>> let me read it to you. at least the relevant part. the officer or employee shall not perform any work, service or consult for compensation outside of his or her local agency employment. any part of the efforts will be subject to approval by any other officer, employee, board or commission of his or her employed body. it goes on and there is a different part. and employees outside employment activity or enterprise may be prohibited if it involves the performance of an act other than his or her capacity as a local agency officer or employee, which may later be subject to directly or indirectly to the control inspection review, audit and enforcement of any other officer or employee or agency by

which he or she is employed. it seems what is implied is because of the nature of the work, there may be conflict there. >> i have not reviewed that part of the code. i am not an attorney. i would need to review that more closely and come to my own decision. i was not aware that could be a possible impediment. >> deputy city attorney? i don't know if you were following, i am questioning whether the nature of his business, with there be a conflict of interest in serving on the rent board,. >> deputy city attorney john given her.

i have not spoken directly with the appointee. i don't know anymore about his business other than what i have read in the pocket and the discussion today. i can't stay, with any certainty , i am not sure what code section you are reading, supervisor yee, it sounded related to the statement of incompatible activities that the ethics commission has adopted. every city department, board and commission has a statement of incompatible activities which is basically a conflict of interest law that applies only to that department or commissioner board the rent board has a statement of incompatible activities and among other things, is generally described outside activities that are incompatible with service on the rent board.

i have not analysed this particular situation. i don't know enough about the facts. i'm happy to do that before -- following this meeting. >> what i am citing as a california government code, 1126 >> right. section 1126 is not a self-executing conflict law. but several years after 1126 was adopted at the state level, the voters adopted a local law that required the ethics commission to create the statements of incompatible activity. there are about 35 of them right now in the city. they are all available on the ethics commission trash out website. there is a statement for the city attorney's office in a statement of activity for the board of supervisors in a statement for the rent board.

generally, the statement of income possible incompatible activities as they could not engage with an activity that impair your ability to do your official job. by way of example, the city attorney attorney's statement of activity is prohibited -- prohibiting me as one of the attorneys to advise the department of elections from contributing to any local candidate or office in san francisco. the rent board's statement of incompatible activity has a general statement about materially impairing an outside activity that impairs your duties. it also has a couple of specific restrictions. no officer or employee, which would include a member of the rent board may receive a fee or any other enumeration for

information or advice about pending rent board cases. and no officer or employee may receive a fee or other renumeration for scheduling a hearing or decision in a rent board case or appeal. i do not know enough about this particular business, but happy to discuss after this hearing and ultimately the decision about whether an activity violates a statement of incompatible activities is in the discretion of the ethics commission. >> i appreciate your explanation >> i'm a little concerned. it seems that in terms of the knowledge base, as a person that would go to the rent board, you have the knowledge. i'm not questioning that.

what i am questioning is is a -- duchess or a grey area where there is a conflict or not? i would like to get more clarification at some point. >> once again. i am not an attorney. i can't really interpret the code, but from his comments, i don't see what i'm doing is using my expertise to bring a case and file a petition at the rent board on behalf of a client is being much different than what an attorney would do in representing a client in helping them through a mediation or to even file a petition, which some attorneys do as part of their work for their clients, and two of our four land florid commissioners are attorneys and i know that several tenant commissioners are also attorneys and it seems that from my experience and experienced -- attending the recent meetings and one this year, the static practice is they recuse themselves from cases in which

they are involved. and the nonvoting will step in to participate in those cases and i would think that would be very much the same situation for me, where if a crate -- case that i have brought for a client before the rent board, if it were on appeal and being hurt by the commission, i would then recuse myself from that decision and let the other commissioners debate it. >> we will come back to questions after we open it up for public comment. thank you. if you just wait you will come back you can come back up. >> good evening. i am the executive director of

rebuilding together san francisco. we do home repairs for income qualified families, seniors and people with disabilities so they can continue to live safely in their own homes. jj has been on our board for just about six years now. he has volunteered with us for a number of years prior to that and i am here to support his nomination to the rent stabilization board. i think in my time working with jj, he has presented himself as someone who really cares about keeping san franciscans in their homes and really looking at ways that we can sustain and provide stable housing for both renters and homeowners in san francisco through the home repair program. he has been a really great champion for our work over the last six years and i think that he is really committed to san francisco and keeping people in their homes in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening.

i am a san francisco landlord. i set as a rent board commissioner for 17 years. i've had a good bit of experience and how the process works. i am here to support the nomination and the appointment of jj as the rent board commissioner. you will be a fantastic commissioner. he is experienced, he is committed, he is involved in a number of community activities and supervisor yee's questions, if you checked with the rent board staff, you will find that over the years, a well-established practice for the dealing with conflicts of interest for all the commissioners of the board. you may be interested to know that all four of the tenant commissioners at the san francisco rent board are attorneys. many of them practice in front of the rent board or practice representing tenants san francisco and there is an established practice that if

there is a case at the rent board that comes up in appeal, that they or their firm was involved in, they recuse themselves. as i am sure you will agree, what is gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander. if this policy applies to tenant commissioners, it should also equally apply to landlord commissioners and it does. i don't see that as an impediment to mr panzer being nominated to this position. he is willing, ready and able to serve and i would urge you to pass out his nomination. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. i am with this san francisco apartment association. i'm here to speak in support of panzer as a landlord commissioner on the rent board. i have known jj for probably 15 years and i think he will do an outstanding job representing small and large landlords in the city of san francisco. i also agree with mr murphy's

statement about the rent board and how it functions. being front of that body for over 25 years, i find that commissioners from time to time, have to recuse themselves as items that they are related to before the body and they operate in an ethical and fair manner from any judge everything that i can see. thank you for your time and please pass his commission appointment to the full board. >> good late afternoon, supervisors. my name is rosa maria. i am the program manager for the tenderloin health and clinics enforcement program. i have been there for about the last five years. i am also a tenderloin resident for heart the last five years and this is my last week in the

tenderloin. over the last five years, our program has assisted in council tenants and understanding various kinds of rent increases due to rent passes that landlords file. we also have seen the negative and burdensome impacts of these increases on tenants and therefore i am here today as tenants and enclosing my starch including myself. we have a few concerns on the appointment. this is not due to him being a landlord are running a property management company. is rather to the proponent of his business that prepares and assist landlords with filing a variety of rent increase pass-through his. he has a direct financial stake in decisions that he was tasked to adjudicate over. we believe this is a huge concern to consider when evaluating his appointment, and i know we have talked about him

recusing himself. these are concerns that i would like to bring forward to today. this is all due respect to mr panzer. thank you. >> thank you. last speaker. >> good evening. i am from the affordable housing alliance. representing tenants for all of these years, we believe that one of the most important jobs for us is to protect the integrity of the rent board, along with that,, we found ourselves working with landlord loops on aspects of that from time to time. we thought the rent board should not be elected. we thought it a compass endorsed the composition shouldn't change i don't have a problem with mr panzer. i'm not personally familiar with him, but i do think that someone needs to look out for him and

make sure that the incompatible activities law is not something that he is being set up to be in violation of. the wording in the state law, at first blush would seem to appear , on the local policies are just implementing that. this is not a conflict of interest analysis. it is a different kind of analysis. but the heart of the matter is, if you are engaged in a business providing a service with a direct result of that service are reviewed by the commission which you are on, that is viewed as an incompatible activity and i am treading gingerly here because historically, the landlord his advocacy groups have selected their candidates and they have selected there is. i think that is helping the integrity of the board. i would just caution everyone that they should do the analysis , and it sounds like mr panzer was not alerted to this

by the mayor's office, i think he may well have to give up that business to be on this. i would recommend that it be looked at sooner rather than later. you probably should have been looked at earlier. it is awkward to bring it up in this setting. but i think the nature of his business and the exact wording of the state law and the rent board, and is not just the supervision -- >> hello. good evening. i am a staff member of the san francisco apartment association. i want to speak in favour of the appointment of jj. i also manage the same program that rosa maria mentioned. the code enforcement outreach program. i have done so for about eight years. we try to make sure maintenance

requests are made in rental buildings. i have to say i have never had a case in a real management company building. i think that speaks to the way in which they manage their properties. the other thing i wanted to mention -- >> will try to make sure maintenance requests are made, in rental buildings. i have to say i have never had a case and a real management company building. i think that speaks to the way in which they manage their properties. the other thing i wanted to mention, the rent board

commission does not deny or approve pass-through his. that is not what the rent board does. please consider that further. >> good evening. i'm here with the coalition for better housing. we certainly support the nomination and the approval of mr panzer to the rent board. one thing that is confusing me is as was discussed before, mr panzer's job is to help property owners obey the law. his job is to help them to do what's right and he does this very well. it is not for them to get away with something. this to make sure that they do cross their teas and stop their eyes. he is very good at that.

you can tell by how the people have spoken about his nature, that he is somebody who cares about san franciscans and that he cares about the city and cares about this process. so we cannot enter into this with an idea that somehow jj won't be cognizant of being recused in those instances where he would be. and i would point out again that the rent board commissioners, many of whom, on both sides of the aisle are attorneys, do the exact same thing. that they help their tenants or their clients to meet the latter of the law or to make sure they get what they need at the rent board. i really don't understand this conflict as it's been discussed. because it seems to me that if that was the case, there would be no rent board. by reason, the rent board has two tenants, two landlord his representatives, and the neutral , which is the person who

listens to both sides after the argument and often decides that. i think we need to be careful about not making jj a lightning rod for people's discussions on pass-through his. that is not his job. his job is to help landlords obey the law. thank you.

>> the question we should explore is the details of his business. >> supervisor yee, do you have an additional question?

>> my line is question is nothing personal. i hope you understand that. and just so that -- i'm look at these documents and i'm not -- a lot of it is i'm an attorney. this raises some questions for me. i read from the california one. this is from the statement of incompatible activities from the residential rent board itself. i don't know if you are familiar with that one. there's a paragraph there that triggers my concern. no employee may engage in outside activity regardless of whether the activity is compensated, that is subject to the control inspection and review audit or enforcement of the department. in addition to any activity permitted pursuant to the sub section c, nothing in this subsection prohibits the

following activities. appearing before ones' own department or commission or on behalf of ones self. filing or otherwise pursuing claims against the city on his own behalf. running for city elective office or making a public records disclosure pursuing of the sunshine ordinance. unless noted in this section or b, an advance written determination sunday sub sections c concludes that such activities are not incompatible and the following activities are expressly prohibited by this section and i could keep on reading. this goes on like that. i think you seem to understand the laws. i don't wanted to hold up this process but statement, at the i want to have a discussion or have the city attorney look at

this issue before this item comes to the full board. i would like to make a motion to send this out of committee with no recommendation to the full board. >> before that, supervisor stephanie had a comment. you want to move on that motion? she had a comment. is that ok? >> rescind the motion. >> amend it to either -- the motion would need to be amended to either a paragraph or reject. >> it's approve or reject? >> yes. >> before we move on that can supervisor stefani. i mean i'm happy to look into this further but number one, i failed to see the conflict. i find his comments pervasive in terms of not deciding on these

issues. if you were to have a case in which you were involved, and you might be able to then enrich yourself, based on a decision you might make, then my understanding would be you would absolutely probably recuse yourself and i just don't seem -- i don't know where the conflict is. it just seems to me if there were a client of his that were to come before the rent board, it would be obvious. because he engages in this type of activity doesn't necessarily mean, as a landlord, he would actually be someone that could not sit on the rent board. i'm happy to look into it further. for me, at the outset, i don't see the problem. >> thank you for those comments. i guess what i'm asking is just to send it out of committee with no recommendation. people can get -- i'd like to get more information. it doesn't mean i won't support

it at the end of the day. >> i think that's fair and these are valid questions. i appreciate you bringing them up. i think we certainly always want to avoid any conflict of interest. what i heard from deputy city attorney is they're going to investigate and if it were to come out, this would be a direct conflict, then essentially we would have to -- if it's at the board, we would then -- what would happen at the board? we would reject or withdraw the nomination? >> ultimately -- the board's only option, the only action the board can formally take to reject would be a motion to reject the nomination requiring eight votes. anything else and mr. panzer's appointment stands. after meeting with mr. panze r

and from the mayor's office, i can report back to the board on december 4th or 11th, whatever day this item comes back to the board. >> it needs two readings? >> just one. the law that we're discussing and that supervisor yee is mentioning, the statement of incompatible activities, doesn't prohibit mr. panzer from serving on the rent board. the question is, whether, if he serves on the rent board and also engages in a business, that may be incompatible with his rent board duties, could he potentially face fines from the ethic's commission? and so that is -- considering whether he may have that type of conflict, we will discuss it with mr. panzer and the board can make a choice. >> i guess what i'm saying --

you are going to let us know one way or the other. no? >> i will let you know what our analysis is. >> that's what i mean, your analysis, you will give an a recommendation, right? so in that recommendation it says we believe he will be ok, then we would proceed. if you say we believe there's a strong potential for fines coming from the ethic's commission based on inco inpat , he could withdraw his application. >> all of those are options. >> ok. who would have thought the last item of the day would be so complicated. so you are fine with sending it forward and we wait on the recommendations from the city attorney? that's ok? ok. so i think the options that we have in front of us is either approve or reject. we make a motion to --

>> i did. >> make a motion to approve and send it to the full board. >> i believe the motion would be to amend the motion to delete the word reject from the motion and refer it to the board of supervisors with recommendation or without? >> without. >> refer that motion to the board without recommendations. >> with a motion is to forward it to the full board without recommendation. >> as we often do. can we do that? >> yes. we'll amend it to remove the word rejecting and we'll ford i- forward it to the full board without recommendations pending the city's attorney advice. >> without objection. thank you mr. panzer. anymore items before us today? >> one moment.

that completes the agenda for that completes the agenda for

>> the meet willing come to order. welcome to the november 28, 2018 rescheduled meeting. to my right is vice chair supervisor ronen and supervisor peskin. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: please silence your cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the december 4, 2018

board of supervisors meeting. verifying the q&m l.l.c. locat. for the issuance of a new nontransferable neighborhood restricted special on sale general liquor license. >> supervisor mandelman: superv. >> good afternoon. this is the final of the first five neighborhood liquor license community outreach processes and actually the final one that will go through the board of supervisors process. in 2016, the california legislature adopted sb1285, which created a new type of

nontransferable liquor license exclusively for restaurants located in san francisco outer neighborhoods. the idea was to create an affordable accessible license. sb1285 authorized issuance of five of those licenses to establish an order of applicants to pursue those five licenses. four of those have come before this committee and this is the fifth and final one. the drawing list was set to expire in million dollars of fi. they were able to begin the application process and begin their community outreach. in the future the certification will happen through sfpd.

that's due to legislation that supervisor ronen and mayor authored section of the 1297 police code. the future licenses issued through this program, they will not go through the board. this is the fifth and final one to go through that process. as a brief reminder the community outreach requirement is that prior to submitting a full application for a type 87 license an applicant has to hold one preapplication meeting. they need to send a community outreach letter notifying residents within 500-foot radius of the location, at least 14 calendar days before the meeting set to occur. they need to present evidence of that meeting to this committee and to the board for the clerk ultimately to sign off on that outreach -- the abc522-2. i'm available for any technical questions. i'm happy to introduce the

applicant david quinn of q&m l.l.c. >> supervisor mandelman: go ahead. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is david quimby. one of the businesses called rip tide that's on ocean beach. it's at the end of taraval. we started the project 17 years ago. it's been open for about 15. we're going to have our food component in this location. unfortunately, the market next to us caught on fire in 2015 and burned us down. we rebuild and reopened in two years. it's going to be a food component out there. it's very exciting. it was boarded up storefronts.

now there's all kinds of new businesses, bars, couple of new restaurants and i have a cafe out there as well across the street. we're very excited about this opportunity to work with this license to improve the area and bring some very good food to the area. any questions? >> supervisor mandelman: seeing no questions. thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none. public comment is now closed. >> supervisor ronen: i'm happy to make a motion. >> supervisor mandelman: we can do that without objection thank you. mr. clerk please call the next

item. >> clerk: memorandaing the police code to prohibit post secondary institution from using application form that contains questions ban applicant's criminal history for the purpose of deciding whether to offer admission. requiring institutions to retain records for three years. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. i believe we have her from supervisor cohen's office to talk about this item and some amendments. >> thank you so much chairman cr mandelman. on here to present the legislation before you. also known as beyond the box. which prohibits private post secondary institutions from asking about an applicant's history in the preadmission

process. the ordinance will delay any inquiries history after an admission's offer has been made and applicant has agreed to enroll in the college. the legislation does not bar private schools from asking about an individual conviction history but concerns when private institutions may obtain that information. the effects of preadmission conviction have large negative impact on college enrollment. a study found two out of three people who start a college application and ended up not completing the application. it is common for institutions to ask about any convictions including misdemeanors without any time limitation. the common app which is used by over 700 schools every year includes these questions. however, they announced that they will be providing an opportunity for schools to opt out of asking that. a careful examination of asking

applicants to check this box is long overdue. this box is a formidable barrier to college enrollment. they deserve an equal chance to learn and thrive and we should be supporting them and realizing their full potential. in our research, we found that 5 out of the 21 private post secondary institutions in san francisco ask preadmission injuries into conviction history. we reached out to each school and incorporated their feedback. i like to propose the following amendments and provide additional clarity in the ordinance. page 5, the amendment highlighted allow for preadmission from previous history of employment and these should be for the purpose of advising applicants of potential barriers. preadmission inquiries are allowed for individuals that

will be applying from outside the united states. in section 5005, page 6, the amendment provides guidance to institutions for post admission injuries to be limited of offering counseling and housing or eligibility for financial aid and scholarships. finally on page 8, the legislation clarifies record. keeping requirements this schools keep if they ask preadmission inquiries. they are required to keep any other evidence of noncompliance. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you.

>> supervisor mandelman: thank you. >> thank you so much for having me here. thanks for bringing this legislation forward. i'm the education director of operation restoration. we're a nonprofit organization that supports former incarcerated women. my research is on this topic. banning the box on college application. i'm working on senator booker on federal level. this is happening all over in louisiana. we passed this unanimously in 2017. maryland, washington, also passed it. i encourage you to ask me any questions about research. i would love to dig into those things. on a personal note, the reason why i decided to sit on a plane

for five hours and fly back tomorrow morning is because, i lived in louisiana for about 10 years. i'm from the san francisco bay area. i grew in alameda. i went to oakland school for the arts. by the time i i was 16 years old, i've been arrested three times. i was given really infinite second chances. lot of through those experiences. lot of people don't have. i got to go to youth court oakland. i was given a social worker and that person helped me mom to seal and expunge my record. when i applied to college, i didn't have to check the box about criminal history. i think it's important to know who has to check the box is really based on race and resources. i also know what it feels like to look at an application and see that question and remember the worst experience in your

life. i understand why people don't complete their application after that. that's why i do the research that i do. that's kind of my motivation and why i care so much about this issue. i'm so excited to see san francisco being the first city to really tackle this issue and to pass legislation. thank you so much for having me here. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. i do -- public defenders office has free service in san francisco who will expunge record. thank you for flying here for this hearing and for your amazing words and work and this seem like it's a good idea. happy to hear from the public if anyone wants to address us. you have two minutes.

state your first and last name clearly and speak directly into the microphone. if you have a written statement, please leave a copy with us for inclusion in the file. no applause or booing is permitted. in the interest of time, speakers are encouraged to avoid repetition of previous statements. >> i'm a graduate student at uc berkeley. i'm formally incarcerated. i'm part of the underground scholars a student grassroots organization for former incarcerated students. i'm the coordinator for the scholars. while preparing to -- he was

forced submit additional detailing all his offenses and the reasons related to them. regardless, he did so. they did not interrogate him about his criminal background. he was accepted to eight out of nine schools that he applied to. he's still checking the box as a legal form of red lining. i will add that having to check a box does accumulate stress or enough time to access certain documents, court proceedings takes long.

this is just -- it hinders the applicant's ability to go ahead and apply like other students. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm talking about the issue because it personally affected me. i had to check the box on private school education. i came home from prison in 2013 and went to community college for three years and applied to about ten schools. so far cal state, none of those schools asked by criminal history. i applied to loyola marymount and usc, i got into the colleges i applied to and loyola.

usc hit me back with -- they sent me an email a week after they let all the applicants know the decisions. i got an email june 9, 2016 asking me to submit official court documents because they needed more than my word to make a final decision. that was heart breaking for me. i'm from the l.a. area. usc was a school i wanted to go to. to think that -- i had accomplished myself in community college and proving that i can succeed academically, i was being held back. i replied to the email, saying i will go to uc berkeley. fast forward to last fall, i'm applying to graduate school. i'm surprised the universities different ask about criminal history. i got into princeton and chicago

didn't ask. other schools did ask. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. are there any more members was public like to speak on this item? public comment is now closed. colleagues we have three amendments if anyone like to speak on this item? >> supervisor ronen: i'm happy to make a motion to accept the amendment. >> supervisor mandelman: let's do that. >> supervisor ronen: then i want to thank you all for coming out and telling your stories and

presenting such a compelling case for why this is necessary. i want to thank president cohen's office for taking this on and for pushing it. i love to be able to list it as a co-sponsor. it's phenomenal legislation and i support it. with that, i'm happy to make a motion. >> supervisor mandelman: as long as i can co-sponsor as well and echo everything vice chair ronen said. >> supervisor ronen: i make a motion to send this item forward with positive recommendation. >> supervisor mandelman: very good. all right. it is 3:28. i believe the next item on our agenda is one that we are -- we want to have come up at 4:00 so that the students would be able to participate in that.

>> supervisor ronen: that's the intention. i don't know if that was a commitment. >> clerk: it is not a special order item. you could take it before 4:00. >> supervisor mandelman: i think we should probably recess until 4:00. we'll do that. >> supervisor ronen: is that okay with your schedule? maybe we could recess to 3:45? >> supervisor mandelman: okay, we'll recess to 3:45. >> supervisor mandelman: number three is hearing on police department and san francisco unified school districts when school is questioned on school

sites and student privacy and school safety. vice chair ronen you called for this hearing. >> supervisor ronen: i was going to make some opening remarks. we know that a few more folks are going to arrive at 4:00. i was hoping we can start with presentations then we'll do public comment and then have some questions if that's okay. i believe that first on the roster is assistant superintendent who is the chief of student family and community support division or, whatever order you would prefer.

>> good afternoon supervisor ronen supervisor mandelman and supervisor peskin. thank you for the invitation to talk about this very important topic regarding juvenile procedures as it relates to arrests and detention and questioning and things like that. as you know i'm the commander of the community engagement division. one of the area that i oversee is the school resource officer program. today i have with me newly selected acting captain yolanda williams who comes with many years of experience and we're really excited to have her in this new role. she's off and running on different topics. very happy about having her with us here today. i'm going to briefly just go through -- make a brief presentation our policies, talk about detentions and arrests and

parent involvement and things like that and take questions. i wanted to start out just setsing the pace on policy. really important statement on the first page of our general order which says when detaining, arresting or taking a university in custody, department members shall choose the alternative that restrict the juvenile eats freedom of movement with the best interest of the child and the community. members shall protect the constitutional rights of all individuals whom they come in contact regardless of age. it's really in line with our safety with respect overall philosophy with our department. that's our general order that speaks to that. specifically in san francisco in our police department, we have one general order in many policies related to detention of juvenile. a minor is under someone age 21.

a child for the pumicer of -- purpose of the rule and law is someone under the age of 14. for this hearing, we'll talk about 13 to about 17 school-aged related children. under our policy, we're required to handle juveniles who are 15 years of age and younger a certain way when it comes to questioning that young person as opposed that are detained what maybe 16 or 17. in terms of crimes if i can briefly talk about school campuses. what happens on a school campuses is just depending on the severity of the incident. a basic theft is different than situation where person has a gun or active shooter situation as we all know, there's different ways of protocols. which is addressed in our current m.o.u.

all our policies allow for circumstances which require us to deviate from our procedures. this is standard to do that in those circumstances. specifically let me briefly talk about detention. an officer may arrest and detain a juvenile. when this occur, procedure shop implemented. we're required by law to mirandize a young person no alert than half hour of their detention. that's by the law. number two, we have to make reasonable efforts to avoid bringing youth into police facility and only in extraordinary circumstances officers may take a youth to a police facility. we have to articulate the reasons why. next, officers are to take immediate steps to notify the youth's parent, parent or guardian or responsible person when the youth is in custody

where he or she is being held. in other words, the youth detained, there's miranda takes place and then immediate call to a parent or guardian to say we have your young person and we're maiwe'reremaining on scene. when they get to the station, they're either in a secured detention or nonsecure detenti detention. under no circumstances, regardless of the offense they commit should be in secured detention if they're under the age of 14. that's the california law. when the youth is at the station, they're allowed to make two phone calls within one hour hopefully to the parent and an attorney. specifically, something new that we started in 2018 as a result of senate bill 395 which indicates that if a juvenile 15 years of age or younger, they shall be allowed to make contact

with a public defender. we implement that rule. we implemented that rule nearly a year ago in san francisco that prior to my questioning that young person can contact -- we'll connect them with the public defender by phone or video conference or in person if we need to. that consultation may not be waived. juvenile can't say to us, i don't want to speak with an attorney. i'll speak with you. we say no, please have a conversation with a public defender first. there is an exception to this rule. the exception is that an officer questioning a youth, the officer has reasonable to believe that the information we're seeking is to protect imminent threat. if we say, whereas the gun, a child get that gun. if we can ask those questions without the youth having to talk

to the attorney first for the sake of public safety, it's limited to those questions. once that answer is obtained, we have to revert back to letting them be allowed to talk to a public defender. in terms of questioning, interrogation that take place, if we've mirandize a young person at scene of arrest, we're required to mirandize again. in san francisco, we allow for the parents to be present. we allow them an opportunity to have the parent present. if we do this on a school campus, we also can allow them to have the parent present but if the parents aren't available, we allow them to pick an adult of their choice to sit with them when the officers are asking questions. then just two more things of note, when we question young people, we're limited to two

officers and that conversation must be recorded. last thing like to briefly say, officers will coordinate with school officials to make an arrest. we try to be sensitive ton school grounds. making sure students aren't witnessing what's happening or questioning or arrest taking place on school campuses. we're cognizant of that. consideration is always given to minimize disruption to the learning environment. if.private location out of sight and sought shall be arranged for arrest. officers are to consider the reasonableness making the arrest. here are some specifics. the m.o.u. indicates the officer must consider making that

arrest, whether there's a threat to public safety, number two, what's the seriousness of the offense and number three, is this arrest related to a school related offense, number four is there federal state and local requirements of us as a police agency. whether the officer able to accomplish the arrest by other means maybe later if the arrest is not reasonable the arrest should be made at another time. 2007 make consideratio -- we hae considerations. i'll conclude by saying, officers may question a student on campus and the same parental rules apply. in addition, if the parent already guardian is unavailable student may choose an adult. last, i want to provide this to you and maybe you've seen this before. know your rights brochure. i was involved making this about a decade ago. we are working on updating it to

reflect the usability to call an attorney when they are 15. this is handed to youth when they are arrested. i have three of them for all three supervisors. if you have any questions about the pamphlet -- i will conclude by saying, at the end of the day, as i started with the department's goal is to provide safety with respect and to ensure that san francisco schools are safe everyday for students and for faculty. that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor ronen: we're now approaching 4:00. i may have couple of questions and step back a minute and provide little context. can you talk a bit -- i understand that it's state law where there are different rules for 15 and under