>> 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 and 16 and 17-year-olds. can you talk about that little bit? what are the main differences and do you see justification for those differences? do you think it's arbitrary? >> well, somewhere along the way, the senate bill 395 was put in place. in california the decision was made by the lawmakers that if you are 15 and under, you should really speak with an attorney and have a conversation prior to the police speaking with you. [please stand by].

>> if you are an adult, you have a right to speak to an attorney. if you are a kid, you must -- if you are a kid under 15, you must speak with an attorney. >> you must speak with an attorney and you cannot wave it. you cannot say that's ok, officer, i'll just speak with you. we are going to connect with you a public defender's office. if you are an adult, you can't have your parent, you can't have your friend with you. you could either speak with us or not speak with us depending on what you want to do, based on your rights. you have a right not to speak with the police until an attorney is there. because you are an adult, you have the full understanding of consequences and so i think that is so strange there are different rules for 16 and 17-year-olds. i don't think they understand the justice system and how it

works and whether or not it's smart to talk to police without first talking to an attorney. >> i think one of the ways we accomplish this, however, because, you know, ace mentioned, it's not state law that requires the parents to be present, it's something that we've done in san francisco to take it an extra step. to really just say, look, if you are 16 or 17, let's have your parent or guardian down here. let's try and sort it out. so, i understand that we're looking at -- well, between 15 and 16. why 15 and not 16? our thought is well, if your parents should down they should be able to interpret for you, assist you, give you guidance. your parents are sitting next to you. >> in ball boa taken to the station were they all given the opportunity to have a parent

with them let when they were questioned? >> yes, as a matter of fact, every student that was detained, they were brought to the station. they were all separated. and they were all allowed to have their parents present. they all had their parents present. >> because they were older than 15, we meant make that. they said we're not speaking with you. >> so, before there was any questions by the police, their parents were present. all three of them? >> yes, from what i understand. well, there were no questions related to their involvement in the crime. nor was there anything documented on any police documents which i have head

thoroughly in the last 24 hours, that either incriminates them or there's no statements they provided to us because we think after reading the ma require daa rights, they did not have a statement involve to their involvement at balboa high school. >> i have a different understanding from the parents about what happened. so, let me back up and give a little context for why i called this hearing today? for those who just came in, we had to get the meeting started early. i asked commander lazar to give context. thank you, commander for just sort of out of context beginning your presentation. i wanted to thank everyone for being here today. the reason that i called this

hearing they were upset and traumatized by the incident. even though balboa high school is not in my district, many of the children who were arrested and their parents have a deep connection to the mission district, which i represent, which is how i sort of was brought into this. i have been communicating with supervisor safai this whole time so he is aware of this hearing and aware of these conversations that are happening. he is going to try to stop by, as a matter of fact, if he can. as you said, while all of those young people were subsequently released from the police station without charge that same day, i was very concerned by what i heard from the parents and the

treatment of them and the youth at the station. before anything, i just want to also set the context that i understand that this was a very unusual experience and it was very scary. without a doubt. as a nation we are traumatized. we all have to acknowledge that and acknowledge how tricky it is to take precautions to ensure everyone's safety while protecting the privacy of the children. i just want to recognize that that's a very difficult line to balance. when i heard from the parents, i

really felt like it was important to come here today and really talk through what did we learn from this incident. how can we do better things next time and protect everyone's safety while really recognizing the trauma that this incident has caused the youth that were involved. >> one man that is 16-years-old with no criminal record, he was arrested inside the school with handcuffs and then taken out the front door in full view of the press that was swarming. they got pictures of him and his face that were posted all over

social media. my understanding, the police prevented his parents from accompanying them while he was questioned. that was very concerning for me as a parent. was really probably what most caused me to call this hearing today and to look at this m.o.u. in this situation. and then he was, as you said, released that same day and was not charged, to this day has not been charged. what i am seeing is this young boy who, you know, is attached to his school, he was embarrassed in front of his peers and his community. went from being a innocent kid to the kid associated with a violent gun situation, which i can't even imagine what that does to his reputation on campus and his future.

it's concerning. so that sort of the context under which we're here today and we're having this discussion. and so, you know, we're starting this conversation -- we've already started the conversation. what i'm looking to get out of this is more clarity, which you provided and it's helpful, of what the policies and protocols are when youth are questioned by law enforcement in schools and outside of schools. i also am really looking forward to the hearing from the community who really haven't had a chance like this to tell their story and what that experience was like from their perspective and how they would like to see change happen in the future. and then i want to see, are there gaps that we need to be filling with new policies. for example, before this, i had no idea that 15-year-olds were treated different from 16 to 16-year-olds. it doesn't make sense to me.

there's a gap already that i've found. are there other ways we can make our lies and striking again with that difficult balance. perhaps a little bit better. and i say this on the context that i know, from working with you for many years, commander, that you know, there's such a difference between the youth brain and adult brain. and the more and more research that is coming out, you know, it is making that more abundant and giving us further clarity on that difference. to engage in counter factual

reasons. it's not the same between a youth and adult. we have to recognize that and protect for that in our criminal-justice system. so, with that, that's the purpose of this hearing many of i'm really appreciative of you and for mr. trueitt for being here. we're going to hear from the youth commission and they've been talking about this issue as well and again, really appreciate that. so maybe if you don't have anything more to say now -- >> when you are ready for me. >> go for it. ok, so in terms of balboa high school, i've had a lengthy conversation with captain jack heart, who you work closely with and does a great job. he is a great lead' and good community and organizer making with the community. we've had a lengthy conversation about this incidents. i read all the documents. i've asked a lot of questions in the last couple of days. so, i know you and i have worked

together for many, many years and we have worked on things together. the first thing i'd like to mention, in our opinion, the officer showed a lot of restraint the way they handled the situation. a gun is discharged. we don't know who is injured. how many suspects? who has guns. is this a real active shooter happening in our city in one of our schools. we had ups. we responded to that situation. as opposed to creating big evacuations and getting kids out on the field with their hands up and sending swat teams in and doing all these things, the decision by captain hart, which in our opinion was excellent, early onset, look, let's just shelter and try to be as low key as possible with this to the extent we can. i mean, it's hard. we're both parents of kids in the city many of it's hard to cope them in the classroom and they're curious. let's keep them in the classroom. let's just methodically try to

figure this thing out. by the way, since captain hart, since he has an excellent relationship with the principal, establish that relationship way in advance, let's utilize the staff at the school district to just look at the video camera and figure out who did what and who is who. officers went in. they figured out quickly who actually had the gun and did the shooting. they contacted that person's parents. they were working that out. and then the 2003 others that -s that were detained, not to give identities, were figured to be involved in this incident in some way by, basically being an accessory after the fact in terms of the gun handed off, the clothing handed off and those sorts -- the backpacks were discarded and all those things. the officers really just pieced it together and tried to keep things super low key, went in, found one individual. where is the gun?

it's in my backpack. i'm detaining you. where is the clothing and this and that -- in our minds, we had probable cause to arrest. beyond reasonable suspicion to detain. arrest for a crime. one of the youth actually had the begu global news inthe gun . the captain thinking the whole time, the youth are hungry. they have to use the bathroom. there's all these things going on. that's part of it. in the beginning, officers under the rule were asking like, do you have a gun? where is the clothing? what's this and that? are you the person or is the person gone? in terms of going out of the school. the m.o.u. is really clear. it says, do not -- do not violate the privacy by exposing students to other students. i think the thought process there was, the kids have been in the class a long time. we have to get these individuals out quickly.

a lot of time has gone by. we have to get them out of the building. captain hart and the team put a lot of thought into it. should we go seneca, where are the cars? we need three cars. we need three separate cars. let's get the cars with the blacked out windows. where is the media? they're on the front and the side. there's people in the back. people with cameras. ok, we have to do this quickly. let's get him out the front. get him out the front and put him in the cars. by the way, the way that acting captain ed del carlo set up, the cars were facing away from the media. it's challenging. there's a lot evolving and a lot of things to consider. we understand the point. we don't want anyone photographed. we don't want any of that to happen. i want to tell you the officers and captain hart put a lot of

thought into, in a quick amount of time, how to best get them out and they made a judgment call to get them out the way of kayuga. the third point is this, so, the youth at the station were not interrogated, questioned. they weren't -- to my knowledge and i'm representing the department. and i've been told and this is the truth, they were not interviewed, interrogated requested and there's no documentation that shows this. what happened with one parent is one parent was with their young person. they left the station for a minute to make a phone call outside. the officer, who is sitting in front of this particular student, awkward, silence says hey, let's talk football. comes up with some topic to talk to the young person about. when the parent came back to the station, supervisor, that parent was very upset believing that o

we tricked someone. we waited for the parent to leave to start questioning and that we were caught questioning when the parent returned. i've been told there's no questions related to this incident. i hope i've been able to explain the issues that you've raised here. and to conclude by saying, in our opinion, we can always evaluate and assess on how we can do things better. however, we're very proud about our performance and our partnership with the school district that day. >> well, i see many people shaking their heads in the audience. >> i can't see them. >> which is why i'm telling you. i want -- i don't know if my colleague has any questions. no. so if maybe we can hear from mrc comment and i'll probably have some additional questions, if that's ok.

>> yes. thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> i'm pulling up the slides. >> good afternoon supervisor ronen and chair mandelman. thank you for this opportunity to discuss san francisco's m.o.u. with s.f. police department. i made a few slides here. there are hand outs that go over the slides.

school safety. i just pulled this from the agenda. now, in section 4 of the m.o.u., and i'm going to read this one because actually, it says if you ask about arrests on campus in an effort to minimize disruption to the learning environment. it's the m.o.u. is really focused on study rights, their privacy, parental notification and not disrupting the learning environment. commander lazar already went over those items. notification of parents when the student is taken into custody. section 17 of the m.o. united states that requires the school official must make immediate parent-guardian notification

when a student is arrested suspected victim of child abuse. in this particular case, i do want to make a point that it says, which requires a school official must make. so the police have to notify also, but in the m.o.u. it also specifies that we must. in section 18, the location of the arrest and again this was discussed also by commander lazar but absent exogen circumstances they should coordinate with the principal to the extent practical at a private location out of sight ot and sound of others. they will help avoid invasion of the study privacy and further disruption of the school campus. so those are the issues that directly from the m.o.u. and agenda i wanted to address. the m.o.u. expires in january. we'll have two community input sessions. one of the things i want to call

out is that the current m.o.u., we have agreement from the superintendent and the chief, that the current m.o.u. can stay in place until we have the new one signed and approved. we have scheduled two community meetings and again, if we need more there are flyers up here also about the community meetings, posted on the district website. we have contacted several of our community-based organizations to make sure they're there and the current m.o.u. was created with public council, the youth commission, played a great part in it and also the san francisco unified student advisory council. we're very instrumental in the creation of the m.o.u. that we have now. we are looking at an m.o.u. that we're going to revice so we're not starting from scratch and not drafting and lawyers have to go back and fourth with all the red lines, which they'll do anyway. we're looking at revisions.

>> can you highlight what some of those revisions are -- >> yep. that's the next slide. see how are you, ok. there's a couple lessons that we did learn that we know right off the bat we want to talk about. one of the things -- and this event brought out, clearly is that we need to differentiate the protocols for an active shooter response and other situations and this m.o.u. was never intended to apply to a gun going off on campus. you know, i regret that -- i don't think that was clearly understood. the m.o.u. is supposed to cover everything that happens with the police. that was never the intention. but we clearly didn't articulate that and that is why i think there's been some confusion when i have said things like m.o.u. doesn't a ply when a gun goes off. that wasn't really clear much we need to be clear about that. i think we also need to clarify

the timely notification of parents by the sfu administration in all situations, including active shooter situations. again, the police can do their notification but again, there's been something that we certainly could have done better with that in this situation. we need more explicit language regarding the information sharing expectations of both agencies. that's a big one. i don't want to go into a lot of detail there. the way we share information, and i'm particularly talking about when one of our students commits a crime and is perhaps arrested or being investigated for a situation that involves or threatens the life and safety of one of our students or campuses. we need more explicit language that allows us to share that information more immediately. another area is to have a clear process for sfpd to assist us

from materials from social media to avoid exploitation of minors. you can imagine social media is -- our kids are on social media constantly. there's a lot of situations where we need to be explicit about the support that we can go from sfpd and removing this content as quickly as possible, because we, as school district officials cannot. we need assistance there. i'd like to have revisions. of course we ha we honor and wee the community to provide us with in sight and feedback also. if the two sessions we have the community sessions that we have we'll look at the m.o.u. i brought copies of the m.o.u. there for anyone from the youth commission or anyone that wants to see that. we're going to post the comments of sections and allow people opportunities in a round-robin

situation to carousel to go around and give feedback on each section of the m.o.u. and provide people with what we come up with as a revised m.o.u. >> i think i'm going to have some additional questions after public comment. i'll just leave it there for now. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much. do you have any questions? if we can call up carolyn chung from the youth commission. >> hello. hi supervisors. hi community. so my name is caro line. i am the community partnership specialist at the youth commission. the youth commission for its 20 years, has been very invested in youth and police relations from starting town hall, from trying to establish youth employee round tables and also with the

juvenile and justice coalition, with the know your rights pamphlet and starting conversations with chief sir as well as chief scott right now. we have supported this hearing because, when there is community impacted incidents like this, it impacts youth first and for most and their families. with how we want to sensor youth in the conversation, which is why we called for this hearing to happen at 4:00. as you can see, the room has filled up because it's after school. so, with regards to this m.o.u., eve been a part of the process since 2011. we have been at the table since 2014 when it was established and eagerly are still at the table and willing to extent that table to more youth and community

stakeholders with the january renewal process. when we talk about promoting trust between the police and members of the community, we have to remember first and foremost, that there is trauma that occurs whether it's globally and locally. police officers are not the only authority figures that can create triggering moments for youth. school officials and also school resource officers institute the surveillance imprisonment and ways that limit youth ability to be themselves and be free and to just gather on a street corner. when we think about this hearing and moving forward with the m.o.u. on behalf of the youth commission to focus that transformative change is needed in how law enforcement interacts with youth of color and other

vulnerable populations in regards to focusing on training that focuses on deescalation and on mental health impacts and that police ing the teenage brain, just the phrasing of policing, institutes trauma. and we should really focus that we're interacting human beings, first and foremost. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you, so much. and before opening this up to public comment, i did notice we have judy lee from the public defenders office and i -- patty, i'm sorry. patty lee. patty, i don't know if you wanted to make comments. also, police commissioner cindy alias if you wanted to make comments before opening it up to the