hiccup, i would recommend that perhaps you go forward with daytime. every day that we don't have an earthquake we are one day closer to one and we need to have eyes in the sky that we are responsible. it's very important to me that we move forward more quickly. >> if i could just comment on that. i see the applicability. there were plans in place working with dem this large scale throughout the city we would most likely not be using drones but helicopters but for lesser emergencies to use during the day, that would be something we would be looking at.

>> commissioner covington: in mission bay it would have been helpful to have drones you could watch youtube and see. that would have been helpful. thank you. vice president nakajo. >>.>> thank you very much presit cleaveland. chief cochrane i am the one who called in presentation. for us on the commission it's been my experience that as one ascends to a command level that very often the commissioners don't have the opportunity to dialogue or hear concepts and ideas. part of the reason why i wanted to have you present was first of all, welcome to our command level and i know that you have been part of that. >> thank you sir.

>> as all of the officers carry a tremendous amount of experience within this department and part of that is as you ascend to your various responsibility areas administratively, an area of expertise thus the homeland security and homeland security for ourselves and this is how the commissioner responds in terms of questions or comment. it might take a few minutes mr. president for them but homeland security is an area that has grown tremendously in terms of responsibility. i for one want to hear all your responsibility areas because your responsibility areas are vast. terms like homeland security, special event, mobile command

center, these are all where we have to learn as well. i appreciate the definition because in all things as a commissioner we learn as we participate and sometimes everything that we learned is not completely comprehensive. i am also interested in the drone program as well. i am interested in the sense that it's very, very basic in terms of tools that can enable our department in terms of responsibilities that we have. part of it, and i know there is reference of amateurs and individuals out there using drones because it seems like everybody has a drone or can get one. one grandson had one and flew it and lost it and i know that folks are doing them for

whatever purpose top appear on tv or have a go camera. i know that folks want to help us with the uses of the drone, but we as a department at this particular time, i know that we are not quite clear as to what that process is. not that we can't use that but not quite clear as to the process of the city as well. to me a drone program if we are going to implement it, has to be very clear to me as a commissioner as the usage and parameters and cost of that and to have operators that can do that and how that corresponds within the command staff and yourself in terms of operation. for me there is a lot of things that have to be set in place. appreciate very much commissioner veronese that you are writing legislation in terms of that, but part of it for myself just sitting here and i

know you have suggestion of lights and levels but i am not versed on drones other than what i see and what i hear, so i know that we are a ways away from it and i am curious how to police department handles that and what they do within their rank. i know it is a tool but if that tool isn't utilized by us within our control, i will be very concerned about that. i think we need to have clear responsibilities of how we utilize that and that is where i'm coming from as a commissioner. i appreciate all your comprehensive description in terms of your description. i just think it's a vast responsibility. i see in your report references to grant or funding sources, so

i appreciate that as well as we move forward within it, so i don't have any particular question, but i wanted to comment on the discussions that we have had so far on the variable. chief i'm going to look forward to your continuing report. i do have a question. you said you are responsible for the overall city emergency plan is that correct. >> i'm not personally responsible, dm does that but i am on several of their committees, so an overall emergency response plan, which i truly feel in the beginning will be heavily weighed upon in the fire department in fuel, transportation, communications, fire fighting, and i can't remember the other committee right now, so those are daily meetings we try to interject the fire department's role in how we speak so when the disaster happens everybody is on the same

page. every instance i have been to i know it will help. >> so just as a scenario, when emergency city wide occurs that command center is intricate part of that. in terms of the fire department, who is our point person in terms of the overall responsibility? >> the chief of the department is in charge as far as a major disaster and if we institute a recall and who goes where. >> okay. chief hayes-white that means you are go to church street command and -- >> i am on it vice president nakaja. o. it's a well coordinated, well practiced event that we are constantly planning for. i have become what is called the

policy group. typically we would responsibility to turk street and the policy group is mayor or designee. we form the policy group and there is a group that we would have reputatio representation. depending on nature of the emergency, we would activate department operations center at headquarters and we may have someone assisting at the pd, so it can expand or commissioner covington depending on the nature of the emergency. we have rebust recall procedures but we have a bench of people who can perform that role, so we don't necessarily count on any one person.

if i was out of town the acting chief would be chief consultan consultant -- >> i appreciate that. i know that all of us have the ability to go down to emergency center and see how that operates as well. thank you very much. >> commissioner veronese: thank you mr. president. on the drone issue, to commissioner nakajo and commissioner covering to be i don't want to take credit for the document. it was drafted by then chief francisco. this is being done all over the

country already. we are the center of technology but way far behind on this one, so a lot of programs and procedures and how this is set up in departments this is all already done by some of the departments even in the bay area. when you see it, i think you will confident yourself that a lot of those questions are already answered for you and once it's presented to you if it's not answered we can add further content to answer those questions for you, so i guess that is the part of this process of drafting this policy and having it before you. if your questions aren't answered they will be in the final draft of whatever it is that we approve. one question for you chief. back to the boat. talking about happy things this is a pretty cool tool. i noticed it has two fire extinguishing apparatus on it. do you know the specifics of

like how these differ from the ones on the sink francis? >> not exactly. myself and chief went and looked the other day. it has monitor nozzles and fire fighting capability. >> probably not as powerful. maybe you can just get me the information. >> definitely not as powerful as the saint francis. >> thank. >> i would like to say that the two monitors that are currently on the new moose boat, they would have about two thousand gallon per minute capacity which

is the equivalent of one of ou r fire engines right now. there is a remote control monitor on the front of the boot that has a spray mist pattern and there is a monitor that can be used manually. this boat has the c burn or chemical response capability if the boat responded to an incident where the air was contaminated the crew could stay inside of the cabin and we have air scrubbers that would clean the air and they would be able to remotely use the fire fighting nozzle on the front without having to leave the cabin, so that is one of the main uses of that boat in terms of fire fighting but also it has

multipurpose and can be used as a dive platform. >> what were you saying the output was? >> 2,000 gallons per minute. the saint francis is 18,000 gallons per minute. it is a little bit more than that, but this is basically compatible with our fire engines out on our city street. 2,000 gallons is a lot of water and it uses seawater, it has inlets, so it's basically an infinite supply. >> because it has less depth to it, it can get closer to fire. >> it is a twin hull catamoran design. it would able to get into close area even under a pier where a lot of fires occur you would

have a lot of access as opposedd to a taller boat. >> as far as speed and i'm not suggesting you would have this at the top of your head. this boat i mentioned is a lot faster than the saint francis in. >> yes. it's probabilitily 40 miles per hour top speed on the moose boat approximately. >> where are we keeping this moose boat? >> i think that is still being decided at this time. i am not really sure. >> do we have the space at the saint francis yacht club where we have our other boat? >> i believe there is a slip available. >> this boat isn't replacing the last boat? >> no. that has a different operational features than the previous north bridge boat. >> is this boat being manned or

womaned by the people at station 35 or going to be assigned to station 16 for example like the other boat. >> so i'm not really sure who is going to initially staff the moose boat, but in the design build for station 35, there is a berth for the moose boat and it would be staffed and run by the members of station 35. >> thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you. commissioner hardeman. >> commissioner hardeman: thank you. you have a difficult job i enjoyed working with your predecessors, chief francisco, and i think the responsibilities that you have for protecting san

franciscans is enormous. as far as the drones go, prodrones doesn't mean you have to have drones up and running. i am not pointing any fingers at you. you should not have to worry about whether or not someone wasn't rescued in a fire and if we had a drone or not. speaking from myself and the other commissions feel strongly it could be a good tool. i think that the time commissioner veronese has put in deserves to be rewarded. i think first responders generally are going to find a

need for this and whether we get a light on them eventually. it has absolutely nothing to do with you, so i wouldn't take it personal in any way. going to the giants game, they have those huge planters to stop somebody from but those are quite expensive. have you seen them chief? they are enormous. they have to weigh an awful lot. we had this situation in toron toronto. somebody invested in these barriers going around major thoroughfares seems to be something that's going to be expanded as this seems to be one of the worst problems society faces for protecting the

citizen. anyway, in your dealings are they talking about like at the -- three feet high metal or concrete barriers. are they going to be everywhere we go, a sad situation trying to protect the public from these trucks running up on curb. i don't know if that is a topic that is something that you see a lot of now? >> i don't know if the city is placing them throughout the waterfront. it is a topic as far as domestic or foreign terrorism is the trucks, so i know what you are talking about at&t park. that is a topic. what you saw in toronto the

other day -- >> commissioner veronese: , so any way i don't mean to belabor that, but something that seems it's going to be a concern for san francisco and not necessarily the fire department. mayor ferro came out with something about cleaning the streets basically of the -- out there. joe, head of san francisco travel bureau was claiming that our streets are dirtier than any other city around and that is not just a statement but a fact, especially if you travel, which many of us do and exposed to

that are our first responders and our firefighters and emts and sheriffs and police departments, so i commend joe alesandro for speaking out. wlike the mayor said, he doesn't necessarily have a place where he can put everybody, but you can't be allowing the conditions that we have put the rest of society through with all the filth and the drugs that are drug-laden streets, so i would like to comment mayor good for speaking up. san francisco cannot have the dirtiest streets in the country. it's just not acceptable.

our firefighters have to deal with it and they shouldn't have to. they should not have to repeatedly go out and try to help somebody save their life and have to deal in the filth that they are exposed to, so i said that on your time. thank you. >> thank you sir. >> president cleaveland: commis. >> commissioner covington: i wanted to point out concerning the drone policy that when chief francisco was in this position, there was a huge symposium held by the metal park fire department and i went along with him on that journey and spent six hours learning about drones and hearing presentations by leaders in the field, so i just wanted to remind my fellow

commissioners of that because i didn't mention that when i was making my comments regarding the need for a drone policy. i just wanted to point out that i have more than a passing familiarity with this and i continue to read up on the subject. thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you commissioner covington and thank you chief cochrane for your report and welcome to the command staff. madam secretary would you call the next item. >> item 6. report on the last activity since april 11, 2018. >> >> speaker 1: any comment on this? seeing none public comment is closed. >> vice president nakajo: this would be on the gardens of the city meeting that i attended and

before i report that and a very support summary i appreciate your comment commissioner covington in terms of the drone comment and it was good to be reminded commissioner. appreciate that. mr. president and colleagues, i went to the meeting of the gardens of the city. i attended april 14, 8:30 meeting. the issue at hand that we were going to get clarity on. again, it might be detailed for the public, but we did have some antique rigs removed for the academy of arts property towed to treasure island with the aspiration of putting them temporarily. i emphasize the word temporarily. we were looking at tow costs being extended by surplus

dollars of the 150th and there was a projected dollar figure of that. while i am talking i might need the assistance of the finance director to come up here at some point. one of the issues that the temporary covering chief francisco was there at meeting and our strategy was to put it into a protective wrap and before we wanted to get to that point some of the concern ises of the guardians of the city weren't notified of that. the dialogue turned to concern that the shrink wrap that we were projecting would not let the antique rigs breathe, etc. what i came away with is that

may not be the best solution for us in the department. we posed it to guardians of the city to come up with a solution if there is some objection to the wrap. the issue of the wrap is that there is a cost associated with that so from the department's point of view we thought there was surplus dollars from the 150th anniversary that we could refer to in an attempt to get clarity at this board meeting. what i picked up there is no call for that for lack of better description any surplus to refer to, which is basically news to me, which is part of the reference to director corso about indeed is there surplus dollars and what is that amount? not that i need ratification of

that but that is what i have been working off from. some of the members of the guardians asked questions why are you looking at a nonprofit to come up with dollars to pay for the wrap,, etc, so that discrepancy needs to be cleaned up because i thought there was a surplus to be referred to. i have want to be careful with that it's not individuals that i'm looking at. the mission of fining out that the tow was covered. i need verification if that happened. the application of the antique rigs are not going to occur. sound like there is no revenue source for that. sounds like the guard yans we

talked a lot about transparency and communication. i was given information at the cherry blossom parade at the front of the parade by a member that was there that kind of indicated and i need ver i verification of chief francisco that they have a way of putting ropes around them so they can breathe. we are supposed to have a memorandum of understanding and i thought all this time we identified the steps of the guardians that have been to be taken and one was a financial statement and i'm looking for verification if i'm wrong on that and one was proof of insurance. so those two levels after years of pursuing the memoranda and

understanding, i thought was going to be forthwith and as i exited that meeting i was approached by one of the members of the guardian that said they would be more than happy to conclude the responsibility of the memorandum of understanding but they are waiting for it to come out of the city's office. i got very what is the word, dismayed by that. that, exasperated. that dialogue, mr. president, some years ago we were at the point where it was in the city's attorney's office and i thought it came out and i thought we were at the level and i asked the director what is the next steps and i thought it was an insurance verification and then we would have the document of formal relationships if you will and basically i'm hearing it's

back at the city attorney's office. i do need verification since i am a representative of the commission exactly where it is at. do we not have any money from the surplus of the 150th. if the document of memorandum is in the city attorney's office, let's verify that and get that out so i can verify that statement and proof of insurance. i'm taking time to narrate this because this is the same kind of verification of information that we have been trying to do for year. the conclusion is that we have no advance conclusion to the antique rigs at treasure island. i assume that the solution is going to be a cover suggested by the guardians of the city and there is where it lies.

mr. president, the certification to have it complete before next steps and i assume there is going to be some next steps so we have work to do to resolve this and that is my report. thank you mr. president. >> president cleaveland: thank you mr. vice president. mr. corso do you want to say anything or ms. gandland did you want to say anything about the status of our rig. >> mike corso vice president of planning. as far as an update from our meeting internally not the one that he had from the guardian. the understanding was we would be receiving insurance

information from the guardians of the city. we have received some i think there is a little bit more required but we are running it by the risk manage as how that applies to the mou because based on the level of their can churns influence their level of mou. there was another agreement pertaining to the financial reporting from guardians of city and there was an agreement they would be sending over by the 25th today updated financial report as part of the request from the fire commission. i have been at mou negotiations this week so i haven't been at my desk but as of monday i have not received anything so i will be following up with them on that but that is the last pieces we have been waiting on. >> president cleaveland: did the department cover the cost of

transporting? there was a cost of transporting the rigs to treasure island. did we cover that cost? >> guardians of city covered that. >> just one more question. there seems to be some discrepancy that the commission needs to be clarified with that there was reference of surplus dollars from the 150th. understanding that some of that surplus dollars, i don't know what the accurate figure is. i heard something like $60,000? >> correct. ato my knowledge at the end of the festivities there was 70 or $78,000 remaining in that 150 account and that funding ask the result of all the donations

received as part of the 150th festivities. to my knowledge there were no further expenditure. accesthey have their own accounr their organization and they created a sub account that was for 150th expenditures and to my knowledge that is where they reside. >> to a point of clarification, that surplus is not part of revenue source or identification for guardians of the city, they inherited $60,000 if our event. >> that was done for the festivities related to 150th. that was outside of their.

there was spending plans discussed and constant communication with the guardians on budgets related to the event and the events that were planned and those were discussed with the guardians and the chief office as well as the commission. >> who controls those dollars? >> guardians of city. >> thank you very much. >> president cleaveland: as a follow-up question to mr. vice president's question. that money being held in that separate account, 150th anniversary account, there is not a separate signature required. t. >> no, it's not in city's treasury account strictly with the guardians of the city. >> president cleaveland: inter. interesting. >> these rigs are currently sitting out in the open on treasure island?

>> i believe so without getting verification from the chief. [no mic] as i understand it. >> would you like to come to the podium and just clarify where the rigs are. >> so the majority of the antique rigs have been moved to the lot next to division of training out at treasure island training facility. there are a couple that are still in the city behind station 9 i believe. the city service struck tha trut carries the 65-foot wooden ladder is still in the city.

we house the convertible restored lig rigs at building 20 which is a secured warehouse on treasure island and we have access to it for parades. i want to say there are three or four rigs in there that have been restored and we don't want them outside. >.>> curious to where the fundig is and where it can be spent on and i'm sure you can get the answer from the owner of the account should be able to tell you why they can't spend it, but that answer should be there in those financial reports that come to us. >> i just have one comment unrelated to the chief, of course not here because probably had an emergency or meeting to go to.

i have a meeting with the chief tomorrow to let the rest of the commission know meeting with her tomorrow to review the peer support resolution that i drafted to go over that, and i at that time will be discussing the other resolution that i had circulated to her and 00798 relating to enhancing the tools for ems6 unit. on that issue, i want to put out there that i r read in the paper today, i want you to put it on the chief's radar if you could that the state legislature is considering a law currently to expand on the duties of paramedics here in california. it's not specifically related to e ms six, but as i understand it

under state law and i read the article. article. the article was saying that ambulance crews have an obligation under state law to only deliver people to medical facilities and that the state law is looking to expand on that definition to include other facilfacilities that they can dr people such as sobering centers and it doesn't affect the resolution that i had written in this regard, but i did want to put it on the chief's radar. it impacts all departments statewide if it does in fact pass, but you should definitely follow it, so you have an idea of what is happening at the state capital. >> was that in the chronicle. >> i hate to say it was in the news clips on facebook.

it may have been from sf gate, but when i went back to my feed it was no longer there. >> i read the state law, so i know it exists because i dug into it a little bit but the source of where i got it was unfortunately on facebook, but it does in fact exist. >> president cleaveland: commiss something that you think the commission can support. >> commissioner veronese: i don't know how that works we should go to the city attorney on that and definitely something that should be on our radar and i think the department. >> president cleaveland: we can

deputize chief zanos to do this. >> i know sometimes these cycles are really short depending on where we are in the year. maybe once i track it down i will distribute it to maureen who can send it to the rest of the commissioners so they can read it as well. >> president cleaveland: thank you. >> vice president nakajo: in terms of commission report i was reporting off the guardians of the city respectfully in terms of commissioner veronese's subject matter. i guess it fits within the commission report but i will finish off the guardians of the city. one important piece was that

there were recommendations they talked about at guardians of the city as far as housing the rig. option one was to purchase a shelter and build it over at ti. they showed a diagram of that, something between $20,000 and $30,000. my comment to that was if you raise the money that's fine but it's a temporary location facility. eventuanumber two, one of the ms said we should build a museum for the fire department. philosophically i don't have a problem with that, but the bill to put a museum together is a daunting task as well as i don't

even know where to begin. third was from one of the other members that suggested they should sell all the antique rigs and with the revenue they would have seed money for a shelter or museum and my reaction to that was just as a point of reference is i like option three because my comment was to build a temporary shelter that costs $20,000 that is going to be housed for a period of time hopefully by the time i pass away in some years, that those antiques might be able to be renovated. my point was that it would take a period of time for that and i thought if those antique rigs could be salvaged been revenue source so identified for a gre greater within that, that would be good.

my comment on the last option wasn't taken well because there were some individuals that really loved their antique rigs, which i don't argue with, it's just that we have a problem here and somewhere along the line we are going to have to solve this problem. if the problem is identifying revenue source, reference of finding some generous donor to donate space in museums or donors, so i will stop there so you have the complete picture. thank you very much chief. >> i wanted to make one point now that you have brought it up commissionerrer nakajo. the fire department actually looked into building a temporary structure on that lot next to

the training facility. we reached out to dpw to work with us in a partnership and we also reached out to tida their real estate division to make sure we were abiding by the policies of the area because we were going to be storing all these old gas line and diesel powered vehicle. the minimum bid to place a structure out there was around $225,000 that was with no electrical or power which a lot of these vehicles need to have some type of dehumidifier or some electrical input, and that would be only for one entrance so the vehicles would have to be put in a certain way and taken out that same way. to have a facility that had full

access with electrical power was $400,000 to $450,000. we had all the quotes and it was very, very expensive. >> chiefry rivera and colleagues, i have a lot of respect and so i don't want anyone to think plus the membership that we don't have respect on what they are trying to accomplish. i want that very clear that we are looking for a solution over all for all of us. thank you mr. president. >> president cleaveland: thank you mr. vice president i think we all feel your frustration and we want to seek a solution to this problem that has been dogging our department for year. >> agend item 7.

[ reading item] >> supervisor sheehy: is there any public comment. seeing none. commissioners do you have anything you would like to add to future meeting. >> item 8. adjournment. >> >> speaker 1: any public comment on that? public comment is closed and in the name of leonard stefanali, i would like to close our meeting tonight. thank you all for attending. (end of meeting]

>> hi. meeting] i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop e, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring that the ordinance be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no,

you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i'm here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star child, outreach director of the libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd know that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where they won't be checking i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the

opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to more retailers closing. controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k.

canny flavored tobacco has only one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has already been passed by a unanimous decision at the board of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with you, dr. chung. do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a

candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health. >> and the same to you, star child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal unlicensed cigarettes on the street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at

preventing kids from smoking. i mean, kids get tobacco know. i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star child first, is do you believe proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier.

does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to make money off of it on both ends, fining it from the sales, and criminalizing it on the other, and all the apparatus, there will be air cost with enforcing that, and we've seen with the war on drugs and putting people behind bars, especially with low-income communities and communities of color, and this is the wrong way to go. we know proceed hibitihibitionr on drugs is the wrong way to go. >> dr. chung? >> absolutely not. again, most kids start smoking through candy flavored tobacco products. these flavors are added for a reason: so make smoking easier

and to make more pima ikt didded. we know the more you smoke, the more it'll call you to have harm, cancer and eventually death. i like to do whatever i can to keep my kids safe and to keep my community safe. i do believe this ban will be effective in reducing our kids from smoking, so i'm a proponent of this proposition. >> and we'd like to have our closing arguments. we'll start with you, star child. >> well, first of all, i wanted to point out, for one thing, there's medical health professionals and people who care about kids and reducing death on both sides of this argument, so please don't be misled by the fact that my opponent has the word dr. in front of his name. et he et -- he's a dermatologist, not a health care researcher. the fact that kids may start by smoking flavored tobacco, that has nothing to do with the reality that everybody likes

flavors. they're acting like oh, just because it's flavored, it's going after kids. nonsense. i like different flavored when i eat products. i don't smoke cigarettes, but it's something that people should have, again, ultimately the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, and this is not going to reduce smoking. history shows it's not going to reduce smoking. the belief that it will somehow flies in the face of reality. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you. again as a practicing physician in san francisco for over ten years and having represented san francisco marin medical society, the california medical association and also the american medical association on public health policy, i can tell you that all of our organizations feel that this proposition is the right thing to do. this proposition simply is to uphold the ban on candy flavored tobacco. big tobacco is waging a war, an assault on our kids' health. they try to get a new

generation of children to be addicted to tobacco products that's going to increase our health care costs down the road. nod to diseas-- in addition to diseases and deaths, so please vote no on proposition e. >> thank you. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no on prop e. >> we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org, remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7th, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, remember to vote on june 5th. our regular board

meeting of the board of education for san francisco unified school district. the date is april 24th, and this meeting is now called to order. roll call, miss reiskin. [ roll call. ] >> thank you. if you would, please join me for the pledge of