In this presentation, we're going to take a look at multiple choice questions related to property, plant, and equipment. First question. Method of depreciation that has the same amount of depreciation expense each period. A. Accelerated depreciation. B. Decline and balance depreciation. C. Straight line depreciation. D. Units of production depreciation. And E. Modified accelerated cost recovery system. Let's go through this again. Method of depreciation that has the same amount of depreciation expense each period. A. Accelerated depreciation. Now that's going to have a different method, a different amount, because it'll be accelerated having more in the front of the time frame than the end of the time frame. B. Decline and balance depreciation. Which is a form of accelerated depreciation and therefore not correct either. C. Straight line depreciation. And that seems reasonable if we have a straight line depreciation we're going to have the same amount allocated to each year. Let's keep going though. D. Units of production depreciation. You might think that might be the same each year but it depends on how many units we produce. So if we produce more or less units, we will have more or less depreciation. E. Says modified accelerated cost recovery system. Which is a tax depreciation method. And when we're thinking about financial accounting, typically the modified accelerated cost recovery attacks method is not going to be the answer. It's not the answer here. And it's usually going to be an accelerated method as well. So we have C then being the correct answer. Question. Answer. Method of depreciation that has the same amount of depreciation expense each period. C. Straight line depreciation. Next question. A depreciation method that results in larger depreciation expense in early years and smaller depreciation expense in later years. A. Accelerated depreciation. B. Decline in balanced depreciation. C. Straight line depreciation. D. Units of production depreciation. And E. Modified accelerated cost recovery system. So let's go through this again. A depreciation method that results in larger depreciation expense in early years and smaller depreciation expense in later years. A. Says accelerated depreciation. Now that seems right because it seems that we would have under an accelerated method larger expense in early years and lesser in later years. B. Says declining balance depreciation. Now the problem here is that that one is a form of accelerated depreciation method. So it does result in the same thing. Expenses being higher in early years and later in later years. So I'll keep that for now. C. Says straight line method. And it's not that. That's going to be even across all periods. D. Says units of production depreciation. That will depend on the units that are produced. And if we produce more in the current year, you would think it would be reasonable possibly for it to result in that being the case, having higher depreciation in earlier years than later years, but not necessarily being the case. It just depends how many units we produce. And then E. Says modified accelerated cost recovery system. And again that's a tax code one. And it's probably not going to be an answer in most of our financial accounting. But most of the accelerated recovery system is a form of accelerated method as well. So if we look at these then we've got A, B, and E. And we have a depreciation method that results in larger depreciation expense in early years and smaller depreciation expense in later years. Now this is a case where I think we have like kind of the more of the correct answer. Because this is really kind of a definition of what an accelerated depreciation is, which is A. And then B, which is the double declining or declining balance depreciation and possibly E could fall into the category of an accelerated depreciation method. So therefore I think A the most correct answer because that is what a accelerated method is. And we could have different forms of accelerated methods to achieve that. So that's going to be our answer here A one more time. A depreciation method that results in larger depreciation in early years and smaller depreciation expense in later years. A accelerated depreciation


Hi, I'm Jay Fidel. This is ThinkTech, and we're talking about Community Matters with David and Tice Vogel. They're here in town, and they are co-founders of the Volo Foundation, which is a private family foundation that exists to educate the public. We're going to do that now to create a sustainable and secure planet for generations to come. What's more is that this is an attempt to achieve positive change for the planet through data-driven research. And David is a data-driven scientist.  I get that right, David. That's right. Welcome to the show, David. Tice, welcome to the show. So you have some slides, and there's some things you want to impart, and I want to give you the opportunity to talk about Volo Foundation, talk about its work, and talk about the climate change science and conclusions that we need to know. So Volo Foundation started in 2014, and down in Florida, we live in Florida, but David was born in Hawaii. That's why we have so much interest in coming here and sharing our knowledge with you all. And I always say that people that know us, we're very different. David is a data scientist. David is the one that talks to that community and more of the everyday mother of six that talks to the everyday people. So we become a bridge between the science and the everyday people. That's perfect, perfect. That's the way you have to do it, right? Otherwise, there's too much distance between the science and everyday life. So the science is very interesting to me. You guys have a regular newsletter, you publish articles, you encourage others to write articles and do research on this. You are really getting more and more active in the area, and it requires that. Unfortunately, we are distracted in recent months with COVID, but you haven't stopped.  David, what have you been learning? What can you tell us today? What are your slides show about creating a sustainable and secure planet? It's really important we can never forget it. I think it's important for people to realize the connection between climate change and the effects on our economy. Because consistently, the economy ranks number one on the issues. Climate change ranks somewhere down there, depending on the group. But it's so closely tied to the economy. And what we do is we draw the relationship between each kind of carbon we produce and the damage it creates economically and to our health. And so that's really what the research shows us. And I think if it can be presented correctly, there are certainly policies, many, many different policies that can work to prevent further change in the climate and change in our temperature. Yeah, so policies, my policies, you're really talking about government policies, because that's where the leadership must come from. And today, I think we're going to focus on carbon policies and carbon, the benefits of carbon policies. And I like to hear your most current thinking about that. We have some states that are actually entertaining the carbon tax and maybe there's other incentives you can tell us about. It's all about incentivizing the change of human conduct. That's the way we can save the planet. And it seems like if you look at it from an economic point of view, it's monetary policies, monetary incentives, like a tax or credit, whatever. So tell us your latest thinking. Well, in order to stay on partisan on this, we sort of present a spectrum of policies so certainly there's the carbon tax which you probably hear a lot about, but, but many are many object to an additional tax. So the idea of carbon fee, carbon dividends, where the polluters are charged a fee for every time for basically the damage has been done and that money is given back to the public. There's not an additional tax on households tax on the on the actual polluters. And what that does economically actually patches in efficiency in our economy, where players can actually do more damage than the actual profits, they produce. You can actually patch that efficiency, it makes that that one carbon pricing policy can actually fix everything because capitalism is very powerful. Once you price him the correct, the correct cost of carbon, then all of a sudden the clean energy becomes more competitive and you don't have to listen to that with incentives and caps and all this regulation. The free market can actually solve itself if you, if you make it efficient. Well, maybe I know we want to go through the slides but a couple of things come to mind. Number one is a tax would be across the board. And that means a tax would be regressive on people who don't have a lot of money. In these days, we're interested in what we would call a social justice.  And query what do you say to the people who say David, a carbon tax is regressive, because it affects everybody the same way and some people are better able to pay it than others. What do you say to them. I'd say there's a lot of adjustments that can be made is probably half a dozen policies that have been proposed and some more, some regressive some more progressive. And that's really something for the politicians to work out to make it fair and certainly we're in favor of something that is socially fair. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't actually matter. Where the exact economics of where the money is going, for example, is not actually important in solving climate change. It's actually just that just the fact that the pollution is charged is the whole in the in making the economy work and just so just the fact that the pollution is charged actually fixes the problem. This is creating a damage day.  They, the polluters, the big companies are creating this damage that at the end of the day, we, the constituents are paying for it because every time that we have to recuperate from a damage, the problems in the droughts and the California fires, we are paying out of our taxes. Yes, so people don't understand that they are already paying for it in the state of paying for attacks because they don't like the war tax. Let's charge the real polluters. Yeah, and it's only fair if you're looking for fairness is David pointed out. You want you want to assign the burden to the people who have have have emitted most of the carbon you know so it should be proportional to the amount of carbon that that you are responsible for emitting. I'm sorry David you were saying. Yeah, so. Basically, it's like I can't. Well, I'll give you a stat, a statistic that's pretty mind blowing if you look at just the last decade. The net profit of the oil gas industry was $850 billion. The climate damages done was $1 trillion. We're actually at a point with emissions, where the damages to the public exceeds the amount of economic gain. That's a negative. And yet you don't subtract from GDP. So it looks like our GDP is growing. And yet people have less and less and you ask why that's why we're, we're spending tax dollar monies to for climate damages. Huge numbers how do you quantify the incentive or the disincentive the tax whatever mechanism you're going to use. That sounds like something for a data scientist doesn't it. Many, many more scientists than I working on this on that very problem. And there are specialists working in different areas, quantifying storm damages quantifying medical costs in different parts of the world, quantifying the cost of droughts. And so collectively within. If you were to add up what all these specialists have come up with it could be on the order of as much as $200 per ton. Well, that's we need to change conduct. And I suppose the fringe benefit is this will give government some money to spend in ameliorating climate change on the other side of the question so it's a win win. As far as that's concerned, but you know it strikes me that if you want to create a sustainable and secure planet using carbon incentives, carbon policy and the benefits. You have to do it on a global basis. You're not, you don't want to just limit it to one area one country, even one continent, you want to you want to go as far and wide as you possibly can. So am I right about that is that the way you guys address it. You're correct. It does have to be global. And if you get into the details of some of these proposed policies they have border adjustments. But first of all, if we want to be the best country in the world we have to be leaders, we have to start with with pricing here and other countries have already started with that leadership. So for example, Sweden, many places in Europe already have price on carbon and the form of carbon tax, we don't have to do it carbon tax, the price carbon. So we have to show leadership, and then then create a border adjustment. So tax the import that that country is not taxed carbon so there are actually fixes to make this a global policy. So one more question before we get to your slides I do want you to present them but strikes me that to get government to adopt policies which is really the name of the game here and policies that will work. You have to have their attention, you have to have government's attention. And the problem right now is we have a pandemic. If you look at the news, you know, any paper, any paper in the world. The headline is going to have something to do with COVID-19. How do you get their attention in a world which is so focused and so distracted on on COVID. When in fact, when in fact this is as much an existential threat as COVID is, in my view anyway. I think I send you an offer that I did in Florida for Mother's Day. And even though I was focused more on what's going on in Florida. He said, this is a dress rehearsal, the COVID the pandemic is a dress rehearsal for climate change or for the environmental changes that we have until we realize that we have a broken relationship with nature, we're going to have more pandemics, we're going to have future and more often pandemics happening in the world. When people make the connection about climate change, health and social, you're talking about the social racism and social problems right now. It's just a circle, and it has to come together. So we have to make everybody understand that climate change is super tight to the pandemic. And now that we are learning from the COVID the coronavirus didn't see race, didn't see color, didn't see geographical location, climate crisis is exactly the same.  So whether is that a health issue because of the air pollution and the cleaner act in the government has to take care of their population. I'm afraid we're going to be reminded by the weather soon enough. We're almost into hurricane season in the summer, and the weather will remind us exactly what we have to do here. It'll emphasize the priorities as well happen. David, you were saying something. Yeah, I think it's also a wake up call to not like what happens when we ignore science. I think Hawaii certainly did very well with COVID, very few people. So the person Hawaii did very well in paying attention to the scientists and a lot of states, we didn't. And while other countries were hunkering down and keeping the cases low and testing, we ended up with the most cases in the world. And that was from ignoring science. So I feel like this should be a wake up call. We should not be ignoring. Absolutely. Climate change for every single scientist agrees at least 99% that climate change is inevitable and it's going to be a much bigger effect than COVID. We're going to have parts of the country that are disappearing. It really is very frightening. And when you mix it all together, it's super frightening. So let's let's look at your slides. Why don't we put the first one up and then you can explain it to us and then tell us the track of your thinking. And so this line here shows where the burden of storm damages are falling and how it's changing over time. You can see, and I'll draw your attention to the bars on the right. You can see that the rate and area is the percentage of climate damages being paid by insurance companies. So more and more insurance companies are pulling out of liabilities and they're not they're not covering the coverage is falling on the upon the US taxpayers. And you see a bigger and bigger percentage being paid by taxpayers or or uninsured losses. So that's the American public. And if you look at that middle graph, it shows that climate damages, double or triple every single decade, past several decades, as a result of climate change. So we're at the American public is paying a higher percentage of a higher number. And so it's really just illustrates how it's hitting us in the in the wallet. It keeps climbing. It makes Al Gore look old fashioned.  And this illustrates exactly how many dollars is coming out of the average American wallet. And so it's up to almost $1,000 per household per year and keeping in mind that only half of American households actually pay taxes, if you're a taxpayer that $2,000 a year on average, coming out of your taxes pay for climate damages. What used to be maybe $1 to $1 billion aid packages from the government on is now for storm damages. Now we see $50 billion pack like storm aid being paid on a single storm. So and that's coming out of your wallet. That's all based on that's all part of the carbon damages that the fossil fuel companies are not being charged for. You know, you don't have to engage in predictive analysis, but it's clear from that chart, it's going to go up further, and it will continue to go up. Yeah. Okay, have with the next one. So the next one is a good illustration of how the damages compared to the actual fossil fuel company profits. So, so we think of profits as as income coming into the money coming into the economy going into the pockets of Americans. But you see in the last decade, the storm damages exceed the profits of the fossil fuel industry. So that's like I mentioned in the beginning, that's negative income to the US. We have more. Yeah, okay. So I mentioned that that if you were to add up the all the damages from various experts, it would be something like $200 per ton. And so I just wanted to put that in terms of price per gallon so you might go fill up your carbon gas and it may I don't know what it is and why maybe $4, $3, $4 a gallon. You buy there's an additional $2 of damage being done from the carbon emission. I mean, don't think of that. And so same with the lectures they use in your home in Florida, we only pay 11 or 12 cents per kilowatt hour, but I think you're about triple that here in Hawaii. Every kilowatt hour, if that energy is coming from coal, for example, that's an additional 20 cents per kilowatt hour and damages being done somewhere as a result of climate change. Well, as you know, Hawaii is trying to go to green energy to renewable energy, been trying to do that for, I'd say 15 years, maybe more. We've made some progress. And we have a number of shows on sync tech where we try to track on that progress.  But there is plenty of plenty of interest and plenty of momentum at every level. So if you're looking for one community where everyone knows the story, or pretty much everyone about renewables, this this would be that that area. People have been educated here, hopefully, hopefully enough to make political will. If we have no more slides, I have some questions for you. We have more slides. So the work can go very quick and it just shows that in a country like Sweden that has imposed price on carbon, that it doesn't destroy their economy, they were able to see that consistent economic growth while driving emissions done. And I think to your other point to, you know, the economy is pretty right now. And as a result of COVID, we've got some like 15 to 20% unemployment now. So, now's the time to stimulate the economy, create jobs in energy. So now is actually a great time to solve two in one, provide jobs and create a clean economy. Make that transition to a renewable war, like to sustain a war. Well, you know, the question is, how you change public conduct. Every time you look there's more public. Every time you look there are more viewpoints and frankly, more confusion. I'm not talking about not necessarily Hawaii but the country, maybe the world. People don't know they don't know the connection between the melting of the ice caps and the change in the weather and the rise of the sea level. They don't really make the connection they don't believe that they can affect those things, even if they do make the connection. You know, really, what we need is a global effort, a global governmental effort to achieve better clarified, rational, appropriate policy, carbon policy. What would the policy be if I made you guys the king and queen of the universe, and I gave you, you know, the power to make any policy you wanted. What policy would you enact would you proclaim tomorrow. I think we're probably in agreement it's the carbon dividend is really good because it's a carbon neutral, not an additional tax, the tax polluters. And I think that one. I think, and it gets back to the people gives back right exactly goes back to the people and it will generate the generate clean energy just on its own because all of a sudden the clean energy becomes more economical that's where people will go rather than to pay the fee, but they're incurring my inclusion. The reality is that carbon pricing has never been on the forefront of any political party, because they all play the game of winner takes it all. So they have to understand first that it has to be a bipartisan issue. It has been a few bills in there, but it never has gotten because both party want to have it all it want to want it. The democrats want the Green New Deal, which is way too much way too soon. And then the Republicans don't want government intervention, but at the same time, they don't do anything about it. So, you have to find this bipartisan consents when Congress and people, political people think about everybody. I think also the comment after we get from politicians is if it's important, if it's important topic to the American public and it's important topic to them. Climate change is not high enough on people's risk for either not aware or deny or don't really understand the connection and you can see from the slides actually not that scientific. If you're a taxpayer paying 2000 a year for carbon damages and it's going up. And if you're aware of that and you should be upset with that and the majority of Americans want that to be addressed as a number one issue, then policymakers will make it that number one issue. I totally agree. The most important question that a constituent of somebody running for office is, what is your position on climate change. What is your position on carbon policy. What is your position on making this a sustainable planet. And I don't think that question is asked often enough. It should be asked every single, every single time, and every, every candidate for office should be able to answer that. And you should judge that candidate on the answer. Otherwise, we just never get education and like you were saying Hawaii is very highly educated on renewables on climate change. We shared that with every state in the United States and globally as well. And at the beginning of this administration we finally did something that all the countries agree and it was the Paris accord, and we had some goals there. Unfortunately, we pulled out of the Paris accord, but you have to have a global consensus because just like a social and health and economy. Everything is tied up and it's going to affect us all. Absolutely. The other the other point I would ask you about is, is the press the media. You know the media can also ask candidates questions they can ask them for their platforms on things. They can encourage policies or at least inquire into what the, what that candidate would adopt as a policy. Do you think the media is doing enough on this. I think you already know how I feel about it. One of the issues here is it's become so politicized. The media, the media does have some coverage but they're afraid has been perceived just by mentioning the topic of climate change as has been one one side of the aisle and the other so really really need to change the perception that it's not a political question is scientific reality. We have some meteorologists that are talking about it now. And I feel like people, they listen to the person that gives them the news every night, and we should start with the news. If it's something you talk about it every day people are going to pay attention to it. So to answer your question I don't think the media is doing enough in an issue as important as climate change. Yeah, don't be surprised I agree with you totally. The other thing is the schools. Now the problem with the schools young kids and I have seen this myself, young kids you know great schoolers and all that if you tell them about saving the planet if you tell them about climate change, they take the point. It's remarkable how, how, how, how quickly they get the message on this. The problem is, they're less than 10 years old, and they're not going to be holding office for a while they're not going to be in charge for a while. They take decades before those kids that you teach today are in a position to do something about this. So it's a delay problem. It's and it's time that we don't have we don't have that time, we have to act more quickly. So what would you say you guys, David ties what would you say to the schools to the educational system, not only, you know, here in this country but around the world, as to how to, you know how to make every one of those kids in every grade.  You know, Italy already have it in their curriculum and the curriculum in elementary, middle and high school. I think, again, the government has to make it something that has to be. And it should be an important topic in schools, because it's an important issue and it should be part of science. I think teaching kids is extremely important because we're going to be solving this problem for several decades. And also kids may bring it to the attention of parents. Yes, kids talk to their parents and their parents get educated too. You know, one thing it strikes me is that we live in a time when in COVID everybody talks about reimagining things reimagining our way of life our world order we're managing government reimagining social justice, you know, changing it all. I think those people, you know, we're demonstrating, you know, over the past month or so. That's what they want they want a better world. And I think it's really important that we fold this issue in for them. I think they will see it. We have to keep it at a high priority for them. It's just as important as every other issue if not more important, because it, you know, it's ultimately existential.  It's really amazing. You have done really an enormous amount of outreach on the subject. I want to ask you though and that's a private foundation, which is really a great, a great compliment to your dedication. Where are you going with this. Right now it's, it's impressive it's admirable what where are you going. What what what are the next few years you expect to do in volo foundation. I think that right now volo because like you said we're reinventing ourselves and everybody's reinventing we're going more into the media into the ads on TV we have PSAs, mostly creating awareness, mostly educating not only the kids but educating the adults, mostly telling how to get involved as constituents as you say, learning about the candidates, learning what they're saying for learning, because it's too easy to blame everything also on the government when we are the ones that vote, when we are the one that is certain representative in our, in our, in our little part of where we live, and then we, we tell them oh they're not good enough well you voted for him. So, learn about that candidate us, and also getting bold. What are you, what are you run for office day. Exactly. So David we're almost out of time I want to ask you to say, provide us with the message you want to leave. Not only the people of Hawaii but you know our talk shows go far beyond Hawaii. What would you say to people to ask them to, you know, keep aware be more aware. of policies that will incentivize, you know, incentivize actions that will save us from climate change. What would you say to them what is your message that you want to leave with them. How would they demand that demand of your politicians that they have a solution or proposal to solve to be carbonized our society, and therefore solve climate change. We, we've got all the man that we all understand about telling us about economically and our health. And that if we want to, if we want our kids to enjoy what we enjoyed as a society. We need to demand our politicians address this. Yes, and I remember the last time we did a show with you guys. Tyce talked about that she talked about your kids. She talked about how important it is to leave a world that is livable to them. And then maybe that's one of the big reasons you guys do what you do about climate change, and about follow foundation. It's for your kids and I remember your comments about that last time Tyce, you want to repeat them for our viewer viewer audience. I always say they are my mother, they, they are the reason we do everything we do, and you want to preserve future generations and you want to make them leave them an environment in a world they can live in. Great. Thank you so much, Tyce, David, thank you for coming around. I hope you enjoy your time in Hawaii and I hope we can talk again soon. And we do admire the work you're doing.


So I'll call the meeting of the contract review subcommittee to order for Board of Public Utilities. We have a roll call, please. Yes. Board Member Walsh. Present. Board Member Banneport. Here. And Chair Galvin. Here. Good afternoon. Just a reminder to turn your microphones off when you're not speaking. And we'll move to public comments on item two. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you dial in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And we have no one in person wishing to make public comment. No hands raised on Zoom and we receive no voicemail public comments or email public comments. Great. That'll take care of public comments. So we'll move to item number 3.1. Director Burke. Thank you, Chair Galvin. Members of the subcommittee, we're very excited to be bringing forth to you item 3.1, which is a funding agreement between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the City of Santa Rosa for direct install water use efficiency program. And Claire Nordley, our sustainability coordinator over the water department will be making the presentation over the water use efficiency team. Sorry, I just promoted Claire. Good afternoon, Chair Galvin and members of the board. Is that coming through on Zoom? Okay. Okay, great. So I'm Claire Nordley and the sustainability coordinator. And I'm going to talk about the funding agreement that is before you between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the City of Santa Rosa. So before we get into the agreement, I just want to touch on what a direct install program actually is. Basically it's the purchase and the installation of toilets and fixtures at no cost to Santa Rosa water customers. So the fixtures are things like shower head, bathroom, faucet, aerator and kitchen faucet aerators. And this funding would actually provide the funding for both the purchase of the fixtures and the installation of the fixtures for our Santa Rosa water customers. So this funding agreement is specifically from the Department of Water Resources. They're providing $1.5 million. Santa Rosa water cost is actually $0. Although, of course, we will have our staff time embedded in creating and developing and monitoring the program. The state will actually disperse the whole of the state funding with the very first invoice submittal that we submit to them. And the funding will be available starting in June of this year, June 2023. And we do need to expend all the funding and provide a final completion report no later than June of 2026. So some of the terms of the agreement include Department of Water Resources responsibilities. Obviously they need to provide us the payment and they are allowed to audit awardees if we are selected. And then Santa Rosa water responsibilities, obviously we need to submit an invoice in order to get payment from them. We also need to submit annual progress reports and a final completion report. And then of course we actually implement the direct install water use efficiency program. The agreement also comes with specific compliance requirements. We are in compliance with every single one of these. So it wasn't a problem, but we did confirm that and look into each one of them. So this specific program, what we're proposing is that for the toilets we remove and recycle 1.6 gallon per flush or more toilets. And we replace those with either a 1.1 gallon per flush toilet or a 0.8 gallon per flush toilet. And we recommend the lower flow toilet for residential applications and then the higher flow, specifically for commercial, industrial and institutional applications. And then obviously we would require the removal and replacement of fixtures. So that includes shower heads, bathroom aerators and then kitchen faucet aerators. And all of those older fixtures would be replaced with new high efficiency models. So this is open to all customer classes which is exciting. So single family, multi-family, commercial, industrial, institutional, everybody is eligible to apply for this. And it is first come first serve. Obviously we have a limited amount of funding and we can only replace so many toilets. So it is first come first serve for the funding. And then we are predicting that we'll be able to replace approximately 2,000 toilets and the associated fixtures with those toilets with this funding. And the reason why I can't give a very specific more specific example or number than that for the 2,000 toilets is because the cost for a commercial toilet differs from a residential toilet. We wanna be able to have that flexibility if we're don't have enough commercial toilets we can install more residential increasing our potential number of total installs or decreasing it if we get many more commercial customers interested, for example. So with that, it's recommended by Santa Rosa Water that the contract review subcommittee recommend the Board of Public Utilities approval of this funding agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources in the amount of $1.5 million. And with that, I'll turn it back to you, Chair Balvin, for any questions. Thank you. I'll put it up for questions or comments by the committee. If there are none, then I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. I move that the contract subcommittee recommend to the full Board of Public Utilities approval of a funding agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources in the amount of $1,500,000 to fund the items of the sustainability program that are recommended with this agenda item. Okay. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right, we'll open it up for public comment on item 3.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're in the room, you can go to the microphone or you can dial in using star nine. Okay, and there is no one in person wishing to make public comment, no hands raised on Zoom, and no email or voicemail public comments. All right, we'll have a motion and a second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Board Member Walsh. Aye. Board Member Battenport. Aye. And Chair Galvin. Aye. All right, and that passes unanimously. Great, thank you again for the presentation. I hope it was a successful venture. I know I've got two that I got a few years ago that are terrible, but I hope these are better. All right, I think concludes our agenda, so we are adjourned.


And then finally, he turned his attention to AOC and members of the squad, freshman congress women who Donald Trump recently attacked via Twitter. Now he went on an unhinged tirade against these women himself where he calls them all kinds of names and just says things that are factually incorrect and downright bizarre, but what's odd to me is he's gonna do all of this and say all of this while claiming moral high ground. He is essentially trying to present himself as the adult in the room who is kind of tacitly condemning Donald Trump's remarks about them, he's saying maybe he shouldn't do this, but in the process he's saying well you know it's true that these women are all of these horrible things that Donald Trump says, but maybe don't say this. So I mean the rent is a bizarre and unhinged, but he presents himself as the grown up and it's absurd. So watch and then we will discuss when we come back because what a joke Lindsey Graham is. I want to ask you a question about the election because there are a lot of polls that say if the election were tomorrow the president wouldn't win, what does the president need to do to ensure a win? Make sure it's not tomorrow. So now he's gonna win. If you'll just, Mr. President you're gonna win, just knock it down a notch. In what way?  Don't get that. Aim higher. We don't need to know anything about them personally. Talk about their policies. Senator it sounds like you were negative. I think they're American citizens who are duly elected that are running on an agenda that is disgusting, that the American people will reject. Talk about what it means for America to have free health care for illegal immigrants and no criminalization of coming into the country. See how that works for controlling immigration. Their ideas, they're anti-Semitic, they talk about the Israeli state if they're a bunch of thugs, not victims of the entire region. They wanted to impeach Trump on day one. They're socialist, they're anti-Semitic, they stand for all the things that most Americans disagree with, make them the face of the future of the Democratic Party, you will destroy the Democratic Party. It sounds like you're saying the president went too far with these. I just don't think you'd aim higher. You don't need to, they are American citizens, they won an election, take on their policies. Ladies and gentlemen, that is who a lot of people in mainstream media claim is a moderate Republican. I mean, what do you say about that? That was unhinged.  It was completely incoherent, it was also contradictory, and I have a question for you all. Before we talk about the substance there, not that there was any substance, but before we talk about the substance, for all of the people who claims to have left the Democratic Party or quote unquote walked away because they're sick and tired of the Democratic Party's identity politics, aren't you getting tired of the Republican Party's identity politics? Because that's exactly what we just saw. Lindsey Graham invoked identity politics and claimed that any and all criticism of Israel is tantamount to antisemitism because he claims that these women are anti-Semitic and anti-American and the only thing that he cited to validate that claim was that they accuse people who support Israel of doing it for the Benjamins. In other words, they said this thing that offended me. They're antisemitic. I mean I thought that it was the right who's supposed to be against the use of identity politics who shouldn't be offended so easily by things and call any and everything racist or Islamophobic or bigoted or whatever. See when the Republican Party does it and when they repeatedly invoke white identity politics and freak out about immigrants, well you know it's fine because they're Republicans. They're concerns when they take offense to things that's valid. But when the left does it, when the Democratic Party does it, it's invalid. Now that's not to say that the Democratic Party does not weaponize identity politics to punch left. But if you're claiming that it's only the Democratic Party who does this, then you're just factually incorrect and you're not paying attention.  He then urged Donald Trump to not talk about them and to rather talk about the policies that they are promoting because if Donald Trump quote makes them the face and the future of the Democratic Party, you will destroy the Democratic Party. Oh, so you want to talk about policies? Are you sure about that, Lindsey? Because I'm pretty sure that if we juxtapose our foreign policy with your foreign policy and any policy, nine times out of ten, in fact again, ten times out of ten, the American people are going to side with us and not you because right before he made that silly argument, he was talking about why we need to escalate with Iran. The American people, even though we're being bombarded with propaganda, we're against war with Iran. We're against all of these regime change interventionist wars. So time after time, even if you fear monger and try to make the case that we should be invading every single country on the goddamn planet, people don't agree with you, Lindsey, they agree with us. And when it comes to policies, what are the policies that AOC and other members of the squad are championing? Medicare for all, taxing the rich, regulating Wall Street, all things that are incredibly popular. So this is why Trump doesn't talk about policy. One, because he doesn't know anything about policy specifics. He's not a policy wonk. He just regurgitates whatever Fox News says.  So he brought up some examples. So let's try to parse out these examples here. He says, talk about what it means for America to have free healthcare for illegal immigrants, free healthcare for illegal immigrants. First of all, we're saying we should have free healthcare for everyone where healthcare is free at the point of service. But why would you include illegal immigrants? And why do you think that's popular? Because all you have to do is explain to American people why undocumented people need healthcare too. Because let's say, hypothetically speaking, if an undocumented immigrant is bitten by a snake, a poisonous snake, and they need the antidote, do we not give that to them? Do we just watch them die? Because they're undocumented immigrants? The answer is you let them die.  There's no way around that. So if you truly don't want people to move here, Lindsey Graham, then maybe you should stop backing all of these interventions for regime change wars and meddling, where that actually increases the number of immigrants who want to move here.   And he also says that we should talk about how they wanted to impeach Donald Trump on day one. Because he was in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution on day one, dipshit. So you claim to be from the party that it's pro-law and order. So are you or are you not law and order? Because being law and order means you have to abide by the Constitution. And if the president is in violation of the Constitution, then Congress must exercise their power to impeach. Because nobody gets to be above the law. I don't care if you're president or a member of Congress. If you're breaking the law and violating the Constitution, then you have to be impeached. So everything that he's saying here is not just wrong, but it's idiotic, it's unhinged, and yet he claims to be the grown-up. Lindsey Graham is not the grown-up.  Because he knows that you're not going to make it in the 2019 version of the Republican Party unless you kiss Donald Trump's ring. So he's doing what he needs to do, and he's conforming. He's becoming a Donald Trump sycophant. So he is a spineless individual who has absolutely no room to talk, and if he genuinely believes that he should pit his policies against ours, then I'm down for that, because you will lose every single time we do that, Lindsey Graham.


The rift grows between Wagner Group and Russia's Defence Ministry. Yegevny Prigozin, the owner of the Wagner Group, has said that the Russian Ministry of Defence is lying when it claims that Russian forces on the Barkhmut Front have sufficient ammunition. Prigozin has complained that the Wagner fighters receive less than 20% of ammunition they had been promised. The Russian Ministry of Defence responded to Prigozin's accusation that it creates obstacles to Wagner Group's ammunition supply, thus starving its soldiers of ammunition. The Ministry of Defence said that Prigozin was trying to create a rift between different Russian units, which plays to the Ukrainian forces' advantage. None of the statements made allegedly on behalf of assault units about the lack of ammunition correspond to reality. In 18th and 20th February alone, volunteers from assault units were given 1,660 rockets for multiple launch rocket systems, 10,171 shells for large-caliber artillery and mortar bombs, 980 projectiles for tank guns. Prigozin responded saying that Wagner fighters have not received 80% of the promised ammunition. He added that there were no volunteers, only Wagner Group fighters on the Barkhmut Front. Prigozin claimed that the Russian Defence Ministry has failed to supply Wagner fighters even with sapper shovels. Defence Ministry's claims are an insult to the Wagner Group and an attempt to cover up their crimes before those fighters who are performing a heroic feat in Barkhmut. The Wagner Private Military Company does not receive 80% of the ammunition it needs to carry out combat missions. If you want to give us ammunition, give it to us.  In contrast to the Russian Defence Ministry and its claims, I am prepared to submit all relevant documents, including the requests for ammunition submitted and the reports concerning the amount received to a military prosecutor's office or counter-intelligence. Up to you, on the 9th of February, Prigozin announced that the recruitment of convicts to the Wagner Group had been halted without, however, explaining what caused this decision. Later on, he named three main reasons why he had stopped recruiting convicts in Russian prisons. One of the reasons was the opposition of the Russian military leadership. On the 18th of February, the Institute for the Study of War reported that Chechen rebel leader Ramzan Kadirov had rejected overtures from Prigozin to join a renewed informational campaign against the Russian Ministry of Defence.


from Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. It's theCUBE covering IBM Chief Data Officer Strategy Summit, Spring 2017, brought to you by IBM. Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco at the IBM Chief Data Officer Strategy Summit, Spring 2017. It's a mouthful, it's a great event, and it's one of many CDO summits that IBM's putting in around the country and soon around the world. So check it out, we're happy to be here and really talk to some of the thought leaders about getting into the nitty-gritty detail of strategy and execution. So we're excited to be joined by our next guest, Rebecca Shockley. She's an analytics global research leader for the IBM Institute for Business Value. Welcome, Rebecca. I didn't know about the IBM Institute for Business Value. Thank you. Absolutely, and Priya V. She said Priya V's good, so you can see the whole name on the bottom, but Priya V is CTO of Cognitive IoT Watson Health at IBM. Welcome, Priya. Thank you. So first off, just impressions of the conference. It's been going on all day today. You've got 170 or some odd CDOs here, sharing best practices, listening into the sessions. Any surprising takeaways coming out of any of the sessions you've been at so far? On a daily basis, I live and breathe data. That's what I help our customers to get better at it, and today it's a day where we get to talk about how can we adopt something which is emerging in that space. We talk about data governance, what we need to look out in that space, and Cognitive has been the fabric that we are integrating into this data governance, actually. It's a great day, and I'm happy to talk to over, like you said, 170 CDOs across, representing different verticals. Excellent. And Rebecca, you do a lot of core research that feeds a lot of the statistics that we've seen on the keynote slides and stuff. And one of the interesting things we talked about off here was really, you guys are coming up with a playbook, which is really to help CDOs basically execute and be successful CDOs. Can you tell us about the playbook? Well, the playbook was born out of a Gartner statistic that came out, I guess, two or three years ago that said by 2016, you'll have 90% of organizations will have a CDO and 50% of them will fail. And we didn't think that was very optimistic. 90% will have them and 50% will fail. Yes, and so I can tell you based on our survey of 6,000 global executives last fall, the numbers at 41% in 2016, and I'm hoping that the playbook kept them from being a failure. So what we did with the playbook is basically laid out the six questions, key questions that an organization needs to think about as they're either putting in a CDO office or revamping their CDO offices because Gartner wasn't completely unfounded and thinking a lot of CDO offices weren't doing well when they made that prediction because it is very difficult to put in place mostly because of culture change, right? It's a very different kind of way to think. But we're certainly not seeing the turnover we were in the early years of CDOs or hopefully the failure rate that Gartner predicted. So what are the top two or three of those six that they need to be thinking about? So they need to think about their objectives and one of the things that we found was that when we look at CDOs, there's three different categories that you can really put them in. A data integrator, so is the CDO primarily focused on getting the data together, getting the quality of the data, really bringing the organization up to speed? The next thing that most organizations look at is being a business optimizer. So can they use that data to optimize their internal processes or their external relationships? And then the third category is market innovator. Can they use that data to really innovate, bring in new business models, new data monetization strategies, things like that? The biggest problem we found is that CDOs that we surveyed and we surveyed 800 CDOs, we're seeing that they're being assessed on all three of those things and it's hard to do all three at once, largely because if you're still having to focus on getting your data in a place where you can start doing real science against it, you're probably not going to be full-time market innovator either. You can't be full-time in two different places. That's not to say as a data integrator, you can't bring in data scientists, do some skunk works on some of the early work, find and we've seen organizations really like Bank Etau down in Brazil, really in that early stages, still come up with some very innovative things to do, but that's more of a one-off, right? If you're being judged on all three of those, that I think is where the failure rate comes in. But it sounds like those are kind of sequential, but you can't operate them sequentially because in theory you never finish the first phase, right? You're always doing, you're always keeping up with the data, but for some organizations they really need to, they're still operating with very dirty, very siloed data that you really can't bring together for analytics. Now, once you're able to look at that data, you can be doing the other two, optimizing and innovating at the same time, but your primary focus has to be on getting the data straight. Once you've got a functioning data ecosystem, then the level of attention that you have to put there is going to go down and you can start working on focusing on innovation and optimization more as your full-time role, but no, data integrator never goes away completely. And cleanser. Yeah. Then that's a great strategy then, as you said, then the rubber's got to hit the road. The rubber's got to hit the road. That's where you play on the execution point.  So what are you seeing from your kind of point of view in terms of actually executing, finding early wins, easy paths to success, you know, how to get those early wins basically, right? To validate what you're doing. That's right. Like you said, it's become a universal fact that data governance and things, everything around consolidating data and the value of insights we get offered, that's been established fact. Now CDOs and rest of the organization, the CIOs and the CTOs have this mandate to start executing on them. And how do we go about it? That's part of my job at IBM as well as a CTO. I work with our customers to identify where are the German and business value? Where are those things which are completely data-driven? Be it as a cognitive forecasting or your business requirement could be how can I maximize a 40% of my service channel? Which in the end of the day, it could be a cognitive-enabled data-driven virtual assistant which is automating and bringing a TCO of huge incredible value. Those are some of the key execution elements we are trying to bring. But like we said, yes, we have to bring in the data, we have to hire the right talent and we have to have a strategy. All those great things happen. But I always start with a problem, a problem which actually anchors everything together. A problem is a business problem which demonstrate key business value. So we actually know what we're trying to solve and work backwards in terms of what is the data relevant to it? What are the technologies and toolkits that we can put on top of it? And who are the right people that we can involve? In parallel with the strategy that we have already established. So that's the way we've been going about. We have seen phenomenal successes, huge results which has been transformative in nature and not just this 170 CDOs. I mean, we want to make sure every one of our customers is able to take advantage of that. Right. But it's not just the CDO, it's the entire business. So the IBM Institute on Business Value looks at an enormous amount of research. Or does an enormous amount of research look at a lot of different issues? So for example, your CEO report is phenomenal. I think you do one for the CMO number of different users. How are other functions or other roles within business starting to acculturate to this notion of data as a driver of new behaviors? And then we can talk about and what are some of those new behaviors in the degree to which the leadership is ready to drive them? I think the executive suite is really starting to embrace data much more than it has in the past. Primarily because of the digitization of everything, right? Before the amount of data that you had was somewhat limited. Often it was internal data and the quality was suspect. As we've started digitizing all of the business processes and being able to bring in an enormous amount of external data, I think organizationally executives are getting much more comfortable with the ability to use that data to further their goals within the organization. So in general, the chief groups are starting to look at data as a way of doing things differently? Absolutely. How is that translating into then doing things differently? Yeah, so I was just at the session where we talked about how organizations and business units are even coming together because of data governance and the data itself, because they are having federated units where a certain part of business is enabled and having new insights because we are actually doing these things. And new businesses, like monetizing data is something which is happening new. Data is a service. Actually having data as a platform where people can build new applications. I mean, the whole new segment of people as data engineers, full-stack developers and data scientists actually, I mean, they are incubated and they end up building lots of new applications which has never been part of a typical business unit. So these are the cultural and the business changes we are starting to see in many organizations actually. Some of them are leading the way because they just did it without knowing it's actually, that's the way it should be doing it. But that's how it influences many organizations. I think you were looking for kind of an example as well. So in the keynote this morning, one of the gentlemen was talking about working with their CFO, their risk and compliance office, and we're able to take the ability to identify a threat within their ecosystem from two days down to three milliseconds. So that's what can happen once you really start being able to utilize the data that's available to an organization much more effectively is that kind of quantum leap change and being able to understand what's happening in the marketplace, being able to understand what's happening with consumers or customers or clients, whichever flavor you have. And we see that throughout the organization. So it's not just the CFO but the CMO and being able to do much more targeted, much more focused and on the consumer side or the client customer side, that's better for me, right? And the marketing teams are seeing 30, 40% increase in their ability to execute campaigns because they're more data driven now. So has the bit flipped where the business units are now coming to the CDO's office and pounding on the door saying, I need my team as opposed to being, try to coerce that you no longer use intuition? So it depends upon where the company is because what we call that is the snowball effect, right? It's one of the reasons you have to have the governance in place and get things going in parallel because what we see is that most organizations go in skeptically, they're used to running on their gut instinct, that's how they got their jobs, mostly, right? They had good instincts, they made good decisions, they got promoted. And so making that transition to being a data driven organization can be very difficult. What we find though is that once one section, one segment, one flavor, one good campaign happens, as soon as those results start to mount up in the organization, you start to see a snowball effect. And what I was hearing particularly last year when I was talking to CDO's was that it had taken them so long to get started, but now they had so much demand coming from the business that they want to look at this and they want to look at that and they want to look at the other thing because once you have results, everybody else in the organization wants those same kind of results. I don't- Just to add up to that is data is not anymore viewed as a commodity. If you've seen valuable organizations who know what their asset is, it's not just a commodity. So the parity of- Or even a liability is what it used to be, right? Yeah, exactly. It's expensive to hold it and store it and keep track of it. Exactly. So the parity of this is very different right now. So people are talking about how can I take advantage of the intelligence? So business units, they don't come and pound the door. Rather, they're trying to see what data that I can have or what intelligence that I can have to make my business differentiate or I can value add something more. That's a type of argument. So I feel based on the experiences that we work with our customers, it's bringing organizations together. And for certain times, yes, sometimes the smartness and the best practices come in place that how we can avoid some of the common mistakes that we do in terms of replicating it 100 times or not knowing who else is using. So some of the tools and techniques helps us to master those things. But pretty much it is bringing organizations and leveraging the intelligence that what you find might be useful to her and what she finds might be useful or what we all don't know that we go figure it out where we can get it. So what's the next step in the journey to increase the democratization of the utilization of that data? Because obviously, chief data officers, there aren't that many of them, their teams are relatively small. Well, 41% of businesses. 41%. So there's a large number from out there. Yeah, but these are running huge companies with a whole bunch of business units that have tremendous opportunity to optimize around things that they haven't done yet. So how do we continue to kind of move this democratization of both the access and the tools and the utilization of the insights that they're all sitting on? Yeah, I have some bolder expectations on this because data and the way in which data becomes an asset, not anymore a liability actually folds up many of the layers of applications that we have. I used to come from an enterprise background in the past. We had layers of application programming which just used data as a one single layer. In terms of opportunities for this, there is a lot more dissolving silos and dissolving layers of IT in a typical organization. When we build data-driven applications, this is all going to change. It's fascinating, this role is in the front center of everything actually around data-driven. And I mean, you also heard enough about cognitive computing these days because it is the key ingredient for cognitive computing. We talked about four E's of cognitive computing. It has to start first learning and data is the first step in terms of learning and then it goes into process re-engineering and then you reinvent things and you disrupt things and you bring new experiences or humanize your solution. So it's on a great trajectory. It's going to change the way we do things. It's going to give new and expected things both from a consumer point and from an enterprise point as well. It'll bring effects like consumerization of enterprises and whatnot. So I have bolder and broader expectations out of this fascinating data world. I think one of the things that made people hesitant before was an unfamiliarity with thinking about using data, say a CSR on the front line using data instead of the scripts he or she had been given or their own experience. And I think what we're seeing now is, A, everybody's personal life is much more digital than it was before. Therefore, everybody's somewhat more comfortable with interacting, right? And B, once you start to see those results and they realize that they can move from having to crunch numbers and do all the background work, once we can automate that through robotic process automation or cognitive process automation and let them focus on the more interesting, higher value parts of their job, we've seen that greatly impact the culture change. It's, the culture change question comes whether people are thinking they're going to lose their job because of the data or whether it's going to let them do more interesting things with their jobs. And I think, hopefully we're getting past that, I don't, you know, it's me or it, stage into the, how can I use data to augment the work that I'm doing and get more personal satisfaction, if not, you know, business satisfaction out of the work that I'm doing. Hopefully getting rid of some of the mundane. I think there's also going to be a lot of software that's created, that's going to be created in different ways and have different impacts. Absolutely. The reality is, we're creating data incredibly fast. We know that it has enormous value. People are not going to change that rapidly. The new types of algorithms are coming on, but many of the algorithms have been for years. So in many respects, it's how we render all of that in some of the new software that's not driven by process but driven by data. And the beauty of it is this software will be invisible. It will be self-feeling, regeneratable software. Invisible to some, but very, very highly visible to others. And I think that's one of the big challenges that IT organizations face, and businesses face, is how do they think through that new software? So you talked about today, or historically, you talked about your application stack, where you have stacks, which one has some little view of the data. And in many respects, we need to free that data up, remove it out of the application so we can do new things with it. So how is that going to, how is that process going to either be facilitated or impeded by the fact that in so many organizations, data is regarded as a commodity, something that's disposable. Do we need to become more explicit in articulating or talking about what it means to think of data as an asset, as something that's valuable? What do you think? Yeah, so in the typical application world, when we start, if you really look at it, data comes at the very end of it, because people start designing what is going to be the mock-ups, where are we going to integrate with what sources? Am I talking to the bank as an API and et cetera? So the data representation comes at the very end. In the current generation of applications, the cognitive applications that we are building, it is, first we start with the data, we understand what are we working on, and we start applying, taking advantage of machines and all these algorithms, which existed, like you said, many, many decades ago, and we take advantage of machines to automate them, to get the intelligence, and then we write applications. So you see the order has changed, actually. It's a complete reversal. Yes, we had three-pickle, three-tier, four-tier architecture, but the order of how we perceive and understand the problem is different. But we are very outcome-driven. We are trying to maximize 40% of your sales. We are trying to create a digital, connected dashboards for your CFO, where the entire board can make decisions on the fly. So we know the business outcome, but we are starting with the data. So the fundamental change in how software is built, and all these modules of software which you're talking about, why I mentioned Invisible, is somewhat generatable. The AI and cognitive is advanced in such a way that somewhat generatable, if it understands the data and domain, it can generate what it should do with the data. That's what we are teaching, that's what ontology and all this is about. So that's why I said it's limitless, it's pretty bold, and it's going to change the way we have done things in the past. And like she said, it's only going to compliment humans because we are always better decision makers, but we need so much of cognitive capability to aid and supplement our decision making. So that's going to be the way that we run our businesses. All right, Priya's paying a pretty picture, I like it. Right, some people see only the dark side, that's clearly a bright side, that's a terrific story. So thank you. So Priya and Rebecca, thanks for taking a few minutes, hope you enjoy the rest of the show, surrounded by all this big brain power, and I appreciate you stopping by. Thanks so much. All right, Jeffery with Peter Burris, you're watching theCUBE from the IBM Cheap Date Officer Summit Spring 2017, we'll be right back after this short break, thanks for watching. They crushed it. My name is Dave Vellante, and I'm a long time industry analyst. I was at IDC for a number of years and ran the company's largest and most profitable business. I focused on a lot of areas, infrastructure, software, organizations, the CIO community. Cut my teeth there.


How could we translate research about effective feedback to the practice of the classroom? Well, one way might be through the feedback matrix. The feedback matrix presented in this video that I developed evolved from the feedback model by John Hattie and Helen Timpoli. Each feedback type mentioned in the matrix has three feedback questions which are positioned from the learner's point of view. Firstly, where am I going, feeding up? Secondly, how am I going, feeding back? And thirdly, what is my next step, feeding forward? The notion here is that for feedback to be effective, each of these questions must be answered for or by the learner. Research suggests that much of feedback that is given is rarely used by students. For this reason, we need to focus upon how feedback is being received rather than given. What is the purpose of the three feedback questions? Let's have a closer look. The key principles of feeding up are to make the learning intent and success criteria explicit to students, to create a meta-language that will be used for feedback throughout the teaching and learning episode and to lay the platform for self-regulated learning. These assist learners to see where they are going on their learning journey. The key principles of feeding back are to inform students of their current learning state in relation to the learning intent and the success criteria, to make clear to students if they are or are not on track to succeed and to inform students of their learning progress towards the learning intent and their learning goals. These principles assist learners to see how they are going on their learning journey. The key principles of feeding forward are to close the gap between where students are and where they need to be, to clarify for students what they need to do next to succeed and to give an opportunity to improve in time for learning. These principles assist learners with the next steps of their learning journey. This feedback model is underpinned by notions of visible learning. Visible learning involves the clarification of the learning intent, learning goals and criteria for success with students so they can become active participants in the learning process. The feedback model uses questions such as where am I going to make the learning intent and criteria for success explicit for students. This helps to lay the platform for students to use self-regulatory learning habits. Visible learning also occurs when teachers perceive student work samples and responses as feedback to them about not only how their students are progressing towards the learning intent, but also as feedback to themselves about the effectiveness of their own teaching. Feedback can be most powerful when it moves in the direction from the student to the teacher as this provides evidence for the teacher to consider their impact upon learning and provides impetus to adjust instruction accordingly. Importantly, this must happen before the conclusion of the learning period if improvement is to occur as feedback received after learning is too late and rarely transferred to new learning contexts. This suggests that in order for learners to receive feedback information, particularly on how they're going and their next step, feedback needs to be situated in a context of formative assessment. The purpose of formative assessment is to provide evidence for teachers about student achievement in order to make decisions about the next steps of instruction. Hence, the effectiveness of teachers' use of the feedback may be dependent upon the assessment practices used within the learning context. Through the addition of feedback levels, Hattie and Timpoli's feedback model facilitates the targeting of differentiated specific feedback to individual learners dependent upon their learning needs. Task-level feedback is focused upon the learning intent and the specific requirements of the task. This feedback level is best suited to novice learners. Process-level feedback is aimed at the processes, skills, strategies and thinking required by the learner to complete the task. Process-level feedback is best aimed at proficient learners and works towards developing deeper understanding and learning processes. Self-regulatory-level feedback requires the student to use deep learning principles such as relational thinking and self-monitoring to compare and adjust their work in relation to the required standards, criteria or learning intent. Self-regulatory feedback is usually aimed at more advanced learners in deep learning situations, as they are knowledgeable of the task requirements and are more capable of monitoring their own performance. Feedback to the self-level, most commonly associated with praise, is best avoided as evidence suggests that it has a detrimental impact upon learning. The aim of the feedback matrix I developed is to not only provide a conceptual model of effective feedback for teachers, but importantly to translate the feedback model into practice. It must be noted that the feedback matrix is a way of encapsulating a model of feedback for learning that teachers could engage with through professional development rather than a how-to guide for effective feedback. Key points of difference between the proposed feedback matrix and Hattian-Timpleys model include, firstly, the matrix design structure. The nature of a matrix relies on the relationships between the X and Y axes. The proposed feedback matrix intersects feedback types with feedback levels. This results in the matching of the purposeful feedback type with the differentiated feedback level. Reading across the matrix, the three columns highlight to teachers the importance for each student to have clarity about the learning intent, their individual progress, and what they have to do next to improve. Reading down the matrix, the three rows illustrate to teachers that learners require different feedback dependent upon their proficiency with a task. Novice learners require specific task-based feedback, surface learning, whilst more proficient learners benefit from more relational process or self-regulatory feedback, deeper learning. The arrow alongside the three feedback levels visualizes the potential of feedback to prompt thinking from surface to deep levels. Secondly, the feedback matrix proposes to translate theory into practice with the provision of practical example prompts and strategies for teachers at the intersection of each feedback type and level. Feedback prompts are designed upon evidence-based practices from research and those observed in the classroom. Key evidence-based prompts in the matrix include feedback pertaining to the clarification of the learning intent, the use of models, the sharing of success criteria, questioning, and formative assessment, the use of strategies and goals, peer and self-assessment. Thirdly, it is necessary to emphasize the ongoing interaction between the three feedback types rather than seeing them literally as boxes just to be ticked off in a linear fashion. Likewise, the progression of feedback level is non-linear and relies on teacher's use of formative assessment practices to check their students' level of learning. In conclusion, the feedback matrix evolved from a researched-based model of feedback. It serves as a guide for teachers to help facilitate the use of effective feedback practices for their students.