at 7:00 in the morning or so, i will get the first briefing at 7:45. i will have a briefing about a cop 30 with the attorney general -- about 8:30 with the attorney general. the rest of the day will be spent in the field visiting offices. there are a number of issues that you have to address in washington, national security issues that come up. it is generally a series of meetings. what has driven us in the last 10 years is the threat of terrorism. that is why we spend the first hour or two everyday addressing terrorism. people ask about how we manage it. occasionally say, not very well. there are those who think i should not be micro-managing.

management books will tell you that shyou should be on the balcony and of the dance floor. i agree with that generally. the two areas where if you spin attention on that you hope we will not mess up too badly, one of them is terrorism. i have to be knowledgeable to respond to questions that president obama has, as i did for president bush. that means making certain my organization puts me in a position to respond to that. the other area i have not done as good a job is on bringing in information technology. early on, we were putting in new case management system in. i did not ask the hard questions. i was told we had a system that would go in july. we would flip a switch. in the back of my mind, i

wondered how that would happen. on the one hand, you have technologists or geeks who know how to do this. then you have the people know and understand the business practices. the challenge is to approve the business practice, bring on new technology, utilize people who know the technology but not the business practices. i realized i have to be much more involved. they have to convince me that what is happening is right for it to go forward. the two areas where i spend substantial time during the day are terrorism and information technology. >> you mentioned briefing two presidents you have worked closely with. we do have questions that asked about how you might assess the similarities and differences between president obama and president bush.

[laughter] >> it is not that different. both individuals and the persons around and care about one thing, that is protecting the american public. everything else is secondary. both presidents have the same desire to assure the american public is kept safe. there may be a difference in nuanced ways in terms of how they ask questions. in terms of a desire to protect the american public, there is no difference whatsoever. >> washington is a famously complicated place when it comes to agencies working together. you have set a little bit about the fbi and cia and their improved relationship. what would you say about the current state of the inter- agency process? >> out in the field, those

differences disappear. it is back in washington where you have much more butting of heads or issues relating to agencies. we used to butt heads with the a -- dea. now it is no longer a priority, we do not but heads with them. the biggest thing has been with the international intelligence agencies, national security agency. the willingness to sit down and exchange of information, understanding that we collect and different authorities. the cia and nsa collected overseas under looser authorities because they're not affecting united states citizens. we have the responsibility of doing the intelligence gathering

in the united states, understanding is american citizens we are attempting to protect. we have to do it under the constitution and applicable statutes. the sharing of that information and working together has gone light years since september 11. having been through a number of battles over the years, the focus on the mission trump's just about everything else. what is difficult is coming up with an organizational structure to address cyber in all of its manifestations. fraud schemes are now on the internet. the dissemination of child pornography and the like have integrated to the internet and the field of cyber. cyber intrusion, the

exploitation of information is in the cyber arena. how we address that is going to be a huge challenge in the years to come. " we are about to run out of time. i am going to ask you three brief questions. you can address any piece of this that you like. you have such a serious job. what do you do for fun or to relax? that seems to make an assumption about time to relax. have you seen the movie "j. edgar"? when the movie "mueller" comes out, who should play you? >> i have not seen that movie. i ride bicycles, play golf, and read. >> our thanks to fbi director robert mullueller.

please remain seated at the conclusion of the program until the director has left the room. i am a former special assistant to the president. this meeting of the commonwealth of california is adjourned. [applause]

>> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla,

the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that

to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially

camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need

incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need

information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for

our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and thank you very much for joining

>> i am jeff idakia, and i provide legal representation to 20,000 people every year. it is our goal to ensure that we

have the best legal representation possible. we started this nine years ago, to increased consciousness and awareness of the issues that affect public safety in criminal and juvenile justice reform. i am proud to say that this is the ninth summit. we take on issues like closing the california youth authority. and we in the confinement of youth -- young children in -- and the prisoner re-entry program and abolishing the death penalty. we take on three critical issues. the first panel has a riveting discussion about gangs. and reducing gang violence. on our panel are former gang

members, gang intervention workers, police, public defenders, and researchers. we talk about strategies to reduce gang violence. i will introduce the keynote speaker in a moment. the second panel is a cutting edge -- cutting edge discussion about the relationship between the human brain and criminal behavior. we have top experts from all parts of the country to talk about what the brain research shows. that is the key to understanding how human beings behave, and why they may commit acts of violence. the afternoon's panel will have a debate about a proposed law

that would reduce felony drug possession crimes to a misdemeanor. this is what 13 states have done. we not only bring these issues to the forefront, but have the opportunity to participate -- and we have cards that you could fill out and questions. this promises to be a year of reform and change like we have never seen, and we now see prisoner reentry programs being implemented. we're still spending too much money and resources and not enough on rehabilitation and reentry. this november, the voters will decide on limiting the three strikes law. issues and measures long overdue.

it is clear there is much more that needs to be done. according to a study that was published this month -- since 1989, 2000 people have been wrongfully incarcerated and they served collectively, 10,000 years. an average of 11 years person. i would like to thank the people who made this summit possible. memoranda -- amy devon -- many volunteers and all of our speakers and panelists. i would like to thank the co- sponsors, and the bar association of san francisco. i would like to thank them for

their help and support. it is my pleasure to introduce the president elect of the bar association of san francisco. they provide conflict attorneys to handle cases when a defender is not available. >> i am the president elect of the bar association. we're very proud to co-sponsor the justice of it. on behalf of the 8000 members, and all of those who -- dedicate their careers -- we are very fortunate to have his leadership with top-notch legal representation. for those who were charged each year who are innocent.

an important part of the mission is providing equal access to justice. this is shared by his office and all the public defenders. we're proud of the conflict panel that he described, and we also provide the top-notch representation in matters that his office cannot handle. we applaud you for what you do and for those of you who could not make it, thank you very much. this year's public defender simon will be an interesting day, full of cutting edge issues. gang violence and brain science and crime, these are issues at the forefront and deserve all of our attention. this is a greatat>> your going p

with me because i liked to wander around and see faces. you have learned more about me that a lot of people know. for the last 10 years i have been married to someone who was a deputy chief of the lapd and i now refer to him as being in recovery. at the same time, i have been working extensively with home with industries, and my brother said, if he had dreamed i would be married to a policeman and working with a priest, somebody would be lying. i have been working with gangs and been involved with gangs, trying to figure them out for 34

years. i began as a young social worker in south los angeles. with gang infested housing projects that are now almost mythic, jordan downs and nickerson gardens, and i worked in these projects during what is referred to as the decade of death, when crack and unregulated gun availability laid waste to communities of color. in los angeles during the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were 1000 homicides per year in the city of los angeles, not the county, the city. now, we have between 203 hundred homicides per year. people talk about the gang

problem having been addressed. i want to share with you, what i experienced, what i have learned, i am not a typical academic. i will not quote statistics to you or talk about theories. i will talk with you about practicality. pragmatic approaches, and i will talk about reality. san francisco, like los angeles learned, will never saw or deal with its gang problems effectively unless there is true collaboration. i will talk to you about what this looks like and feels like. i will speak to you about the lessons that we have learned as law enforcement had to come off of the high perch, in los

angeles, law enforcement learned, to their great fortune, that collaboration is the answer. i am going to talk to you about some of the lessons that were learned. i can tell you first that the people -- we have learned lessons from have been gang members themselves my research is engaged with talking to those current, active gang members and former gang members. i work to collect their life histories. we have over 300 life histories. and still the stories do not stop. what did we learn about people in gangs? i recall early on, sitting down

with someone whose gang name was smiley. he is written about in my book. smiley was a young man of 19, when i first sat down with him at home when industries. one thing he said to me was -- why was no one there for me. why does no one speak to me and why did nobody tried to stop this. he was arrested when he was 16 years old. he was told to lie about his age and say he was 18, so they could be together in jail. and from there his story unfolded. different things were done with him. ultimately, spile -- smiley was

helped, but his words haunted me. why did no one speak to me, and why did no one tried to stop me. i began to listen to the stories of the gang members, and my research team at ucla discovered some startling truths. gang members to leave the gangs. they leave the gang for a variety of reasons. they all have a turning point, when they decide to leave. and it changes them. this would be something that any of you would logically imagine. for female gang members, and we did not see many of them on that video, but they are out there. they are not mothers, they are active gang members. female gang members, the turning

point came at the birth of a child. for male gang members, the picture is more complex. it may be, surprisingly, it may be because they got their second strike, and they're frightened of getting the third. it may be because of the birth of a child, usually a sign. the gang world has not caught up with post-feminist theory. with the story that a gang member named maniac told me, he decided to leave the rolling 60's after 20 years, after achieving status. he was in the back seat of a car, being driven by one of his underlings in the front seat. one of his fellow gang

associates got in the back seat with him. the associate said to move over. maniac did not want to move over. maniac did not want to move over. the associate shoved him over and 10 seconds later, a gun was shot and the bullet came into the car, pierced the associate to the neck and killed him instantly. maniac said, if he had not shoved me aside i would be dead. i am done. that was his turning point. call it a turning point, called the teachable moment. use whatever terminology that you want. that is where we need to be present. when i say we, i mean,