ࡱ> Q pbjbj,, :NeNeAx.'''''''''''8_'#(''@))")))1+9,T,,$',1+1+,,''))H///,')')/,//Lw )@Uw-h0@i N).NwwxN'g|D,,/,,,,,//,,,@,,,,N,,,,,,,,, %: Faculty Evaluation Information Sheet Rev. July 2025 Evaluation WeightingsPositionFrequency of EvaluationTeachingScholarshipServiceTenure-trackAnnual40%40%20%Tenured Associate3 year35-45%35-45%20-30%Tenured Full5 year35-45%35-45%20-30%TeachingProfessional ActivityServiceTeaching Professor*3 year70%15%15%Associate Teaching ProfessorAnnual for 6 years, then 3 year cycle)70%15%15%Assistant Teaching Professorannual70%15%15%LecturerAnnual for first 2 years, then on 3 year cycle95%0%5%*Those hired before 2006 have the option of remaining at 80-10-10. Type of evaluationFormat of evaluationDraft evaluation due Final evaluation dueWho can serve on evaluation committeeYear 1 evaluation for tenure-track facultyInterfolio November 10November 26Tenured facultySubsequent evaluations for tenure-track facultyInterfolioJanuary 12February 2Tenured facultyTenured faculty (3 & 5 year cycles)InterfolioMay 4June 1Tenured facultyTeaching ProfessorInterfolioMay 4June 1Tenured faculty, Teaching Professors (current)Associate Teaching Professors years 7+InterfolioMay 4June 1Tenured, Tenure-track, all Teaching Professor ranksAssistant Teaching Professors and Associate Teaching Professor in years 1-6InterfolioJanuary 12February 2Tenured, Tenure-track, all Teaching Professor ranksLecturer (during year 2 and 3) InterfolioNovember 10November 26Tenured, Tenure-track, all Teaching Professor ranksLecturer (year 3 or later)InterfolioJanuary 12Feb 2Tenured, Tenure-track, all Teaching Professor ranksPhased Retired agreementno eval Policies and Procedures for Faculty Evaluations For all NTT faculty, please refer to the CBA, Article 11 found at scu.edu/provost. (Revised October 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2015 and 2025) Responsibility to Evaluate Faculty. Section 2.6 of the Faculty Handbook states: Deans . . . oversee and ensure appropriate standards for the periodic evaluation of faculty in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Further, Section 2.7 states that the chair . . . evaluates faculty members at regular intervals in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Taken together, the Faculty Handbook states that it is the responsibility of the chair to conduct the evaluation of the faculty of the department or program while the dean acts to ensure that appropriate standards are being applied. Chairs must appoint faculty committees to advise the Chair and draft the evaluation document, but the final decision on an evaluation belongs to the chair, with oversight from the dean. Confidentiality. Section 3.4.6 of the Faculty Handbook provides that deliberations and recommendations by persons or groups charged in this Handbook with the evaluation of candidates shall have confidential status and shall not be divulged to persons not so charged. Evaluative material received from others, whether solicited or volunteered, shall likewise have confidential status and shall not be divulged to persons outside the review process. This section applies to all evaluations (annual, cycle, MPR, reappointment) conducted in the College and the dean holds all faculty to the highest standards of integrity and trust in the carrying out of the important work of evaluating their peers. General Information for Annual and Three-year and Five-year Cycle Evaluations Tenured and-track faculty undergoing review should submit an annual (simplified) Faculty Activities Report by October 1 via Interfolio. Faculty who do not submit Faculty Activities Reports will not be awarded merit increases. Unless the associate dean has granted an extensionto the faculty member beforeOctober 1, the faculty member's failure to submit a FAR by October 1 in the year an evaluation is due will result in the awarding of a score ofNR(not reported -no merit raise.) Any extension granted by the associate dean must be in writing, must include a date certain when the FAR and supporting materials will be submitted, and must be done in consultation with thechair. The three-year and five-year report generally should not exceed ten pages and should a) highlight the most important accomplishments in teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and service, b) link such accomplishments to the goals of the department program and the university mission, and c) identify those areas in teaching, scholarship/creative activity and service where focusing effort would most enhance the quality and significance of ones work. Chairs may elect to align their evaluation cycles with their chair term. General Faculty Evaluation Procedures The department chair XE "Department Chair"  is eligible, but not required to serve on the departmental evaluation committee with at least two other faculty colleagues. A department may have multiple evaluation committees. See the table on page one to see eligible faculty. The members of the committee shall be identified in every letter. The chair must sign off on the final letter. The members of the committee may also sign the letter, but are not required to do so. The overall faculty evaluation score for tenure stream faculty as well as the individual categories of teaching, scholarship and service are reported using half-integer values (3.5, 4.0, 4.5, etc.). Rounding of the overall evaluation is to the nearest half integer, not to the nearest integer. For example, if an overall evaluation results in a 4.2, that evaluation score shall be reported as a 4.0; an overall evaluation score of 4.3 shall be reported as a 4.5; an overall evaluation score of 4.7 shall be reported as a 4.5; an overall evaluation score of 4.8 shall be reported as a 5.0. An overall score is not tabulated for adjunct lecturers because their salaries are based on teaching experience rather than a performance review. The chair must discuss the drafts of evaluation letters with the associate dean and the final letter must be approved by the associate dean prior to being submitted in Interfolio. This process contributes to reliability across cases in the College and to the development of an informed sense of mutual expectations across departments in the College. The exception is for evaluations of adjunct faculty. Those letters do not need to be reviewed or approved by the deans office. Department chairs and evaluation committee members should not send drafts of annual and multi-year faculty evaluation letters through email. Password-protected cloud-sharing sites (such as Dropbox, Camino and Google Docs) are acceptable ways to share and collaboratively edit drafts. Please be attentive to confidentiality concerns. The faculty evaluation process shall be based on various kinds of evidence, provided by the faculty member and the evaluators. The evaluations in teaching, scholarship, and service should make explicit reference to evidence in support of the evaluative judgments. Detailed Policies Establishing Ones First Annual or Multi-Year Evaluation Cycle Score New tenure-track faculty: The practice of the College is to use the designation, NF XE "Evaluations" , meaning new faculty for first year faculty permitting the College to introduce the first year faculty into the evaluation system, but not to assign an evaluation number their first year. For purpose of raises, the NF is equal to a score of 4.5. Faculty previously working at ҵ who are tenured: The year in which the tenure decision is made is the first year of the first cycle. The evaluation score for the years until this new cycle is completed shall be the average of the annual evaluation scores for the three years prior to the start of the cycle. Faculty applying for tenure must be given an annual evaluation during the year during which their applications are reviewed. This evaluation is in addition to the tenure review. New faculty hired with tenure: As with newly hired assistant professors, the use of NF permits the College to introduce the faculty into the evaluation system, but not to assign an evaluation number until one is earned by virtue of accomplishments at ҵ. The faculty member will be evaluated annually for three years and then move to a three- or five-year cycle as appropriate by rank. The average of the annual evaluation scores for the three years prior to the start of the cycle will be used to determine the first cycle score. Flexible Weighting Option: Only tenured faculty shall be eligible to participate in the flexible weighting system. Probationary tenure-track faculty are not eligible to participate due to considerations of equity and because of restrictions in the Faculty Handbook. At the beginning of a new evaluation cycle a faculty member may exercise his or her option of flexibility in assigning weights to the three areas of evaluation for that cycle. Unless a person exercises the option of changing their weightings prior to October 1 of the first Fall Quarter of their new cycle, the persons accomplishments for that cycle will be evaluated in accord with the weightings of the persons previous evaluation cycle. In exceptional cases, later adjustments to the weightings may be made at the request of the person being evaluated, and subject to the approval of the chair XE "Department Chair"  and the dean. Faculty on Leave: In general, faculty on full leaves of absence (not sabbaticals) who are unable to submit a FAR should receive for that year the average of their last three years unless, in a given category, achievements that would increase the evaluation should be accounted for when the FAR is submitted. Evaluation Results and Merit Raises: The evaluation scores recorded in February will be used to prepare merit raise recommendations in March. These recommendations will affect the salaries that begin in the following September. It is expected that the same evaluation scores will continue to be used in raise recommendations until there is a change resulting from the completion of another evaluation. Cycle evaluations submitted before the June 1 deadline will not be included in the February/March raise recommendations. Those scores will be added the following academic-year. (For example, a cycle evaluation submitted June 2015 will have impact on a contract that begins September 2016.) Administrators Returning to Their Tenured Faculty Positions: For the purposes of computing raises and smoothing the transition back to faculty status, tenured members of the faculty who leave administrative service and rejoin the faculty shall carry the assigned evaluation score until they are evaluated again by their faculty peers. Administrators should negotiate with their supervisors and document in a memorandum of understanding what support will be provided to help the transition back to full-time faculty status. Evaluation of Faculty Administrators: For faculty members serving partially or wholly in administrative roles outside the Department for which there is a ҵ first-level supervisor, the departmental colleagues will provide an evaluation of the faculty members teaching, scholarship and departmental or professional service, with a score for each area, but not an overall score. The faculty being reviewed shall seek an evaluation of their administrative work from their supervisor. The overall score will be calculated by the deans office by incorporating the scores from the department and the administrative supervisor based on the percentage of time the faculty member spends on administration. For example, someone with two course releases would receive 2/3 of their overall score from their departmental colleagues and 1/3 of their overall score from the administrative supervisor. The deans office will provide the faculty member with each evaluation and a cover letter to explain the process. NOTE: This does not apply to department chairs. See the Chapter 5, Evaluation of Chairs. Contents of Evaluation Letter: This list of reminders is intended to assist departments in the preparation of annual faculty evaluation letters for tenure-track probationary faculty. (Note: all ranks other than tenure-track faculty will use the Simplified Form for Faculty Evaluation found on the website.) 1) Each letter should state the time period being evaluated. For annual evaluations, the dates would correspond to September 1 to August 31 of the previous year. For three-year and five-year cycles, the starting and ending dates must be specified. 2) The letter must include a statement about the weightings used for teaching, scholarship, and service and refer to the rubric that was used to assign the scores. 3) Each letter must describe the process of collegial consultation the chair used in preparing the evaluation. Faculty involved in the evaluation process must be identified, as well as, the dean and/or associate dean consulted. 4) The following must be included in discussions of teaching: Reference to the TESE standards established by the department. Summary of numeric evaluation scores with a context discussion based on relevant comparison groups such as lower-division courses in the department or area; Representative narrative evaluation comments with a context discussion based on relevant comparison groups such as lower-division courses in the department or area; Comments on any curricular development activity (including syllabus revision) Number of advisees and quality of advising and mentoring; Highlights of other activities to provide support for the overall teaching evaluation such as examples of leadership in curriculum development or activities mentoring students on scholarly projects. 5) The following must be included in discussions of scholarship: Reference to the Scholarship standards established by the department. Summary of publications or scholarly works including a discussion of the quality of the work based on reading publications, quality of venue, and/or reviewers comments) and contribution to the discipline, a brief description of contribution for co-authored work with disciplinary context, and a clear explanation of the credit awarded in the evaluation for a publication to avoid double-credit for the same publication. (For example, some departments give full credit when a paper is accepted and others given full credit when the paper is in print); Highlights of other activities that support the overall scholarship evaluation such as on-going projects, grant proposals, conference presentations, and long-term plans and comparison to approved departmental scholarship standards. Guidance on how the faculty is doing relative to the approved departmental scholarship standards. Teaching Professor ranks are not held to the same standards of scholarship as tenure track faculty (Faculty Handbook section 3.4A.1.1). 6) The following must be included in discussions of service: Highlights of department, College, University, community and professional service activities and a discussion of the quality of service contributions; 7) The letter must include a statement to the effect that meeting or exceeding expectations in the departmental evaluation are independent of any considerations regarding promotion or tenure or favorable evaluations and optimistic projects do not bind the University to grant tenure (section 3.3 of Faculty Handbook). 8) The letter must state that the faculty member may provide a written response to the evaluation and such response shall become part of the faculty members personnel file (section 3.3 Faculty Handbook). 9) The letter must state the intention to recommend one of the following: the faculty member should be appointed for the appropriate number and type of year e.g., "third probationary year", "second lecturer year." the faculty member should not be reappointed and should be issued a terminal-year contract. 10) For probationary faculty currently in mid-cycle (third year), the chair should omit a statement about her or his recommendation for the next academic-year, but should indicate that the recommendation depends on a review by the chair and the tenured faculty of the department to determine the faculty member's progress toward earning tenure. The chair should also indicate when that review will take place during the current academic-year and what information the faculty member needs to supply in preparation for that review. 11) For associate professors, advice on promotion to full professor should be included. College Policy on the Five Evaluation Categories for Tenure-Stream Faculty (Revised September 2010) Teaching XE "Promotion and Tenure"  EffectivenessBelow Expectations 1Problematic classroom or other teaching performance; unreliable advising and availability; indifference or resistance to meeting teaching standards.Fair 2Meets minimal qualitative expectations in the classroom; acceptable advising and/or availability; little or no curricular development.Good 3Fulfills all teaching and advising responsibilities; solid work in the classroom and advising/mentoring students; some effort to improve. Excellent 4Recognized overall excellence in teaching, advising, mentoring; useful contribution to curriculum/program development and/or fostering student research. Extraordinary 5Truly exceptional performance by both department and College standards; extraordinary classroom teaching, advising, and mentoring; major contribution to curriculum/program development and/or fostering student research. Scholarship/ XE "Promotion and Tenure" Creative ActivityBelow Expectations 1No scholarly or creative activity, or activity of a quality below expectations given rank and position; no evidence of research plan.Fair 2Minimal scholarship of acceptable quality relative to rank and position; weak research plan.Good 3Some solid scholarly activity and productivity; progress in ongoing work including data collection and/or manuscript preparation; solid evidence of future plans with high likelihood of successful completion.Excellent 4 Substantial scholarly achievement commensurate with the length of the evaluation period and appropriate to the discipline; faculty on multi-year cycles must have published in a refereed venue or the like, performed or exhibited at a highly respected venue, or received a major grant etc. Extraordinary 5Truly exceptional scholarly achievement commensurate with the length of the evaluation period and appropriate to the discipline; faculty on multi-year cycles must have published a book with a major press; published one or more articles in top journals, prestigious collections, or the like; have one or more performances or exhibits at leading venues, received a truly significant national grant etc. Faculty Service XE "Service"  XE "Promotion and Tenure" Below Expectations 1Little or no useful activity in serving the program/department, College, University, or profession.Fair 2A minimal level of useful activity, relative to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, University or profession.Good 3Meets basic obligations well; provides useful and effective service, appropriate to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, University, or profession.Excellent 4Exceeds basic obligations; provides excellent service in important projects, appropriate to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, University or profession.Extraordinary 5Truly exceptional effort and results in important projects, appropriate to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, and University; truly extraordinary service in one of these areas, or in service to the profession, or in contributing ones professional expertise to the community.  College Policy on the Five Evaluation Categories for Teaching Professors (all ranks) (Revised September 2011 & 2025) Teaching Effectiveness Below Expectations 1Problematic classroom or other teaching performance; unreliable advising and availability; indifference or resistance to meeting teaching standards.Fair 2Meets minimal qualitative expectations in the classroom; acceptable advising and/or availability; little or no curricular development.Good 3Fulfills all teaching and advising responsibilities; solid work in the classroom and advising/mentoring students; some effort to improve.Excellent 4Recognized overall excellence in teaching, advising, mentoring; useful contribution to curriculum/program development and/or fostering student research.Extraordinary 5Truly exceptional performance by both department and College standards; extraordinary classroom teaching, advising, and mentoring; major contribution to curriculum/program development and/or fostering student research.Professional Activity Below Expectations 1No or minimal professional activity appropriate to discipline, or activity of a quality below expectations given rank and position; no evidence of any plan for future professional activity.Fair 2Some commitment to ongoing professional development appropriate to discipline, for example, reading professional journals, staying current with research in the field or engaging in constructive conversations on pedagogy with colleagues within the program or department.Good 3Commitment to ongoing professional development appropriate to discipline, such as attending a professional conference or discipline-appropriate program/workshop, submitting work for publication, or providing evidence of work on a professional or creative project; solid evidence of future plans with high likelihood of successful completion.Excellent 4Recognized professional activity appropriate to the discipline, which may include: attending or presenting at professional conferences; placing work in appropriate professional or creative publications; participating in performances, exhibitions, or readings at respected venues; or ongoing research and progress on a major professional or creative project with high likelihood of successful completion. Extraordinary 5Truly exceptional professional or creative activity and achievement appropriate to the discipline that may include: completion of important professional or creative projects, significant publication, presenting a talk or performance at a highly-respected venue, or securing funding for a significant regional or national grant proposal.Faculty Service Below Expectations 1Little or no useful activity in serving the program/department, College, University, or profession.Fair 2A minimal level of useful activity, relative to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, University or profession.Good 3Meets basic obligations well; provides useful and effective service, appropriate to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, University, or profession.Excellent 4Exceeds basic obligations; provides excellent service in important projects, appropriate to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, University or profession.Extraordinary 5Truly exceptional effort and results in important projects, appropriate to rank and seniority, in serving the program/department, College, and University; truly extraordinary service in one of these areas, or in service to the profession, or in contributing ones professional expertise to the community. College Policy on Evaluation Categories for Lecturers (Created June 2015) Teaching Effectiveness Below ExpectationsProblematic classroom or other teaching performance.Meets or Exceeds ExpectationsAverage or better teaching performance; solid work in course development, as appropriate; and satisfactorily meets advising responsibilities, if applicable.Faculty Service Below ExpectationsLittle to no activity in faculty service.Meets or Exceeds ExpectationsEffective participation in departmental meetings, events, or committees (or equivalent service to the College, University, or professional organization). Points of Operational Consensus xe "Evaluations:Merit Evaluations"for Annual Faculty Merit Evaluations (Council of Chairs) XE "Evaluations"  Focus merit evaluations in all three categories on the quality and significance of the activity or project. Time available and financial circumstances of the candidate are not merit evaluation factors. xe "Evaluations:Collegiality"Collegiality XE "Collegiality"  is important. Therefore, faculty activities and achievements that advance the institutional goals of the Department, the College, or the University are more valued than those that do not. In teaching, look for coherent and effective linkages between overall program goals and the course objectives, syllabi, exams, assessment strategies, instructional methods, and actual student outcomes of individual courses.xe "Files:Contents" Give credit for scholarly/creative projects in progress as evidence of positive peer review at progressive stages of development becomes available. Take the broad view of scholarship and evaluate a project on the basis of the quality of the work rather than the topic addressed. xe "Service:service"Consider material presented as evidence in whatever category or categories it best fits - teaching, scholarship, or service. Faculty evaluation is for faculty development. Use the annual evaluation process as an opportunity to serve as a mentor and colleague. Set clear expectations for the next year in this year's letter. The weights for evaluation purposes are independent from numbers of courses taught. Those weights have to do with the relative emphasis we want to put on the three categories. College Procedure on Access to XE "Files"  Faculty Evaluation Information (Established in 1992) The information presented by faculty or derived from other sources and used in the annual faculty evaluation process is to be considered sensitive and should be treated as confidential. In addition, the evaluations themselves and resulting letters to individual faculty are to be considered confidential. As a result, requests by individuals for access to thixe "Files:Access to"s information, these evaluations, or the resulting letters, should not be granted except in the following circumstances: Individual faculty members shall have access txe "Files:Access to"o their own files. The deans office procedures for reviewing personnel files must be followed. Individual faculty members shall have access to xe "Files:Access to"information which is otherwise available to the University community, including, for example, teaching assignments, syllabi and other handouts distributed in classes, student evaluations available in the University library, lists of colleagues' publications and presentations, and lists of administrative or committee assignments. Those persons who have been designated by Departmental, College, or University policy to participate in the annual evaluation process, including the reconsideration or grievance processes, shall have access to allxe "Files:Access to" information, evaluations, and letters necessary for performance of their duties. Those persons who have been designated to serve at the College or University levels in the rank and tenure review process shall have access txe "Files:Access to"o annual activities reports, annual letters of evaluation, mid-probationary review evaluations, and any other materials from earlier evaluations as may be necessary for the performance of their duties. In response to a subpoena. College Procedure on Appeal of Faculty Evaluations Established November 2015 Pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Faculty Handbook, any faculty member may provide a written response to an evaluation and such response shall become part of the faculty members personnel file. Any concern may be addressed in this written response. In addition to this Faculty Handbook right, the College will permit faculty of any rank to appeal their annual or multiyear cycle evaluation. A faculty member may appeal only substantive errors in any area (teaching, scholarship, service, or professional activity). Please note that the appeal may result in the numeric score being raised or decreased as a result of the deans review. Omission of information in an evaluation is not grounds for appeal as we do not require evaluation committees to recite everything found in a Faculty Activities Report (FAR). We expect the evaluation committee to refer only to a few key facts to support the assignment of a score. The judgment of which works are important enough to mention in an evaluation shall remain with the departmental committee and will not be appealable. The dean will deny requests for editorial revisions that are not deemed substantive. How to appeal? The appeal, to the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, should follow the process described below. A faculty member notifies the dean in writing of her or his wish to appeal the evaluation and states the reason(s) for the appeal. The burden of proof rests with the faculty member requesting appeal. The document should stand on its own merits and include all supporting arguments. The appeal must be submitted within 30 days from the receipt of the evaluation letter. Upon receipt of the faculty member's letter or email, the dean may confer with the associate deans. The dean, in his/her discretion, may discuss the case with anyone else the dean deems helpful, including the faculty seeking the appeal. After due consideration, but no later than 45 days after the appeal was submitted, the dean will notify the faculty member and the department chair in writing  XE "Department Chair"  of the decision. The decision is final. If the appeal is granted in whole or in part, the deans written response will be attached as an addendum to the original evaluation. This addendum will be placed in the faculty personnel file and, if necessary, a revised numeric evaluation score will be used for salary-setting purposes. Note: a revised numeric score may be higher or lower than the original numeric score. If an appeal is denied, nothing will be attached to the original evaluation. The right to provide a written response to an evaluation shall remain, and such response shall become part of the faculty members personnel file. Any concern may be addressed in this written response.     PAGE  PAGE 12 234KL  0 1 C X Y u |    b      ( ) * ; < l v ۵̩̩hB*CJaJphho[hsCJaJhsB*CJaJphho[hsB*CJaJph ho[hs#ho[hs5B*CJ\aJph hCJ hsCJ ?45KLUmv$If^kd$$Ifl 0p''' t'644 la]p $$Ifa$gds VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl rp`''b''' t'644 la]p2VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl rp`'''b''' t'644 la]p2 VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Iflrp`'''b''' t'644 la]p2    ( 0 VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl rp`'''b''' t'644 la]p20 1 E L P T X VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl rp`'''b'' t'644 la]p2X Y v VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl rp`'''b''' t'644 la]p2 VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl rp`'''b''' t'644 la]p2     VPGGGG $$Ifa$$Ifkd{$$Ifl rp`'''b''' t'644 la]p2  a b u VQQKBBB $$Ifa$$Ifgdskdv$$Ifl rp`'''b''' t'644 la]p2     + ; TN$Ifkdq $$Ifl r 4.%' NT' t&644 la]p( $$Ifa$; < l w ]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl r 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p( ]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl r 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p(      E F | }        % & ' [ \ d f { | } ɽɽɶɽɽɧؽؽاؽؽɧ؛ؽؽɧ؛h #NB*CJaJphh_hsB*CJaJph ho[hshB*CJaJphho[hsB*CJaJphhsB*CJaJphhsB*CJaJphh7hsB*CJaJph=   E ]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl r 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p(E F m x ~ ]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifllr 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p(    ' [ ]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl r 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p([ \ } ]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl r 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p(  @]WNNNN $$Ifa$$Ifkd'$$Ifl r 4.%' N'T' t&644 la]p(   @AZaefg  #$%&ѾzrjbWP h`x6CJhGh`xCJaJhWs|CJaJhS^CJaJh) CJaJh*hSCJaJho[CJaJh*hCJaJh*h#BDETVW_elضضض،؁xlaYaYh'XCJaJhBh'XCJaJhBh'X5CJaJhO5CJaJh -hpBCJaJh#,UCJaJh -hKCJaJhh u6CJaJh -h uCJaJh -h8|CJaJh -hMCJaJhh'X6CJaJh -h'XCJaJ h -h'Xhi5CJaJh -h'X5CJaJ"DEOP556  & F^gd6 ^`gd>gdL! ^` & FgdF& & Fgd Rgd gd'XgdOgdBl|txyOPV[456JN8_иxpiaaVh9eh CJaJh CJaJ h Rh9eh.CJaJh5CJaJh`x5CJaJhbmxCJaJhCJaJh9eCJaJh`xCJaJ h`xCJh`xhOhOCJaJh8|CJaJh CJaJhs9"CJaJhMCJaJhBh'XCJaJh'XCJaJhh'X6CJaJ _c#- 567:EJKbcdǹ|qfqUIUqfhzh`xCJaJ jhzhiCJUaJhzhSVCJaJhzh`xCJaJhzhRCJaJh`xCJaJh`xhrCJaJhrhrCJaJhrCJaJhr56CJaJhrhr56CJaJhfW0h,CJaJhfW0CJaJh hfW0h@CJaJhfW0h CJaJhfW0hMCJaJ%18AHJ~ԾԳԫ}u}}jbZhs9"CJaJh`xCJaJh>h3qCJaJhCJaJhJXHCJaJhzCJaJh RhJXHCJaJh CJaJh Rh9eCJaJhu[CJaJh RhRCJaJh RhU9CJaJh Rh {+CJaJh Rh`xCJaJh]2h3CJaJhzhSVCJaJhzh {+CJaJ67Q`./9^?C{R a!!!!!""#"$"D"J"0#C#D#ʷگگ{ph -56CJaJh`xhRCJaJhCJaJhU_CJaJhCJaJhMCJaJhCJaJh`xCJaJh[jCJaJh4h CJaJhCJaJh RCJaJhU9CJaJh'CJaJh4h4CJaJh4h`xCJaJ) $"%"/#0#C#D###$$&&((((**,,h^hgd\R0 h^h`gd\R0gdL! ^`  & F^gd6 7$8$H$gdR & F7$8$H$^gd6D##########$$$$$$$$% %*%7%>%O%e&l&&&&(((()))¹бЎІ~vmbho*|56CJaJh\R05CJaJh CJaJhCJaJhmCJaJhMCJaJh`x6>*CJaJhxerCJaJhfW0CJaJhU_CJaJh`xCJaJjhiCJUaJh`xCJaJh`x>*CJaJh`x5>*CJaJh`x5CJaJh`x56CJaJ#)*0*2*+ +_,`,w,x,,,,,,,,,,,,,Y-Z-[-------..xpeZRhfW0CJaJho*|56CJaJh`x56CJaJhCJaJh h CJaJh CJaJhCJaJhxerCJaJh`x5CJaJhho*|56CJaJhh`x56CJaJhhMCJaJh`xCJaJjhiCJUaJh`x5CJaJh,CJaJh`xCJaJh`x6CJaJ ,--u0v02266888999:: hh7$8$H$^hgd: kgd")gd")" >|Lv \ ,l< !#&|) ;|L \ ,l< !#&|) ^`.S/o///0000M0O0t0v0000k1u1~11,2@2I222222222222 3 393;333ǼЫУУvpvjvdv hmCJ h,CJ h&CJh>-hCJ hCJhmh56CJh&56CJh>*䴳ܰڤ䴳&䴳*5C󸿳56C󸿳5C,䴳ڰ0䴳#<9CJaJhVCJaJhbmxCJaJh`xCJaJ'3 4444^5a566-646r6t6u666666'7(7`7a7e7q7777777ż|t||h_Sh4h 6CJaJh46CJaJh4h6CJaJhJCJaJh4h CJaJh4hCJaJh8CJaJh4h")CJaJh4h`x5CJaJho*|56CJaJhn6v5CJaJhmh5>*CJaJhmh`5>*CJhmh5>*CJ h&CJ hCJh>-hCJ77777777788888899g9999d:h:z:~::; ;s;;;;<&<I<J<K<<<<·wwodh%hECJaJhECJaJh`CJaJh*2WCJaJhCJaJhMCJaJhCJaJhu[CJaJh8CJaJh.TCJaJh%h")CJaJh")CJaJh4hCJaJh4h76CJaJhy6CJaJh4h 6CJaJho*|6CJaJ'::;;J<<<===">K@3AABB[BBB3D4D & F h`7$8$H$^`gd: & F h`7$8$H$^`gd: & F h`7$8$H$^`gd: hh7$8$H$^hgd:<<<=">#>>>????G@H@K@L@j@n@@@@@@1A2A3AAAAA BBB[B\BBBBC D0DDݝ~vjhh")6CJaJh4ICJaJh%hu[CJaJhhZ 6CJaJhZ CJaJhu[CJaJh#,UCJaJh")CJaJh CJaJh,3CJaJh8CJaJh,CJaJh CJaJh'CJaJhCJaJh*2WCJaJh%h")CJaJ)DD EEEE8F9FFFGGHHHHHHHHHHHIIII1I2I3IAItJ{J轴pbVbpRhh RhCJaJh Rh5CJaJ#jh Rhi5CJUaJh Rh5CJaJh RhCJaJhmhRaJhmhJaJhmhaJhmhz[aJh`hCJaJho*|CJaJh#<9CJaJhc~CJaJh8CJaJh%h")CJaJhh")6CJaJ 4DEENEOEEE:F;FNHOHHH I IIBI $$Ifa$gd!gd$a$gdgdm h7$8$H$^gd  & F h87$8$H$gd  hh7$8$H$^hgd:BICIVIXIIIII|JWXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!Ekdm$$IfTd4,$$44 daf4yt!T{J|JJJJJKKKKKKKKLLLLLLLLLLLLL|M}MMMMMMMNNNNOOOdQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQERFRMRNRRRRRSSSSQTRTRUUU h~ h h h5jhi5U h5 hN)hh hCJL|J}JJJKKKKDXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!XkdS$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!TKKKKKLLDXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!TXkdc$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!LLLLL}M~MMMKXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!Ekds$$IfTd4,$$44 daf4yt!T $$Ifa$gd!MMMMMNNNDXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!TXkdY$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!NNOOOOQQDXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!TXkdi$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!QQQQQFRGRLRNRKXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!Ekdy$$IfTd4,$$44 daf4yt!T $$Ifa$gd!NRRRRRSSSDXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!TXkd_$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!SSRTSTaTcTUUDXkd$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!TXkdo$$IfTd40 ,$p 44 daf4yt!T $Ifgd!UUUUV[V\V]VpVrVW $Ifgdo9?kd$$IflD%%%44 layt, $G$Ifgdo9$a$gd ]^gdqx$a$gdgd UUUUUUUUUUV VVVVZV[V\V]VrVWWWWWWWW(X)X5XXXXXYYYZZZZZĹ{{{{{phYrh19nHtH hB0h19hB0h19nHtH h1:h19h195nHtHh1:h195nHtHhCJaJhCJaJh*hCJaJh@\Ch,h,5CJaJh@\C h=jh19hhqx h=jhhhz[h*hCJaJ*WW WWWWWW(XGRkdY$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt, $Ifgdo9 $G$Ifgdo9Rkd$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,(X)X3X5XXXXXYGRkdO$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt, $Ifgdo9 $G$Ifgdo9Rkd$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,YYZZZZZZcZQ 3$Ifgdo9 $Ifgdo9?kdE $$IflD%%%44 layt, $G$Ifgdo9Rkd$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,ZZZZ[[[[L]GRkd!$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt, $Ifgdo9 $G$Ifgdo9Rkd $$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,ZZ[-[[[%\>\K]M]Y]d]^^__D_b_Q`R`a``````aaaaaaaaXbYbZbfbccc-c]d^d_d`dsddddddddddddddÿh8CJaJh*h8CJaJh@\Ch8h,5CJaJ h=jh8h8hbu|h1:h19nHtHh1:h195nHtHh195nHtH h1:h19hYrh19nHtH hYrh19;L]M]W]Y]^^^_Q`GRkd"$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt, $Ifgdo9 $G$Ifgdo9Rkd!$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,Q`R``````acZ $Ifgdo9?kd"$$IflD%%%44 layt, $G$Ifgdo9Rkd"$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,aaaaaaaaYbGRkd#$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt, $Ifgdo9 $G$Ifgdo9RkdN#$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,YbZbdbfbcc+c-c^dGRkd$$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt, $Ifgdo9 $G$Ifgdo9RkdD$$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,^d_d`dddddd eK<kd%$$IflD%%%44 layt#Z $G$Ifgd#Z$a$gd8 ]^gd8gdz[Rkd:%$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt,ddddd e>e?e@e]e^eeeeeeeeeeeefAfBfCfDfWf^fdfpffffffffff ggg7g9g:g;g=g>g?g@gCgbgcgdgؾɳѳ㯩jhiUhlh`xhvuhvuCJaJ h`xCJhz[h1:h8nHtH hB0h8h8h8nHtH hqh8hB0h8nHtH h1:h8h85nHtHh1:h85nHtH6 e?e@e^eeeeeTOkdw&$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt#ZOkd&$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt#Z $G$Ifgd#ZeeBfCfDfWffg<kdc'$$IflD%%%44 layt#Z $G$Ifgd#ZOkd&$$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt#Zfff:g;gg?g@gAgBgggghhiijysysyh^h & F  h^hgdb+$a$ pp]p^pgdl$a$gdvugd Rgdz[Okd($$Ifl0D%y<%44 layt#Z dgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhjjjjkkkkkmrmmmmmmmmmnn&n'n(n)nooooPpQp쾲쉁쾲h`xCJaJh*CJaJhZ h`x5CJhbmxh`xCJ hpBCJ h`xCJjhiCJU h`xCJh*h`xCJaJ jh*hiCJUaJh*h`xCJaJh`xjhiU h`x2jjkkClDlllmmmmmn(n)n!p"ppp hh^h`gdd5 & F` hh^hgd+gdzQ$a$ & F  h^hgdb+h^hQpepfp}p~pppp q qrs.s/sCsDs$t%t9t:t u!u3u=uTunuuuiv}vvvvvvvvvvvvvvrwswĻа}}rh\hYCJaJhYCJaJh\CJaJhbh\6CJaJhbhwCJaJhbh4I6CJaJhbh4ICJaJh4I5CJaJhmh4I5CJaJh4I h<CJ h-CJ h*2WCJ h`xCJjhiCJU h`xCJ,pXrYrssuu uTunuouhvivwwyyzizjz kgdxgdxgdYgdbgd4I$a$gdm hh^h`gdd5 & F` hh^hgd+swwwwxxxx)x1xxxxxyyyxyyyyyyyyyyzzz#zzzz*{2{n{{{{{ǿǿ⳨ג|qfhYh\CJaJh&hxCJaJhhxCJaJhS$hxCJaJh\h\CJaJh\hxCJaJhxhxCJaJhbh\6CJaJhA]CJaJhYCJaJh`CJaJhbhxCJaJh\CJaJh\hYCJaJh'#hYCJaJ({{{{{{|||||||||}"}#}Y}Z}^}j}k}p}}}}}}}}}}}~~$rϿ⮢ڋujuhA]hS$CJaJhbhxCJaJhA]h\CJaJhA]h`CJaJhbhxCJaJh\hxCJaJ jh\hxCJUaJh`CJaJhA]CJaJh\hxCJaJh"FDCJaJh\h\CJaJh\CJaJhYhxCJaJ%jz{{||}}@ACDFGIJLMNOPQZ &`#$gdYk kk^kgd' kk^kgd"FD & F kk^k`gdbr?@ABDEGHJKMQRXYZ\]cdfghnophxer0JmHnHu hY0JjhY0JUhYh jh UhbhsCJaJhbhxCJaJhmhA]CJaJhHxhA]CJaJhA]hA]CJaJZ[\hijklmnop kk^kgd' &`#$gdYkh]hgdoX 8 00&P:pl/ =!"#$% $$If]!vh#v#v:V l  t'6,559/ /  / a]p$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b55599/ /  / a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b55599/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2$$If]!vh#v#vb#v#v#v:V l  t'6,55b5559/ / / /  a]p2 $$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V ll t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p($$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / / a]p( $$If]!vh#v #vN#vT#v#v:V l  t&6,5 5N5T5599/ / / / / / a]p(\$$If!vh#v$:V d45$/  4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T\$$If!vh#v$:V d45$/  4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T\$$If!vh#v$:V d45$/  4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 /  / / 4 df4yt!T$$If!vh#vp#v :V d45p5 / / / / 4 df4yt!TO$$If!vh#v%:V l%5%/ ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,O$$If!vh#v%:V l%5%/ ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,O$$If!vh#v%:V l%5%/ ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,y$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt,J$$If!vh#v%:V l%5%/ ayt#Zt$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt#Zt$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt#Zt$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt#ZJ$$If!vh#v%:V l%5%/ ayt#Zt$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt#Zt$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt#Zt$$If!vh#vy#v<:V l%5y5</ / / ayt#ZJw00pppp02 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@6666_HmH nH sH tH 8`8 xNormal_HmH sH tH @@@ Ix Heading 1 $@&a$5CJ<@< L! Heading 2$@&5CJJJ x Heading 3$k@&a$5CJBB x Heading 4 $@&a$ 5CJh<< x Heading 5 $@&a$5HH x Heading 6 <@&5CJ\aJHH ? Heading 8 <@&6CJ]aJDA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List LoL xQuick 1. `^`CJ_HhmH sH tH :B: x Body Texta$5CJ`o` x 1AutoList1 0^`0CJ_HhmH sH tH .)@!. x Page NumberD @2D >x0Footer !hmHsHtH6PB6 ?x Body Text 2CJRR xBody Text Indent 2H;|L \ ,l< !#&|)^`0CJ2>b2 0xTitlea$5CJ8J@r8 xSubtitlea$5CJTCT xBody Text Indentk^k`CJ>/> x_ `^`CJ_HhmH sH tH L/L xQuick A. `^`CJ_HhmH sH tH dQd x Body Text 3/& p@ P !]CJ4@4 xHeader !66 1x Footnote Text@& @ xFootnote ReferenceH*2 2 x0Index 1 ^`82 2 x0Index 2 ^`82 2 xIndex 3 !^X`82 2 xIndex 4 "^ `822 xIndex 5 #^`822 xIndex 6 $^`822 xIndex 7 %^x`822 xIndex 8 &^@`822 xIndex 9 '^`86!6 x Index Heading(\/\ xLevel 1)$1$7$8$H$^a$CJ_HaJmH sH tH PSP xBody Text Indent 3 *x^hCJaJV/V xDefault +7$8$H$!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH HH )Z Balloon Text,CJOJQJ^JaJ6U 6 4V Hyperlink >**<Z<  Plain Text. OJQJ^JFV F t FollowedHyperlink >*B* phD/D %! Title Char5CJ_HmH sH tH L/L %!Footnote Text Char_HmH sH tH B' !B uComment ReferenceCJaJ4@24 5u Comment Text3@j12@ uComment Subject45\J/QJ 319Comment Text Char_HmH sH tH vbv kColorful Shading - Accent 316d^m$CJOJQJaJPYrP 85 Document Map7CJOJQJaJmHsHtHN/N 75Document Map CharCJOJQJ^JaJJJ TfpTOC 1"9 $ h]^h`CJ** \XpTOC 4:^X** \XpTOC 2;^** ,pTOC 5<^ ** ojTOC 9=^@2/2 `,0 Footer CharhL/L 'pBody Text 2 CharCJ_HmH sH tH J^J 'p Normal (Web)@dd[$\$CJaJ>> *W list bullet 1 A & FpB/!B Qapple-converted-space/1 QilnBn U 0Medium Grid 1 - Accent 21 D^m$CJOJPJQJaJVRV h0Colorful List - Accent 11 E^H/bH ZMedium Grid 21F_HmH sH tH TrT EV}0Colorful List - Accent 1 G^b/b `Normal1Hd1B*CJOJPJQJ^J_HaJmH phsH tH </< sHeading 1 Char5CJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VGRU1a$N% ʣꂣKЛjVkUDRKQj/dR*SxMPsʧJ5$4vq^WCʽ D{>̳`3REB=꽻Ut Qy@֐\.X7<:+& 0h @>nƭBVqu ѡ{5kP?O&Cנ Aw0kPo۵(h[5($=CVs]mY2zw`nKDC]j%KXK 'P@$I=Y%C%gx'$!V(ekڤք'Qt!x7xbJ7 o߼W_y|nʒ;Fido/_1z/L?>o_;9:33`=—S,FĔ觑@)R8elmEv|!ո/,Ә%qh|'1:`ij.̳u'k CZ^WcK0'E8S߱sˮdΙ`K}A"NșM1I/AeހQתGF@A~eh-QR9C 5 ~d"9 0exp<^!͸~J7䒜t L䈝c\)Ic8E&]Sf~@Aw?'r3Ȱ&2@7k}̬naWJ}N1XGVh`L%Z`=`VKb*X=z%"sI<&n| .qc:?7/N<Z*`]u-]e|aѸ¾|mH{m3CԚ .ÕnAr)[;-ݑ$$`:Ʊ>NVl%kv:Ns _OuCX=mO4m's߸d|0n;pt2e}:zOrgI( 'B='8\L`"Ǚ 4F+8JI$rՑVLvVxNN";fVYx-,JfV<+k>hP!aLfh:HHX WQXt,:JU{,Z BpB)sֻڙӇiE4(=U\.O. +x"aMB[F7x"ytѫиK-zz>F>75eo5C9Z%c7ܼ%6M2ˊ 9B" N "1(IzZ~>Yr]H+9pd\4n(Kg\V$=]B,lוDA=eX)Ly5ot e㈮bW3gp : j$/g*QjZTa!e9#i5*j5ö fE`514g{7vnO(^ ,j~V9;kvv"adV݊oTAn7jah+y^@ARhW.GMuO "/e5[s󿬅`Z'WfPt~f}kA'0z|>ܙ|Uw{@՘tAm'`4T֠2j ۣhvWwA9 ZNU+Awvhv36V`^PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!g theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] px )+-0 &l_D#).37<D{JUZddgQpsw{rpAOUXZ[\]_`bcdfgjty 0 X  ; E [ @eD ,:4DBI|JKLMNQNRSUW(XYZL]Q`aYb^d eef=gjpjzZpBCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTVWY^aehiklmnopqrsuvwxz{|}~"%0!!T # @H 0(  0(  B S  ? Chapter3 _Toc336859677 _Toc336859678 _Toc336859679 _Toc336859680 _Toc336859681 _Toc336859682 _Toc336859685 _Toc336859686_GoBack&0@MC_e mqx N 4A@M_f m mqxlvmw} AxCxDxFxGxIxJxLxMxnxqx 05JT]DkDddNlUlAxCxDxFxGxIxJxLxMxexhxnxqx33333333# 7Q ;+;+5"66699MM NN\\@xAxCxDxFxGxIxJxLxMxMxnxqx# 7Q ;+;+5"66699MM NN\\@xqxH/M)gܨ&-;x| XQ^"/FzpD{y=HϘZB3 *o o rTu* D 2nRsJ!gZ9-BѸ/hOm)#l}v,FL@EtGF tzN6$E's8"nk)HX([ y{&41 AA a(P 2=[u&$2=,%VR%BWVy&T9'!&tn;,'>^K'X1vG(ђs(P& [+tJLZ;-.`-bn4y.ҥ1/ *qg/dQ/nA0R:W|1J 1 Ax(2QjN|4&/"4 ,:5d{U7J 8 @]8vƬrs9P,Rr8<iYzvյz&!ʢzp~z%2D/aq<P=>d!hE$|,=pBQYi0u &%+:71DV|[[^g]is</G:G#{I<SSRs~C,[g|I}rERgvw\ ] 2h Al vn + ? - < Ti k t  ) / > B s   l n6 2| .* +U U g yE!4z>N[+\Ick~Jb"LDDX_kQllyNV.X@A*IZfaa h ,(7&9TT\XivsHHJ K-@~Cl'7 .8;6FGL*W({o;.MQ HyLIc\{`lqR3p7`1<MG9diiTnE'rw+Z+b+Oi+{+ {+E,,%,_, -,-r.-1-u-.#.,,.7..oI.tV.Rf.m/)/2/FT/XV/]/y/~/&000+0-0#B0N0\R0cT0fW0$Z0^0c0gi0;1C1z1"2mL23# 3"3,3S3`3$l3En3444D4L4N4W4c49h4*5<15?i5o5%y5}516/X6Y6N^6^6 a6Do6@r6Nx677b7w7)76+7D7[7tn7><8X89@9(9);9#<9fG9P9U9<_9l9o9x9 :D:.:>:Y:b:;';7;N;ѱ;`;}; <Y<0<4<:<<=D=J=h={=>E > >/>=>W>gZ>\>z ?4?>O?Y? @@z'@?@AE!AtAxB( BIB OBqgBnBoBmqBAyBzBi|BtBC~ CCY(C0CMC+PCVC@\CXD#D\-D3D"FDMYDzD&E@EKEOEcEgEsF&F1F8F#J GJLJSJ>K}IKmwKL#L&L)LkKLWLcLx,MIOMTM]M9eM}MN #NeNkNOxOmPt5P6P=PHPRPYPbPrPQ QR+Q0Qk5Q:lQPqQzQ8R R RR%RHRSRTROaReRsRSSy!S.8S@SCFSLSPSfSgyS.THTNTUU!U "U7(U*U+U#,U,U.UzFUHU~_U`UfUwU+zU{U|UVSVV\VpV}V*2WUWXoXYbXJ!Y(Y4/YC9Y1RYGYYkYjZSZ Z#Z.Z.=ZEFZURZTZYZ;~Z [o[[([O7[=[a[Vt[@\/\<\A\UT\Y`\v\j\]~*]?]A]kM]'f]n]3y]^^^7"^,^R^S^(_s%_U_]_a_B`G``#`60` d`>j`mj`Cp`!a%aF7aQaz-b?bkbrbC%cCc*UcdcfcJhcxckd)d9d'=dwCdee aeBf'NfHkfsfg4h@hEhchkh iisZixi.j?j[j=jjoj3j;j;k,k2kd3koGkl llYll 9lLlulm&m5m;mdmnD#n;6nFnwJn)QnVn~n?o)ojoaloO p'p!p5p8pGBpZIpZpc+qdJqJqKq7eqrr#r1rNrVrNVrxerrr s,+s%2s5sAstt3,tt6tVtt un u{ u!u#u39u-Xuyu|u}uAvOvvn-vn6vlv www=w$?wVwI[w[[w[wowxxy>xSxbmx$vxyUyzyzzZztzE_{e{q{t{|o*|6|E|M|Ws|bu|}}Z }!}7}=8}J}oU}EV}b}e}~!~f#~N~jo~u~aAw~Jg+4H9 7VDGH^luvpxY,:c_u}-0^:UWs],L1?ElMv$N!"/ FIeNl{ t6 7UeV[q2IMQ_\g rxyz-I;V=`j l(),F-d5%89elD88[eFf`x` b%5{RSV_eh#*e,lCrE`sHx%5iyuw x{''HS*(XTfHsM0Pyi &*/GRty$GNV-2r39DUYbopy /2s@7J#KU^F $4?JK;cMyRQYdjnKy)9G)Ss-(!,.IDm>.L !>^Ht49tCS|j:mW[ s) MR$E Q@yG5`Lmvux0m $%`,l6'X~=#^JKUpw  2$,U3O4l9Nv2Ru[ %'(7IR7b*hljnw &{+\wx^z`!e)?0[s ."-4VA\z6}e$w1?jmN<>)Z3}q}(4FI,T- %!ZdqU2SV")){x $M_Ss}}+,FZ_|br6R O6oZ :ZGGQ:S Z XG DQQ(<+}D^3:)I`x 0"V%+UXV_mr)0NQX[TN%!*401"I}]'a]vz.1La^>wd}]2QNiWYd~Adi ,KBXExzs%}8~8CYx 6:CMn.HIORm n|@dIHWZvjuO".6O RA^ }4J 9T=?NW_.''F}31<PNNT[cqR!|;>oRB_a{`6k?g"nJ (#&3RWXtxXwv9H:HISVgm_~)W3&>vOq]x`o, ,QMR|mp!"'0;EcKv{BO9b&o3q#6?MU`{C#8l}+Q19KJd,hi@v-@ODQfjkn|K !Zru":4}9$;Gpr!7@ FZt[d^ S*xyaL!#oZs$$5Tbyjw&} *e6bfhrPtt a\?>AdvI})i@UN_AwERiwtx _ab'_N#TXmbdqxdJ{^Hmuxy9{,Zoc~0<Tu *$'T2p{@>xL\x ,HK\_aco\%0Pm,GL\s 5iEpetr} S 1$6o8D;Yk\/5>TVYTz8| 12@@Koh!Ds=HsZz+?FV]~Pv%C{efl !NPQ_%w@Mi[[Xab5itT%+'$7.Ganc$W4BFKbegg L$/>%@@)G^b3kauA34MHU>-4l?f"J`i~AxCx@;;;;px@Unknown G.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .[x Arial5. .[`)Tahoma?= .Cx Courier New7..{$ Calibri7$BCambriaC.,*{$ Calibri Light;WingdingsSWP TypographicSymbolsA$BCambria Math"qh3|G7|Gc,Of =Of =!20xx 3qHP ?^2! xx SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITYSanta Clara UniversityKathleen Schneider                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  Oh+'0 , L X d p|SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITYҵ Normal.dotmKathleen Schneider3Microsoft Office Word@ @[_@P@ Of ՜.+,0 hp  ҵ=x SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrtuvwxyz|}~Root Entry F0@Data )1Table^WordDocument :SummaryInformation(sDocumentSummaryInformation8{MsoDataStore@U@UOXKGVA4GD==2@U@UItem  PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q