 Well, welcome everyone to today's Mar-Guess lecture. Our guest speaker today is Ariane Rabenbach, and he's the person that I have been telling you about that is going to explain to us what's new in the federal records management space. So Ariane works in the office of the Chief Records Officer, and we're so pleased that finally NARA does have a Chief Records Officer, so that's quite an accomplishment for the records management field. Ariane works in the National Archives Records Administration out of College Park. You see that we're welcoming comments on Twitter, and the hashtag SJSU-Co-Uplia is on your screen for you. I'm going to just go right over to Ariane's first slide, and I'm going to give the mic over to Ariane, and we'll get started. So Ariane, it's all yours. Thank you, Pat, and welcome everybody. I'm glad you're able to join me today. As Pat said, I want to keep this as informal as possible, so if you have questions, just put them in the chat or raise your hand and speak up, and we'll be happy to take them as we go along. What I thought I'd do or what I was, you know, Pat and I talked about doing is just sort of bring everybody, sort of tell a story about all the changes. I've been at NARA for 15 years. I started at NARA in October of 2000, and the amount, if you, in that time period, there's certainly been a lot of change. I would say that if I were to divide my job doing records management for the federal government and doing the policy work that I do now in the segments that were all equal, the first 12 years were kind of pretty much it seemed like I was busy, but then as you'll see in the slide deck in 2011, the White House put out a memorandum on managing government records, making some changes for the way federal agencies manage their records, to reflect modern technologies, to reflect the rise of electronic records, electronic record keeping, things like that. That memo came out in November 2011, Red Round Thanksgiving. To implement memorandum in the federal government for those who aren't federal workers or those who don't know, you have to issue a directive that says, okay, here's the memorandum from the White House, and now here's the directive. So the directive, the managing government records directive came out in August 2012. So since then, it's been a real sprint to meet all the deadlines in the directive, and we'll talk about those in the presentation. So that's where we've been, you know, the directive really marked that significant turning point for federal records management. It really got gave the National Archives a lot of attention and a lot of focus on records management, which as we know and as headlines in the paper are, sometimes they're good things and sometimes they're bad things, and you don't necessarily want all the attention and everybody getting involved. But my joke is that my dad still thinks I'm a lawyer for some reason when I tried to explain what I do that are a policy for the government, and at least now we're having more of a conversation where he starts to get it because every day there's a records management story in the news, and it doesn't necessarily have to be prominent officials. My, when I taught workshops, I used to say you just pick up the Washington Post every morning and there is a records management story there somewhere. So that's just sort of my general introduction. Here's the timeline of all the major pieces of legislation, of all the major pieces of guidance that we've promulgated through our electronic records management policy shop. Just briefly, I'm on the records management policy team. There's five of us around the country. We are a distributed team, so talking into a video camera sitting on top of my computer is not something very familiar to me because I have colleagues in Austin, Texas, and there's one in Ann Arbor, and there's one in Seattle, we've got a few here in the D.C. area. So that's just how we operate. There's six of us on the team that write records management policy. And this is sort of our roadmap of all the major things that we delivered and put out over the last few years. And we can talk, I can go into a lot of detail on every single one of these, but let's see what you're interested in, and I'll, when I go through the deck and we'll stop at certain points to have, to go into a deeper dive. But as you can see, the kickoff was in the Presidential Memorandum in 2011. The directive is what we wrote to implement the goals of the memorandum, which was, again, to modernize. The Presidential Memo is really explicit about modernizing records management for the 21st century. Sort of the White House commitment that, yes, agencies are using computers. People are using modern technologies. And we have to get out of a world where every record schedule or agencies had record schedules that were written, frankly, in the 1950s and 60s, and before computers and talked about paper and things like that. One of the major things, the major pieces of guidance that we put out was in August of 2013 when we issued our capstone bulletin. Capstones are a new approach to managing email. One of the problems with email, again, going back to this 1940s, 50s models of records management, a lot of the current guidance, even this, you know, 2010 guidance was print and file email. Nobody prints and files email. And that's sort of, but we had to get out of a mold where we were relying on people to do things, to print and file email and record keeping systems. They, even people that have had records management systems installed may not click and drag email. So capstone was sort of our recognition of this problem and builds on the idea or the concept that most federal agencies, through their general counsel shops, have purchased vaults where they, where all their email is captured just for e-discovery purposes. Now those aren't record keeping systems. And anybody who knows, is it familiar with the field, understand sort of the distinction between a brute force capture of every single email message that goes across, that comes out or goes across a network. What we wanted to do is say, is there any way we can look at these systems that agencies are spending all this money on and leverage that and turn it into a records management application or turn it in, what, is there a ways that we can leverage that functionality? And the capstone bulletin does that. It says, basically for all, for the top level of the agencies, we're going to just declare all of those records permanent. So if you're the head of an agency, if you're the senior director, your email is likely to have permanent records in it. And we want to make sure all of those are captured, all of them are declared permanently. The capstone bulletin does have exceptions for personal email or non-record material. But the key point with the capstone bulletin was it said, you've got all these emails, it's now going to be permanent, we're going to capture it, and then we're going to manage it. Whereas before we were relying, pre-capstone, you're relying on agencies to capture it, manage it, and then declare it permanent. Well, if they're not capturing it and they're not managing it, you're never going to get permanent records. And so that's the sea change that was a capstone bulletin led. In January of 2014, we updated the formats that we'll accept. And our format team, my colleagues on the format team did a really good job of just, you know, we were very restrictive at the National Archives on the kinds of formats we would accept for permanent records. These were boiled down into, you know, spire six categories, PDF, TIFF, the normal suspects. And it was very lacking because it didn't recognize that formats evolved and agencies evolved. The story I always tell about the format bulletins is when I was, when we had rolled out the digital photography guidance a few years ago, when that came out in 2004, 2005, something like that, it was a requirement that no pictures for permanent records could have less than 5.1, 5.1 megapixels was the requirement for digital photography. And I remember teaching that point to people, going out to agencies and talking to people. And they would say, we're never going to have a 5.1 megapixel camera. They're $2,000, they don't exist, we can't afford them. Here we are, you know, 10 years later, and everybody's got a phone in their pocket that shoots twice that, three times that. So it just shows you that, you know, formats are always tough when you do that kind of prescriptive guidance. The idea by resetting the formats is we have more interactive tables and a better approach to managing that, and being able to handle the evolution of technology. So as technology evolves and moves forward, we're now more responsive to that. So that was what the format bulletin was. The summer, last summer, there were a lot of email stories around some federal agencies, the IRS, the VA, EPA a little bit, there was a lot of interest in Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. So they wanted us to do more email guidance. We put out a new bulletin through another OMBNAR memo in September 2014. That email bulletin, so if you look for that bulletin, the 2014 bulletin, I call that our greatest hits of email guidance. We've put out, the frustration we've always had on the policy side is we've issued guidance. You know, the first piece of guidance about email was not August of 2013 when capstone came out. It was not, you know, January 2014, we said here is format bulletin. We've long recognized that email was a record and we've put out, we've been putting out guidance for years and years and years, predating my career in our way back in the late 80s, the first, you know, the first real email case in the government is the cross case, the Olly North White House email case of the late 80s. I mean, that's a, you know, this was a 30, 40 years old problem. And it gets frustrating when you put out all those guidance and how do people, what does it take to make it their real change? The email bulletin in 2014 was a, I call that our greatest hits. We had finally put out all these albums like a band does and all of a sudden kind of do a greatest hits package. You repurpose all your stuff, you re-box it up and you send it out again. So the 2014 guidance is the greatest hits for your email. Because of the email stories that came out that summer, the Congress finally updated the Federal Records Act and this was significant because it's the first time we had legislative action to our underlying statute of the Federal Records Act. Since the Federal Records Act was passed in 1950 and then it was, it stayed on the books. Now we were given regulatory authority to go in and issue regulations to implement those, the law. But the law hadn't been changed since the 1950 when President Truman signed it. So it's still talked about, you know, machine readable materials was still in the law, for example. Congress did update the law in November 2014 to explicitly call out electronic records as records that needed to be preserved, called out email as a class of records, also included electronic messages. So text messages, Google chats, but the blackboard chats that we're doing here may or may not be a record and may or may not have to be captured depending on your agency's record schedule and what the content is. So it really reset a lot of our underlying guidance had to be reset, had to be looked at and that's the November 2014 updates to the Federal Records Act. So that's the piece that reset the laws, gave us, in a way I'm not, I wouldn't call it new authorities, just expanded the authorities we had to do our work and really recognized the preeminence of electronic records in the modern age. This July, past July, we updated our, we issued a new bulletin on electronic messages. This one is significant because it gets to the issue of text messages on mobile phones and are they records, are they official records that need to be managed and preserved? And that messaging bulletin of July 2015 sort of gets to that, it raises that issue. And just this week on today is Thursday, on Tuesday we rolled out our minimum metadata bulletin. So when you're starting to transfer electronic records to the National Archives, one of the minimum metadata elements that we're looking for, for those records. Now that's an interesting bulletin because I can, you know, if you study metadata or you're interested in metadata, you know that you can have a serious conversation about schemas and things like that. The problem is most of the people who do records management in the federal government, most people aren't really interested in metadata, they don't know what it is. So it was kind of hard to write a minimum metadata bulletin. If you're really interested, I suggest reading the bulletin. It's based on Dublin Core and it just has a few elements. Now, internal Danara, we have our own metadata requirements for records that we're going to eventually make available to fit in our catalog and things like that. One of the projects for the coming years is to start aligning the NARA requirements for things like our catalog or online public access space with the minimum metadata requirements. So those are the big pieces of guidance that we've put out over the last few years. The managing government records director is the be-all and end-all in this, the main piece of guidance and it came out August 24th of 2012 and then they said, that's the piece that reset records management in the federal government. In the directive, it explicitly calls out two goals, two big headline goals. And one of them is to require electronic record keeping to ensure transparency, efficiency and accountability. Again, recognizing that agencies have converted their paper-based systems to electronic systems, federal government work is being carried out with electronic systems, electronic records and we need to manage those. We need to make sure where our guidance is appropriate around electronic records. So that's explicitly spelled out in the end as one of the goals. The second goal is to put agencies on notice that they had to demonstrate compliance with records management statutes and regulations. And that gets, that speaks to the, one of the challenges we've always had in records management and we work with all the agencies. Our appraisal staff would go out and work with a lot of the agencies. The challenge would be how do we make sure, you know, they're following the proper procedures, proper requirements that we've put out. In the agencies, we always heard, well, I've got two people doing records management, my agency is hundreds of people. How do I make this work? I don't have any senior support. So the directive requires agencies to have some senior support. And I'll get to explain that in a little bit. The record keeping piece is divided into two milestones that are coming, that we are working towards in a very, you know, these are things we're doing every day. So by 2016, by the end of 2016, December 2016, agencies have to manage permanent and temporary email and accessible electronic form. So all email has to be managed electronically. Well, you might say, well, it's an email by Nature Electronic. It is, but remember, we had a lot of guidance that was out there for years that said print and file your email. So we wanted to declare a desk to print and file, just manage them in electronic formats, delete what you can, and move forward. Get out of the print and file business because nobody was printing and filing email. And if somebody is printing and filing email, I'd be curious to see how much house that worked in. The other piece is 2019, by the end of 2019. So we've got a few years for that, but it's fast approaching. Agencies must manage all their permanent electronic records in electronic formats. And again, that's not saying all records. It's saying permanent records of National Archives staff and the agencies have appraised as permanent, and have been scheduled as permanent. And if they're electronic records, they have to stay in electronic formats. That's extending the print and file, the desk of print and file, if you will, to all kinds of records. Any kind of record, that's a permanent electronic record. Now, to do that, agencies may or may not have to change their systems, change the way they do business, and that kind, it gets to the number one question we get around that goal is, do you mean all electronic government, no paper in government? Well, I don't think we're not proposing that, but I think part of the thinking agencies have to go through is, you know, if we're going to do this for our permanent electronic records, maybe we need to do this for all the records. And that's how we hope that'll play out. So there's a, that, I mean, it builds obviously off the email goal and get to the place where we're just dealing with electronic records instead of a variety of formats. The other thing I talked about was the compliance piece. The second goal of the directive is a explicit instructions to agencies on demonstrating compliance with records management statutes and regulations. And the way they do that, say, they have a senior agency official. So we told agencies to establish a person in your, in your agency, call them a senior agency official and put records management in their portfolio. So they're responsible for carrying out records management. There's also some pieces around accountability and training. Accountability for records officers. There are, each agency has a designated records officer that works with us on these record scheduling issues, the transfer issues, implements our guidance in an agency. We wanted them to be properly trained and properly identified. And we also told agencies to develop appropriate training for all staff. I'm a federal employee. I have to take online courses every year. I have to do two hours on computer security. I have to do an hour on facility security. I could, there are things I have to do. We would like to see in a perfect world, 10 minutes on records management. So every federal employee at least knows the basics of records management. And then we, hopefully, we can get that through sort of that piece, through the, you know, getting them training working, things like that. When I talked to, for the last slide, I mentioned that each agency has a, as a senior agency official, they're responsible, these are the kinds of things that we want them to be responsible for. Making sure that they're the champion of records and information management in the agency. So it's somebody who has to be a senior leader who has the ability, as the last bullet says, to deal with agency practices, budgets, personnel, to make sure that the agency is spending the resources it needs to meet the targets and the directive. The email goals, the training goals, the 2019 permanent records goal. And that's persons responsible for making sure the agencies do the right thing. And that's the compliance piece. We recognize that there's going to be some coordination with the agency records officer, making sure that the agency, senior agency officials and the records officers have, are on the same page, that they work together in tandem. We don't want to undercut the role of the records officers and the good work that they've been doing in agencies. One of the other steps in the directive was a new job series in the federal government, explicitly dedicated to records and information management. So it's this 0308 series and you'll see the links there to our blog post about it. This is a significant piece of work because for the first time there are actually jobs in the federal government explicitly devoted to records and information management. They're not anything else. I mean, for a long time, you know, I was a, for a while I was a, I was just in, I was in the IT series for a while, for a while. I'm now a policy analyst, you're not a records person. And then agencies, we heard the same stories. A lot of agencies, records staff were management analysts, the big generic bucket called management analysts. Not talking about explicit requirements for what, you know, what makes a good records officer, what are the, what are the requirements for a good records officer? You could be a perfectly good management analyst. You can be a perfectly good federal employee but have no background in records, no training in records. So the fly sheet is what OPM uses to start establishing jobs. It goes to agencies and agencies write position descriptions based on the fly sheet. That fly sheet came out in March of this year and established, for the first time, established sort of the baseline and what records, you know, that position in the federal government, records and information managers. And we hope that's a way to help us build to implement, again, these goals on the directive. I mean, the directive puts these targets out there and we want to build in some support for getting that work done, making sure that we have success. So the one thing, and we were talking a little bit about jobs at the beginning, and, you know, that's the, the, the interesting thing about, you know, where I think this is going, given a couple of years, I think there'll be a lot of agencies hiring people to explicitly deal with records and information. You know, that in this job series, we've seen that, we've seen it start. Some agencies, there are some jobs and USA jobs right now that are just out of the 308 series. So we've seen some movement in that direction and I hope there's a lot more, especially for students, for people getting involved in the profession. Other things that I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about, again, these are all coming out of the work of the directive. The automated technologies, one of the challenges or one of the, one of the requirements in the directive is that we, we started investigating automated technologies and what we could do to automate a lot of these processes. Again, going back to the email problem, you know, there are systems in place, whether or not people use them or don't use them remains an open question. So it's how do you get improvement in that space? How do you think, how do you, you know, how, how can we make this easier for agencies? So we wanted to explore some automated technologies. Are there automated solutions to do that? We issued a report that was both a plan and a report. So it was a report on sort of where we saw the state of technology today, where it was, and sort of some plans, some ideas we had for the future. And part of that work is like leveraging the federal CIO council community. The CIOs are active in, they meet, they talk about these issues. If we can leverage that community, maybe we can start getting some support for building tools or helping us out. We were also explicitly tasked with investigating open source tools, finding out, you know, which tools were freely available and how that can be used in government. And that's, you know, obviously if we can leverage open source to communities that are around open source tools and techniques would be very helpful. I briefly outlined the training requirements, all records officers, those individuals who work directly with us on a daily basis need to have our certificate of records management training. And we've built out some communities of interest around the federal records space. So if you are a federal employee and you're interested in the work we're doing, you can get an account on OMB Max, which is OMB's Wiki platform. And then you can join our federal records officer network or our electronic records working group, I think that's what it's called. So those are some communities of interest that have been established on OMB's platform to allow records officers to get together. Because again, one of the things we've always heard is that I'm a records office, I'm a records manager for Treasury and I work in New York City. And I don't know, I mean, I can't, I don't know if anybody else is dealing with the same kind of problems that I am. So that's a community that was set up to enable that. I see the question, are student contractors also able to do that? My understanding is it's open to anybody with a .gov email address. So if you can get on OMB Max with a .gov email address, then you can join the community. Because we do want to have a lot of different voices there. So I would say yes. And so the communities of interest, and that's an area we're interested in exploring and doing far with. We don't want to take, we want to support them and let them maybe work together on some things. Our position at the National Archives is we don't want to dictate where they go, but we want to be there for when they have questions or they need the policies analyzed, something like that. So we can help them with that. The last, I think that's my next slide, or that's my last slide. Just our blog, that's where we put all the latest and greatest. You can subscribe to the blog and, you know, follow along with all the updates and records management, everything you need to know. This should be, if you're interested in federal records management, this should be on your blog shopping list. You can subscribe to email updates. And unlike some blogs, if you subscribe to email updates, you get the whole update in your email. You don't get to click the link and actually read it on the blog. Yes, we also have a YouTube channel. The YouTube channel we use for, we actually stream our, so every other month we have our bi-weekly, our bi-monthly records and information discussion group, or BRIDGE. The BRIDGE meetings are live streamed from our McGowan Theater. And they're available up there on YouTube now. So you can watch, you can go back and watch all the BRIDGE meetings for a couple of years. They're all out there on YouTube. So we do use the record. We do put, so NARA has a general YouTube channel for putting out events to come out of our McGowan Theater, all the speakers that come and all the programs. And obviously that's a large portion of our mission. That's not what we're talking about, we're talking about the, as I like to joke, it's National Archives Records Administration. I work in the Records Administration side, which is the non-glamorous side. Nicholas Cage never stole anything from us. And, you know, what we do on our YouTube channel is our bi-week, bi-monthly records and information discussion group. But there are some training videos that have been put together out there that you can feel free to explore and spend all your time looking at. So that was about my half hour of straight talk. If there's anything, feel free to reach out to me afterwards. And I think I can just open it up now for discussion, questions, anything in particular people would like to hear more about. Thank you. If any of you have questions, just hit the hand right underneath your name. You'll see three icons, Smiley, and Away, and then a hand. Raise your hand and you could use the mic or you could chat in the chat area. Thank you so much, A. And what a great chat. I was wondering if forthcoming there's going to be more directives for things beyond metadata at email, such as social media? Oh, so we do have, we have issued a social media bulletin. It was outside of the construct of the directives. And that was something we put out, 2014-02, it was our last, it was our guidance for that. So I think I can put that in the chat there. So that bulletin came out in October of 2013 was the, it was a bulletin that we've done on specifically social media updated. We'd actually put out guidance a few years ago on blogs and Wikis and RSS. That was like 2005, 2006. And then we updated it in 2010 and the latest update is this one, the 2014 update that we put out. And this just, again, it's the same premise that agencies are using these tools. NASA is a big user of social media. Those are federal records. They need to be preserved. They need to be managed. Do they need to be kept forever? That's a scheduling and appraisal question. But we at least want to have that discussion. Does everybody's tweets need, you know, I'm an active user of Twitter. Does any, all my tweets need to be preserved forever? Probably not. But if I'm the, if I'm brought, the presence of that example, because there's a different set of laws for that. But if I'm the secretary of the Department of Energy and I'm using Twitter, are my tweets permanent? And the short answer probably is yes. But we had the, we had to issue some guidance. And then the bulletin spells out the questions and the challenges. A lot of times we don't necessarily have a lot of answers because the technology is new or the technology is emerging. But we want to put agencies on notice that these are things they need to think about. And social media is a good example of that. The messaging bulletin that I referenced earlier is an example of that as well. So I think one of the things that we're on the hook to do, and more guidance will be coming out in this area shortly, is we do have to define success criteria for 2016 and let agencies know exactly what it means to be successful. Do I think we can, do I think agencies can realistically need it? I, it's a good angel, bad angel thing, the devil on your shoulder, the angel on your shoulder. I think, I think agencies need to show, need to demonstrate significant progress. And I think what we're going to do is hopefully put out some measures of success criteria that kind of start to lead those discussions or start agencies having these discussions. So we can, we can say, yeah, they've made significant progress. For years we've been doing a records management self-assessment where we ask agencies certain questions and they report back to us how they're doing. And this year's report, which is not out yet, but I've seen, I've read it a couple times and looked at it, we do ask explicitly, are you going to meet the, is your agency going to meet the deadline? And overwhelmingly, agencies say yes. So based on that, I think, you know, that, I think that is something, you know, we're committed to helping agencies reach the goal. I don't want to get into a game where we have a list of agencies that are better than others are there and we don't want to do that. We just want to make sure that we move forward. And I think, I think it's a long way of getting to the answer. Realistically it may be a challenge, but I think we're going to make sure that we explain that, tell a story around that, build out some good things. So having that discussion and moving forward is, I think, much more valuable. Before I was on the electronic records policy team or the record, what we call the record management policy team now, I was the lead appraisal archivist for naming records and I would go around looking at all kinds of Navy records. I know that was always an issue because that's another thing we always hear. It takes a long time to get schedules approved and that's an area that we're trying to, you know, get better at. One of the goals in the directive, one of the targets in the directive for us to meet is a reevaluation of our appraisal criteria. And I didn't really talk about this, about that in this slide presentation or the updates to the GRS that we're doing. So there's a lot of pieces of work that are taken as a whole really going to improve the way we do our business, approving schedules from agencies, approving things from agencies, getting things done, getting things out, which I think would help all of these records management challenges in the federal government because I think that's where, that's something we can do to make everybody's jobs easier and if we can get to a place where those are easy, then I think we can all make these, you know, getting out the door. And there's a comment about local government and we're glad to see our guidance on metadata and naming conventions. That's exactly what we think we can do. That's value we think we can add to the Archives government community especially. It's one of the things we're very interested in as are there. If you read our strategic plan, we talk about leadership and that's an example of that. We want to make sure that we're a resource because I think, I may spend a lot of time at archives conferences and even, you know, go to SAA meetings, go to ARMA meetings, go to Nagara meetings. Nagara is a little different because it's all, it's generally government so this problem is not a Nagara problem. But at SAA you feel like, well, you know, they're not really talking about government issues. They're not talking about issues that relate to government records and local. Those, that trench of agencies in that space and that's always, well I think we're doing a lot of good work and I think a lot of government are doing good work but we need better vehicles to share and I know Pat and I are both serve on the Nagara board and that's an area that we're interested in, you know, demonstrating some leadership there. So I think there's a lot of movement in that direction and I'm happy to see it because one of the things, again, not a criticism of SAA, it's just how SAA has evolved. It's a very university-centric profession at least if you look at SAA meetings and the big players are in the college's university section and that's good but their challenges are not government challenges. There's some similarities but there's a place where it departs and that's a space that we think Nagara can better fill. Thank you once again and just following up on your last comment. Were there any influences in your policy directives from say other globally, other national archives, Australia, UK, Canada and do you have connections with your colleagues there? Yes, we do. We have a monthly, more with Canada than the UK or Australia so I should say our format and the head of our format team Kevin Dvorsey had worked for two years at the archives of New Zealand so he's very familiar with the New Zealanders and the Australians. He brings us that perspective. We have a monthly conference call with our Canadian colleagues. We've just started that about a year ago. We've been doing that for about a year and that's again to just recognize that we're dealing with yes, laws are different. The Library Archives Canada mission is sort of an amalgamation of both the Library of Congress and the National Archives under one roof so they've got a different scope but some of these records management concerns are the same and some of the issues around social media and things like that are the same so we've kind of identified some people on their policy side. We've had a couple of teleconferences. I know I spent a week in Ottawa in November last year meeting them and just starting to enable that exchange and those conversations are very interesting and we do that once a month to keep the you know sometimes it's just yeah here's what we're working on and they tell us what they're working on and it's just a you know one hour to exchange that kind of stuff but it is you know building out those relationships because there is some potential there for partnerships and just understanding and getting good policy together. When we do another plug for the blog is as we do these policies and as we develop these bulletins, we always put out a draft on the blog so the early versions come on the blog we take comments from metadata it for instance we did get comments from Harvard we got comments from you can be anonymous on the blog so some comments came from anonymous people so I don't know where they are but they were good comments so the draft version we look at all those comments we take them in we evaluate them and that's always it's good to see that there are people you know sometimes you think you're working a vacuum and you know nobody cares but some of our people get involved and make comments on the blog so as we develop policies we put drafts on and welcome public participation. Before we go to Bodri I just wanted to comment that Lisa is one of our instructors Arianna and she's from Toronto and we do have a number of students in our program from Canada which explains her interest in this. So I'm glad I didn't complain about the weather in Ottawa in November. You did well and now Bodri well I think a hand was up and I think she's away now or did you hit your away button by accident. Looks like she said in the chat window that she doesn't have a question. It was just an oops, alright anyone else? Thank you very much Arianna for your presentation this was so informative and I know our students have gotten a lot out of it.