Hearing

A hearing was held in San Francisco on February 6, 2001, at which time the Consumer Services Division (CSD) put on testimony and exhibits relating to the admitted violations and additional violations of the same type since issuance of the OII. Quenga's operating authority is currently under suspension. (Tr. 44)

As an affirmative defense, Quenga called witness Zincke, a representative of the consulting firm hired to assist Quenga in getting into compliance with the laws and requirements of the various agencies of the State. This witness testified to the work he had done with Quenga and stressed Quenga's need for continued guidance in meeting these requirements. (Exh. 1) Zincke characterized Quenga's compliance problems as "minor infractions." (Exh. 1) On questioning by the ALJ, Zincke agreed that driving without a valid driver's license and driving while under suspension by this Commission were not "minor infractions." (Tr. 120-121) Zincke testified that Quenga is now in compliance with the various regulations regarding safety and that Quenga agreed to retain a consultant to ensure that he does not regress. (Exh. 1)

Quenga also assumed the witness stand and admitted that he had not followed the rules and regulations of the Commission, the CHP, and the DMV. (Tr. 142) He stated that he was confused by the amount of the paperwork and did not understand all that was required of him. (Exh. 1) He stressed that he had passed all of the vehicle inspections of the CHP. He also said that he needs his charter-party license, since in-state work accounts for approximately 40% of his business. (Tr. 128) In response to a prepared question he stated: "As the owner of this company, I promise to follow to the absolute best of my ability, all Laws, Rules, Regulations and Orders of the Commission and the CHP, if Charter Authority is restored to HAFA ADAI." (Exh. 1, p. 5)

Since the allegations of the OII were admitted there is no question that the violations as alleged were committed. A CSD witness testified that this included 18 instances where Quenga operated after revocation of his authority (Tr. 94); four instances of using drivers who did not have valid commercial licenses (Tr. 94); and continuing violations of many of the other allegations. (Tr. 94-97) Likewise, there is no question that these violations provide grounds to revoke the operating authority granted by this Commission. The only question is whether there is sufficient mitigation to warrant a lesser penalty. Quenga gave every appearance of taking to heart the seriousness of the offenses that he had committed. His assurance that he would continue to hire a consultant to help him live up to his new commitment offers some comfort in this regard.

Detracting from this comfort is Quenga's admission that to the date of the hearing he had not taken a drug test for which he had previously failed to appear. (Tr. 137)