redirect the economic momentum of the fear that has Portland spiraling. It is in our control. It is in our power. It is our community. It's our responsibility. Those documents are at your mercy. My energy and devotion are at your disposal. Let's use our ability as stewards of the most sacred public trust to progress, implement viable solutions, and bring tangible, undeniable benefit to the community of Portland physically and financially. Thank you and I love you all unconditionally.

Thank you very much for being here today and for encouraging us to do that work.

Thank you.

That concludes testimony.

Thank you. Wendy, could you please read the second item on our agenda?

Item number two amend vehicles and traffic code to clarify applicability of ride fees and establish a driver's resource center for transportation network company drivers. Amend code section 16.40.030 and 16.40.240. Document number 2026 192.

Thank you very much, colleagues. This is a code change and ordinance being brought to you today by councilor Novick councilor Dunphy, councilor Morillo and myself. I will kick us off with some opening remarks and then turn it over to my co-sponsors and councilor Novick. If you want to come up to the table, I think we'll turn to you second. So, colleagues, today, Portland relies heavily on ride share as a core part of our transportation system. But as this committee heard just a few weeks ago, the people who make that system work, the drivers are increasingly being left behind. Drivers face unpredictable wages, unexpected deactivation and no access to benefits like health care, paid leave or job protection. The model that they work under relies on state laws, which classify drivers as independent contractors. That allows tncs to offload many of the real costs of their business onto workers and onto their city. And it leaves drivers without the means to organize, learn from their peers, or often find support. When a driver is deactivated, they face financial and housing instability. The model before us is not only hard on drivers, it creates instability in a transportation system that portlanders rely on, and it creates costs in the public sector. So what is our solution? The ordinance before us today establishes a driver resource center, sometimes referred to as a drc, which is a centralized, independent place for drivers, for rideshare drivers to access employment related resources. It's a place where drivers can go when they are deactivated for help navigating the system, a place they can go when they face wage issues to understand what their recourse is, a place where they can navigate access to benefits and protections. In the past, Portland has contracted for an ombudsman to do some of this work. It is not outside the scope of our city's work or authority to provide this resource. However, the role in the past was underutilized, in part because it was an ombudsperson that did not have experience working with drivers and was. And a program that was not put together with in partnership with drivers. They weren't able to offer the services that drivers most needed. In other words, to do this right, we need to make sure that we have a contractor that is an entity with experience serving drivers, who understands the challenges they face and the resources that might actually be needed. But how do we pay for that? As our code is written today, Portland charges ride fees on trips that originate within our city. But there are some jurisdictions that charge fees on all rides, whether they originate or end in the city. This ordinance clarifies the applicability of fees, which already exist, and allows us to capture revenue from rides that currently originate outside of the city of Portland, but end in our city. This isn't a new concept. In fact, the mayor and PBOT have previously explored this approach to raise revenue, and it has been on the table as recently as the development of the most recent budget last year, when council increased the government fees on rides from $0.65 to $2 a ride. None of that revenue was directed toward supporting the workers in this industry. We can clarify that that fee should be applied to all rides, those originating in and ending in our city use the additional funds that are raised to fund a driver resource center without increasing the fee level, and ensure that we have a system that works better. As long as tncs operate on an independent contract model drivers and public entities will be left with the social and economic costs created by an unstable workplace. But we can ensure that drivers get the support that they need to be successful. That is what the driver resource center is designed to do. I want to note a few things. There is work being done at the state level on rideshare regulation. That was brought up in a previous meeting. That work is being championed by senator jama, who I understand just last week convened the first meeting of his work group on similar topic. Our office is in close communication with senator jama's team, and they have assured us that the work on creating a driver resource center supplements and complements, rather than conflicts with the important work that's being done in Salem. Senator jama has submitted a letter of support for our work and the ordinance before us today. That item is posted online with a number of other resources for our conversation. I want to sincerely thank him for his support and for all the work that he's doing in Salem. I will also note that the conversation about origination and ending fees is not unique to Portland. This happens in other jurisdictions, including other cities, and we have done work with our agency with PBOT to ensure that as they implement rules to to as they enact rules to implement this ordinance, they will ensure that we are coordinating closely with surrounding cities that use the same fee model that we use, so that there is not a double charge. Portland needs a functioning rideshare network. Getting that functioning network requires sustainable jobs for the people who do the work. A driver resource center, quite simply, will stabilize rideshare, the rideshare workforce, and by extension, our transportation system. This proposal before us standardizes our fee structure, raises revenue without raising the fee rates that are charged, supports drivers, and allows any excess revenue that is raised to support the underlying work of PBOT. It strengthens our transportation system, supports workers who are struggling, and makes better use of tools that we already have available to us. I would urge the committee to pass this. I'll also note that I will be introducing a technical amendment later in our conversation. But before we start talking about amendments, I'd like to turn the floor over to my co-sponsor, councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Thank you, madam chair. Members of the committee, I don't have too much to add to what the chair just said, but I will say that over the past numerous months, councilor, pirtle-guiney and I have heard from drivers about the exceedingly poor compensation that they get, that in fact, they wind up making less than minimum wage, like around $12 an hour. We've also heard repeatedly about the arbitrary application of deactivation where people are deactivated. They have no idea why they're faced with an extremely difficult to navigate appeals system within either of the companies. And many of these immigrants are many, many of these drivers are immigrants. English is not their first language. So one of the things that the resource center would do would help provide translation services, would help access legal services, which are desperately needed. And I, as the chair said, taxi drivers hold our transportation system together every day. And I'm proud to be working on this legislation with chair pirtle-guiney, and I trust that our colleagues will see the wisdom of it. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor. Colleagues, I'll turn to councilor Morillo for any remarks you'd like to give. And, councilor Dunphy, if you'd like to come up to the table, we will have you close out sponsor remarks after that.

Thank you. Chair. Yeah, thank you so much to all of the drivers union folks that are here today to support this. We're really grateful for your presence. You have shown up to every constituent coffee, every community event to advocate for your rights, and your council is responding to that advocacy. So thank you for showing us the way in doing the right thing. I am someone who relies on the bus. I rely on my bike, and I rely on your services to get to places. And especially since becoming a city councilor, it's been much harder to take the bus, sometimes an hour to get between meetings when you barely have 15 minutes to get a snack, let alone to travel that amount of time. So I think my colleagues have covered all of the technical aspects of this very well. I don't have more to add to that. I just wanted to say that every time I've gotten in a lyft or an uber or any of those things to get somewhere, I've talked to the drivers about what is needed. And this is something that has continuously come up. The fact that these companies are being extremely arbitrary with what services are provided, why they're they're being cut out of certain things, why they're being penalized. No communication, very intense language barriers, especially for the immigrant community. And so to me, this is just a completely this is the only thing that makes sense to do for portlanders that are serving our community in this way. So I'm very excited to support this. Thank you, councilors pirtle-guiney and Novick for leading on this. Thank you, councilor Dunphy, for sponsoring, and I'm really excited that our city council is going to be pushing forward some legislation to make everyone's lives a little bit easier. Thank you.

Thank you, council councilor, council president Dunphy, go right ahead.

Thank you. Chair pirtle-guiney colleagues, members of the city life committee. For the record, my name is Jamie Dunphy. I am Portland city councilor from district one and the Portland city council president. You know, I'm proud to be co-sponsoring this. And thank you, councilors pirtle-guiney and Novick, for the hard work that you've been doing in driving this. Literally, the idea of a driver's resource center is a no brainer to me. The relationship between employer and employee is always a vital one that we need to have. And this relationship I contractor and contract. I understand there's some nuance there, but regardless, these tncs are largely faceless corporations that are hard to get ahold of and don't leave our our folks here working in our community with much to be able to defend themselves and to be able to move forward with their careers. This makes a lot of sense in every regard. The the folks who transport us in Portland and around Portland deserve a fair relationship with their employer and an orderly and reasonable process to try and resolve problems on the job. And at some point, it doesn't. It's concerning to me that we have to take this step, that this is the kind of thing that this new form of company can try and do. We're not creating a resource center for any other major employer in Portland, but that is the reality that we are seeing with these tncs and these out-of-state technology based companies. The as someone on the east side of Portland, I can tell you that the arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries do not matter to our neighbors that the difference between 100 and 60 second and 165th being Portland or Gresham does not matter. And it is folks getting to work, getting to home, getting to places that they worship and play. We can ignore that and use those resources to be able to actually provide meaningful change for the people who are doing the hard work, making sure that we do get home safe. So thank you to my colleagues for bringing this. I urge your support and thank you to the drivers union for being just an unstoppable force. Let's get this done and keep working. Thank you.

Thank you, council president colleagues, we have two panels of invited testimony. We'll start with representatives from the drivers union. And then an invitation was extended to both uber and lyft to participate. Today, uber chose to submit written testimony instead, which is posted online with the rest of our written testimony. But I believe we'll have a representative from lyft here after the driver panel. So I'd like to invite up joe jackson and nathaniel hudson hartman. Thank you both for being here.

Thank you, chair pirtle-guiney, and thank you, members of the city life committee. We just need your name. Oh, sorry, I'm joe jackson. For the record, I represent drivers throughout the state of Oregon, most of whom drive here in our great city of Portland. And I'm going to work on getting this presentation up while my colleague introduces himself.

Hi.

Great to.

Be back in front of all your beautiful faces again. For the record, I'm Dan hartman. I use he him pronouns. I've been a rideshare driver for actually today. Today is my my nine year anniversary. All right. But I'm also honored to represent our essential transportation providers as an organizer with drivers union Oregon. Happy six nine day everybody. And by the way, thank you for scheduling this meeting right before rush hour. This is going to make getting rides from downtown really easy. So thank you. All right.

I'm here to help, though. You'll have to thank the council president for scheduling the committee at this time.

You're at. All right. Let's get to it. We are talking Portland tnc driver resource center. Next slide. Joe's going to be my wonderful slide operator for today. Thank you joe. Appreciate you. And just for some background, PBOT tnc ombuds program long ago identified this need for driver support. And for those who aren't familiar, the tnc ombuds program was established by the city of Portland back before the pandemic, and the goal was to have a place where drivers can go and submit complaints against the tnc, get them resolved. Unfortunately, that program has been out of commission for some time now, but even when it was in operation, while well intended, ombuds was just under-resourced and drivers reported that they weren't able to get english in language support or consistently get positive outcomes for these types of complaints, especially when it comes to, you know, money owed or deactivations, which will dive deeper into in a moment. And this need was really recognized by its own observations and recommendations, including a couple here, tnc processes for driver review, suspension and deactivation are not transparent and lack procedural safeguards and due process for drivers, and also recommended exploring implementing a model similar to seattle's driver dispute resolution center. This was back in 2020. We're talking about six years ago. Next slide please. So it is no secret rideshare drivers. We got a lot of issues. We are a very unique and displaced workforce comprised largely of folks of color, immigrants, refugees, english language learners, and low income workers. And as you know, council president hit the nail right on the head. Uber and lyft, these large out of state companies are just dominating the workplace with algorithms controlling our income through apps and powerful income algorithms. And just to kind of, you know, zoom out of the scope of this and shout out to our friends at PBOT for getting us these updated numbers. I just want to kind of put a little asterisk here. The rideshare numbers are not separated, so we're kind of doing our best based on that data, but roughly an average of 2 million private for hire rides are happening per quarter, and almost 15,000 active drivers are currently in the rose city. So it's a very large, very displaced workforce. Next slide please. So I just want to give a kind of a high level overview of some of their issues and then dive a little deeper and just highlight just the diversity, just a rich and diverse workforce that we have that speak just a multitude of languages, unfair deactivations, regulatory compliance and issues with wage theft and underpayment. And at the bottom here, of note, no physical workplace. You know, our work is by definition mobile. So we have no hr, no local support. In fact, both uber and lyft used to have physical locations in the city. But even despite that, when drivers were owed money or had their accounts deactivated, we'd go there and they'd say, we can't help you. You got to go contact support. And neither of these physical locations are in operation anymore. They're, you know, both closed permanently. Next slide please. So access language and cultural competency. This is rideshare drivers. We might be the most diverse workforce you've ever seen. But unfortunately the tnc customer support is mainly through ai assisted chatbots in english only. This is so incredibly frustrating, as I'm sure you can imagine, our distributed workforce is very difficult to reach. I mean, we're all over the place. You know, you're lucky if you find an uber and lyft sticker in a parking lot somewhere and, you know, just having those, those kind of on the street conversations, you know, when we're majority, you know, immigrants speaking upwards of 20 to 30, 25 to 30 different languages. Next slide please. Which brings us to one of the most awful parts of being a rideshare driver. The risk of having your account unfairly deactivated, which just means being fired by the app. And this happens for a multitude of reasons or for no reason at all. Things as arbitrary as an app glitch or a background check that is taking too long, or in many cases, as we find in our organizing work due to racially motivated complaint. And you're going to hear some testimony from some of our drivers today later about, you know, how frustrating this can be, but you end up getting set to ai chatbot purgatory where you are literally texting. And I know you have heard a lot about this before in our testimony. I can't say this enough texting in english, leaving you wondering whether you're not. You're even talking to a real person. It is one of the most dehumanizing experiences and both joe and I have been through this. I mean, our english is pretty good and even we were beating our head against a wall trying to get our jobs back. But like, my notebook right here is full of over 60 names of Portland drivers who I'm meeting with trying to get their jobs back. And I'm literally running out of room. And we're noticing a disturbing trend with the names of some of these folks. It's not Steve, it's not Dan, it's not Eric, it's hamidullah, it's abdullahi, it's ali. One driver who I'm helping right now legally changed their name to embrace their own true identity. And they were deactivated by uber and accused of falsifying documents due to a discrepancy on their background check. Because of the name change. Sorry, this is just it's one of the most terrible parts of our experience. Next slide please. This 1ia little controversial. I might get into some hot water for saying this, but Portland has some really complex and difficult to understand regulatory policies when it comes to taxi drivers. It's just a fact. And it's we understand why, but our drivers don't. And you know, an example of this is the driver permit that everyone has to have these things used to get mailed to us, but now they get stuck in the bottom of somebody's inbox. And if you're a driver in the airport lot on your way to pick up somebody from the terminal and somebody with a badge who you don't know comes and stops you and says, hold up. If you're an immigrant driver, especially in 2026, that can be really scary, you know, so just kind of there's an opportunity for education and, you know, just raising awareness that, you know, really has just kind of been lacking. And, you know, the wage theft and underpayment, despite the fact that, as we know, rideshare drivers don't have compensation standards, we still face wage theft and underpayment. And you're going to hear about this, you know, through testimony. But, you know, we're seeing drivers. It happens every day. You are fighting with that same ai chatbot to get either a few bucks that you're owed or a few hundred bucks that you're owed. And, you know, drivers are just, again, beating their head against a wall and just have nowhere to go, you know, to get assistance with that, especially if they, you know, struggle with english. So what's the solution? A driver resource center to address unfair deactivations and other tnc actions with legal support for drivers assistance, trainings and outreach for helping to comply with those local regulations and company requirements, accessing benefits and culturally competent and in language support and resources for our very diverse driver community. And, you know, again, this was modeled, you know, this was I would love to take credit for this, but this was all PBOT idea. But it was really this idea is really modeled after washington's driver resource center. And they have been busy. As you can see, over 2100 drivers, wrongfully deactivated drivers have gotten their jobs back, and over $12 million have been put back into drivers pockets after lost wages from tnc, unfair deactivations and through enforcement actions with workers rights laws that exist. Over 6000 drivers have signed up for washington's paid family medical leave program through outreach. I know right through outreach by, you know, the Washington driver resource center. And they had over well over 7000 intakes from drivers coming and needing assistance last year. So I just want to point this out just to highlight not only the success of this model that is also actually in operation in the state of colorado as well and counting, but just highlight the, the need, you know, if you build it, they will come. And so what works in a driver resource center and what isn't. This is so important. It is a physical office space. You know, drivers just were all over the place. And we need a place where we can come to. And this provides an opportunity to just walk in or make an appointment and, you know, work around your schedule to get help that you need for drivers that, you know, maybe in crisis. You know, joe and I have been operating our mobile driver resource centers. And, you know, there's a, there's a power in being able to go and meet drivers in our natural habitat, but it is just not suiting the needs of our community intake specialists and representatives that speak multiple languages with interpretation and, you know, helping facilitate with that interpretation, culturally competent staff that have experience as tnc drivers. And I can't stress this enough, we know it. Gig work is weird. It is weird. Like there's no way around it. It's hard to understand unless you've done the work right. So who better to serve those drivers than those that have actually been behind the wheel? And that can help drivers navigate the complex and, you know, very frustrating systems at the tnc put up, but also, you know, drivers that they feel safe with, right? That they feel comfortable with and free of influence by the tnc. I can't stress that enough for your low cost legal support that addresses deactivations pay issues and worker's rights violations is just just so, so crucial. And just a couple more things here. Knowledgeable staff that you know, can troubleshoot the apps. I mean, these things are like, I mean, we talked about it in our last time here, you know, those terms of service updates that you suddenly get and you're like, what the heck does this mean? Oh, but I have to figure this out before I can go and, you know, go online and start working, you know, the layers of the regulatory compliance, educating folks on the benefits that are available to them and just connecting drivers, even folks with immigration resources. You know, we've done, I know that we have done like, you know, events where we've had some other nonprofits and folks can come and get diapers and laundry soap and, you know, questions about knowing your rights when you're stopped by someone and they ask about your immigration status, you know, like this, it's a really holistic and really just goes beyond deactivations and, you know, helping folks, you know, get paid, you know, fairly and then training on safety and best practices, you know, just filling in some of those gaps in the worker training, safety. You know, a lot of those, you know, a lot of those things that were just that were just not provided. And so the last couple of slides, we've, we thought it was important to, you know, I'm not going to read all this out, but we thought it was important to, you know, highlight some more of those successes of the Washington tnc driver resource center with some testimonials from some drivers who have been wrongfully deactivated and in many cases, been able to, you know, secure lost wages for that time that they were off the road. So, you know, feel free to, to check those out. And, you know, last thing I just wanted to say, you know, like what a difference a year makes. Like I'm kind of tingling right now because, you know, we were here in this spot a year ago, you know, asking for a driver resource center and that craziness with all the budget cycle. And we're just, you know, it was a very uncharted time. And so we're just really thankful to be here and for the opportunity to, you know, keep this like bring this conversation forth and, you know, just educate, you know, you folks that may not have done gig work before, you know, on what we're going through. And, you know, just so, so honored to have this see the light of day. So thank you for your support. And, you know, obviously happy to answer any questions that you have, joe, anything to add or did I cover it?

Yeah, no, I, I would love to just echo what nathaniel said. Amazing about what a year can do. It was actually almost just about one year ago today that when councilor Pirtle-guiney was president, I had signed up on the wrong agenda item to try and testify. And so navigating the system in Portland and being able to be where we are now is just incredible with all of your support. So I just want to thank you all very much.

Way to go, joe.

Thank you both for being here. Before we move on, are there any technical questions for either of our guests from the driver's union? Okay.

Councilor say driver's union. Is it actually a union? Oh, yeah. Recognized like you have like it's a part of the like employee, the board I recognize by the state. I want to understand if we're using that word.

Yeah, we've been recognized by a lot of state lawmakers in the hallways. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: That councilor Recognized.

By your beautiful hair is one thing, but I mean, are you like the employee relations board? Like. Here's the thing I'm trying to understand.

There are many, many.

Not a gotcha question.

No, no, no.

I'm just trying to understand what.

There are. There are many. There are many, many forms, many different types of unions. As we know. There are labor unions, there are tenants unions, there are staff unions. Unions existed a long time before there were labor rights, and they will exist for a long time after. We are a group, we are a merry band of rideshare drivers, uniting for fairness and rideshare for a common cause. That is our.

Okay, does anybody know the answer?

Councilor. Right now, federal law does not allow independent contractors to form a union under the nlrb, and as private sector workers, these workers would have to form a union under the nlrb. Okay, so the traditional formation of a union that you're thinking about isn't a pathway that is legally available to them. I think the group that we have before us that calls themselves the drivers union operates in that collective of solidarity to help folks stand up for their rights.

At work.

And it wasn't a gotcha answer either, I swear.

Okay. Thank you both so much for being here.

Thank you.

Colleagues. Meadow johnson is joining us online to represent lyft meadow. Are you available? Perfect.

Hello.

Thank you for being here with us today.

Can you hear me? Okay.

You can.

Great. Chair pirtle-guiney and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on the proposed ordinance establishing a driver's resource center within portland's private for hire transportation program. My name is meadow johnson, and I am here on behalf of lift. Lift is committed to the success and well-being of drivers who use our platform. We recognize that navigating deactivation processes, regulatory requirements, and language barriers can present real challenges, particularly from drivers from immigrant and historically underserved communities. Lyft does have questions about implementation that we hope this hearing will address before the council moves to a vote. Specifically, we would welcome clarity on how the center will coordinate with tnc companies and practice what governance structures will ensure the driver's resource center operators independence and impartiality, and how the proposed expansion of ride fee applicability trips terminating within the city would be administered, particularly given that portland's fee burden on the tncs is already among the highest in the nation. Many of the goals underlying the driver's resource center, such as language access, deactivation, transparency and earning support, could be addressed more durably and at a greater scale through statewide legislation. We want to thank the driver's union for the thorough conversation they've initiated at the state, and strongly encourage the authors of this proposal to work in close coordination with senator, senate majority leader jamba's office to pursue a statewide framework. Oregon remains the only state in the country without a statewide tnc framework, and that gap creates real daily costs for drivers and riders alike. A statewide framework is the most effective vehicle for expanding driver earnings, standardizing protections, and ensuring consistent access to services across Oregon. Lyft is committed to working constructively with the city, the council, and the legislature to achieve outcomes that genuinely serve portland's drivers and riders. Hope the council will take the time needed to address these outstanding questions before proceeding to a vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, madam colleagues. Does anybody have technical questions for meadow before we move on? Councilor Zimmerman, is your hand still up? Okay. Thank you very much. If there are no technical questions, we will move on to public testimony. I believe we have about a half a dozen people signed up to testify. Wendy, could you please call up our first panel?

Yes. There are six people signed up to testify, and I'll call up julie gonzalez up. And then we have. Sam aye, Morillo online. Samuel, if you could hear me, go ahead and unmute. And, angela, if you could accept the panelist promotion. Julie.

Oh, great.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is samuel araya and I live in district three, Portland, Oregon. I was a rideshare driver for over ten years before uber and lyft wrongfully deactivated me because of my error on my background check. They haven't made it easy for me. I don't get to speak to a real person. They make it to text me to english, which is not my first language. Now I'm struggling to find work and pay my bills. Even before I got deactivated, there was many times I was underpaid. It was almost impossible to contact someone. You get bounced around, they close the charts on you and they don't even understand what you're trying to tell them. Like many drivers, I need help to communicate with the companies and help translate. But every time I need assistance, I have to drive across town to a coffee shop where there is a music is so loud, or to the library where you have to be very quiet. It's hard to get interpretation when you are worried about the sounds around you, and when you don't have as much as privacy. But I hear that drivers in colorado and Washington can't go to the place and then get support if they have, if they are owed money or if they are deactivated by uber and lyft to get their job back, why can't Portland drivers have our own driver resource center? Thank you. Councilors pirtle-guiney, Novick, Morillo and others for supporting our local rideshare drivers. I hope that when I get my job back, I'll have the place to go and get help when I need it. Thank you so much. I appreciate you all.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Angela, go ahead and unmute. Begin your testimony.

Okay. Hello, councilors, and thank you for taking the time to hear us. At the end of last year, I was offered a two hour, 45 minute drive. I took it even though I knew it would be one of the only rides I would be able to do on a Friday night. It was up to seattle like I had hoped. And the Washington pay rates are a good deal higher, so it would be worth it. Once I dropped the rider off, I was told to pay for. The ride was pending. I was disappointed in this, but uber does do it on some longer rides due to. They want to make sure they get paid before they pay us. Seven days later after christmas. Thanks. I was paid $49 for this ride. They paid me for the time at the Portland rates and paid nothing for the mileage. I contacted support immediately after I got paid and they told me I had waited too long after the ride to dispute it. I asked for a supervisor. They ended the chat. I went round around like this for days and finally contacted our drivers union representatives locally, nathaniel, and got the information to contact the Washington drivers resource center. It took a few more days, but I finally got the correct amount for the ride, which was around $350. So it was a huge difference. The $49 didn't even cover the gas to do this ride, and we definitely need a resource center here. It would have saved me from jumping through a whole lot of hoops. And thank you.

Thank you very much.

Last call for julie gonzalez. The next three are call three of you and can come up. And please state your name for the record before you begin your testimony. Rom tamala. Dugas shad ahmed ahmed al-shamrani.

Welcome. Thank you for being here this afternoon.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is ram dhamala. I'm right. Share uber and lyft driver. But I don't have good english. Now my uber and lyft deactivate. Somebody complained. I watched the video. Like the complaint I driver I know how to drive I completed I careful I know watch the video only complaint. This is a long time ago now. No open my id this way. Thank you. I have good english. That's why.

That's okay. I think we we know what the concerns are there and we really appreciate you being here to share them with us. Thank you, thank you.

Trustee.

That concludes testimony.

Okay. Colleagues, there is an amendment posted that I'd like to flag before we move into discussion. It is labeled pirtle-guiney Novick one. I believe this is a pretty straightforward and technical amendment. It does not change the structure or the intent of the driver resource center ordinance, but it clarifies a few pieces of implementation and add some preferences for the contracting to ensure that our state that our our city bureaus have the direction that they need. Given the lessons learned from the period when we had an ombudsperson doing this work in full, the amendment does three things. It adds a reference to culturally competent representation to the list of tasks for the contractor to ensure they can carry out. It adds interpretation services and not just translation services. This was an oversight. We do actually need to have both words listed there. Translation and interpretation as allowable uses of the funds, and it lays out a preference for a contract operator, including an operator with experience, with driver advocacy, and a demonstrated commitment to workers rights, and allowing for an operator with a nonprofit status. Again, lessons learned from the recommendations from when we had an ombudsperson doing this work. I hope these are seen as relatively minor and basic changes. The intent is to ensure that the program works as as intended from day one. So I will move us into discussion. And after folks have an opportunity to ask some questions, I do plan to move that amendment. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you so much to all of you for being here and for all of your relentless advocacy. I really admire this because this is what I'm hoping this new form of government can create is space for communities like yours to tell us a problem and give us a solution, and for us to take action. So really grateful for all of your advocacy. You know, tnc drivers, they play an essential role in portland's transportation system. They help connect people to work and medical appointments, transit services, and for many drivers, this work is an important source of income. And in district one, I hear regularly from immigrant community members who drive for uber and lyft and other platforms. And for many, this work provides flexibility and economic opportunity. But as we have been discussing, it also comes with these unique challenges, and I'm grateful for you all to elevate those to our awareness. What stands out to me about the proposal is that it recognizes a reality that exists across much of our modern economy. Frankly, that workers are increasingly expected to navigate large, complex systems on their own, often with very little support when something goes wrong, especially in the gig economy. And with all of these kind of tech, tech type of jobs, when a driver is deactivated or loses access to their account, or they encounter a language barrier, or they're struggling to understand a regulatory requirement, these things really compound. And the consequences can be immediate, right? Because your income is directly tied to your ability to access a platform. So I appreciate that this ordinance is focused on creating infrastructure that helps people navigate those challenges before they become a crisis. I also think it's important that we're talking about accountability and transparency. To me, the success of this resource center won't simply be measured by whether it exists. It will be measured by whether drivers trust it, can access it, and are able to achieve better outcomes because of it. And ultimately, this proposal recognizes that transportation systems aren't just made up of vehicles and apps and infrastructure. They're made up of all of you people. And if we rely on drivers to help keep our city moving, then we should make sure that you all have what you need, that your resourced with information and support so that you can be successful. So again, thank you for that. I have a couple of overarching questions to pose. So first I wanted to talk about procurement and who gets the contract. And you know, seeing the additional amendment add some more clarity to that. But who actually operates the drivers resource center and beyond the requirements in the ordinance and the now amendment that we'll discuss, what do we think procurement is going to look like that the procurement process, and how will drivers themselves be involved in evaluating whether an organization is trusted and capable of serving this workforce?

Thank you. Councilor, I'd actually like to invite representatives from PBOT up to the table, if you're willing. As a standard procurement process for a contractor to deliver these services that will be carried out by our bureau, and rather than speculate on what they might do, I'd like to let them speak to how their standard processes work. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. Millicent williams, director of the Portland bureau of transportation. Thank you for the question. We appreciate the opportunity to support the driver community in this way and recognize the importance of providing a clear, transparent process by which a vendor or contractor would be identified. So we will move through the procurement process in the way that we would with any procurement. We will develop an RFP that has a series of expectations that any provider would be able to address satisfactorily. We will then score the applications, and depending on the score of the application, that would end up being the person that we would select through the committee that does the selection process. We would not do it in isolation. We would do that in coordination and collaboration with the office of procurement following their basic procurement rules rules. One of the things that I will mention is that as we are moving into the space of corps realignment, we'll continue to work very closely with the office of procurement to ensure that the things that the bureau is putting forward are prioritized as they previously had been. This process will take a series of months, probably between 4 to 6 months, to move through the entire process and then once implemented, once the award is given, then we'll engage the drivers so that they can begin to access the services.

You mentioned a committee. What committee?

Selection committee? It's it's a number of folks that are identified to review the applications. It's not. We just don't drop it into a box. Excuse me, and pull one out. There are reviews that are done by internal staff as well as staff from the office of contracting and procurement.

I guess that's why I'm asking, because my question is around how are all of these advocates going to be involved in the process of procurement? Right. I know the standard procurement process and what I heard was the standard, but I didn't hear where these driver union representatives and the community that's going to benefit will participate. So is it in that committee or is that committee comprised of just internal staff?

If I may? For the record, jacob sherman, PBOT mobility innovations manager, councilor Avalos we've yet to have a conversation with procurement services on this and how we might go about structuring it. But speaking from previous procurements that I've been a part of, there is sometimes an opportunity to create kind of a technical panel of folks who are providing advice to the people that are doing the official scoring in those committee meetings. We do have to be very careful about who those individuals are and making sure they have no vested interests in the outcome. So I think we'd want to be very thoughtful about who we might be selecting to provide advice or guidance as we're moving into the procurement process.

Okay, I hear that, but I guess I would encourage that there be some kind of technical group of folks that could include some of the folks in the room obviously understand that, you know, you don't want to predetermine outcomes and conflicts of interest and all that, but I just think this is too important to miss out these voices. And I don't want this to just be a standard procurement process. I want to make sure that the communities that are advocating for this are meaningfully involved. So we can keep talking about what that looks like. My next question is around geographic accessibility. So the materials emphasize the importance of physical office space and in-person support. So how are we thinking about accessibility for drivers who live throughout the region, including east Portland, Gresham, other communities where drivers might reside? What would meaningful access look like beyond just a downtown office?

Again, that's a thanks, councilor Avalos that's a great question. We're very early in this process. We know that PBOT actually serves as the de facto regulator of transportation network companies for the majority of the state. So we know that when a driver is doing work here in Portland, they need to be permitted through Portland, even if they might be coming up from Salem, for example. So I think we need to be thoughtful about what that might look like in terms of geographic accessibility, where we might want a vendor to have an office or other offices located. I think this is also a piece of the conversation where as we work more with all of your staff, the conversation with senator jama's office is going to be could be important as well, recognizing they're thinking about a statewide framework and we're already providing regional services more or less. So that's just some early thinking on this. Director williams, I don't know if you'd add anything.

You you've covered it well, jacob. Thank you very much, councilor. Yeah, I recognize the challenge that I've heard and that you've expressed in terms of accessibility of a person, first of all, and a place. And so we will take that into consideration as we work to reestablish the driver resource center so that it does serve well. That is our commitment. I cannot define what it would actually look like right now, but know that we will make sure that as we work to develop this space and this opportunity for engagement, that we're doing so with a lens focused on how we serve the most people with the highest level of care.

Thank you. So looking at washington's driver resource center, it seems like they've produced some pretty impressive outcomes around like reactivations and recovered compensation. So one part of my question is just, you know, if we establish a center here, what outcome should we expect and how are we measuring success? And the second part of that is, you know, this ordinance is being driven in part by concerns about deactivations. So I'm curious, what data does the city receive regarding driver deactivations and what additional information would help us better understand the scale and causes of those deactivations moving forward? And is there a way that we can get more of that data? Where does it live? And is is there something we should do to try to get more of that in our hands?

Uber and lyft certainly have some of that information. That's not the kind of information that's shared with us on a regular basis. Could start a conversation about what changes could look like to the data sharing agreements that that guide that, that we'd have to look at it more closely could require additional code changes though. So, you know, I think that is, is a piece of could be a piece of the puzzle. I think to the first part of your question, councilor Avalos, around outcomes and measuring success. These are conversations we've started this week in in the bureau. As we know, this is probably moving forward to start thinking about what some of those performance measures might be. So at this time, don't have a good answer to that. I do think we can look to folks in Washington state and how they've defined some of those performance measures. We certainly have contacts up in Washington that we've talked to on and off over the years, and we'll probably be reaching out to some of them for their insights and advice as we develop what a procurement could look like.

Councilor. I'd also like to mention that I think it would be incumbent upon us to be proactive versus always reactive. And how might we work with drivers to ensure that there is a full understanding of the rules, the expectations, the working agreements, so that they don't find themselves in a space where they've inadvertently found themselves to be deactivated there. There are things that I know that we can do. Some of those are very simple errors. Sometimes we've all seen a digit off or a letter off, or someone misinterpreting what one wrote based on their understanding of a language. So I believe that the resource center has an opportunity to be a partner versus just a place to go for customer service in the after. It's, it's really the partnership from the beginning. So as has been demonstrated and I think expressed many times, we frequently share information with the body that you see behind us. We talk regularly, we engage often, we all have the bracelets. And so the relationship is not a strained one. It's one that we know that we can seek to strengthen though.

Okay. Hold on. I want a bracelet now. I saw I saw you flashing that. Yeah. I want to be part of the cool blue team. Thank you. And I can appreciate that. Yes, this is early, but you know, thanks for your answers. Understood that there's more discussion to be had, but of course, I'm flagging the areas that would be important to me, at least in how you do those discussions. Lastly, you know, right now we're talking a lot about this as like

Focus on appeals and language access and regulatory navigation. But do you. And maybe this is for you all, but also for the sponsors of the ordinance. Do you see this as primarily a service center, or is this part of a broader strategy to improve conditions and economic stability for drivers in portland's transportation? I just want to get a sense of like looking ahead.

Well, for from from PBOT perspective, councilor Kind of addressed it in the previous response. I don't want this to just be a place that we go to, or that people come to solve the most egregious of problems, but rather they see this as a true resource center, a place that provides for them a level of comfort and care as they navigate what can be a challenging system. I think it will also provide for us the opportunity to ensure that as we engage with lyft and uber and any other of the rideshare operators, should there be any others? And I know that there are not. But in the event that someone invents one, we want to make sure that we're also having that conversation in as much as we can without erring on the side of advocacy as much as it's. Wait a minute. I think you might be misunderstanding something. Let's have the conversation about what the ask is versus what the interpretation of what the ask is. So I see us as more than just a place to come. Bring your, your app and the paper that says that something was misaligned and really a place that provides a wraparound services.

I appreciate that, and I think wraparound services is good. And also, I would love for this to be a place that we can turn to as legislators to talk about some of those, like code changes that might need to come in the future. And just in general, this is a big this is one part of a broader concern, right? We have around the the types of jobs that are available to portlanders and how that is contributing to their economic stability. And, you know, I just hear a lot from portlanders who have these kinds of gig economy type of jobs. And I hope that we can have this be a beginning of that broader discussion and use this as a place to gather the stakeholders who are going to be coming to you with the direct concerns. So I just don't want us to miss that opportunity to connect those dots between helping with the direct concern and then seeing that, being able to communicate that back to council in some way so that we can act on the broader policy changes that need to happen to protect portlanders. Thank you so much.

Thank you, councilor. And, you know, there's always a balance with processes like this. We want the rulemaking process to be able to happen in an effective way at the bureau. So we can't list everything in the ordinance, but we want to list some of those basic things. I hope as you all move forward with the rulemaking process, you're taking with you some of the intent that you've heard from councilor Avalos. I would also note that we heard some questions earlier and unfortunately, meadow jackson with lyft isn't on the line anymore. But we heard some questions earlier that I think you were in the room for about how the driver resource center will coordinate with the tnc and what independence there might look like. And I think all of the all of the concerns and the questions that we have heard are things that could be a part of an RFP process that you receive answers on from the different contract applicants, so that you can see the whole suite of options for how this might work.

Sounds good. Yes. Thank you.

Councilor Ryan. Go right ahead.

Thank you chair. Pirtle-guiney. And thank you, sponsors. I just want to acknowledge the people in blue and how you've been here quite a few times. And you always show up in a way that's relatable, your issues relatable in general. And also you've done it with a lot of patience and kindness. So I appreciate that. I remain a little bit confused still. So this is coming from curiosity. We're very constrained right now with capacity. We're laying off employees. So anytime we're building something new, I just want to always get to the bottom of the mechanics of that. And it's great to have PBOT up here. It could be that the people that presented earlier would come up as well. And again, I apologize, I probably have the least amount of knowledge up here, and I'm okay with that, but it's still a little embarrassing because I, I appreciate how this came about. So we're building something and it starts with, I know you've talked about this already, but this has been built in the state of Washington. It's been built in the state of california, and it's hasn't been built yet in the state of Oregon. When this was being built in the other two states to the north and south of us, did it start in, say, a municipality, local government? And who am I asking this question to? Great.

If you want to go ahead and reintroduce yourself for the record, that would be great.

You don't.

Joe jackson, for the record. Yeah, I just wanted to flag really quickly that the other driver resource center that was mentioned is in the state of colorado, and the driver resource center in Washington did start out at the city level in seattle. As as I am recalling, nathaniel, please correct me if I have that information. Yeah.

So back in 2020, there was an ordinance called the fair share ordinance. Can you hear me? Okay. Do you know this? Okay. You're not on. I was like, I don't think I'm loud enough. All right. Check one, two. Oh, for the record again, my name is nathaniel nathaniel hudson hartman. Great to be back again. Yeah. So in the city. Yes. City of seattle in the year 2020, there is an ordinance passed by seattle city council called the fair share ordinance. And that established, among other things, a minimum compensation standard for drivers highest in the nation. Shout out to the city of seattle and our drivers up there, as well as the funding for driver resource center via a per trip contribution on every ride. And as well, sorry, I'm also leaving out deactivation appeals rights. So that was a really nice package that was passed that really benefited drivers in a meaningful way. Yeah. So this all started in seattle.

When did it become a statewide program.

In 2023. House bill 2076 was passed, but that just kind of expanded the deactivation appeals rights and also like a minimum compensation standard framework statewide, as well.

As mechanics of the building, then transferred from the city of seattle to the state of Washington in olympia.

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question.

That the mechanics then of this transition from the city of seattle to the state of Washington?

Yeah. So that per ride.

I guess I say this to PBOT too, if you've probably been doing this research too, with with city of seattle and w dot.

So the per. So. Councilor. Right? Yes. The per trip funding mechanism. Yes. Transfer to the state. Okay. Yeah.

And that also occurred. Councilor Ryan as part of that bill was a negotiation that resulted in statewide preemption and essentially froze the city of seattle's regulations kind of in time. So those ride fees, for example, have never been increased or changed ever since then. And that was just a part of the overall kind of negotiation for moving the driver resource center from being a local offering to a state offering.

And did your budget of 1.5 million come from studying what happened in seattle and the state of Washington for this resource center?

I believe the driver's resource center in the state of Washington probably has a larger budget and would maybe look to joe or nathaniel to answer that, because, again, it's funded through a a small percentage of every trip that occurs for us. We've done some rough calculations based on limited data to come up with a conservative estimate that the code change that's being proposed here would generate, we estimate, about $1.5 million. And so those new resources could then be spent on this without having any kind of budget impacts on the bureau.

And that includes capacity and staff time. The that's part of the budget impact.

The staff and the capacity would need to be funded through the resources that would be raised with what's included. Yes.

And so this is a estimate, the 1.5. That's correct. Okay. All right. One second. Did I have anything else? So anyway, you've made your case. So clearly I get the problem. I'm trying to be excited about what we're doing here as a solution. Like is this really aspirin to the headache that you have over all the issues that you brought up? They seemed multiple. So I think that's where I'm not struggling. I'm just trying to get excited about what this will actually do. And I don't know if I'm totally convinced, but I'll I'm leaning towards trust. Yeah, I just I think you've laid out so many problems over the last year when I listened to you. And the actual solution here is interesting, but I'm not totally all the way there that this like what will be next after this. And so that's maybe why I wish I understood the evolution in the state of Washington and evolution in the state of california on how this started and what we can learn from them.

Well, we're trying to learn from what happened in california, and that's not what we want to happen in Oregon.

That's helpful to hear.

Yeah. In california. And so in california, uber, lyft and doordash spent over $250 million lobbying for a piece of legislation called proposition 22 that, among other things, creates a fake minimum wage and allows.

People behind you are going like this.

So yeah, it's really bad. Yeah. So I guess, I guess I just want to understand like how to be helpful and, you know, just explaining like is, is, and I don't know if.

Your case study is the state of Washington, then. Yeah. Okay.

Well, I think we can look to the success of the driver resource center and the need that has been really nationwide. Deactivations are a nation. No, they're a global epidemic. Drivers are losing their jobs after investing tens of thousands of dollars in vehicles without any just cause protections without, with just being able to wake up one day and having their jobs taken away and then suddenly having to figure out, well, what am I going to do now? And for a lot of folks, it's not just a side hustle like, this is their job. Job for our low income and our immigrant drivers that love this job. I mean, we all love. We all love what we do. This is this is like the second best. This is the second best job I've ever had, the best job I've ever had. Rideshare driver, not even close. Being of service to your community. And, you know, like councilor Avalos said, thank you so much for recognizing this. You know, we are part of this essential transportation network, right? This inclusive mobility, trying to keep the city moving. But we've been left behind. And so like, yes, thank you. The just having a place to go and having someone to help you and having a safe place to do it. If you're an immigrant driver, which I know you're not, and I appreciate your curiosity, like people just don't understand it. But if you are an immigrant driver and you are, it's under construction, right? If you were on, if you were in, you know, under constant threat of being taken away, and then you had your job taken away. I have literally been into drivers have literally invited me to their house because they are terrified that they're going to get scooped up. And so, you know, just having a place where folks like that can like that is who I think of this list of over 65 people and counting that are out there struggling, that have nowhere to go, that just feel completely helpless and that have invested so much in the job that they love and don't want to lose. That is why we need a driver resource center.

Councilor. Councilor. Ryan, if I may, I think part of the reason you've heard so many different questions or concerns raised by the drivers is also based on the fact that our code has not changed significantly in almost eight years or so. So there's been a number of issues through our private for hire advisory committee, our tnc driver advisory committee, the sounding board meetings that we've been having, where we've heard issues that have been surfaced and we haven't had a great opportunity to move forward with making those code changes. So that, I think, is some of the reason that you've heard a lot of things. I think in talking with chair pirtle-guiney staff as as well as others, it sounds like there is a desire to kind of take things one step at a time and get some, get some wind in the sails and move things forward. Meanwhile, within the organization, we're working on a broader strategy right now to kind of look at code and how we might modernize it, because it is really convoluted and out of date. It's over 125 pages long, which makes it very difficult for a rideshare driver, let alone the tnc, to, to understand. So that's, I think, one, one piece that I wanted to clarify. I think the other piece I just wanted to add and director williams, I don't know if you want to say anything on this is, you know, just recognizing that there aren't a lot of great models out there. And that is because, as I believe lyft mentioned in, in their comments, you know, we are the only state that does not have any form of statewide preemption. The tncs have been very successful at getting local control taken away from jurisdictions. And the other 49 states around the united states. So the kind of progressive policy moves that you all are considering are the kinds of things that local governments can't do in many other places. And so, you know, we have to look to kind of limited case studies to see what what could be done. And I think that's where looking at what the city of seattle has done, it has proven pretty effective.

I really appreciated councilor Avalos questions in general, but especially the ones around what to success look like, and then what metrics we measure to know we're on the right track. And I think for me, I couldn't I would like to hear a crispr answer to that.

We would love to be able to provide a more crisp response as well. I recognize if we're looking at the information that was shared in the presentation about the numbers of drivers who were reactivated, the numbers of millions of dollars that were put into or back into their pockets. That to me is a metric today. I don't know what the full universe of drivers in the Portland market are that have been deactivated. So to be able to state a percentage of reactivation within x number of months, x number of years, x number of reasons is hard for me to state. I would love to be able to provide a more precise answer for what success looks like, but would need a little bit more time to be able to develop those metrics, and happy to come back to the committee to share that.

Thanks. I think that, you know, getting to the 1.5 million is, is obviously been stated several times, but what does that do? What how will all of all of your life be better? Because that goal was achieved. And that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Sure it is again, the reactivation. It is the opportunities to help to navigate if wages have been lost, how to regain those wages. This is not a question about the take rate. It is. It is simply about one's ability to work legally as a rideshare operator in the city of Portland or in the region. So that is what those resources would go to help to provide for people. I don't know that that's one person, a team of people. We're still determining what that might look like. And it may not be $1.5 million. I think the 1.5 is an estimate based on a full universe, but in terms of the numbers of people that we would know that we would work with on a weekly or daily basis, that is not something that I have information on right now. Perhaps nathaniel has a little bit more, but I know he has at least 60. That would be helped by the resource center. That's a place for us to start. But I recognize that there's likely many more. And so we would need to do the work to find out who those drivers are. Work very closely with uber and lyft to identify who those drivers are, because some of them will not come forward without without fear of some other consequence. So we have some work to do in the ways that we introduce the work to ensure that we're getting to the points where we need to be.

Thank you.

And I'll note, councilor, that this may be another item that is appropriate to put in an RFP for PBOT to ask applicants for the contract to identify what success metrics would be and what standard of success they might hold themselves to, and for PBOT to lay out a few specific criteria that they would want applicants to identify metrics around, including number of reinstatements.

I appreciate that, chair pirtle-guiney, because I think that's what people are asking for more and more from us is better accountability and transparency about what we're doing with the money that we're collecting. We've proven over the last ten years locally that we're good at collecting money, but we sometimes aren't. We fail to be clear about what success looks like and what are we measuring. And then how can we humble? How can we be humble when we don't meet those goals? And how are we going to rework it? So I think that's the type of trust that we need to build anytime, even though this is a much smaller amount than some of the stories I have in my head, I just want to make sure I put my voice into that. So I'm all in. Philosophically, I just want to make sure that we get it right in terms of the building. Yeah.

I appreciate that. Chair pirtle-guiney introduced some potential ways to get to the measurements. That would be satisfactory. As it relates to your inquiries, I believe that we would need to work very closely with the crafters of this in order to ensure that we, while putting the RFP out, are meeting those objectives as well.

Thank you. Councilor councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. Okay. We're using the term deactivation a lot. I want to make sure I understand it. Is that the equivalent of getting fired?

Yes. By the app.

And it sounds like a lot of people get deactivated and then they're able to come back. Does that mean they found out what the issue was and then rectified it? Or I'm trying to get a sense of what this truly means from a usability standpoint, I don't care. Yeah, sure. Whoever's got experience, come on up though, folks. You gotta talk in the mic and tell us who you are.

If our leaders from the driver's union want to bring up a member to help answer, I think that's perfectly fine.

All right, I'm rob nesbitt, I rob testified. I remember weeks ago, anyway, I was the activated based on fraudulent activity.

I remember you shared that. Yeah.

Yeah, I all right. So I tried to ask them why I was had fraudulent activity. And every time I sent a message to lyft in their headquarters and that's like ten times, all I heard was we're, we're sending it upstairs to security. And that's like the cyber cloud. And you never hear from anything again. So I never really got an answer to why I was deactivated. And after so many attempts to try to resolve it, I just gave up and said, I'll just do uber. I and I was a five star.

I remember your.

Story with 5500 rides. Okay, so what's happening is these people who are deactivated, one don't know why they're deactivated and they have no recourse. So right now I have uber and I don't know if I call the handicap, I've dropped foot. I can't work at home depot. Yeah. Uber is my that's my main job right now. And if uber was to say tomorrow, you know, you're deactivated. I'm out of luck.

Okay. Thanks, rob.

This happens in as I said, people don't know why they're deactivated and they have no recourse.

Councilor Zimmerman, if I may, you know, drivers could be deactivated for a variety of reasons. Those reasons could be uber or lyft determining that they're not meeting our requirements as a city. So, for example, we have a requirement for drivers to not have more than two traffic violations on their driving record in a two year period of time. And if for some reason that were to occur, you know, they could find out about it and deactivate someone. I'm unclear on how good of a communication that is, and we will sometimes get those calls from drivers and have to kind of explain that drivers can also be deactivated for failing to meet the terms of services through the apps, and it's been a while since I've looked at them. This gentleman's talking about cybersecurity issues. You know, we also have heard stories of people having complaints filed against them for for driving. And they're going.

Themselves where I'd like to go next actually. So I remember a time when I could not rate a driver five stars and it would go through. But now if I choose to do that, I have to go through some long multi screen thing and say why? Maybe I don't want to, but we've gotten to the point where we say, you can't rate somebody less than five stars unless you give a lot of reasons why. And so you kind of go through and you have punch sections, but really it never really meets up to the thing. So there's some they've obviously taken a, they have this goal to kind of, in my opinion, inflate everybody's ratings, right? Because if you can't do a four unless you give a whole bunch of reasons, that seems strange to me, but that's just the app we've got. I don't really care. But in a world where. And I have certainly had some bad experiences and bad enough experiences, I hope they got fired. In. I want to make sure I'm trying to understand the connection here, because I'm looking at the Washington slide. You all shared 2148 drivers back to work after unfair deactivations. I guess what I'm trying to struggle with here is what is the government's role in telling another company who they must, or should employ? And I say that because you all have laid out some really to to all the counselors points, I. I have seen the problem, but I'm what I'm, what I'm really struggling with is the connective tissue to the to the government's role here, because you're not asking us to create a resource center for landscapers or for janitorial services or for other drivers who are not part of the rideshare environment. And so I'm trying to understand that connective tissue here in terms of the role, because I don't I am not saying that people are being treated fairly and that therefore percent is I don't know what an unfair deactivation means, because I don't know who's definition of fair we're talking about. And I see your hand in the back, and I'm trying to get a sense for two or a couple of things. One, can riders still expect to be able to make a complaint on an unfair situation, and that that person gets dealt with in a way that doesn't come back to get the writer in some strange way. But also, I would like to get an idea for you in terms from you, in terms of what you mean by unfair activation. And I am I'm getting there. I'm just really trying to like, I'm going to do some curiosity questions here so we can let's, let's flesh this out. Yes. If you want to go ahead.

Yeah. So I just want to kind of answer as an example of an unfair deactivation. I'm representing a driver who came to me and said that he had an interaction with a writer prior to his deactivation, where the writer said, I'm going to report you to lyft so that I can make sure that there are no longer any teslas coming to pick me up and take me to work. That seems unfair. You know, it's it's a complaint motivated entirely by the type of vehicle.

Which is probably politically oriented. And we all know. Yeah, that's a great example. Yeah, I'm going to I'm going to hold off on the audience members. You guys have some members up here who can answer.

So if I may, I, I would encourage you to reframe, and I appreciate the question. I would encourage you to reframe this a little bit from we're telling someone they can't do something to empowering like local essential workers to have the support that they need to navigate that process. Because right now, like the reality is, is like, if you were to wake up, if you were to wake up tomorrow and your job got taken away without a clear explanation, why, how would you feel? Yeah. Would you think that was fair?

You have no recourse. That's the bottom line. We have no recourse.

And there's a. There's a chance.

Listen, there's. Hold on. Nathaniel. Everybody. Okay? I get that it is a bad situation for it to happen. No one has to convince me of that. What I'm trying to understand here and be very clear about is, does the government have a role for this one industry? Because I'll tell you, I certainly get. Notices, letters, complaints from employees of all types of industries who have been not treated well by their employer, who would like a way of recourse, who would like reinstating to their role and to their job. And so to single out a single industry is a lift for me in my what is the role in government here? And so I am giving you an opportunity to share that in a way. Why you think that as the drivers representation here, why you think that that role? Because what is laid out in this ordinance makes a lot of sense to, to me, right. Being, being get a letter that says, here are the reasons affair sounds good. Should I not extend that to every industry in the city of Portland? Every time you fire an employee, you have to give them a reason. Why is that the is that the question here? So that nobody has to convince me on like, it's not going great. I got that, I really do, and I have a family member who has gone through and tried to get certified by the city, etc. So. So keep please, nathan.

I'd like.

To let our leaders from the driver's union answer this. And then I think that. Councilor. Morillo. And I might have some responses.

I'll do some questions to the to the sponsors as well.

Yeah, I think it's absolutely the city's responsibility because I've seen other cities take up the mantle and decide that they were going to make it their responsibility. So yes, I do think it is.

Okay from a, from a, the, the stats that you gave on the Washington resource, those are all like really good outcomes. I think when my counselor says was really good outcomes. I'll tell you from a writer's perspective, I, as a person who goes to seattle somewhat often, I'll tell you, like it's been a bad experience up there, right there, there. The rides are so cost prohibitive at this point. I actually am choosing different places to stay so I can avoid taking rides, and that's a big concern given the other presentation we had. And the next thing that I know that councilor Pirtle-guiney is bringing, I'm thinking about that a lot, as well as in terms of the future of this, but I think the notice that I'm looking at with this resource center is like for uber and lyft and others, back in the day when you were kind of the on the cheap option as a corporate entity, you were pretty much on the cheap compared to taxis. That's why a lot of us who I think first downloaded the app got very attracted to it. There's nothing cheap about the service anymore. It's quite expensive, which comes with, I think all of us basically took it on faith that we were getting in the car of a stranger in 2015, and we weren't really sure what that was all about, but it was a hell of a lot cheaper and way more accessible than a taxi. And so a lot of us swallowed that pill. We went with it, and it's turned into, I think, a great service for the public. I think that many people make safer choices. Now I'm talking about drinking and driving. I think they make a lot of safer choices now. And that is really, I'll just tell you outright, is what I'm most trying to preserve, is that we don't return to a situation where taxis are the only available thing, because taxis, frankly, didn't show up for us in a way that we needed them to. And I think that's largely why this service expanded. It's it's. Now that you and I'm talking corporate here, if they I know they've signed off, but now that they are an expensive service, I do think they should expect a hell of a lot more in terms of levels of regulation, because if you're going to be expensive and your regular service and it's harder to get a ride, it's more expensive to get a ride, there's going to be a role here for the city. So I'm accepting that. In terms of some of the thought process here about the resource center, you mentioned like legal representation. Our ride share companies required to hire anybody who applies for a, I guess, a contract. I was going to say a permit, but a contract, are they required to hire you?

No, no.

Okay. Are you aware if we ever did anything like this with with actually this is more of the sponsors, did we ever do anything like this with taxi companies at all? Like a resource center. And I just don't know the answer.

There was not something that looked exactly like this. There is a long standing, pretty hefty regulation and an advisory committee within PBOT for the taxi industry, but there was never a recommendation to create a resource center in the way that the ombudsperson program did recommend for tncs.

Okay.

And then what this is really doing is establishing a fee for rides that are being dropped off in Portland. That's the new thing versus rides just that are being initiated in Portland.

There is a patchwork across the country about whether fees are just for rides initiated or feeds fees for rides initiated and ending. And what this would do is clarify that ours is for rides initiating and ending. It's been implemented as just initiated in the past. So it would extend the fee to those that end. We were trying to look for a funding source that didn't increase the cost of that that $2 fee.

So this is this is just the same $2.

It's the same $2. It's not an increase.

And that's where the 1.5 million estimated for program cost is coming from is it's it's the it's that new estimate. So it's not that if I, since I live in the city of Portland and I uber to and from my house to a place in the city of Portland, it's still just the one $2 fee. Correct. But for if I'm coming from my parents house or not in Portland back to my house, then I still have the $2 fee, largely not a large and not a significant change if you ask me. It seems.

That's correct.

And I do want to note that there were some questions about other cities that have fees. And I believe and director, tell me if this is incorrect, that where cities have the same fee structure that we have, there will be negotiations through the implementation process to ensure that there's not a duplication. Is that did I state that accurately? Yes.

Okay.

I don't think you should. I think you should just grab the two anyway. But okay. Because I think that will work itself out to the point where we get none.

Well, I think you've heard some some intent from one of our councilors there.

So okay, this is helpful. God, I have another thought process. Oh. I just want to I guess I want to caution us a little bit in terms of what expectations. Are around the two, the two items of. There's been a lot of it sounds, it sounds like and we're all learning, but I'm learning. It sounds like deactivation is a major hurdle to continued service for a lot of drivers. I'm hearing that very clearly. And what constitutes an unfair or wrongful, I think, is something that I'm in the establishment of a driver's resource center. I don't what I'm reading here, and I've read very closely, it doesn't look like we are establishing what is right or wrong. However, in some of the discussion, particularly with councilor Avalos, the way that the answers were going, it was making me a little nervous that the city now has was maybe going to explore code and ordinances to bring forward about what constitutes a right or a wrong thing, which puts us into the category of telling employers what. And I get it, if it has to do with our standards, which are two tickets or an unsafe car like that makes sense. Not meeting their level of customer service or driver expectation is something that I want to be very cautious about that. And so that was making me a little bit nervous, but that's not what is here. But some of those answers back and forth was it seemed like it leaned that direction. The other part I want to be mindful of here.

I see the director.

It's fine. I'm just agreeing with what the councilor is saying, that we have a set of expectations that if a person did come through the driver resource center, there are certain things that we would be checking for. And if, in fact, we found that there was a discrepancy with the things that we hold as a standard, we would go work with that driver and the tnc company to rectify that. Some of the other things that you're talking about, opinion polls and other things, cleanliness of a vehicle and someone being rated poorly because of that, that is not something that we would negotiate around.

Okay.

The other part too is on background checks, and we were given one example, and that was an unfortunate example of, you know, using a name, maybe a different given name. Let me put it this way. I would rather us be on the side of having to prove than not, because background checks and getting into a car are a thing that we are understanding are occurring. And if your background check, I don't know any. I've been through so many background checks, I don't even know what to do with them. I've had a top secret security clearance for many, many, many, many, many years. If the name you put forward is not the name that finds its way to your documents, you're going to get revoked. And that is going to bump up against cultural hurdles, wrinkles in our system, and having a way to work through that sounds very positive. I think that's going to be a great part of the resource center, but it doesn't mean we get rid of background checks, and it doesn't mean that we stop pushing.

Agreed councilor.

That we would not recommend that either. I believe, again, as has been stated, there are a number of reasons why, and you've even articulated them even in explanation just now, that whether it's a cultural difference, a common name versus a given name, that we find discrepancies. And the hope would be that with the resource center, we could explain to the person, it will be important for you to use this name and not the other name. If in fact your, your, your, your nickname, if in fact you're working toward getting this status. So those are the types of things. And again, as I talk about the wraparound services that we would be able to provide through this resource center, those are the types of things that we would explain why it's important that for this document, this is what you put what you call yourself. You know, that's a different horse of a different color.

Okay.

But the background check is incredibly important.

Yeah. Thank you for, for that. Okay. I. I'm good for now, madam chair. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor, and. I want to note that there was some conversation there about what the city does and what we're passing would lead to a procurement for services from a contractor who would not set our city policy, would not set uber and lyft policy, but rather would help drivers to navigate the policies within both the city and uber and lyft, and advocate for for their help. Those drivers advocate for their needs. When conditions changed. Colleagues, I would like to move Novick pirtle-guiney one, which makes those technical clarifications that I enumerated before this is filed online. It is a red line version of the original so that you can see the additions, which include the addition of interpretation services. Enumerating the type of services that would be offered as including culturally competent information and outreach services, and then laying out a few preferences for the RFP process to give some direction to the bureau in their work. And I would love to have a second on that second. Thank you, councilor Morillo colleagues, is there any discussion on Novick pirtle-guiney one.

Yeah, okay.

Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I think that the majority of those changes are fine, that the last paragraph for me is what will keep me from being a yes on this. I think you're limiting who can potentially perform this work. And so I kind of find it unnecessary in the larger paragraph there. It has to be a nonprofit. It has to be this. It has to be that. So I, I wish it was more broad. I don't know who's going to provide this. And I think would be good to have a broad sense of applications come in for, for this that could, I think, do good work. Who may not meet the qualifications that you're laying forward in this? That's all.

Thank you councilor. I'll note that this is listed as a preference. It is not supposed to be limiting in who can apply or who can be chosen, but rather to provide some direction in the scoring that PBOT does to the types of entities who have been successful in providing resources like this in other places in the past.

That makes sense, except that your two I is are organized as a nonprofit organization. And so you could have people who don't qualify but are very good at your next two paragraphs. And I think that that's a limiting clause here in terms of preference. But I hear you good argument.

Councilor Ryan, are you in the queue for discussion on the amendment?

I don't think so. But I think it's a big picture question that would be helpful. So can I just ask this question before I forget.

Let's have you put the question out there and we'll figure out if we can make it germane to the amendment.

Well.

All right. Anyway, here's my question. How many people currently work in PBOT that focus on this specific area.

On driver resource, or on the regulatory framework for uber and lyft.

The regular.

What the regulatory framework for uber and lyft?

Yeah.

I don't know.

I don't know exactly. It's about a half dozen. We have several to include jacob, who leads in a high level policy area. And then several regulatory specialists. So I'll need to get back to you with the number, but it is less than 12, but roughly half a dozen.

That was added after it was passed by the council and whatever that year that was.

Correct.

Okay. And so passing this, would we have to add more fte to PBOT.

Potentially, but it is not intended to add more fte, especially if we were to go through a contractor to do the work.

Okay. Councilor that was a maybe.

Councilor.

I would note that one of the reasons that the ordinance is written as a dollar amount, not to exceed 1.5 million annually, is to ensure that if PBOT needs to come to us and say, we actually need to have a person overseeing this contract, we can provide for those funds without needing to raise additional dollars or pull that out of other funding sources. Those are conversations that we can have through the implementation process.

And that would be a de minimis percentage of a person's time. If they were a contract manager, I would imagine jacob manages ten different contracts, but he spends the majority of his time doing other things. But there does have to be an allocation of the hour that's spent on the work. So.

Colleagues seeing no other discussion in the queue. Wendy, can you please call the roll on Novick pirtle-guiney one, which I actually think I'm misnaming. I think it's listed as pirtle-guiney. Novick one apologies.

No worries to the amendment, brian. I Morillo. I Zimmerman. No Avalos. I pirtle-guiney. I with four eyes and one nay. The amendment is adopted.

Thank you. And colleagues. Is there any other discussion to the underlying councilor. Morillo I think your hand had been up and I didn't see it when I called for us to move the amendment, I apologize.

Yeah, I think a lot of the questions that have come up, I think, are largely around our different philosophies, around what government should and shouldn't do. And I don't personally believe that we can allow uber or lyft or other agencies to regulate themselves. To me, that is sort of like asking the fox to guard the hen house, and that is why I think that the city council needs to step in. In this industry that is largely unregulated. I would say that the vast majority of things that are being described here are not about the city intervening in individual arbitration for people at all. It's about setting metrics and standards that industry has to follow. And I believe that that's part of the role of government. And, you know, there are going to be different philosophies around that. And what's the scope of that work? If you look at countries like in europe, it is very common for there to be more reasoning and rationale given for why you lay someone off much more strict regulations for people's rights within the workplace. That is not really necessarily our culture here in the us, but I think that it could be, and I think that saying that we can't make positive changes for one industry unless we do it for all of it, is sort of an unfair standard, because that's not really possible for us to do with each piece of legislation. So much of our work is doing good things bit by bit, and to me, that is part of doing this good work. And so I think it's really important for us to to set these standards. The other issues that I've really heard, I think, from from drivers is not that no one should ever be fired or no one can ever make a mistake. The issue is that people are being laid off or fired, not even by a human person that is talking to them and explaining to them why they're not getting any feedback. They're not being told an improvement plan for their work. They're being overnight left stranded in the in an economic desert where they are not being given the opportunity to understand why. And it is not even a person doing it. It's an application. And often because of a mistake or because of a language barrier. So those are the types of things that I hope that this corrects, and that's why I will be supporting it. I also wanted to address, I think, something that councilor Avalos brought up a lot earlier was about the data gathering and metrics that the city would be doing. I think that's something that will happen within the rulemaking. That will happen in conjunction with the data privacy office that we established as well. Those are exactly the types of questions that will be answered when we're negotiating with other industries and agencies that do data gathering on people. So I appreciate your efforts. And because of that, obviously, as a co-sponsor, I will be voting yes. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. I'm going to propose an amendment to paragraph two and paragraph excuse me, paragraph c, paragraph two a.

And it's within the 16.40240 section. There are two sections of code.

Yeah.

This is in the. It must be clearly communicated to a driver when the terms of services have been violated, the drivers access to the platform has been deactivated, and then you have listed one through six. I'm saying that. So if everybody can catch.

Up one more.

Time scrolling where.

So on exhibit a there is paragraph c and then blue paragraph two. That's kind of the bulk of the new change here.

Councilor this is on page ten of the pdf. If that's helpful.

I'm going to propose an amendment that we add seven, which is I'm reading my own chicken scratch here. You guys, I'm sorry, may not include any customer identifying information to the driver being notified or the city. The reason I'm adding that is that. While I believe now it's not happening, I also want to caution that as lyft and uber have to become more accountable for who they deactivate. Some it sounds like some very erroneously, because if you can get 2100 people reinstated in one state, it means there was some weird ones. I am worried that they will, or that there could be potential for. Oversharing in terms of what's coming from the customer base in a way that could be very harmful for people giving reports or. Being kind of a way of maybe either peer pressuring or causing problems of, of that deactivation and that we protect customers if they, if they have to make a complaint that it not come back to them at any time in the future. And so as the city is going to gather data, as our resource center is going to work on, on helping people who've been deactivated, I think having a protective line in there that we don't ever get to say it was because Eric filed this report on December 7th, or because angelito filed this report on, on a different day. I think that that's a very important thing to protect against. And I think if we add that, that stops it from ever even growing any footing in this new data collection, but I think the rest of it will be will be good here. And I'd be curious what. Well, I'll propose it and we can see if anybody has thoughts on it.

Could you repeat it one more time?

May not include. So would be number seven. And I'll just say it says a lot of what it will be anticipated. End date, effective date statement describing the reason for any action necessary for the driver to remedy. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. Number seven would say may not include any customer identifying information to the driver being notified or the city.

Councilor. We have been asked, at the request of our professional staff to make sure that amendments are reduced to writing. So what I'd like to do, because I'd like to make sure that we can discuss that, and we do have about ten more minutes left in committee is ask that you send that in writing to the clerk and our council operations staff so that they can get it out to everybody at the dais. While you do that, we do have somebody who is not available for testimony previously, and we could take their testimony and then come back and have discussion on this. Does that sound possible?

Yeah.

Okay.

But it's already been captured by the clerk.

Do we have it in writing? Okay, then maybe we don't need to reduce it to writing. We'll hold on to any further testimony then. And if you could, christopher, send that out to all of the committee members so everybody can see it. I would appreciate it. And it sounds like the clerk has it as well. Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, councilman.

Seconded. But I would appreciate a second.

Second.

We have a second. Councilor Morillo, are you in the queue for a debate?

Yeah, I, I don't think I'm opposed to it or anything. I think I'm curious as to why we would include this now, instead of having that be part of the rulemaking process with the data privacy office, because they can establish they're going to be experts that are going to establish those safeguards in ways that we probably don't understand, since we are not experts in that. Just out of curiosity.

You know, I think you can probably achieve it in both ways. I think that in an ordinance that is going to say the company must do all these things when it comes to a deactivation notification, setting the basics for how we want to protect portlanders information in that, for me, it seemed like it was related, but I would anticipate that how you achieve number seven would come up in the rulemaking and what constitutes customer information. And it's like the complaint itself or the time the complaint came in. Those are the types of things like that metadata that I think the privacy officer can work with. But I think establishing the goal or the flag allows the data privacy office and other rulemaking to meet the intent of number seven. But if we don't put that there, I don't know that it would happen organically without this direction.

And so for clarity, your amendment just stops customer data from being stored or held at the city level.

So, so I can envision a place where it says, like, nathaniel, we have deactivated you because we got a report and let's say they just say a drive you had on a Friday or a drive you had on Friday afternoon. Or they could say, because writer Zimmerman complained against you on Friday afternoon, those are all things that I want to control against so that you can know it's because of a complaint, but not when the complaint came in or which writer gave you that complaint, because I think that that is actually erroneous to the conversation. And that's, that's what I'm trying to get at in terms of that customer data. And since and the reason I included the city is because I do think we'll probably get an idea for how many deactivations are we going through as a community? How are we, are we seeing we're going to be collecting data if we are collecting data. Here's the other way in which this could harm a portlander is if we collect the data or or lyft or uber gives us the data and it has those types of complaints when they came in for which driver or what customer. Having the city never get that specific of information, just the fact that it occurred, I think is better. And so that would be the intent here.

Okay.

Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: I hear the intent, what I'm trying to think through is. Would that I'm just as I'm hearing the different kinds of scenarios of why people get deactivated and they range from a technicality or something that seems, you know, targeted, like the person who they just didn't want to be, you know, have a tesla driver. And so I think part of why I don't know what to do with this is because I'm not really sure then, like how this kind of information would be used in that scenario. Like if, if it was that scenario that you described and we implemented this, would there be no way for you as the driver to have any kind of information about the why? Like I don't, I agree that we want to protect customers ability to make a complaint in general, but I'm concerned. Does this create a barrier for then the recourse that we're trying to create with this program for people to say, well, if I don't know that it was because somebody is discriminating against me because of my tesla, then how do I like recourse that? So I think that's what I'm trying to.

Think that's why I'm using the word customer identifying information, because in the world of privacy, pii, personal identifying information, those are. Those are things that can identify the the person. And if that's the case, then the nature of the complaint is not identifiable. Right? Whether you said it or I said it or Dan said it, for instance, it's that driver went too fast or wrong way or etc. I don't like his car, but not that a woman on this day made this complaint against you. I think that gets into identifiable information. Or you could just simply say the customer. And so that's why I put that word, because I think the nature of the complaint is important. Because I think I think back to like my first job, I'm sure my boss got complaints about me at some point, but as bosses, you decide whether or not you're going to action that and how they took that. And if you're actually going to do anything with it, but also having a conversation with an employee and be like, hey, we got this notice about you, but you don't, you can address the notice about you without addressing where it came in from. I think in the majority of time, particularly if you start, if the if we are sensing that they're coming in for some of the. I think I'll editorialize the bad reasons that we've heard some really, you know, terrible reasons that people have said that is that still gives them all the reason to be like, this is not a, a justifiable complaint or it's not something we're going to worry about. But even if somebody gives a really bad complaint, I don't know that that should come back on that customer, that portlander they have every right to like push the little stars or not stars, but saying that it's this person or that person who made it would be something I think we would

Would want to prevent. Against. So it's just not customer identifiable. It still allows the substance to exist.

I hear that. I think what I'm working through in my head is just like, sure, agree that, you know, like a boss to an employee can give general feedback and not be identifiable. And I think there's also scenarios where like, as the employee, I'd be like, but you can't tell me anything else. Like there's a lot of people that I, you know, had a ride with and the context might matter enough to like make my case. So I think that's why I'm grappling with this. I get the intent. I don't want the unintended consequence to be then that we're creating more barriers for recourse. Because that's the whole point of this like office. So I don't I don't feel super strong. I can, I think as long as we don't feel like this will create an ability or an inability for somebody to be able to share or to, to get the right kind of feedback that they need to make the change or to plead their case. Do you have a comment on that? I'll recognize you if you'd like to respond.

Yeah, I just if it's helpful. Councilor Zimmerman when a driver is deactivated, there's absolutely no personal information that gets shared with the driver. In fact, post ride, like if you're a driver, you can't even go back into your trip history and see the name of a rider. Okay.

Or I'm.

Trying to preserve that.

Yeah, okay.

That's fair.

And the companies have been there and they're of course not here to speak for themselves. But I mean, one of the justifications we hear for deactivations a lot, you know, with the lack of information that they share with us is them trying to protect the riders privacy. So, okay, that's the one thing.

That's helpful.

Then they've been very consistent.

I think then that, that if that's already practiced, then maybe this won't affect that. So thank you. Sure.

They would attest to that if they were here.

Yeah. Sounds good. All right. Thank you.

If possible, I would love to clarify that. That story about the driver who drives the tesla, all he had was the speculation based on the experience that he had with a passenger around the time frame that he was deactivated. There was no actual messaging about what happened or what they complained about.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you all.

Thank you. Counselor Avalos, counselor Zimmerman, the way this would read with your amendment would be notifications must be sent to the driver in writing, in either electronic mail or post, and must include with a list of what must be included, and then something that says may not include. And I'm wondering if, for the sake of clean code, you would be open to having a new be notification sent to the driver may not include. And then moving the current b to c.

I'm fine with that. If it's as a standalone paragraph, I think it's actually a scrivener's change and wouldn't require. Yeah that's.

Fine.

It is a scrivener's change. I think that if you are open to that.

Make seven b, make b c got it.

Make seven b make b c. I believe that the clerk and christopher have that language in front of them. I'm wondering if we can get it to folks to look at and see if you would be willing to move the amendment in that form for the sake of clean code.

Yeah.

We are at 502. I'm hoping we can get a vote on this amendment before we close.

Dan, since you seconded for me, I'm going to I'm going to move an amendment to add paragraph b may not include any customer identifying information to the driver being notified or the city, and by adding that number or that letter b, it makes our current b numbers, makes it c. Would you second that?

Yes.

Second drop the other one. Great.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, wendy, can we take a very quick vote on this amendment?

Ryan. I Morillo. Know Zimmerman.

Avalos I.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Colleagues, is there any other discussion, in which case we will move this to another meeting, or can we take a quick vote?

Just a quick, quick thing, I think. Are you recognizing me?

I'm recognizing you, counselor.

Zimmerman, just from a discussion.

Standpoint, I think that this is challenging, not because there's not a need. I really I see the need. What I think is challenging is to do a thing for one industry, and I'm really wrestling with that. So I think as we go forward and as we do this. I hope it makes a better situation for our drivers, for our riders, that it makes the industry healthier. And I say that while there is a threat on the horizon that was testing our routes last week and the week before. And so I'm very concerned about our future of this because I'll tell you, I like a city that has ride share and options in it as readily available as they are. And some of the cities that we cited as success models, I'll tell you, are some of the hardest cities in places that I choose not to engage in that service anymore. And so I'm going to take this vote as a yes, but I'm very cautious about it. And I'm looking to everybody for how do we describe to the next group who isn't regulated by the city, how to regulate improvements in their workplace areas where they're being harmed? And I just I think that's a great struggle for us because there are a lot of industries who are not sitting here because they're not in our code. So I'll take a I'll be supportive of this today. And I think that the tidal wave is coming at us. And I'm worried what that looks like in just a few years, because there's a city down the coast that I don't love how it looks, but I think they're coming for us. So thanks.

Thank you. Councilor. Councilor. Ryan.

Final word.

Yeah, I will go ahead. And support this because of the need and the great work done by the lobby that's been coming to us for over a year. I will be reaching out to PBOT between now and the final vote, and I have more questions just about the operational functionality of this.

Absolutely.

And so if I change my vote, it's because I'm not clear we have that down. Thanks, colleagues.

I'll hold my final words in the name of time. It sounds like folks are ready to move toward a vote. Wendy, could you please call the roll and then we'll get everyone out of here?

Madam chair, could we get a motion and a second, please?

I apologize, is there a motion to.

So moved.

Thank you, councilor Morillo. Second. Thank you, councilor Avalos. Wendy, could you please call the roll?

Ryan. I. Morillo. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I pirtle-guiney. I with five eyes. The ordinance, as amended, is moved to the full council with a recommendation that it be passed.

Thank you. And with that, I will close today's meeting. We're doing a quick photo.

Are we doing that outside?