Good afternoon and welcome to the front House Judiciary Committee. I'm January Friday, January 28th and we are continuing our discussions at age 546 and actually leading to racial justice statistics, and we are joined by our legislative council Eric Fitzpatrick, that will walk us through a proposed amendment draft 1.1, age 546 times Sam 11-07 and that can be found on our committee website. And with that, welcome. Good afternoon Eric. Hi, good afternoon. This is Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council. So I, if I'm following you right first thing you want to do is walk through the new draft, is that right? That's my understanding, but I will turn to. Yes. Martin is that. Yes, thank you. Sure. And I'll focus on the changes between this committee amendment, which is drafted as a strike all amendment to, to the bill has introduced and the changes are identified with yellow highlighting so you should be able to see them pretty easily. I'll share the screen quickly and. Oops, sorry. Amber, could I be a host please. Thank you. Okay. And as I mentioned, this is a proposed strike all amendment to to the bill has introduced and the changes are highlighted. So I'll focus on where the changes have been made between those introduced and the amendment that you're looking at right now. So changes to the first section about the executive director of racial equity that remains as it was. And then you have the second sub chapter within that chapter which the executive director is in and this establishes this first section 2011 establishes and creates the division of racial justice statistics and this remains the same as it was when the bill was introduced. And you move on to the duties of the division and these are itemized in great detail as you remember. You'll see that one change here is that the as introduced there was a language that required the division to make recommendations for designing and implementing interfaces and other technology solutions to address needs identified in the justice strategic plan of the division up above is required to do to create what's right there to subdivision five developing the justice strategic plan is part of one of the duties of the division. But this language is struck here because the agency of digital services indicated that they're trying to establish a uniformity in the interfaces and technology solutions. So this nature and it's their responsibility to do that and that having the division be making separate recommendations on that score would kind of undercut and run it cross purposes with the consistency and uniformity that the division has been working for so based on on that proposal, the language is struck the. This is just some technical change to change subdivision nine to subsection be just really for technical reasons and this is the reporting department so remember the division has to report every January starting next January to the judiciary and government operations committee so the substance that remains the same it's just some technical changes there, but subsection is struck and that's you'll see the issue of rulemaking and that's what this involves and the committee discussed this at length and came to the conclusion that the division would be establishing its. Various procedures and guidance via. Its own internal policies and policies rather than going through the formal rulemaking process under the Vermont administrative procedure active because the committee made that decision. There are a couple of places that references to rulemaking are struck, and this is one of them. So won't be any rulemaking any formal rulemaking won't be subject to the, the time constraints that sometimes apply if when you're going through that formal process. So now we move on to the section relating to data governance. Sorry, did somebody enter, ask a question there. Some zoom but not here, thank you. Okay, could have been an auditory hallucination on my part. The. This you'll see so this is moving on to the data governance piece of what the division does. You'll see in the first subsection subsection either lines 12 to 15 two different things going on the second one line 14. As I just mentioned, you say, this is the division establishing what data is to be collected to carry out its duties now remember in the bill you looked at last year for example that data was expressly and at length to lineated and that was based on on the report that our division is going to be. But here the, the approach taken is to have the division you know on the basis of that report and any other input it gets you'll see lines 12 to 14, it's going to be consulting with our DAPN with the racial justice statistics advisory council so in consultation with those two bodies division establishes what data it's going to be collected. Now the words by rule are struck because as I've just mentioned not not going to be going through the formal rulemaking process. And just to skip ahead for a moment so you can see keeping in mind for a second the in consultation with our debt and the advisory council piece of that you'll see that is not necessarily new. It's moved. See in the previous draft it appeared here on page six lines three through six it was set out as a separate separate duty of the division. See that shall consult with our DAPN and the council when establishing which data to be collected. So all it does it's consolidates that basically sort of reads better I think just move it up to the beginning and make clear right here. In consultation with those bodies that the division establishes the data to be collected and not by rule. Now we're moving on to an issue that has been discussed in committee at some length and this is the public records issue. I had a chance to speak at length with Tucker Anderson our public records council about this and how to how to draft this to to reflect the committee's intent here, which as you see is to is to take a different language that is struck and the approach that was taken in the bill as it was introduced was to specifically say right out front that data that's collected pursuant to the to the to the subject or to the date to the division's decision are not public records subject to public records law which we call the PR a the public records act, and that data shall be governed to release shall be governed excuse me by debt data sharing agreements or mo us. So you see that policy. What was really embodied in that language was one that the that there was going to be essentially an exemption that all data collected pursuant to the divisions duties and responsibilities are not going to be public records that means they will not be able to be obtained by the public through public records request and they would remain confidential after discussion. So it's a different approach, and on the on the, actually the opposite approach, and it's basically saying well, it's not going to be making confidential all the records that are collected it's just going to sort of preserve the status quo and in the first sentence, first couple of sentences will say that make that clear so the first new sentence starting online 19 there provides that any data record records transmitted to or obtained by the division that are exempt from public records and that means they are exempt from the public records act under existing law shall remain exempt and shall be kept confidential to the extent required by law so that just means the existing law with respect to whatever records that the division collects remains the existing existing law unchanged. So if it's subject to a public records exemption under the existing law by the agency that collects it whether it's, you know, a Department of Public Safety Sheriff's Department, you know, states Attorney's Office whatever it may be. Eric. Yes, we have a question a question from Representative Colburn. Oh, thank you on an earlier section so Eric why don't you, why don't you finish here and when the time is right I can ask but I don't want to interrupt you mid thought here or the committee. Okay, either way is fine. You want me to just finish up this little piece then and then come back to it. Yeah, that's okay. That'll help. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, no problem. So yeah, that's the that's the first point that existing law applies to the documents that the division collects and the records and data that the division collects so they aren't going to be made confidential if they aren't confidential in the first place. If they're, if they're public under under the law as it applies to the agency that has them, then they'll remain public. If they're confidential, based on how they're treated by the agency that has the data than it then they stay confidential either way unchanged by what the division does to it. And then there's some clarification here the second sentence you'll see also makes clear that whatever state or local agency or department that transmits the data to the division will be the sole custodian for purposes of responding to request for the data or records. And the division shall direct any request for these data or records to the transmitting agency or department for response. This was a suggestion from Tucker. He's put that in other legislation and other bills as well to make clear that you know that the division isn't going to be the one who has to respond to every public records request that comes in. So if the record being request was really something that came from somewhere else, then, then it's the originating agency, whoever that may be. It should be the one who responds to the PRA request which, as the committee knows can be a very labor intensive process that takes a lot of, a lot of hours on the part of staff and rather than saddling the division with that. It wasn't their record in the first place it came from somewhere else, then the division will just direct the request back to whoever sent it to them and say, you know submit it to them it's their record. So that's the idea that's the new proposal here. The, the that would leave, you know that this language applies to any data and records that the division collects from other agencies which of course is one of its one of its missions to gather this data. Another, the other set of data that that they would have is, you know, data that the division has collected by, sorry not collected, created as it analyzes the data that comes in as it creates, you know, compilations and and conclusions on the basis of that data. Original work product of the division, as opposed to work product collected from somebody else that read that again nothing is said about that in terms of it being confidential it isn't necessarily. It's just going to be applied. Sorry subject to the public records acts as it stands. So the same way any other state agency is subject to the public records act. There are some exemptions if that are in law, if the exemptions don't apply, then the record is both. And that would apply to the division just as much as it would apply to any other state agencies. There's no special exemption being created as there was in the bill as introduced. It'll just be, you know, treated as any other public records request would be treated by any other state agency, which means that under state law they have to have a designated records officer who looks at the request decides whether an exemption applies and if one does they can assert it if it doesn't then they release their release the record to the requester. So that's obviously a different approach than than the one that was in the bill is introduced but as I say, consulting with Tucker and with representative the land about how to craft this language. You can see the the intent of it. Hopefully that's consistent with what the committee wants to do now. But that's up to you. So that's the end of that little piece I can now pause for a moment so represent coven can ask the question she had. Yeah my question. Oh, sorry Maxine. Eric is going to say go ahead. Okay, my question is in the same section, but the previous page, the right subsection a of this data governance section. I really appreciate the addition of the art up consultation here. I'm trying to remember. I guess I'm trying to understand a little bit more where, and I'm sure the answer lies in some of our previous testimony, where the decision to remove the rulemaking process came from and my, I mean, it seems to me. It's an in bowl process certainly, but it, you know rulemaking process is necessitates a fair amount of public input. And so it seems to me that it would allow more comprehensive stick, at least in theory, stakeholder and community input into this question of what the data is being collected. And I'm just thinking back to a meeting I had with folks from the policing project earlier in the week on a different topic, but they have this is a national group that looks at policing issues that has a data and transparency and some model legislation, and they were saying that in their work, they feel like that question of which data gets collected is really really critical to being able to use the data well and not have it be just credited. So, yeah, I just, you know, I think there's some committee discussion here maybe but I also just want to understand if folks can help me remember where the decision to remove it from rulemaking came from and and what feedback kind of drove that is driving this change that would be super helpful. If I may. As, as you see, we have to express. Governance groups that are involved in that data selection component. If you look at it. One is our DAP. And the other one is the racial justice statistics advisory council itself. If you look at the makeup of those two councils. They are just they're very diverse. Not only in their composition related specialists, but also in the affected communities groupings that are also associated within the membership of both of those entities. And that was done very intentionally. And, as you might recall, we even expanded our DAP. Last session, the first half of the biennium to include even more community members and the racial, the office of racial equity as well in our DAP itself. So, so we've really tried to ensure that our community voice is large. I guess that's the best way to put it. Martin, would you like to add to that. Yeah, yes, I would. So what we're trying to balance, I think, is following this division to be nimble to be able to be more responsive as far as what data it needs to try to get if it runs into issues, etc. And certainly rulemaking is less nimble. It's it's certainly better, perhaps then than the legislative process as far as the health efficient it is and how quick it might be, but it's it's it's not. It doesn't give the flexibilities certainly as much to as as a policymaking. So that's on the one hand but on the other just watch. And as the coach is saying, as far as we have these two bodies that are very diverse and representing the entities or the organizations the individuals who really is affected by, but or as part of the criminal justice system. So, and I would just also add that the the our DAP and presumably also the advisory panel. I know that our DAP welcomes public input. So there's opportunity for individuals members of those panels to weigh in if if they so desire so there is that transparency as well. So that's kind of the balancing that's going on here that. This is, this is a question that I did ask all pretty much all the witnesses. And I think we pretty uniformly we're hearing a preference to go this route than than the rulemaking. So that's that's why we arrived here. Yeah, I guess I would just say that. Well, save for committee discussion I just, you know, yeah, I'll hold off for now. But thank you. I appreciate that explanation. That has a question. Yeah, I don't know who I should address this to under the public records request request whatever we want to refer to it as I guess I need a little explanation as far as if in fact I'm assuming that all of these entities are going to be sending whatever they have orders requested through the advisory. For your recall where they're probably the division data division.  So for you, or for us to say that someone request under the public records act or through a foyer request, certain information that they've just put all together. How are they going to identify which agency to direct them to because I wouldn't want to be overwhelmed with requests or something that we didn't send that to them I mean, how was that going to work, I guess I'm concerned about, we don't want to overburden the division with with. So how do we not overburden certain departments and officers throughout the state that may not have nothing to do with it how many flag that I'm not a computer guy so I'm asking. I'm not either maybe coach has an idea or we might have to ask find another witness to answer such question I don't know. I can appreciate that but for those records that aren't. And they call me up so we want this here oh we need to contact the officer alone because he's one sent that having a flag that let's not waste other agencies time either because it is a burdensome thing show. Presumably, however they set the system and I'm not going to go too deep into this that they will they will be able to determine where they've gotten certain certain kinds of data I mean there's law enforcement data there's states attorney's data there's court data, etc. So, you know, maybe it comes in and just ask for all the information about one person's name. Presumably this division just turns around and sends it to all the information officers of the five or six different entities that may have provided something. This seems to be somewhat potentially burdensome on if we can identify where it came from I think at least very least the division has responsibilities and okay. Let's flag I guess what you came from so they don't overburden these other agencies who they're going to look thanks to do to me through as far as responding to public records your question. That's my concern there it's yeah no that makes a lot of sense that makes a lot of sense I don't have a good answer free that's kind of in the technical realm and hopefully. Just figured out by the information officers different unless coach unless you have more information on that than I have. If you're talking you're muted because we can't hear you. No, I was going to ask Eric to continue. And then we can come come back because I think I'd like to hear from some of our art that members, you know, about their thoughts and maybe this might not be a bad time to maybe ask quickly. If either Evan or Rebecca would be interested in chiming in about the the rulemaking piece question. Evan or Rebecca, would you care to share your thought on on that to help us as we move forward. I'd be happy to share my thoughts there are two of the topics that I was going to address in my testimony, and I know that I was not supposed to testify until later so I don't want to jump the starting line but I'm happy to, I'm happy to speak now if that's the committee's preference. I would say representative Colburn, do you think that that would be helpful hearing from I feel all set so I'm happy to like Eric just complete the walkthrough but if you know it's up to you coach what you think makes more sense. And then Eric why don't we continue, and then we'll come back, because it seems like they're going to speak to it anyways. Okay, sure that sounds good. Thank you. Yeah, you bet. Moving along to the next division here this also actually relates to the rulemaking issue in the sense that you see the lines two to eight there. This has to do with the the interplay between the division and the and the state agencies and departments from which it's going to be collecting this data. As the language was originally drafted. The, the way it was set up was that the division will shall be granted access to the data of any state or agency department that it designates by rule that's line seven. So the way in which the division would collect this data sort of procedurally is step number one is they would designate an estate agency by rule and then once it did that. That agency would have to provide access to the division to the data that it was necessary for the division's purposes under this chapter now. So, given that the thought at least for this draft obviously it's going to be an issue that continues to be discussed but for purposes of this trap. And the rulemaking piece was changed to, to not be part of the divisions process. So this had to be rewritten, and you'll see but it's preserving the process of how it is that divisions going to going to get this data from the agency so the way it would read now would be the division child identify which state agencies or documents possess the nest the data necessary for division to performance requirements and objectives so first thing. Step one division identifies the state agencies or departments that have the necessary data related to to divisions requirements and objectives. Step two is the highlighted sentence an agency department identified pursuant to this subdivision so if you've been identified shall upon request, provide the division within any data that the division and you see here I had two options I wasn't sure which way to put it so I just put both in and figured the committee could discuss it. The idea here is, you know, do you want, you want it to be sort of open ended in the sense that the division has, you know the discretion that the division can exercise will be that, you know, if they request it, then the agency or the division has to provide it had the option one number 11 because you can say well they have to provide the division with any data that the division requests period that could be one option, or if you want to be a little give a little more guidance to it, you could say, the you know, in the targeted language, provide the division with that would provide the division with any data that the division determines is relevant to its purpose under section section five, 511 b, which, you know, I'll just really quickly move up there just so you can recall there's a clear statement there starting on line 16 of what the mission and purpose of the division is collecting and analyzing data relating to racial disparities, intent to center racial equity throughout these efforts etc I won't read the whole thing but just point is that that the purpose is articulated here clearly. So it's really just a question of down here. How much you know, discretion you want there to be for the division's determination about requesting data, in other words, just if they keep it open ended or tied into its purpose and say that those are the data that the agency has to provide. So then lastly that last sentence is unchanged that's just the division's ability to access data for non state entities that can do that through mo user data sharing agreements. So that piece, this next subdivision three was been rewritten. In response to the suggestion of the state archivist Tony Marsha who I've been emailing speaking with about this piece. And she, I rewrote the language a little bit technically but this is, and she's approved of this language she I ran it by her after I had it done and she gave it the green light. So with how and with whom the division's going to work with on collection and retention of data data governance, those sorts of things. And, and Tony made the excellent point that rather than kind of reinvent the wheel. The best way to do that would be just to loop in existing law as to, you know, the requirements that already exist with respect to state agencies and I mentioned this earlier how state agencies have to have record officers and they have to have records retention policies. You know we have one in our office I remember when it was instituted and had to be run those things have to be improved by the state archivist.  Every state agency now has to develop these. And that is the statute that you see referred to in line 19. So makes clear that that applies to everybody anyway, no matter what you say here so makes sense to, to cross reference that so it's explicitly said division shall pursuant to that statute that I just mentioned establish maintain and implement an active and continuing management program for its records. So that's it has to do that anyway pursuant to that statute but this makes the duty clear. And so, then the second piece of that, that in doing this, it has support and support and services provided by the state from our state archives and records administrator pursuant to previous a 117 and the digital digital services pursuant to previous a 33 01 now those statutes also already provide that these two state agencies are two entities I should say are required to provide the various state actors with this sort of support with support on information technology data maintenance that sort of thing is already laid out explicitly in statute so again was logical to to put that expressly in here for who the division works with and under what statute said vision for I already mentioned that's the one that got struck here and moved up to the top regarding the division's consultation with our depth and the and the advisory council. No changes to the rest of the data governance issues. Public facing website dashboard unchanged that's all the same composition of the advisory council that there are a couple of additions to that based on. I believe that was testimony from judge Greerson to see it's gone up from 18 to 20, because judge Greerson recommended two additional members of the council you see identified subdivisions L and M there. Executive director of the Center for Crime Victim Services, as well as a substance use disorder or mental health treatment provider, appointed by Secretary of Human Services so those are two more individuals who would be on the advisory council. No change to the to hear against some technical changes there substance use disorders that abuse disorder. There has been a little bit of reorganization here just for making the language flow correctly but no changes in meanings. The, I think there's some other technical changes here. At the end to conform with what I just described yet so members since there's, there were two new members by added to the council. You have to do some renumbering here to make sure that the, it was referring to the right members who got appointed for the two year term three or term and the four year term. I think that's it. Yeah, it looks like that's the end of the walkthrough and all the changes that are proposed for this trap. Are there any questions for attorney. So I pull the document down so committee can discuss. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Sure. Thank you. You bet. You bet. Great job as always. Oh, thank you. I'm in the right spot here. Okay. So I guess I guess what I'd like to do if we could. Madam chair, we can move into our witnesses and it seems that I'd like to start with. Being that part of his. Testimony is directly related to a representative Colburn's question. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon for the record. My name is Evan mean and I work for the department of state's attorneys and sheriffs. I was also the department's designee to the racial disparities advisory panel and the department did sign off on the report that was submitted to the legislature that are DAP prepared. The bill. I think for the most part, this is a really good bill and it and it adopts many, but not necessarily all of the recommendations from the R daps report. So, for example, the report identified three potential locations for the bureau to be housed and the department thinks that the one that was selected in this bill is acceptable. The most important thing from the department's perspective, regardless of where this was housed was ensuring that the bureau was provided with adequate staffing and resources. Not only to fulfill its own mission, but to provide technical assistance to the entities that are going to be expected to report data to it. After having these conversations in our DAP we had the benefit of technical experts like Karen Gannett and Robin joy from the crime research group, as well as which he are to and and their input was was very valuable from the department's perspective. In terms of the department's technological capabilities to report data. I have to admit that unfortunately they're presently very weak. The legislature did appropriate the department some money to obtain a new case management system and work. We are in the early stages of acquiring that I've already flagged both for for my supervisor and for our own it folks that we should expect to have to report this type of demographic data out and that we should be mindful of those potential responsibilities as we move forward in in the case management system acquisition process. So, generally, the department is in support of this bill. I do have a couple of specific comments that relate to representative coal burns questions and then also some some of the comments about public records requests. Regarding the issue of rulemaking. My comments are going to be influenced somewhat by the fact that I've worked for two state administrative agencies that had rulemaking authority the agency of natural resources, and most recently the natural resources board, where I was the associate general council. My comments are also going to be influenced somewhat by my current role as the chair of the rules committee of the criminal justice council. So I'm not speaking on behalf of any of those three entities, but I highlight that to illustrate that I do have some issues with the process. And based on that experience, I think you can make a reasonable argument that adopting rules is arguably more transparent and provides for more public participation than navigating some of these issues through other mechanisms. I think you could also make an argument that more transparency and more public participation are especially good things in this context, because part of the bureau's purpose is to provide more data transparency related to the criminal justice system. There's there's two provisions of Vermont's administrative procedures act that might be worth considering when the committee makes its decision about how it wants to proceed. The first provision is section 831 and what it says is that agencies have to adopt rules where due process or a statute directs them to adopt rules. And then the second is section 801, which states an agency means any state board commission department agency or other entity authorized by law to make rules or determine contested cases. I don't think there's any expectation that the bureau is going to be determining contested cases. So the question of whether or not it's going to fall within the administrative procedures act may very well depend upon whether or not the legislature grants the bureau rulemaking authority. At the minimum, if the committee is not thrilled about the idea of requiring the bureau to adopt rules, it may have the option of stating that the bureau may adopt rules. And that language may adopt rules is is some language that's used in the enabling legislation for other public bodies. With that authority the bureau can make a decision do we want to address this specific topic through the rulemaking process, or do we want to adopt it through promulgating procedures, which is also something that's addressed by the administrative procedures act. Regarding public records. I am the department's public records officer, which means I'm responsible. Oh, my apologies. I know it's really hard to see and that's I apologize. But before you move on. So, would it be just a matter of in looking at the draft page for section 5013 a line 14 of putting by rule back in there and changing the shell to me is that accomplished what you just suggested. I think it probably would I, there's I was trying to count as as attorney Fitzpatrick was doing the walkthrough I think there's probably three or four places where it used to say shall adopt by rule. And there again I think I think I'm pretty confident may adopt rules is using other enabling legislation so there's there's going to be references for legislative council to pull to pull from. But yes, I think if the shall was changed to may and those three or four locations in order to give the Bureau the flexibility to go through the rulemaking process if it if it thought that that was warranted, then it would have the ability to do that. Conversely, if it was permissible under the APA to address something through a procedure, it could do that as well. So yes, I think that that would be perhaps one way to do it. But perhaps, or perhaps just to make clear that it is to come up with the data that it's supposed to carry or that's supposed to collect. It could say something along the lines that the division shall establish rule or otherwise or something like that, because we may want to have the shell established but then leave the discretion of whether it's procedure I mean policy or rule to the agency and I think that Eric and work out exactly how to do that. I think we do want to dictate that the agency, the division has to come up with the data that needs to be collected but give them the discretion of how to do it. Yeah, I'm confident Eric is going to know exactly how to phrase it. All right, thank you. Thank you.  I think that kind of consistent with what both Evan represent along with saying, the only need to change you only need to do that in the one place on page four and subsection B put that language back in division may adopt rules to carry out its duties. And then in the other places you don't need to indicate rule, anything about it you just say division shall do doesn't such and then, then pursuant to the language that we just mentioned that heaven was pointing out, they would have the decision to decide all right are we going to do that by rule or are we not, but that would sort of in overarching authority that they would have to make that decision based on the particular piece of information they're talking about. So I think I think that's right.  It takes a village to build a good bill. So would you continue please. Absolutely. So I was going to address the public records piece. And I think I was saying that I'm the, I'm the department's public records officer which means I, I was, I don't know if it's a punishment or a privilege but it's my responsibility to respond to pretty much all of the public records that the department receives. And so I can represent on on behalf of the department that the, the language that runs from page four line 19 to to page five line five is good language. And, you know, I would hope that if there are any entities that are going to be responsible for reporting data. This might, this might minimize any concerns they might have about whether or not they're providing any, any information they would, they would consider to be sensitive. I'm, I'm hoping that when the department acquires its new case management system, we will really be providing data, we will have the ability to report out data that's going to be important to the bureau, rather than having to burden the bureau by giving them a bunch of dumping underlying records on them, and having them extract the data for themselves. And I think that that, if that process ends up being true, that might minimize some of the concerns that that representative the lawn was expressing about, you know, creating some sort of arduous burden on, on behalf of these reporting entities. You know what might end up happening is a member of the public or someone else might see some data, and then realize, Oh, I want to delve into the underlying documents and then approach the reporting entity with a public records request. But state agencies are pretty well experienced in responding to public records requests and I don't see that as a, as a bad thing. The only other comment that I think I wanted to make was that, you know, we were glad to see the change on page eight lines 13 to 14, including the center for crime victim services in the advisory council I think that having victims perspectives on this is a is a really good thing and, you know, hopefully we don't discover that there's any racial disparities with regards to how victims are engaged in the criminal justice system. I'd like to think that there aren't any but that's probably foolish optimism. And hopefully the center, you know, will help flag any issues or ask appropriate research questions to help flush out those things so that's a really important addition from the department's perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Evan. Rebecca Turner. How are you today? Good. Thank you. Thank you for committee for inviting me back to speak on this latest draft for the record for Becca Turner from the Office of the Defender General, and also number of the art. I'm just going to focus my comments today on the new changes that Eric just presented in the walkthrough really there are just two points. I want to go to, I guess as a precursor since Representative Colburn asked the question as to whether or not we are positioned or you didn't ask the ODG position, but certainly what representatives LaLonde and Christie shared were consistent with the prior testimony, which was that it not having a rulemaking process to determine how and which data to collect would certainly make this new entity more nimble, and also that there are numerous representatives from the public already built into this. So I am not opposed to what Evan just suggested in terms of that language change. I would only add that my personal experience working on this panel in terms of drafting and coming up with data that should be collected. The three reports that have since been submitted. It's pretty it was pretty arduous complicated with just that our deaf panel and so certainly getting off the ground for the first year. Maybe consider returning to the mandatory rulemaking process a subsequent and let let there be sort of maximum flexibility in the first row, but that's, that's my only suggest my thoughts on that. So, so really I wanted to focus on page two, four and five. And this is in regards to the new language that Eric added in the data governance section 5013. I'll start with actually it's a to a to there is a line in there that says an agency or department identified pursuant to this subdivision, and presumably the defender general's office will be included in that list, right. Upon request, provide the division with any data that the division requests. Now, I think, I think unique to the other government agencies and departments that will be asked to provide data. The defender general's office has data that's otherwise privileged or confidential that cannot be disclosed to the division. It's covered by the exemptions in the public records act title one to 17 section see and but the way I read this new language on for and sort of this characterization that it preserves the status quo that if it's exempt under the division will honor that but still collect that information. So I just want to make clear that doesn't actually maintain the status quo, how I read those two sections on form five together as they apply to the defender general's office. We would have to disclose any data that the division requests, even if it's otherwise deemed confidential privilege under the various statutes, rules, common law that obligates us from revealing this information. And again, the reason why the defender general's office is unique in this situation is we're more like a law firm representing individuals. And so we have we are prohibited under our professional code to reveal information about a client that was acquired during the representation. And I think sometimes people collapse that to assuming just information that's confidential or secret, but that duty to not reveal extends to information that may otherwise be public. Again, it is under our professional obligations or duties to not share information acquired during that representation. It's also for it's a pre expansive confidentiality provision in that it extends not just to current clients but to former clients, as well as prospective clients. So again, I think that I'm concerned that if this language remains eyes is the division may think it has the authority to order the defender general's office to reveal information that that we can otherwise reveal that is actually not subject to reveal under the current PRA. So I'm not sure if if the easy fix is to just reference their explicitly Title one section 317 C and making sure that the defender general's office maybe is not captured with the others. I'm happy to just sort of talk further with with largely counseled Eric if you want to do that or or not but that was a significant concern with this latest draft for us. And then the second point is page seven. And it goes to still within the data governance section. It's relating to subsection D delta data retention. And this is actually not new proposed language, but mergers with some of the concerns I raised earlier which was making sure that the language and phrases here is consistent with the Public Records Act. I understand that the term retention has distinct meaning in the Public Records Act. And I also understand that that the way that page seven section D establishes that the division shall recommend standards and practices for the retention of data. Again, that suggests that this division has perhaps authority over the state archivists or or another entity by as I understand it, the, the jurisdiction of data retention is laid out clearly in Title one, I think is it Title one section 317 a. And so I understand that there might be a conflict. So just maybe tweaking changing the word retention to make sure it's not inconsistent. Yeah, just a quick question. Thank you very much. Actually, yeah, yeah, that's one provision that we just heard from. I just heard from Tonya Marshall of the, the archivist just the other day raising the same point and we just hadn't been able to get together on trying to figure that out. I mean, I thought just whether it should be data collection that that the division shall make recommendations regarding the collection of data, or do you have a replacement concept for retention. The question is governed elsewhere, but how one collects the data and determining when or in what situations to put different they all categories down, for instance, I could see the division doing that, and I'll think that's covered elsewhere but I think that's that's a that's a good idea just to drop the word retention and limited to collection. That would be fine. So those are, those are really my, my comments that I had this latest graph. And I don't know if anyone has any questions, but I'll stop here. Well, Rebecca, I really want to thank you. Because every time you visit the draft, you add a positive in that, you know, that's going to make this thing, you know, something that we can all get across the finish line and feel comfortable with. So, thank you so so much. Question to coach if I could. Yeah. Mr. if you could just remind me what what the data is. I know that last year's or I should say the 2020 effort of our depth came up with the list of high impact high discretion areas. What kind of data points were identified for the defender general's office I'm just curious about that. Thank you. I meant to say that in the in my comments on that section I think the almost the entirety of the data that is that we identified could otherwise be found in the court records and court data in the police records So for us to have to provide something that's in addition, not otherwise found in these other data portals. I think that would be little although I am recalling that there was a recommendation in the report that we did not join. So it's not a consensus point. It was concerning specifically. If I'm recalling correctly defense attorneys. Some specific data relating to defense attorney practice, the filing of pleadings and such again. That's an example where you could glean that information how many motions were filed from court records. Right. And, and I think that's, that is where. So I unless Evan can recall something else that specific to a collection point we identified relating to defense attorneys. That's that's what I'm recalling again that would be covered by data kept elsewhere. I appreciate that so yeah I mean if you have any suggestions on language to take care of that that makes complete sense at least to me that some of that information is definitely privileged representative of the law and if I might. Evan mean and again for the Department of State's attorneys. Unfortunately, I don't have that list of discretion points at hand but you know I do think perhaps one of the benefits of, of, of a permitting the Bureau to go through the administrative procedures of the Defenders Act is to allow the public and other interested stakeholders to engage in the conversation about what types of information can permissibly be reported by the defender general's office. For example, I remember, I think some of the, the discreet you know some of the information that was discussed was, you know, the education and experience of, of certain practitioners, including defense counsel and who they end up representing. In other words, do we tend to see some types of defense counsel being assigned to some types of defendants more frequently than others. Most frequently are defense counsel, having in person conversations versus telephone conversations with clients, viewing evidence in person versus, you know, summarizing evidence in person, and I'm not suggesting that all of these things can be permissively reported. I think that those are potentially complex questions, but having a process like rulemaking or a procedure promulgation through the APA might be a mechanism to help flush those out and allow members of the public to participate in this kind of conversation. So, you know, I would anticipate there's some data points that the defender general's office could report out that may not be available from other sources, what those data points are, I think, is worth further discussion and probably can't be established right now. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we'll continue with our immersion and editing as we move forward. So those are all the witnesses we have for today, and then we'll be revisiting this next week. Madam chair. I'll hope to have a visual for the committee to look at, just to show what it looks like from a graphic perspective. Great. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses and thank you coaching Martin. Let's take a quick break so we can stay on track. So folks have some commitment so it's, let's take a break and come back at 230 for our next week.


Welcome to Toffy TV, it is the Everton News Daily. Everton drew 1-1 with Brighton and Hallwell being a good of some park on Saturday. Everton manager Sean Dides thought that it was a point gained rather than two drop. This is what the Blues boss had to say after the 1-1 draw. The tactical side of the game was fantastic from the players. We know they're a team that played possession, you've got to be patient. I have a tiny little question on our, when we did turn it over because we got in some brilliant positions today. Last season we capitalised on them, today we didn't as much. The work ethic of the players, three games in six days, virtually the same group. The way that they're growing with the mentality to take on games is absolutely fantastic so I'm absolutely delighted with that side of things. There you go. The manager pleased with a draw against Brighton. He keeps evident, just taking over an extra point gained there. The Blues is so close to winning three games in a week. On we go to Palace next week, let's hope we can get the three points there. Sean Dides was speaking positively about the performances of Vitaly Michalenco and Jared Branthwaite once again putting another excellent display at the heart of the Blues defence. This is what the Toffees boss had to say about them. I thought, Micho's doing well, he's learning all the time, he's improving all the time, he's playing strong. Jared and Tarky are playing that. In fact, defensively, which was a big part of the game today, defence to attack of course, I'm really pleased because early season we were dominating games and not getting a reward for it, with the ball that is. Today was a different style of performance and I'm so pleased with the flexibility of the group. We've been trying to encourage different ways of playing, different ways of affecting a game and different ways of getting an outcome. So I'm really pleased with that. The players are adapting to most of the challenges that come their way. Evertonians are seeing, I believe, a team that put everything into a game and I think they saw that again today. So these are building blocks. We're not the real deal, I keep saying that, but they're building blocks about what we're looking for in the consistency of the mentality. The mentality was excellent today, I thought. Be sure over the weekend, Miquel Artheta, absolutely raging after the Newcastle's goal against Arsenal Artheta coming out and having a go at the referees and VAR and the PGMOL and all of those people. Everton could have had two penalties on Saturday, both the crucial times in the game. Arbos wasn't quite so colourful and quite so angry with the one that went against us, but he was still a little bit disappointed. Everton felt that he should have had a penalty. This is what Sean Dates had to say on that matter. I think he just borderline starts outside but drags him inside the box. I mean it's a really important call that and it went against us because I don't know how that one went against us today because I thought it was obvious. I'm bound to say that, but I think when people see it, I'd be surprised if they didn't think there was certainly a big suggestion of that one being wrong. 777 have submitted all the documents requested by the Premier League and the Financial Conduct Authority to try and take over Everton Football Club. They are confident rather of completing a deal to gain control of the football club by the end of the year. That has always been their timeline. This is still amidst other stories coming out today in publication Joss Amar, which suggests the group lost 600 million in the last year. It doesn't make great reading. Obviously we'll wait to see if I'm sure 777 will have something to say or some comments to make on those stories as well. That is out there today, but that is also following something that was said by Alan Nixon last night which said that 777 could face competition from an Indian consortium we are very interested in buying Everton as well, some wealthy businessman involved in that consortium. They are apparently watching developments and could put a bid in for the Blues should 777 be unsuccessful. You have to take this with a pinch of salt given that why haven't they already put a bid in for the club? Why didn't they come in at the start or are they just being elated to the possibility now? Do they know that 777 may not get granted permission to take Everton over? It's an interesting one, but I'm wondering if there's more than just this Indian consortium watching this space with interest. We'll have to wait and see, but it does seem as though things are developing where 777 and the full takeover of Everton Football Club are concerned. Everton are apparently monitoring 17-year-old Croatian and Osijek striker Anton Makovic. The 17-year-old is very, very highly rated. Arby Sulzberg a Sasiu Ollo are interested in him as well. This further evidence that Everton are casting their net far and wide now trying to get young, exciting talent into the football club. We showed the purchase of Yousuf Cymru in the summer from Sport and Lisbon and hopefully Everton are moving down that route as well. On top of that, Fabricio Romano has said that Everton and Juventus are keeping close tabs on Swiss striker Winsley Batelli. He's also 17 years of age, very, very highly rated. He currently plays for Borussia Munch in Gladbach and he's recently changed his agent and the rumours on top of that is because he's interested in moving and Everton are very, very interested in him. So this could be a part of Everton's new policy to try and get some younger talent in obviously the work permit. Laws have changed in this country as well. So we'll see whether there's any legs in that. And finally, John Philippe Gabaman, who left Everton on deadline day, his contract was terminated. He has joined French league two-side USL Dunkerch until the end of the season. Wish John Philippe well in his new club. That is it for the news today. Make sure you check out the final where they haven't won bright and won't give the video a thumbs up, subscribe. If you haven't, see you later. Till this day, I do not know why I did it. I've seen an opportunity to probably leave a little bit on him, but when I look back I go, I've done that for. You know, I got away with it. I got away with it. There's no VR. But I felt and then it was a good meeting man brought me down later on in that game and we missed the penalty. So it ended up being that it just even wasted what I did and didn't even win. I didn't get any points out of it. It looks really bad and I had to write a letter.  But again, I would.  You know, it's not me. It's not sorry. You don't do that to any professional footballer. And I just don't know what come over to me. I don't know. Probably just knew he was going to rip me.


Hey, you're free. Yeah, so let's write some more hits So Camilla says I love it when you call me senorita, okay, and then Sean says I love it when you call me Senorita wait that doesn't make any sense. He's a guy Since when do songs make sense? Okay, so the left wing and the right wing don't agree with each other dude enough said I don't care enough about politics Okay. Yeah, but I'm at a party. I don't want to be at So maybe he says oh What I was saying he's Why do you have to live near an airport? Yeah, just pretend that the prince not here. Okay pretend that they're like shooting stars or whatever That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard then that's gonna work Yeah, you see that Rihanna song was a hit I want something similar for the Korean market That easy just make another up song. There's already too many love songs in the market Then let's kill this love man down. Hey, it's not okay to steal lyrics from But it's okay to steal sounds. Okay, cool Yeah, so Liam wants to get some yeah enough said what are you coswing on my bedroom floor?  You said it was over. What did I just say you say? Yeah, hey, J. Sure thing. Yeah, we'll get right on it That is working, so what's what's that? Dude your baby's so loud Dude, where were you been to the year 3000?  Don't they write their own songs? I'm sure they write like one sentence and we make it perfect I'm just tired of trying to find a thousand ways to say I love you Yeah, but it pays for this song. I'm just going to be a hundred percent honest with the fans Sure, it's gonna change a few things.   That's not good. All right fake love I'm just paid to sing that you'll know fake love I'm sorry, but this is fake love. That's good I'm just a face And I hate this job You got all of it. Yeah, exactly like you said it. Can I see? Yeah, Taylor, sorry, but we don't really want to help you because you know all about your scandals and stuff Plus you take the full credit for the song every time and that's annoying Yep, we know You should what are you running? So have you ever been hit by your exes before Why so low So low low low low low low low low low low low. That could be a hit. Yeah I'm going to take my horse. Okay. Can you get stronger accent? I'm going to take my horror. How do you make this more country? Okay, here's an idea Let's ruin country music forever. How? Ho ho ho ho ho. Add this on top. It makes no sense, but I love it somehow. Charles, what are you doing?  Yeah, every day I'm shuffling. Yes. Oh, by the way, this is my lawyer on the phone. My wife's asking for a divorce. How you got caught cheating? Well, there was a little bit of Monica in my life. A little bit of Erica by my side. How about Rita? Oh, she was all I need. Can you stop running songs about my problems? Yes, Ariana. We'll write a new song. No worries. I want it. I got it. I want it. I got it. Okay. I know this may seem easy, but do these lyrics interest you? I want it. I got it. Yeah, dude. Running a song. Yeah, give me a second. Yeah, shake it. No, really. Shake, shake it. Actually, it's more like this. More like this. It's like, shake it. That's like, shake it. Now the mosquitoes will be gone. Sir, now everybody's dead. Oh, tell me about it. Wait, what year is it? Well, it is in 1945, sir. Yo, I got this girl from the club yesterday, man. I'm going to hit her up right now. You learn. Hey, you want to be my lover? What are you, five? Come on. Spice it up, girl. You want it? You want it? You want it? You want it?  Huh? Yeah, I made your browser history. You got a whole lot of history.


So students in this module I will talk about the simple storage service which is also fondly called as S3. Now S3 is very popular and it is one of the first services provided by Amazon Web Services. S3 is used by Dropbox which keeps record of all your storage. Basically S3 is like a filing cabinet of internet. This also uses S3. All the movies of Netflix are available on S3. So S3 is like a poster child for Netflix and of course health services also keep their records on certain health services on S3. So S3 is very popular for a number of reasons. So now we look at the module coverage. You see it's quite comprehensive module coverage. So let's go over all of these modules one by one. So there is a bucket name associated with S3. Now that bucket name has to be unique. That bucket name although it is a flat structure. It is a flat structure. It means that the bucket name has to be unique and it has to be unique across all the regions where the S3 servers are available. And of course the data which is associated with S3 it can be simple it can be complex also. And it has a certain methodology of addressing. It appears to have a directly like structure but the structure of actual S3 storage may not be visible to you. It is under different layers okay. It is under different layers layer 1, layer 2, layer 3 okay. The purpose is to make it accessible in a user friendly manner. The people which are used to it it has to be intuitive also. So S3 objects are not associated by APIs. You are going to directly call the S3 through the APIs. They are different layers as I mentioned in the previous slide. And of course it is a graphical user interface GUI through which the S3 objects are accessed. The purpose is obviously it's simple to make it user friendly to make it more intuitive. And of course S3 updates not allowed. This is the main difference between storing on S3 and storing on your hard disk. On your hard disk I can make changes in my file in my database and those changes are directly made in that database or in the file. But in the case of S3 the storage that is not the case. You cannot modify it okay. You cannot, what you do is that you make versions. You make version V1, make version V2 okay. And you store V1 as V2 and you have multiple versions. And based upon those versions you know which is the latest one, the latest update. So it also supports a very fine grain granularity of security. The data is secure as I mentioned in the beginning of this module that health records, health data is stored on S3 which follows certain standards. And of course a lot of patient privacy involved in it. Now these standards are there therefore S3 is reliable, S3 is secure okay. Now what are the levels, how the access is there? The access is obviously given to the owner of the data. The access is given to specific groups or I as a owner give access, authenticated access to an individual. And of course the access is available all over the internet which is the last one. So in S3 what we do is what Amazon actually works as is do is assign that the right who has the right to do what, what can be done by which person, which group, which individual. So the point I am trying to make over here is that S3 is secure based upon number of levels and high level of granularity of security. Now why S3 is being used by companies because they have digital menus, they have videos okay and that can encompass terabytes of data, terabytes okay. So S3 is there for the companies. Now the other advantage of this is that when you run the application okay I will come back to it again. One of the advantage of this approach is that once the data is on S3 okay. Now there is no traffic load on the company's website. So that there's no congestion over there when the customers then when the visitors they are viewing the manuals or the videos about the company. The traffic is actually taking place okay at the Amazon web services servers not at the website of the company not at the internet of the company. So the response is good. So what is the S3 cycle? The S3 cycle is before you. You can create, you can assign permission, you can access it okay. But you cannot do the changes over there. Versioning is there. So S3 provides encryption and of course you can also do a static web page hosting without a web server which we have been discussing. So it means that if there is static data, tremendous amount of static data, you can use S3. And the S3 scope is that bucket name is unique which I have already mentioned. And there is no network traffic charge because the data is in region 1 and region 2 okay, region 3. This is maybe this is the West Coast, this is the Far East and so on. So if the traffic is within over there, there is no extra charge. But if the traffic goes from there or there or something like this, then there's charging. You have to be careful about it. And of course what you can do is you can duplicate your data across these regions. You can have your data one over here and data one over here also data one over here also. So when you make the changes, you make the changes within the regions. There is no network traffic. Of course there's the extra cost of storage. And finally the costing of S3, of course the costing is based upon the volume of data, the costing is based upon the type of APIs are called. It is put copy or whatever okay. And of course the volume of data which comes, which goes across the regions. The costing is based upon the network traffic also. And finally fewer copies, if you keep fewer copies of your data on S3, the charging is less. And of course in the notes, all the details are given, literally details about the dollars and cents. You can figure out where you stand. That's all I have for this module. Thank you very much.


teachers or even as students, we know that in order to learn something effectively, learners need to go beyond listening to lectures or watching videos or reading text or following procedural instructions. So, how does this apply when we design e-learning content? Let us first examine a learning scenario and pause at a reflection spot. The instructor designed and created material for a week long e-learning module which had five subtopics. So, he created five interactive videos for each of the subtopics and then sequenced it one after the other in some logical sequence. At the end of the module, he gave a quiz based on the topics in each of the videos. Do you think this is a good pedagogical design for an e-learning module or does it have some limitations and do you think it can be improved? Pause at this reflection spot, think about the answer, submit your answer and then we can resume. Some of you may have appreciated that this teacher in fact chunked the topic into smaller meaningful units and created interactive videos. He even gave a quiz for practice but this pedagogical design has some limitations. Primarily, students do not get the opportunity for immediate application and practice after they learn the content from each of the interactive videos. The quiz comes at the end and often it is used in a summative manner that means it is used for grading and the feedback on the quiz if any is usually of the type correct or wrong. So, because of these limitations, this is not the ideal design. What students need are multiple and frequent opportunities to practice, apply the learning from the preceding content and feedback to improve. So, as instructors we need to design such activities and also give immediate feedback. We call such activities learning by doing activities after each interactive video or learning dialogue or content in any format even such as text we need to provide these LBD activities. Learning by doing activities should be designed so that they help learners in concept attainment, immediate application of content and integration of knowledge. Learning by doing activities are formative assessment activities. That means they help to close the learning loop and learners should get feedback from their performance on their performance in these activities on how they can revive their learning and improve their understanding. The principle here is that we need to facilitate students active learning. That means we need to help them apply learning immediately and frequently. We need to help them get constructive feedback and that helps them revise their learning. In designing e-learning content, we need to do the above both by providing in video activities which we saw in a previous learning dialogue and providing activities between videos which we are calling as learning by doing activities. To implement learning by doing activities in a learning module, it would be preferable to use a learning management system or equivalent such as model or Google Classroom or your own LMS that you may be using in the in your organization and this LMS can be used to sequence the interactive videos and activities in between for each module. Even if you are using something minimal like an HTML page, the same idea can be used that you sequence some content either video or text content followed by learning by doing activity followed by the next piece of content and so on. Learning by doing activities can be at different cognitive levels and can use a variety of formats. For example, a large number of LBD activities should be at recall and understand levels so that learners can get a lot of practice in just applying the concepts in testing their understanding of the concept. These recall and understand level questions can be in the form of multiple choice questions with one or more correct answer, simple drag and drop activities, perhaps annotating images with labels and so on. Another level, a slightly higher level of LBD activities require the learner to apply the content. So, these could be in the form of solving problems and in terms of the format we can give short or longer answer questions with text boxes. We can provide them concept maps that they can modify and so on. We will see a few examples in a moment and if we go at a higher level which is also required for integration of knowledge, we need to provide synthesis or create level activities, longer problems, perhaps design problems and we do not need to do this too often because that will, this comes after a set of concepts are learnt, but these do need to be included in the e-learning module. Let us see some examples of these different types of LBD activities. Here is an example LBD at an understand level where there is an image. So what you see here is an image of different processes in the water cycle and this is converted into labels that can be dragged and dropped by the learner on to the image. So learners need to place the labels at the correct picture in order to finish the activity and this is an understand level activity. The next example is that at an apply cognitive level and the technique used here is called predict, observe and explain. So you may recall the learning dialogue example that we saw in a previous LED or about a magnet and movement of a magnet in a circuit and so on. So after that interactive video, learners can be asked to predict what will happen when a magnet is dropped into a copper tube and they can type their answer, then they can be asked to observe a different video to test their answer and finally they can be given another text box wherein they apply the corresponding laws to explain the phenomena observed in the video. The next example is could be perhaps even at a higher level, apply or even at an analysis level and this involves completing of a concept map. Here the instructor provides a focus question to the learner. In this example, the focus question is how does the sun influence the water cycle and a group, a collection of concepts involves a, involved are provided. What the learner has to do is to connect the concepts with meaningful propositions so that together the concept map can answer the focus question. Alternately a partial, partial concept map or perhaps a slightly incorrect concept map could be provided and the learner can evaluate and correct the map. So again this activity can be at an analyze or even at an evaluate level. So why are these learning by doing activities important? Doing LBD activities help learners decide which knowledge, which content, which concepts are to be used in which situations and this becomes very important when there is a complex situation, a complex scenario, fairly common in various STEM disciplines and even in other disciplines. In the process of attempting a learning by doing task, a learner's conceptual understanding their application of the concepts becomes stronger. Proficiency in a topic can be gained by attempting activities with feedback and scaffolding and learning by doing activities contribute towards student learning by providing them opportunities to link and connect ideas and learn new problem solving strategies. Finally, let us come to some takeaways for us instructional designers and teachers as we use a learning, learner centric approach to design e-learning content. We need to make learners do frequent activities which are interspersed between videos throughout the course. We need to design a variety of learning by doing activities at different cognitive levels and in a variety of formats and we need to give constructive feedback to learners so that they can revise their understanding and improve their learning. Thank you.


Welcome back to School of Calisthenics. Today we are looking at why and when you might want to use weighted calisthenics. Bringing some more weight into your training through the form of vests, belts or bands is a really effective way of starting to create some more progressive overload. If you've got to the stage with some of your training where you can do 8, 10, 12 reps, you then face a question, do I just keep doing more or do I want to start building some more baseline strength and that's when it's a really good time to start putting some more weight on which is going to mean you're working harder. It changes the percentage of our intensity that we're working at and that's going to create a new adaptation. There's a number of reasons why you might want to add some weight onto your calisthenics training. The main one for us is being to start to build a bigger base but to make sure you can continually get progressive overload. That basically means that if you can do 10 reps of a pull-up or a muscle-up or even a dip, something simple like that, you might want to add some more load to start to create more adaptation because the brain is going to adapt to the stress you place upon it. If 10, 12 reps is getting easy and you want to build more strength for more difficult calisthenics movements, you're going to need to put some more weight in your training to build that adaptation. Now adding weight to your training isn't the only way to create an adaptation. You've seen from us before that exploring new ranges of motion, changing angles that your body's at is a whole host of things that you can do to make an exercise harder to make it progressively more overloaded. However, if you're working towards something very specific like in a muscle-up during your applied strength training, it can be very useful to get very strong and improve your strength to weight ratio in the specific move that you're trying to work towards.  Maybe you're trying to put on a little bit of extra muscle mass and you want to use some higher rep ranges and you still need a little bit of progressive overload because those push-ups, for example, are getting a bit too easy. It's a real simple process. If you are comparing it to free weight training and take a bench press, for example, we would work out our intensities of a percentage of our one repetition max. If you're trying to create a hypertrophy adaptation, you might be looking to build some muscle. That might be eight reps at 80% of your one RM, the most amount of weight you can lift for one. This is where it applies into calisthenics. We just need to pick the right amount of load or resistance through the version of a weight vest or a belt, which means we can hit our target repetitions and then get the adaptation that we're looking for off the back of that. So before we get started with the exercises, let's give you a quick demo of an introduction to tools that we're going to use. Now, Dave's packing the weight vest. This one we love because we've actually got the option to be able to take out weights as we need to. So we can adjust it. It's a 20 kilo vest, but these are one kilo. So we can actually drop the weights out if we need to. Loads of flexibility and it's really easy. Once it's on, just to crack into the session. The second one is the weight belt. The advantage of this is we can actually put more weight on it. So if you're an absolute monster and you want to be getting 40 kilos on, this might be a good option, or you then start thinking about combining those two tools. The slight variations in where the weight is placed in terms of distributed on the body might just change how the exercise feels. Both of them are great legitimate ways to train more strength. So you can choose which everyone works. There's also the bands. These work really well for pushing exercises in your pushup variations, but you could use them for pull-ups and dips, but it gets complicated and you might end up just getting yourself caught in a spider's web of rubber, which is never going to be a good thing in the gym. So get rid of those, Dave. All right, let's put them to work. So the first one we're going to have a look at is a weighted vest on the pull-ups. So let's take this in the context of a specific movement like a muscle-up. You can do 10 pull-ups and you're still wondering why you can't do a muscle-up, but it could be an opportunity if you'd start using some additional weight, which is going to help you to get higher above the bar. Think about what happens with building more strength through our full range of movement when we take the weight vest off. The brain on the body has then got some extra strength to play with, which is going to mean that we can get a little bit higher, putting more force down. So Jaco is going to give us a quick demo. So it's real simple. What I really want to stress with the importance of weighted calisthenics is that we still maintain full range of movement and quality. Just because we've got more weight on, it's not an excuse to start compromising technique. We're really working hard through range of movement. The other thing to think about with our weighted calisthenics, if we start working rep ranges one to five, that's typically going to be like a maximum strength adaptation. We might start to look like we're moving quite slow, but the intention has to be to move explosively and fast. Take the bench press example again. A heavy bench press is going to move slowly, even though you're trying to shift it quickly. That's really important from a neural perspective that the brain is learning to create force rapidly. There are the adaptations we're looking for to create force and increase rate of force production more effectively. So today's a little bit of work. Let's talk rest periods. If we're working through a strength-based adaptation, our maximum strength variable, so one to five repetitions, we're going to want to take a slightly longer rest period, probably between three and five minutes. The reason being that we want to make sure we're fully recovered, there's no fatigue in the system because this is not an endurance adaptation. We're trying to get as strong as possible, so we want to be able to put down maximum effort on each repetition and each set. As opposed to an endurance adaptation, we might be working 30 seconds, 60 seconds in between sets. We're making sure that this is getting a little bit more time to recover. You feeling all right? Let's go again, three to five, knock out another set. So there are the types of variables, reps and sets that we might use if we're looking for like maximum strength peak force adaptation when you're working towards something really specific and want to really increase your strength to weight ratio. However, we also might want to build up some more of our capacity, and we talk about this in the capacity part, capacity strength part of the framework, where we could use something like dips. We're again with the weighted vest, but it's a simpler sort of basic exercise where we're going to be looking to get more in the range of like six to 12, more of a hypertrophy rep range, where then we'd be looking at shorter rest periods, 60 to 90 seconds, but this is going to build up some of that global pushing strength that you'll be able to use in lots of areas of your calisthenics training. So say you like Tim, you've got massive triceps, and you can do sort of 10, 12 of those with a 20 kilo weight vest on comfortably, and you need to provide a bit more of that overload. Then we can get the weighted belt, which that around the waist, in addition to the vest could be one option, or you could actually just go with 30 or 40 kilo on the belt around your waist if you're wanting to provide even more of an overload for your dips or any other exercise like that. Through in calisthenics, there's no substitute ever for just basic strength. And with dips, there's a great pushing strength exercise that we need to get in our locker to build up our global strength to be able to progress on whatever it is the movements you're trying to do, it's going to give you a foundation of pushing strength that you'll be able to use. So there we have weighted calisthenics, it might be that you're using the weighted vest, it might be doing dip belt, it doesn't really matter what's important is that you're using some weight as one of the ways you can add overload and make sure it's progressive for your training. Remember, it depends on what you want in terms of the reps and sets you're going to use. Do you want applied strength towards a very specific movement, or you're trying to build up your global capacity strength? We always go talk about how you get what you're trained for. So that's a really important point that Jacko makes about understanding where this is going. Don't just use weight for the sake of it, have an idea about where it's going to go. But if you've been in calisthenics for a couple of years, adding some weight onto your movements to start to get some more progression to help you towards more complicated movements is definitely a way to go. But we're stressing the point about make sure that it's always with perfect technique, don't sacrifice that because it'll come back and bite you in the end. The other option is you want to walk around the gym looking like you've won the WWF with the belt over your shoulder, or just a badass in a weighted vest like that. If you want to up a level, just take your t-shirt off and wear this and you're just cool as doing the gym, maybe. So I hope that's give you some good information that you can go away and use in your training if you're wanting to add a little bit of extra weight to your exercises to help with your progression. So that's it until next time. Class dismissed.


Okay, we're back here live at Oracle Open World. This is day two, live from San Francisco. I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANG, I'm sure with my co-host Dave Vellante, wikibond.org. This is Oracle Open World, our fourth year of coverage. This is day two of three days of live coverage. Again, as always in our QLogic studio on the floor. And Dave, what a great run. We had a lot of history here. Our fourth year, our first year, Oracle wouldn't let us in. I mean, it wasn't the Q, they didn't know anything about it. QLogic gave us their booth and allowed us to broadcast live. We have not looked back, we've been very loyal to QLogic. We want to thank QLogic for letting us use their booth. And again, this is now a tradition. Every year we end the QLogic booth, babe. We're going to do guerrilla and then do the broadcasting. So thanks to QLogic. Day two wrap up, Dave, quick summary. What's going on? What's your take on day two? I got to say, the Mike Olson, Max Shearsen interviews were towards the end, fantastic. Kevin Chu giving some insight into SAP, a highlight there. But the big news, Larry Ellison, no keynote. Big America's Cup race. What's your take of day two summary? Well, I think you got the in-memory lockdown, right? And what I mean by that is you got Oracle talking about 12C, the in-memory option, they're poo-pooing Hannah, Mark Hurd saying they're not comparable. Hannah and the 12C in-memory option are nothing alike.  And so they're basically, Oracle's positioning this as the Hannah killer. We just heard from Kevin Chu, well look, we got a bunch of traction, we heard some metrics from him, it's all about the business value. So you got the in-memory lockdown. The reason why this is so important, John, is because the decisions that customers make now, whether to go with, stay with Oracle in-memory option, go with Hannah, or go with something like the IBM blue option. We're talking years and years and years, maybe decades of lock-in. There's a lot of money to be made there. That's one. Then you got the infrastructure wars. You got Joe Tucci and EMC paying, doing the million dollar keynote today, paying through the nose to get up on stage. Thought they did a great job appealing to DBAs. This is the big battle for the hearts and the minds of the DBAs. Oracle is an integrated infrastructure player, integrated hardware and software engineered together, going after that TAM that is owned traditionally by their hardware partners. And then the third war you got is the sort of application cloud smackdown. The work days, the SAPs, the sales force, really trying to compete with Oracle very effectively. And I think the fourth leg of that stool, John, is disruption and that's what we heard from Max Shireson and Mike Olson, more from Max. Max really is talking disruption. Those guys got a big booth here, a lot of action at the show, where it is they're not being invited back next year. I think MongoDB is on the blacklist from Oracle, Dave. Why is that? It's because they're stealing business and they're talking about it. Well, first of all, Mongo's done very well in the cloud with Amazon. They appealed to that new developer that we were referring to earlier. The guys who are dealing with fully integrated stacks, more of the dev-op mindset, a new kind of programming style, rapid agile, rapid front, whatever you want to call it, they're winning. MongoDB has done great with their community as well. So as you know, we've been covering MongoDB, went to their event, we're tracking them on crowd spots, doing very, very well. The community loves them because you know what? They're growing and it's a good solidarity amongst the developers and they're disrupting. Oracle doesn't like that. It's a little bit too much pressure on them and quite frankly, they don't want their customer base being distracted. I can see why they're being kicked out. It's a total compliment for Mongo. I think they should be touting that to the cows come home. It's a great marketing angle for them. And again, this goes to show you things that we've been talking about. The as-a-service business model is growing, cloud is kicking butt. You're seeing the applications driving a lot of the action. So the things we heard today, my highlights for the show was the normal low-hanging fruit is getting done, like back up and recovery. Not a sexy topic, kind of the back room operation, the DBAs, these guys were relegated into, you know, the blocking and tackling. Well, someone does that to a much more important role. You're seeing automation, Dave, really changed the game on that. That's the key transformation point, EMC doing very, very well there. On the database as-a-service, look at Oracle's doing with the cloud. Very, very key. Obviously, the balance between this new DBA, the DBA discussion is going to be on fire for the next two years. You're going to see all kinds of new educational opportunities, but more importantly, the DBA role will change significantly. Gary Bloom called it like the mainframe. Some guys will hold on, most guys will retire and everyone else will transfer the new jobs. Well, your point about automation is right on. We heard from EMC IT that that's what they're driving for. I think EMC IT is actually very good case study and case example of a company that's being extremely aggressive toward IT transformation. We've had Sanjay Merchandani on before. He's the one who started that, their new CIO. We've had on as well. And so yeah, the piece of automation, but what's interesting to me, John, is we still aren't seeing hyperscale-like automation in the enterprise. I think there's still a strategic advantage that that part of the world has, the DevOps crowd beyond DevOps. And I think that it's not moving fast enough into the enterprise. And I wonder, John, if that's a blind spot. You know, Dave, that's a really excellent observation point. I was thinking the same thing. I just really couldn't put into words, but I think what you just said is exactly what is happening. I think the hyperscale in the enterprise is un-gettable at this point, meaning it's a vision. It's more of a moonshot at this point rather than an actual tactical advantage. Because apps are 19 years old. So I think what you're seeing is that's why we're seeing DevOps, disaster recovery, data replication, data protection. A lot of the foundational discussions have to be taken care of first. Then you can go after the more aggressive things. So that makes sense. If you look at what happened with Fusion, Viya, and these other companies, the hyperscale conversation is kind of downstream. Certainly on the path, it'll be there. Hyperscale in the enterprise will happen. But I think right now they just need apps. HTML5 mobile apps. So that's why Mongo is doing so well. Again, that's why Cloud Air is relevant in the conversation. That's why Horton works as in the conversation. That's why Intel, Teradata, Horton works. These guys are doing good work because that's what the blocking and tackling of the enterprise needs to be. So, great point. Day three tomorrow live. Stay with us at Silicon Angle. We're going to be here tomorrow. We've got a lot of great lineups. We're going to be ending the day at three o'clock in the afternoon, 3.30. Actually, with the time we're ending tomorrow, four o'clock we're closing. We'll go right to the last minute until they've literally pulled the plug on the cube. Then maybe Larry will have the cup. Maybe Larry will have the cup. We'll be watching that. And, of course, the party. I got to get my tickets to Maroon 5. Dave, day two, guys, wrap up. Thanks to Q-Logic. Thanks to EMC. Thanks to all the folks sponsoring. Really appreciate it. Been a great day. Sand disc as well. Accenture. Accenture, Sand disc, Q-Logic, EMC. Great sponsors. And again, we have a lot of God. We've got Splunk next week. We've got the big date of New York City, a dupe world event that we're putting on. We have our HP Barcelona. Dave, I'm really excited about the event we're putting on in New York City. HP, Big Data NYC with Strata and Hadoop World. That event we're putting on is going to be a great show. So look for Big Data in New York City with Strata and Hadoop World. And, of course, great lineup tomorrow as well. Stay with us. SiliconANGLE.tv, SiliconANGLE.com, Wikibon.org. Watch CrowdSpots. We'll see you tomorrow.