could better fulfill our mission, be more effective and more efficient by focusing on the level of information that would be necessary for us to carry out, you know, our responsibilities. so if you have any ideas, please e-mail -- >> excuse me, commissioner? >> i would just say it sounds like this is going in the right direction, and i'm interested in getting more information on what your thoughts are and what these templates are. i think it would be great for any new member to have that in addition to the training that's already provided, which is good. i think focusing on what the core issue are and our motivation should be here is important rather than getting off on tangents, so i think that would definitely be very

helpful. >> yeah. i just support everything that's been said. i think the increased reliance on bonds for funding city infrastructure is going to grow and not shrink, and to the extent that we can stream line or capture the relative information that we need to weigh the handling of the bond expenditures is a great idea, so thank -- i support it. if there's something i can do, let me know. >> good. let's go to the next item, which is expenditures audits. i think that this committee decided it's part of our work plan to conduct three expenditures audits in this fiscal year. so perhaps we can be updated on that plan.

>> good morning, committee members. mark dela rosa from the controller's office. as of today, we have completed six out of the ten active g.o. bond programs. the last one that we completed was actually the 2014 eser bond program, which we issued on september 27, 2018. according to the results from cumming that we have completed so far, all of the bond funds that were actually audited were in accordance with the border mandates, so none has been with anything that was not appropriately expended. we do have one currently ongoing audit. that is the 2014 transportation bond. we will be issuing that in january . after that one, we have three

additional ones that are in the pipeline that will be either started or will be completed within the next -- either this fiscal year or the beginning of next fiscal year. >> well, thanks for that update. so we've delegated this task to the controller's office, obviously. so you feel confident that in our work plan of these -- of these three expenditures audits -- external audits, that you feel comfortable that we'll be able to complete this by the end of the current fiscal year or at least the first quarter of the next fiscal year. >> exactly. so we have -- so the seventh one will be completed in january of this current year. the next one after that will be the 2015 affordable housing bond, which we'll start in q3, and be finished by q4.

we'll start the affordable safety and public housing either q1 or q4 of this next fiscal year. >> any questions on the expenditure audits? thank you, mr. delarosa. i think that concluded all of our administrative comments. we're now open for public comment. >> i have some handouts for the commission members. [inaudible] >> i did not see any discussion on the prebond expenditure cost problem on the annual report.

it would be useful to see what progress cgoboc has made in the current year. point number two is no longer valid. point number three is the public deserves to under how the san francisco whistle blower program benchmarks against 20 international best practices of the government accountability project. i've handed out two copies of that. cgoboc should require the c.s.a. to benchmark the current program against international best practices each year. the c.s.a.'s whistle blower program sends some complaints back to the department where the complaint occurred. the c.s.a. calls this cosourcing. it is unrealistic to believe the offending department can objectively investigate themselves. this is a bad practice and should be disclosed in cgoboc's annual report. number five is just there's a statement in the report which i

believe you folks should review because it's probably not the message you want to send. number six is benchmarking cgoboc is a good idea, benchmark is against other san francisco bond oversight committees is not because of the limited sight and diversity of the peer group. number seven is a word issue. the report says performance audits, which is incorrect. and then lastly, there are three items in the report i'd like to commend cgoboc on. one is what i mentioned earlier, mr. bush's comment. also, mr. carlson's regarding the 9 million budget problem and

how it was resolved. and lastly, the commission made a motion and voted on it without public comment, so while the agenda item might be discussion, that's inappropriate. thank you. >> any further public comment? let's go to the next item. under other matters, maury, i think let's clarify the next meeting schedule for goboc. i believe it's january , but i believe that date is on martin luther king day, so it needs to be rescheduled. >>clerk: right. and so that date was changed to monday, and i'll send a follow up to everyone immediately following this meeting. >> thank you.

seeing no other comments, meeting's adjourned. >> i came to san francisco in 1969. i fell in love with this city and and this is where i raised my family at. my name is bobbie cochran.

i've been a holly court resident for 32 years. i wouldn't give up this neighborhood for nothing. i moved into this apartment one year ago. my favorite thing is my kitchen. i love these clean walls. before the remodeling came along, the condition of these apartments had gotten pretty bad, you know, with all the mildew, the repairs. i mean you haven't seen the apartment for the program come along. you wouldn't have believed it. so i appreciate everything they did. i was here at one point. i was. because i didn't know what the outcome of holly court was going to be. you know, it really got -- was it going to get to the point where we have to be displaced because they would have to demolish this place? if they had, we wouldn't have

been brought back. we wouldn't have been able to live in burn. by the program coming along, i welcome it. they had to hire a company and they came in and cleaned up all the walls. they didn't paint the whole apartment, they just cleaned up the mildew part, cleaned up and straighted it and primed it. that is impressive. i was a house painter. i used to go and paint other people's apartments and then come back home to mine and i would say why couldn't i live in a place like that. and now i do. >> my name tom hewitt.

first of all, i would like to welcome everyone to come to this fair. this safety fair, we trying to educate the public regarding how to prepare themselves during and after the earthquake and then to protect themselves for next 72 hours. >> hi. my name's ed sweeney. i'm the director of services at department of building inspection, and we put together a great fair for the city of san francisco to come down and meet all the experts. we've got engineers, architects. we have builders, we have government agencies. >> well, we have four specific workshops. we have the accessible business entrance. >> my name is leah, and i am the

assistant manager with the department of small business. i am leading the new accessibility ordinance that helps existing owners better comply with existing access laws. so all buildings that have places of public accommodation in san francisco, they must comply with this ordinance. >> the a.d.e. was setup by the board of supervisors, and the ordinance was passed about a year ago. >> one of the biggest updates that we have is that the deadlines were extended, so all of the deadlines were extended by six months. >> and it's really to help the public, the business community to be specific, to cut down on the amount of drive by lawsuits. >> so on this workshop, we're going to be covering what the compliance looks like, what business examiand property owne

need to know how to comply with the ordinance. we'll also talk about the departments that are involved, including the office of small business, department of building inspection, planning department, as well as the mayor's office on disability. >> hi. i'm marselle, and i manage a team at the building department. today, we'll cover the meaning of a.d.u.s, more commonly known as accessory dwelling units. we'll talk about the code and permitting processes, and we'll also talk about legalizing existing dwelling units that are currently unwarranted. >> this is the department of building inspection's residential remodelling workshop. my name is senior electrical inspector cheryl rose, and at this workshop, we're going to be

answering questions such as do i need an electrical permit when i'm upgrading my dwelling, when do i need to have planning involved in a residential remodel, and what's involved with the coerce process? we're going to also be reviewing inspection process, and the permitting process for residential remodel in san francisco. there's always questions that need answers. it's a mystery to the general public what goes on in construction, and the more we can clarify the process, the more involved the consumer can be and feel comfortable with the contractors they're working with and the product they're getting in the results. if you have questions that aren't addressed in this workshop, you're always welcome to come up to the third floor of 1660 mission street, and we're happy to discuss it with you and find out what you need to do.

>> the program is very successful. the last piece is already 60% in compliance. >> well, we have a very important day coming up. it's sept 15. last four has to be compliance, which means that the level four people that have to register with us and give us a basic indication of how they're going to deal with their seismic issues on their building. >> i'm francis zamora, and i'm with the san francisco department of emergency management, and today we talked about how to prepare for emergencies in san francisco. and so that's really importantiimportant. in san francisco, it's no secret. we live in earthquake country. there's a big chance we will be involved in a major earthquake in the next 30 years, but we don't have to be afraid.

these are going to be your first responders outside of the police officers, paramedics, first responders, these are going to be the people that come to your aid first. by getting to know your neighbors, you're going to know who needs help and who can help in case of an emergency. one of the great ways to do that is for signing7for nert, san francisco neighborhood emergency response team. it teaches you how to take care of yourself, your loved ones, and your neighborhood in the case of an emergency. information is just as important as water and food in an emergency. san francisco has an emergency text message alert system, called text sf. if there's some kind of an emergency happening in san francisco or your neighborhood, it could be a police action, a big fire, a tsunami or an earthquake. all you have to do is text your citizenship code to 888777, and

your mobile phone is automatically registered for alert sf. >> my name is fernando juarez, and i'm a fire captain with the san francisco fire department. we have a hire extinguisher training system. you want to pull the pin, stand at least 8 feet away, aim it at the base. if you're too close, the conical laser that comes out, it's too small, and the fire won't go out on the screen. if you step back, the conical shape on the screen is bigger, and it will take the fire go out faster. so it can tell when you're too close. >> my name is alicia wu, and i'm

the director of a san francisco based nonprofit. since 2015, we go out to the public, to the community and provide training in different topics. today we're doing c.p.r., controlling external feeding and how to do perfect communications in each topic, and also, i hope that they can bring it home and start gathering all the supplies for themselves to. >> on any given day in san francisco, we're very well resourced in terms of public safety professionals, but we all know in the event of a large scale disaster, it will be hours and days before the public safety professionals can get to you, so we encourage people to have that plan in place, be proactive. there's websites. we have a wonderful website called 72hours.org.

it tells you how to prepare yourself, your family, your pets, your home, your workplace. we can't emphasize enough how

>> 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