Philadelphia Parking Authority/Bureau of Admin Adjudication--New Rules on BAA from Court of Common Pleas

**Jim19130** · 07-22-2012, 08:21 PM

Judge Tucker's July 19, 2012 order in Pavlock v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication begins to bring the PPA, and its adjudicatory arm, the BAA, into line with what the law in PA require at local admin hearings. More needs to be done to reform the PPA and BAA, though.

People generally don't know this, but everything about contesting parking ticket at BAA hearings is loaded against citizens. In creating the BAA, City Council stated in the ordinance's legislative findings that (although) the BAA is supposedly "neutral" and supposed to adjudicate parking tickets "fairly," its mission in part is to "increase the collection of parking program revenues." Sounds like a blatant conflict of interest to me.

Moreover, in writing the enabling legislation on how BAA hearings are to be conducted, City Council THREE TIMES enacted things that made it easy for the PPA to win at hearings. First, the said the only thing that is necessary to prove a violation at a hearing is the hearsay ticket itself. Period. SECOND, City Council stated that no city (PPA) representative is is ever required to appear to appear at a hearing. THIRD, the ordinance left off an important right found in Pennsylvania Administrative Agency law (Title 2, Pa C.S. Section 544): "Reasonable examination and cross -examination SHALL BE PERMITTED (at administrative hearings like parking ticket hearings). By doing all of this, City Council loaded the hearing process against citizens fighting tickets.

Even the modest acknowledgements to citizen rights found in the Philly BAA ordinance have been ignored by PPA and BAA over the past few years. Tickets are now not signed by the ticket writer (in direct violation of the ordinance requiring that they be signed by the officer) and BAA has routinely accepted this. Over the past few years, PPA ticket writers now merely write down the city-block of the location of the vehicle instead of the precise location. They're trained to do so (it's in their Enforcement Officer's Handbook!). In the Pavlock vs BAA case reported in the Daily News on 7/19/12, the BAA hearing examiner admitted that they NEVER bring in ticket writers to hearings, that ticket writers don't sign the tickets, and that ticket writers are TRAINED to write down the city block and not the exact location of the car. If you go to a hearing at BAA, before you go in, PPA prints out a record of your ticket history for the hearing examiner, which he is aware of when he's "fairly" adjudicating your present ticket. They never write down the reasons for an adverse determination either. All of this makes for a hearing that violates due process, PA law and Philly ordinance.

Last week, Judge Tucker issued an order making things a little fairer for citizens fighting tickets. He said that BAA has to institute procedures forthwith to afford citizens the right to examine and cross examine ticket writers, with advance notice to the BAA. He said that BAA can't adjudicate you liable on a ticket if it isn't signed (in accordance with existing Philly ordinance) and if it doesn't identify the precise location of the vehicle violation. He also said hrg examiners must issued their reasons and findings if he finds you liable. These reforms help to level the playing field a bit.

You should be aware of Judge Tucker's order when you fight a parking ticket. Get a copy of the 7/19/12 Daily News, which has a copy of Judge Tucker's order in it. The PPA is in the business of making money with brutally efficient parking enforcement, and has the BAA hearing examiners in their back pocket. Hearing examiners accept without question standard practice of PPA ticket writing, and have ignored PA law and other ordinance which guarantee rights to citizens. PPA and BAA have little accountability. PPA sponsors a Parking Wars reality TV show that mocks hapless citizens and tourists who have their cars towed. Is this what Lincoln described as government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? People in Philadelphia are fed up with how the PPA and BAA are run, and ought to petition their City Council to make changes!

**darthsinatra** · 07-22-2012, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jim19130

Judge Tucker's July 19, 2012 order in Pavlock v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication begins to bring the PPA, and its adjudicatory arm, the BAA, into line with what the law in PA require at local admin hearings. More needs to be done to reform the PPA and BAA, though.

People generally don't know this, but everything about contesting parking ticket at BAA hearings is loaded against citizens. In creating the BAA, City Council stated in the ordinance's legislative findings that (although) the BAA is supposedly "neutral" and supposed to adjudicate parking tickets "fairly," its mission in part is to "increase the collection of parking program revenues." Sounds like a blatant conflict of interest to me.

Moreover, in writing the enabling legislation on how BAA hearings are to be conducted, City Council THREE TIMES enacted things that made it easy for the PPA to win at hearings. First, the said the only thing that is necessary to prove a violation at a hearing is the hearsay ticket itself. Period. SECOND, City Council stated that no city (PPA) representative is is ever required to appear to appear at a hearing. THIRD, the ordinance left off an important right found in Pennsylvania Administrative Agency law (Title 2, Pa C.S. Section 544): "Reasonable examination and cross -examination SHALL BE PERMITTED (at administrative hearings like parking ticket hearings). By doing all of this, City Council loaded the hearing process against citizens fighting tickets.

Even the modest acknowledgements to citizen rights found in the Philly BAA ordinance have been ignored by PPA and BAA over the past few years. Tickets are now not signed by the ticket writer (in direct violation of the ordinance requiring that they be signed by the officer) and BAA has routinely accepted this. Over the past few years, PPA ticket writers now merely write down the city-block of the location of the vehicle instead of the precise location. They're trained to do so (it's in their Enforcement Officer's Handbook!). In the Pavlock vs BAA case reported in the Daily News on 7/19/12, the BAA hearing examiner admitted that they NEVER bring in ticket writers to hearings, that ticket writers don't sign the tickets, and that ticket writers are TRAINED to write down the city block and not the exact location of the car. If you go to a hearing at BAA, before you go in, PPA prints out a record of your ticket history for the hearing examiner, which he is aware of when he's "fairly" adjudicating your present ticket. They never write down the reasons for an adverse determination either. All of this makes for a hearing that violates due process, PA law and Philly ordinance.

Last week, Judge Tucker issued an order making things a little fairer for citizens fighting tickets. He said that BAA has to institute procedures forthwith to afford citizens the right to examine and cross examine ticket writers, with advance notice to the BAA. He said that BAA can't adjudicate you liable on a ticket if it isn't signed (in accordance with existing Philly ordinance) and if it doesn't identify the precise location of the vehicle violation. He also said hrg examiners must issued their reasons and findings if he finds you liable. These reforms help to level the playing field a bit.

You should be aware of Judge Tucker's order when you fight a parking ticket. Get a copy of the 7/19/12 Daily News, which has a copy of Judge Tucker's order in it. The PPA is in the business of making money with brutally efficient parking enforcement, and has the BAA hearing examiners in their back pocket. Hearing examiners accept without question standard practice of PPA ticket writing, and have ignored PA law and other ordinance which guarantee rights to citizens. PPA and BAA have little accountability. PPA sponsors a Parking Wars reality TV show that mocks hapless citizens and tourists who have their cars towed. Is this what Lincoln described as government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? People in Philadelphia are fed up with how the PPA and BAA are run, and ought to petition their City Council to make changes!

When does the judge's ruling take effect as law? When PPA/BAA file their appeal, is this new ruling in limbo until an appellate court rules? How far can PPA/BAA take their appeal process? If I go to adjudication Monday, is my hearing examiner bound by this new rulings? Will he/she even be aware of it? Where are the teeth in the ruling? What happens if the BAA simply ignores the ruling?

**Jim19130** · 07-22-2012, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by darthsinatra

When does the judge's ruling take effect as law? When PPA/BAA file their appeal, is this new ruling in limbo until an appellate court rules? How far can PPA/BAA take their appeal process? If I go to adjudication Monday, is my hearing examiner bound by this new rulings? Will he/she even be aware of it? Where are the teeth in the ruling? What happens if the BAA simply ignores the ruling?

the order is in effect today. they can be in contempt of court if they don't abide by the ruling while it's in effect. PPA/BAA can apply for a stay and take an appeal.

**Jim19130** · 07-22-2012, 11:01 PM

Please post the outcome of your hearing and the hearing examiner and, if the hearing examiner says the order is not in effect, do a "Right to Know" request to the BAA for a copy of the recording tape. They will produce a copy of the tape recording from your hearing (they have to!). Each agency has a Right to Know officer (you can check on line) and BAA has to respond to a records requests within 5 days of your request being emailed/faxed or mailed. I think because BAA is technically different from PPA (or at least supposedly) you'd have to make your request to the BAA, since the hearing was there. Check "Right to Know" in PA on line.

You should email polaner@phillnews.com, that's the email of the Daily News reporter,Ronnie Polaneczky, who broke the story. I'm sure she'd be interested in knowing BAA isn't following the court order as she reports regularly on PPA and BAA.

**Gio7707** · 07-23-2012, 12:57 AM

Yes baby ...the fight is on ..

**Malloy** · 07-23-2012, 07:56 AM

Great thread!

**Gio7707** · 07-26-2012, 02:52 PM

Interesting news and not at all surprised..

'Slimy' move over PPA tickets

This isn't the first time BAA attorneys have canceled disputed tickets to avoid answering to a Common Pleas judge.

On Wednesday, the PPA announced that it will work in partnership with the Pennsylvania Convention and Visitors Bureau to create online classes that will train PPA staff to be pleasant when they interact with the public.

The idea is that the PPA's numerous frontline workers — ticket writers, taxi drivers, tow-truck operators and the like — can be goodwill ambassadors as they work the streets. Even if they're doing a job that no one appreciates, if they do it with a smile, the thinking goes, everyone will be a little happier.

You know what would pleased the public even more?

If its parking-enforcement officers were better trained, so fewer tickets would be written in error — or better mannered, so they would stop writing bad tickets purposely.

If all of its BAA hearing officers, who are supposed to neutrally examine appeals, were actually competent enough to inspect the supporting documents that aggrieved ticket recipients take the time to assemble.

And if the PPA and the BAA, after telling an aggrieved ticket recipient to "take your case to the Court of Common Pleas," stopped using the "moot" trick to slime out of accountability when it looked as if the court's decision might force them to up their game.

If the agencies did these things, the need for those online hospitality classes would be moot.

**sharkey** · 07-29-2012, 02:34 PM

I got a ticket Fri., and what is interesting is that it was written by a PPA stiff (as opposed to a Phila. Police Officer) and yet it was written on one of the old fashioned carbon-copy forms as opposed to being created by the automated electronic devices they normally use. In the past, any ticket from a PPA stiff was always created on the electronic ticket printer. Perhaps the PPA has taken heed of Judge Tucker's order and ditched the electronic ticket printers because they do not provide for a true signature on the ticket.

**darthsinatra** · 07-29-2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by sharkey

I got a ticket Fri., and what is interesting is that it was written by a PPA stiff (as opposed to a Phila. Police Officer) and yet it was written on one of the old fashioned carbon-copy forms as opposed to being created by the automated electronic devices they normally use. In the past, any ticket from a PPA stiff was always created on the electronic ticket printer. Perhaps the PPA has taken heed of Judge Tucker's order and ditched the electronic ticket printers because they do not provide for a true signature on the ticket.

Meter maids in training have to use the handwritten paper forms for a period of time before they get the little printer thing.

**nickster** · 07-29-2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Gio7707

Interesting news and not at all surprised..

'Slimy' move over PPA tickets

This isn't the first time BAA attorneys have canceled disputed tickets to avoid answering to a Common Pleas judge.

On Wednesday, the PPA announced that it will work in partnership with the Pennsylvania Convention and Visitors Bureau to create online classes that will train PPA staff to be pleasant when they interact with the public.

The idea is that the PPA's numerous frontline workers — ticket writers, taxi drivers, tow-truck operators and the like — can be goodwill ambassadors as they work the streets. Even if they're doing a job that no one appreciates, if they do it with a smile, the thinking goes, everyone will be a little happier.

You know what would pleased the public even more?

If its parking-enforcement officers were better trained, so fewer tickets would be written in error — or better mannered, so they would stop writing bad tickets purposely.

If all of its BAA hearing officers, who are supposed to neutrally examine appeals, were actually competent enough to inspect the supporting documents that aggrieved ticket recipients take the time to assemble.

And if the PPA and the BAA, after telling an aggrieved ticket recipient to "take your case to the Court of Common Pleas," stopped using the "moot" trick to slime out of accountability when it looked as if the court's decision might force them to up their game.

If the agencies did these things, the need for those online hospitality classes would be moot.

Charm school for PPA ticket writers at the taxpayers expense? What a crock! This reminds me of when the LCB spent taxpayer money for classes for their store employees to learn how to be more 'customer friendly' so now they say "have a nice day" and "thank you."

**Gio7707** · 08-08-2012, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by nickster

Charm school for PPA ticket writers at the taxpayers expense? What a crock! This reminds me of when the LCB spent taxpayer money for classes for their store employees to learn how to be more 'customer friendly' so now they say "have a nice day" and "thank you."

wait ..it gets better ...:

Opinions mixed on Phila.’s proposed $4 parking-ticket surcharge

**emoney** · 08-08-2012, 07:01 AM

Parking Wars; PPA to photograph license plates of violators

The Philadelphia Parking Authority says its ticket writers will begin photographing the license plates of parking violators in an effort to address complaints from residents – and out-of-towners - who get notices of violations and say they were never in Philadelphia on the day the tickets was issued.