Correct, any Virginians who want to reserve in person on the 31st have to drive many miles, through the nation's worst traffic, to camp out at Tyco or Tyson's. If there were a store in Richmond, life would be sweeter
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla seeking to open Richmond facility
- Thread starter LetsGoFast
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Mid-Atlantic USA
Correct, any Virginians who want to reserve in person on the 31st have to drive many miles, through the nation's worst traffic, to camp out at Tyco or Tyson's. If there were a store in Richmond, life would be sweeter
HookBill
Member
Shouldn't we refer to the opposing party(s) as VA DMV/GM? Lets make sure the entire picture is being painted here.
HookBill
Member
There are plenty of us, but the dealer guy is seeking to drag it on as long as possible presumably in an effort to suppress or discourage public comment.
On the plus side, after lunch the Tesla attorney is more aggressive about objecting and trying to move things along.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Also on the plus side, the longer the dealership testimony goes on, the more untruths are told. Rebutting those should become easy talking points for all of you. Have at it!!
Any updates guys? I know Techmaven was there to testify as a Richmond resident and he stuck it out for 8 hours to avoid the "dealer filibuster." I understand Diarmuid was there with some good counsel for Tesla as well. Hope this went well and sent a good message of advocacy in VA.
roblab
Active Member
Thank you both for representing! And if you're stopping by O'Malley's, we'd love to hear about it first hand and thank you in person.
Also, our best to @linkster (and bride
This sounds exactly like what I watched when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) blocked the sale of EVs in California back in about 2002. Ford got up and talked for 2 hours. EV drivers got ~3 minutes each. Somebody ought to do physical damage --oops, I didn't say that.
Frustrating (stalling/delaying by design) day today. Would be great to pack the small hearing room (again) on April 25th for the scheduled continuance.
Tesla, auto dealers group spar at hearing over proposed Richmond store
Tesla, auto dealers group spar at hearing over proposed Richmond store
Thank you @linkster, @techmaven, and anyone else who went.
Stalemate isn't a loss, but you all must be so frustrated at wasting a day there.
So, the Monday after Earth Day, huh?
I wonder if Plug In America, Tesla or someone else has a ready-made info & petition package that we can leverage between now and then...
Or maybe we can create a social media site with all of our "dealer horror stories" to collect signatures electronically?
@bonnie (and other people who have been in this battle longer, forgive the omission through ignorance)- you've probably considered and rejected/adapted a gazillion ideas like this already - any suggestions?
Stalemate isn't a loss, but you all must be so frustrated at wasting a day there.
So, the Monday after Earth Day, huh?
I wonder if Plug In America, Tesla or someone else has a ready-made info & petition package that we can leverage between now and then...
Or maybe we can create a social media site with all of our "dealer horror stories" to collect signatures electronically?
@bonnie (and other people who have been in this battle longer, forgive the omission through ignorance)- you've probably considered and rejected/adapted a gazillion ideas like this already - any suggestions?
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Frustrating, yes. But def not wasted. I saw Diarmuid last night when he got back from Virginia. The owner presence makes a huge difference. So if even MORE show up on the 25th, it will send a strong message.
Cat - no on the ready-made petitions. This whack-a-mole game within the different sates brings around different issues/focus each place. Unfortunately that makes it impossible to reuse the same rebuttals. (And I'm positive they read these threads, have good reason to say that - have watched the argument change to counter what they believe owners will be saying.)
So those of you that were there, here's my suggestion: You heard the arguments and points made during that long mind-numbing response. Let's open up a conversation again, let's look at all of it, and go from there.
I'm so behind on things because of work and had no idea TMC intended to open up an operation here. Sorry I did not attend.
Funny story. Friend of mine who dreams of owning a Tesla ended up at a group lunch table with a lobbyist for the NADA. My friend is highly sympathetic to the notion that dealer networks for automobiles are antiquated, unnecessary, and no longer protect consumers. He spent the better part of an hour explaining to the man exactly that. Said it was like trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle.
I will email Mr. Holcomb today though.
Edit: Email sent.
Funny story. Friend of mine who dreams of owning a Tesla ended up at a group lunch table with a lobbyist for the NADA. My friend is highly sympathetic to the notion that dealer networks for automobiles are antiquated, unnecessary, and no longer protect consumers. He spent the better part of an hour explaining to the man exactly that. Said it was like trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle.
I will email Mr. Holcomb today though.
Edit: Email sent.
Last edited:
So, I'm not a lawyer therefore I may have missed some subtleties, but I have spent a life surrounded by attorneys and probably know more about the process than the average bear. This hearing was pretty weird -- it was conducted in a quasi-judicial fashion, with a wink and a nod towards the rules of evidence, although the hearing officer had a tendency to admit lots of stuff that never would fly under either the commonwealth or federal rules of evidence. You'll see more later.
I arrived about 30 minutes early, but true to form I received an emergency call from my office and ended up leaving and returning about 5 minutes into the proceeding. Comically, I was afraid I would miss most of the action. After an awkward crawl over a few audience members in the very closely spaced seats, I settled in to watch the VADA attorney who was addressing some motions. He was arguing for a continuance, saying that he had not had adequate time to prepare for the hearing and making the point that Tesla used pretty much the same presentations in Arizona and Georgia (something he would return to time and time again). He was also concerned that the date was set to coincide with the opening of the mega-auto dealer's conference in Vegas, which made it difficult to being his dealers along. As a semi-professional poker player, I can say that the auto-dealer's conference is one of the best times to play poker in Vegas because of the large numbers of people with lots of money and not very good poker skills.
The hearing officer (Mr Small) eventually declined the motion. He said that he didn't know about the convention and apologized about it. One interesting thing that he mentioned was that he was not inclined to even allow the dealers to join in the hearing at all, but was persuaded by someone else in the office that he really should. It set the tone somewhat that Mr. Small was skeptical of their motivations.
The only other motion I recall was a motion in liminae where the VADA sought to exclude certain aspects of the expert testimony because they didn't have adequate time to prepare. This was never going to be granted because if Mr Small thought that it was prejudicial, he would have granted the continuance. As expected, he denied that motion as well.
Mr. Small was acutely aware of the audience and often addressed asides to us to explain certain aspects of the proceedings. In other hearings I've been to, that doesn't happen. This was starting to take on many characteristics of a city council hearing more than a judicial proceeding.
Mr. Small asserted that Tesla has said that they will never have dealers no matter what. He seemed concerned that this might be problematic vis a vis Virginia code. This goes on to be a very weird point throughout the day. Tesla sometimes very clearly supported this point -- testimony included a claim that denying them a factory store was denying a Richmond location -- that was the only way they would do it. Other times, under cross-examination, they would refuse to state plainly that they wouldn't ever consider it.
The VADA attorney is on this in his opening. He says that if Tesla wants to be completely free of the dealership requirement, they should take that to the legislature and not try to do it here. He also repeats this idea frequently throughout the day. At some point, it becomes pretty clear that the VADA guy is more or less openly antagonistic towards Mr Small. It seems very clear to me that he expects to lose at this first level. Apparently, there is a right of appeal to the DMV commissioner as well as state court remedies and it becomes more and more obvious that some of his strategy is to get Tesla and their experts to be committed to things under oath so that he can use that later to impeach in subsequent forums.
At one point, Mr. Small said that he had read the expert testimony from both sides. The VADA guy frostily pointed out that they hadn't submitted any. Mr. Small seemed unfazed by this.
Both sides made brief opening remarks. Tesla primarily focused on the narrow question of the public interest. This is super important because it goes to the Virginia code that makes it illegal for a manufacturer to operate a dealership unless "the Commissioner determines, after a hearing on the matter at the request of any party, that there is no dealer independent of the manufacturer or distributor, factory branch or distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof available in the community to own and operate the franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest"
This is the whole battleground. Tesla's position is sort of two-pronged. One argument is that no dealer will be willing to do it because under their rules no dealer can possibly make a profit and the other is that they want to have vertical integration so that they can focus on the education and transformation of the transportation sector and that the associated results are in the public interest (better environment, less dependence on foreign oil, less exposure to weasel tactics from dealerships, etc).
I'm going to break this into multiple posts. In the next installment, I'll tackle the expert testimony.
I arrived about 30 minutes early, but true to form I received an emergency call from my office and ended up leaving and returning about 5 minutes into the proceeding. Comically, I was afraid I would miss most of the action. After an awkward crawl over a few audience members in the very closely spaced seats, I settled in to watch the VADA attorney who was addressing some motions. He was arguing for a continuance, saying that he had not had adequate time to prepare for the hearing and making the point that Tesla used pretty much the same presentations in Arizona and Georgia (something he would return to time and time again). He was also concerned that the date was set to coincide with the opening of the mega-auto dealer's conference in Vegas, which made it difficult to being his dealers along. As a semi-professional poker player, I can say that the auto-dealer's conference is one of the best times to play poker in Vegas because of the large numbers of people with lots of money and not very good poker skills.
The hearing officer (Mr Small) eventually declined the motion. He said that he didn't know about the convention and apologized about it. One interesting thing that he mentioned was that he was not inclined to even allow the dealers to join in the hearing at all, but was persuaded by someone else in the office that he really should. It set the tone somewhat that Mr. Small was skeptical of their motivations.
The only other motion I recall was a motion in liminae where the VADA sought to exclude certain aspects of the expert testimony because they didn't have adequate time to prepare. This was never going to be granted because if Mr Small thought that it was prejudicial, he would have granted the continuance. As expected, he denied that motion as well.
Mr. Small was acutely aware of the audience and often addressed asides to us to explain certain aspects of the proceedings. In other hearings I've been to, that doesn't happen. This was starting to take on many characteristics of a city council hearing more than a judicial proceeding.
Mr. Small asserted that Tesla has said that they will never have dealers no matter what. He seemed concerned that this might be problematic vis a vis Virginia code. This goes on to be a very weird point throughout the day. Tesla sometimes very clearly supported this point -- testimony included a claim that denying them a factory store was denying a Richmond location -- that was the only way they would do it. Other times, under cross-examination, they would refuse to state plainly that they wouldn't ever consider it.
The VADA attorney is on this in his opening. He says that if Tesla wants to be completely free of the dealership requirement, they should take that to the legislature and not try to do it here. He also repeats this idea frequently throughout the day. At some point, it becomes pretty clear that the VADA guy is more or less openly antagonistic towards Mr Small. It seems very clear to me that he expects to lose at this first level. Apparently, there is a right of appeal to the DMV commissioner as well as state court remedies and it becomes more and more obvious that some of his strategy is to get Tesla and their experts to be committed to things under oath so that he can use that later to impeach in subsequent forums.
At one point, Mr. Small said that he had read the expert testimony from both sides. The VADA guy frostily pointed out that they hadn't submitted any. Mr. Small seemed unfazed by this.
Both sides made brief opening remarks. Tesla primarily focused on the narrow question of the public interest. This is super important because it goes to the Virginia code that makes it illegal for a manufacturer to operate a dealership unless "the Commissioner determines, after a hearing on the matter at the request of any party, that there is no dealer independent of the manufacturer or distributor, factory branch or distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof available in the community to own and operate the franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest"
This is the whole battleground. Tesla's position is sort of two-pronged. One argument is that no dealer will be willing to do it because under their rules no dealer can possibly make a profit and the other is that they want to have vertical integration so that they can focus on the education and transformation of the transportation sector and that the associated results are in the public interest (better environment, less dependence on foreign oil, less exposure to weasel tactics from dealerships, etc).
I'm going to break this into multiple posts. In the next installment, I'll tackle the expert testimony.
The first expert to testify was Diarmuid O'Connell, who is a VP at Tesla and apparently one of the old guard there. He is well-spoken and his direct testimony was clear and well-presented. It didn't really contain much information that would be new to us, but it covered a lot of ground in explaining Tesla and their mission. It did a good job of balancing the rah-rah save the planet stuff with more clear eyed profit motivated business stuff. Probably the one thing that was closed to news to me was that he said unequivocally that if Tesla ceased R&D and only produced that S and X, they could operate as a profitable company. This has been sort of hinted before, but I've never head a Tesla exec state it that flatly as a fact. As those of you who invest know, it is difficult to separate the Cash Ex that is R&D oriented from that spending that is needed to operate their business base. His direct testimony only took about 40 minutes and included a walk-through of the ordering process and website, a description of the compensation for the store folks and a few digs at the dealer model. He comes across as a likable guy and clearly has a solid understanding of what Tesla is trying to do.
The cross-examination of O'Connell was a complete disaster. Not so much in the sense that he gave up much ground, but it was tedious and confrontational and ended up making both parties look bad, although the dealer's attorney was very much the biggest loser if there was a jury. He starts out reading a letter from one of the dealers in the room behind him to Elon Musk. In the letter, the dealer expresses interest in starting a Tesla dealership in Richmond. There is an endless series of questions about if O'Connell saw the letter before (he saw it yesterday when preparing for this testimony), did he discuss it with Musk personally? Did he discuss it with Musk on email? Did he discuss it with Musk on twitter? Did he discuss it in a boat? In a moat? O'Connell points out that it was one of a thick package of identical letters sent by other dealers and that he regarded them as a litigation tactic and not as serious business proposals. They go back and forth about why did he think it was insincere, I didn't use the word insincere, etc etc. Then there is a long series of questions about did he know who this lady was? Had he ever met her? Did he look her up on "the Google machine?" How does he know she isn't qualified? Did he send her an application? Pretty much the whole deal was answered in the first two questions -- he never saw the letters before yesterday, no one in the company took them seriously, no one investigated the qualifications of the dealers because they weren't interested in recruiting dealers.
I didn't get too worked up, because that is how lawyers work -- poke at things from every possible angle. So fine, I can sit through this. Thankfully, he finally runs out of steam and instructs O'Connell to turn the page. The gallery is relieved to finally have a new topic. But no. It is another letter. From a different dealer sitting behind him. And he pretty much asks all the same questions.
Guess what happens next? Yep, another letter and all the same questions. And another. And another. And another.
I'm alternating between reading the email/text of the newspaper photographer in front of me who is juggling at least eight different conversations and playing games on my phone. I'm envious of his foresight in bringing laptop, iPad and phone to the hearing and a bit concerned that his social life is too hectic.
Sometime during this process, O'Connell becomes really frustrated and starts to get more combative with his answers. I totally understand it, but it probably wasn't the best tactic. It leads to some weirdness later as he appears unwilling to confirm things like Tesla's unwillingness to consider an independent dealer model that he has already stipulated on direct.
I'm somewhat frustrated by Tesla's attorney, because it seems to me by the third letter, the obvious thing would be to stipulate that they have the same answers to every one of these letters and that it is wasting everyone's time to do the same thing over and over. In a real court a judge would have stomped on that stuff even without an objection. Unfortunately no one objects and this goes on for at least 90 minutes, maybe even two hours.
Normally, even the relaxed atmosphere of a public hearing, outbursts from the gallery are really frowned upon. So we are all sitting silently watching this travesty. Finally, someone (I apologize if I met you and should know which owner this was), stands up in the gallery and objects, saying that this is a ridiculous waste of time and can we move on to another topic. The VADA attorney looked as surprised as anyone both at the outburst and at the fact that the hearing officer doesn't seem to mind. He says something frosty like "I don't know who that gentleman is" and is told "I'm a member of the public and this is a public hearing" The hearing officer agrees with him and requests the attorney to move on. Unfortunately, he was already on his last letter, so it didn't save much time. Another audience member, emboldened by the new development that we can comment on the proceedings, describes the proceedings as a filibuster by the VADA attorney designed to preclude any meaningful information from being shared. Mr. Small thinks about this for a while and decided a 30 minute lunch break is the right thing to do in order to calm things down.
When we return from lunch, the tone is different. The Tesla attorney is more pro-active in objecting to stuff as irrelevant and the audience is now much more prepared to interject. We move a bit more quickly through the remainder of the cross examination. Unfortunately, at this point I realize that the continuous usage of my cell phone to take notes and play video games is going to crush my battery before this exercise draws to a close, so I don't have much in the way of notes from this point onward, despite it being more substantive. Next time, I'd bring a battery pack and at least an iPad.
Specific areas where I know he hit O'Connell after lunch include:
The cross-examination of O'Connell was a complete disaster. Not so much in the sense that he gave up much ground, but it was tedious and confrontational and ended up making both parties look bad, although the dealer's attorney was very much the biggest loser if there was a jury. He starts out reading a letter from one of the dealers in the room behind him to Elon Musk. In the letter, the dealer expresses interest in starting a Tesla dealership in Richmond. There is an endless series of questions about if O'Connell saw the letter before (he saw it yesterday when preparing for this testimony), did he discuss it with Musk personally? Did he discuss it with Musk on email? Did he discuss it with Musk on twitter? Did he discuss it in a boat? In a moat? O'Connell points out that it was one of a thick package of identical letters sent by other dealers and that he regarded them as a litigation tactic and not as serious business proposals. They go back and forth about why did he think it was insincere, I didn't use the word insincere, etc etc. Then there is a long series of questions about did he know who this lady was? Had he ever met her? Did he look her up on "the Google machine?" How does he know she isn't qualified? Did he send her an application? Pretty much the whole deal was answered in the first two questions -- he never saw the letters before yesterday, no one in the company took them seriously, no one investigated the qualifications of the dealers because they weren't interested in recruiting dealers.
I didn't get too worked up, because that is how lawyers work -- poke at things from every possible angle. So fine, I can sit through this. Thankfully, he finally runs out of steam and instructs O'Connell to turn the page. The gallery is relieved to finally have a new topic. But no. It is another letter. From a different dealer sitting behind him. And he pretty much asks all the same questions.
Guess what happens next? Yep, another letter and all the same questions. And another. And another. And another.
I'm alternating between reading the email/text of the newspaper photographer in front of me who is juggling at least eight different conversations and playing games on my phone. I'm envious of his foresight in bringing laptop, iPad and phone to the hearing and a bit concerned that his social life is too hectic.
Sometime during this process, O'Connell becomes really frustrated and starts to get more combative with his answers. I totally understand it, but it probably wasn't the best tactic. It leads to some weirdness later as he appears unwilling to confirm things like Tesla's unwillingness to consider an independent dealer model that he has already stipulated on direct.
I'm somewhat frustrated by Tesla's attorney, because it seems to me by the third letter, the obvious thing would be to stipulate that they have the same answers to every one of these letters and that it is wasting everyone's time to do the same thing over and over. In a real court a judge would have stomped on that stuff even without an objection. Unfortunately no one objects and this goes on for at least 90 minutes, maybe even two hours.
Normally, even the relaxed atmosphere of a public hearing, outbursts from the gallery are really frowned upon. So we are all sitting silently watching this travesty. Finally, someone (I apologize if I met you and should know which owner this was), stands up in the gallery and objects, saying that this is a ridiculous waste of time and can we move on to another topic. The VADA attorney looked as surprised as anyone both at the outburst and at the fact that the hearing officer doesn't seem to mind. He says something frosty like "I don't know who that gentleman is" and is told "I'm a member of the public and this is a public hearing" The hearing officer agrees with him and requests the attorney to move on. Unfortunately, he was already on his last letter, so it didn't save much time. Another audience member, emboldened by the new development that we can comment on the proceedings, describes the proceedings as a filibuster by the VADA attorney designed to preclude any meaningful information from being shared. Mr. Small thinks about this for a while and decided a 30 minute lunch break is the right thing to do in order to calm things down.
When we return from lunch, the tone is different. The Tesla attorney is more pro-active in objecting to stuff as irrelevant and the audience is now much more prepared to interject. We move a bit more quickly through the remainder of the cross examination. Unfortunately, at this point I realize that the continuous usage of my cell phone to take notes and play video games is going to crush my battery before this exercise draws to a close, so I don't have much in the way of notes from this point onward, despite it being more substantive. Next time, I'd bring a battery pack and at least an iPad.
Specific areas where I know he hit O'Connell after lunch include:
- a lot of inquiries into the financials of the Tyco Road store. He is trying to get a P/L for that store or at the very minimum a list of expenses related to that store. O'Connell declines and pretty much says that the financial operations of the retail operation aren't his area.
- The consumer reports article where they knock Tesla on repairs. O'Connell handles this one pretty well, pointing out that they continue to report extraordinary customer satisfaction levels, just that they see high repair rates. He asserts that these are primarily teething pains and that newer model have fewer problems.
- He walks though a variety of customer complaints he's found on various forums. Some are valid, many are trolls, like the short who posts ridiculous stuff on the NHTSA website. He has a lot of questions about how Tesla tracks these complaints and ensures that they are responded to. O'Connell mostly asserts that these aren't his arena, although he does express confidence that they are handled. I'm assuming he is trying to avoid discovery hassles, because even I know the basics of how they track these issues. He does address the NHTSA stuff by pointing out that many of those reports are well known to be invalid. Someone from the audience points out that the "engine falling out" one is a well-known troll.
- He addresses the recall. The VADA guy tries to make it look bad, but I though O'Connell handled it well. I'm pretty sure this one also drew an audience comment.
- At some point the Tesla attorney objects. Mr. Small agrees, saying "I thought your position was that you thought Tesla was great and you wanted to open Tesla dealerships, why are you trashing them?" The VADA guy pretty much lays out that he's more concerned about the record for future proceedings and more or less doesn't care if Small thinks its irrelevant.
- The attorney attempts to drill through the 10K, but he doesn't seem to be very sophisticated about financial statements, because his questions are goofy. He seems to be trying to establish that Tesla might not be a viable business going forward, but doesn't have the tools to even slow O'Connell down on that front and he gives up, although he returns to it with a subsequent witness.
- There are a large number of questions calculated to identify what he should ask for in discovery. He wants to know about email retention policies and archiving (although he isn't able to articulate that is what he wants, even with some help from O'Connell) and he asks a number of questions trying to determine what other Tesla officials he should depose. At some point it came out that he tried to depose Musk and got the cold shoulder from Tesla.
From the Richmond Times Dispatch...
http://www.richmond.com/business/local/article_89325cec-f0da-58f0-a687-3a3e925d8c66.html
http://www.richmond.com/business/local/article_89325cec-f0da-58f0-a687-3a3e925d8c66.html
Similar threads
- Article
