ࡱ> z}y -NbjbjBrBr 4  EWQQQQQeee8!e&f &&&&&&&$'*J8&Q8&QQM&zzz(QQ&z&zz"r$Oe L#%c&0&#*X"* r$r$*Q$xz8&8&z&* : To: Dean Emily McDermott From: Pratima Prasad (Chair; Modern Languages), Julie Nelson (Economics), Cheryl Nixon (English), Paul Watanabe (Political Science) Date: August 29, 2012 Re: Recommendations on Administrative CLRs Within the 2-2 Teaching Load This CLA committee, the ad-hoc Taskforce on Administrative CLRS, was convened to examine the status of administrative course load reductions (CLRS) within the proposed 2-2 teaching load. In its charge, the committee was asked to recommend policies concerning post-2-2 assignment of course load reductions in return for administrative work (CLA Taskforces memo, May 16, 2012). The committee examined current CLR allocations under the existing 3-3 teaching load, predicted future CLR issues raised by the conversion to a 2-2 teaching load, and explored the principles underlying both current and future CLR structures. As a result of this examination, the committee recommends that a set of administrative CLRs be maintained and managed through a system of CLR pools. This structure, described in detail below, allows administrative work to be recognized and rewarded, while also allowing the decision-making concerning those CLRs to be shared by the CLA Dean and departments. The committee understands that the current way of allocating CLRs within CLA for administrative duties has grown up in something of a hodgepodge way. The conversion to a 2-2 teaching load provides an opportunity to make this system more rational and fair. What this means in practice, however, needs more articulation. As a general principle, the committee maintains that administrative work must be rewarded within the future 2-2 teaching load. The committee believes a faculty member will not agree to take on a time-consuming and stressful administrative position if she or he receives no release from teaching dutiesrelative to her or his peersto compensate for the time spent in that position. If too many administrative CLRs disappear within the 2-2, then any incentive to take on administrative work will evaporate. As the Dean recognizes, in the charge to this taskforce, Chairs and Graduate Program Directors are scholars too, and should benefit from the research-oriented rationale for moving to 2-2 (Potential CLA 2-2 Initiative, May 1, 2012). However, as the Dean also suggests in this charge, many administrative duties now done with CLRs could, in the 2-2, be done without them, since a proliferation of administrative CLRs resulted from a feeling that the 3-3 load was in and of itself overly onerous. Faculty are expected to take on service as part of our overall obligation and should not expect for all forms of service to be rewarded with CLRs. A balance, therefore, must be struck. When examining how to maintain a fair administrative CLR allocation within the 2-2, our committee cannot give recommendations about what specific CLR allocations to give to individual positions, people, or departments, since we do not know the level of time and effort involved in all the various tasks people have taken on. But, we can recommend the types of administrative roles for which CLRs must be given and the structure that can be used to allocate those CLRS. In addition, we can recommend the principles according to which the number of administrative CLRs may be calculated within the 2-2. I. Pool Structure for Administrative CLRs First, we recommend dividing the administrative CLRs to be given out into three pools, corresponding to three types of time-consuming administrative duties that faculty perform. A fourth pool of CLRs is determined by the university and is not fully within the purview of CLA; that fourth pool is briefly mentioned here. Chairs and GPD Directors The Dean should assign CLRs directly to department chairs and, if applicable, graduate program directors. These CLRs are to be used by the chairs and GPDs themselves. In other words, they are not to be assigned to other department members who may be carrying out various administrative tasks. In order to determine the exact number of CLRs assigned to each chair and GPD under the new 2-2 teaching load, we recommend that the Guiding Principles outlined in Part II of this document be followed, and in particular that the Equivalent Reduction in Teaching Principle be followed to the maximum degree possible. The numerical translation of these principles is shown in the Conversion Table in Part III of this document. Departmental Administration The Dean should assign a second pool of CLRs to each department that the department will then allocate to department members who carry out onerous administrative tasks. The number of CLRs allocated to each department for these purposes will, in general, follow past CLR practices, which have been determined by the college according to many variables such as the number of majors, faculty, staff, courses, programs administered by department personnel, etc. Departments typically might assign these CLRs to faculty serving in positions such as Personnel Committee Chair, Associate Chair, etc. A department often has a complex history concerning how CLRs have been allocated by the Dean to the department and then allocated within the department. Individual discussions with the Dean will determine the correct number of administrative CLRs for each department, taking these complex histories into account. Temporary Administrative Duties The Dean should create a small pool of CLRs from which departments could request additional CLRs on a temporary basis to augment those assigned to it under the Departmental Administration (2) pool above. Departments facing particularly demanding service responsibilities in a particular year, such as multiple major personnel actions, multiple faculty searches, AQUAD review, graduate program proposal development, etc., would be those eligible to request additional, temporary CLRs. 4. University Administration We recognize that a number of university-wide administrative CLRs exist and are given to persons such as the Senate Moderator, Trustees Representative, Director of Intermediate Seminars, Director of First-Year Seminars, and Interdisciplinary Program Directors, etc. We assume that CLRs will continue to be allocated for these roles and to be accepted by the CLA Dean, as CLA faculty must be given an incentive to take on university-level administration. The Dean should use past practice as a guideline when determining university-level assignments and CLR allocations. II. Guiding Principles for Calculating Administrative CLRs Regarding the relation of the number of administrative CLRs to be given out under the new 2-2 teaching load, to the number given out under the old 3-3 teaching load, we propose that these decisions be guided by two principles: the Equivalent Reduction in Teaching Principle and the No Worse Off Principle. In addition, we examine the principle of maintaining a minimum teaching load as a third point. Equivalent Reduction in Teaching Principle The first and central principle we call "equivalent reduction in teaching." That is, since their non-administrative peers are seeing their teaching cut by one-third (by going from 3-3 to 2-2), the default new CLR allocations for faculty in administrative roles should result in their teaching also being cut by (at least approximately) one-third. To take the easiest example, a chair currently receiving 3 "old" administrative CLRs and teaching a 2-1 load, should, by this principle, also teach 2/3 of their old load after the change. That is, he or she should receive 2 "new" CLRs and teach a 1-1 load. (The issue of fractional CLRs will be dealt with below.) This default principle is necessary to maintain any incentive (or at least not increase the punishment!) of taking on administrative tasks, and maintains equity between faculty who take on heavy administrative tasks and their non-administration-task-bearing faculty peers. We believe that chairs, GPDs, and leaders of major programs should have their course loads adjusted on this basis, or close to it. No Worse Off Principle However, on a case-by-case basis the Dean may find that some CLRs no longer seem to be justified, since the time and effort involved in a task may seem to be within a reasonable range for regularly expected service when accompanied by the new, more reasonable teaching load. In this case, the second, auxiliary principle of "no worse off" sets out a boundary that should not be crossedor even run up against. That is, while the person assigned to an administrative role might not end up quite as advantaged as his or her peers by the move to 2-2, every person should still be made better off (in terms of research time) than he or she personally was before the change. Pointing out that a new allocation is more generous than the "no worse off" one, even if it doesn't reach the standards set out by the "equivalent reduction in teaching" principle, should help maintain support for the change to 2-2. This will be illustrated below. Minimum Teaching Load The charge to this committee also included a question about a possible minimum teaching load. The committee recommends that no one teach less than 1 course per year based on entirely administrative CLRs (from all college or university-level sources). To do otherwise, it seems to us, neglects the "teaching soul" of our campus. III. Conversion Table for Calculating Administrative CLRS In order to help make the Equivalent Teaching Load and No Worse Off principles concrete, we have created a Conversion Table. In the following Conversion Table, the current or old 3-3 teaching load and CLR structure is converted to the recommended future or new 2-2 teaching load and CLR structure. Conversion on the "equivalent reduction in teaching" principle would make a "new" CLR equal to exactly 2/3 (which we will round off to .67) of an "old" CLR. Granting fractional CLRs, unfortunately, requires that "banking" be allowed to occur, and that administrative records therefore be kept to keep track of banked CLRs. While we wish that this could be avoided, it is hard to come up with a plan that seems fair without allowing fractions and banking. Also, a system for recording "banking" may be required anyway, for other reasons (such as large sections, heavy graduate advising, or 4-credit courses). While dealing with thirds may seem to be more complicated than dealing with, say, halves, the fact that most department chair and GPD terms run for three years actually makes the exact conversion advantageous in a large proportion of cases. Column (1) lists commonly-given administrative allotments of from 1 up to 4 "old" CLRs per year, along with old CLR levels of 0 (for reference) and 5 (rare). Column (2) lists the old teaching load (with the higher-teaching-load semester arbitrarily listed first) corresponding to the number of "old" CLRs in that row. Column (3) gives the number of "new" CLRs that should be granted, per year, to satisfy the "equivalent reduction in teaching" principle. This may look complicated, but when expressed in terms of number of CLRs to be granted for a 3-year term, the numbers are much simpler again, as shown in Column (4). Examples of possible three-year teaching load sequences are given in Column (5). (Note: Since the reductions are designed to allow for research to continue along with administrative work, very uneven teaching sequences that include 3-course terms should probably be discouraged, or at least reviewed by the Dean. Likewise, since people may leave the university before a term ends, plans that excessively frontload the CLRs and push off the teaching should also be discouraged. Relatively steady sequences in which people "earn" CLRs before using them, similar to those shown, would be preferable.) Conversion Table (converting from Old CLRS under a 3-3 to New CLRS under a 2-2)(1) Number of Old Admin CLRs (per year)(2) Old Teaching Load (number of courses, fall/spring)(3) Equivalent Reduction in Teaching Number of New Admin CLRs (per year)(4) Equivalent Reduction in Teaching New Admin CLRs (per 3 year term)(5) Equivalent Reduction in Teaching Possible Teaching Sequences over Three Years (6) No Worse Off Number of New Admin CLRs (per year)(7) No Worse Off Teaching Load 03-300steady 2-202-213-22/3 = .6722-2; 2-1, 2-102-222-24/3 = 1.3342-1; 2-1; 1-102-232-16/3 = 26steady 1-112-141-18/3 = 2.6781-1;1-0; 1-021-151-03*9steady 1-031-0*Rounded down from (10/3 =) 3.33, due to a recommended minimum 1-course-per-year minimum teaching level, if all CLRs are administrative. Column (6) provides the "no worse off" lower bound, for each number of "old" annual CLRs. The first three rows indicate that people currently receiving one or two administrative CLRs per year would be "no worse off" under the current system, even if they receive zero "new" CLRs. This is not, of course, an argument that they should receive zero CLRs, but it illustrates that some amount of elimination of CLRs deemed unnecessary can still be consistent with making the move to 2-2 benefit everyone. For example, a conversion of 2 "old" annual CLRs to only 1 (or even some fraction, as long as it is greater than zero) "new" annual CLR yields a result better than "no worse off." Similarly, the row for 3 "old" CLRs suggests that any number of "new" CLRs in excess of 1 will give a benefit, and so on down the table. Note that one can calculate "no worse off" lower bounds for 3-year terms from Column (6), simply by multiplying by three. Column (7) simply reminds us of what ("new") teaching loads would look like with the numbers of CLRs specified in Column (6), for comparison with ("old") Column (2). For an example of how to use the table, consider a department chair currently receiving 4 old CLRs and teaching a 1-1 load, as described in the second row from the bottom. By the central principle, he or she should receive 2.67 new CLRs per year, for a total of 8 over a three-year chair term. These might be used in the pattern shown in Column (5). However, if the Dean's review of overall burdens leads to a conclusion that simply converting the 4 "old" CLRs would be excessively generous, then the Dean could consider granting fewer new CLRs. This number should be above 2 per year (that is, 6 for the three-year termnot shown in the table), however, since granting only 2 per year would mean that the individual would not experience any gain from the move to 2-2. A CLR allocation of, say, 2.33 CLRs per year (or 7 over three years), could, however, be considered. Interpretation of each other row of the table leads to similar conclusions about a possible range. Of course, if it was decided that the "old" CLR allocation was too stingy, allocations in excess of those given in the table would be justified. We imagine that both variations in "old" CLR generosity across departments and budgetary considerations might come into making these decisions. It should be remembered, however, that the more that CLR allocations fall below those given by the crucial "equivalent reduction in teaching principle, the lower the incentive is for faculty to take on these jobs within the new 2-2 environment. Hence, for substantive administrative roles, we recommend that the equivalent reduction in teaching principle be strongly prioritized over the no worse off principle. While the conversion rubric set out in the Conversion Table is especially easy to apply to people serving three-year terms, it could also be applied to CLRs granted on a semester-by-semester basis, either directly by the Dean or through departmental reallocations. CLRs could be granted at the rate of .67 "new" CLR for each "old" CLR (or at least at a level better than "no worse off"), with the results "banked" until a full CLR is earned and can be "spent" by actually teaching one fewer course. Whatever CLRs end up being granted for large sections, 4-credit courses, graduate advising, etc. could be banked alongside these fractional administrative CLRs. While this does involve some administrative bookkeeping, an uncomplicated Excel spreadsheet, maintained within the Dean's office, would suffice. IV. Conclusion The committee recognizes the unique opportunities provided by the transition to the proposed 2-2 teaching load; one of those opportunities is to create a more fair and equitable allocation of administrative CLRs across CLA, which has been the focus of this report. We also believe that an opportunity exists for CLA to create a structure in which both centralized and decentralized decision-making about CLRs is allowed; we believe that some CLRs, such as those for chairs and GPDs, can be formalized by the Dean, while some CLRs, such those for departmental administrative tasks, can best be determined by departments. We also believe that a structure can be created that allows for some flexibility in yearly CLR allocation, allowing for the Dean and departments to manage administrative fluctuations more effectively. As a result, as its central recommendation, the committee proposes a four pool administrative CLR structure, creating pools for 1) Chairs and Graduate Program Directors, 2) Departmental Administration, 3) Temporary Administrative Duties, and 4) University Administration. In addition, the committee advises that an Equivalent Reduction in Teaching Principle be followed when converting CLRs within the existing 3-3 teaching load into CLRS within the new 2-2 teaching load, to the maximum extent possible. Ultimately, we hope that these proposed structures and principles will allow for a future CLR allocation that recognizes the valuable administrative service performed by CLA faculty.     Admin. Taskforce Recommendations; page  PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1 of 7 Oz{   ȼȰࠔymyaRyEhBbh"0PCJOJQJh_h_CJOJQJaJh\CJOJQJaJhTCJOJQJaJh_h.5CJOJQJaJh jCJOJQJaJhqCJOJQJaJhqhq5CJOJQJaJhvGJCJOJQJaJha@"CJOJQJaJhNCJOJQJaJhO#CJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJhqh@5CJOJQJaJ )*W/0P & FgdV dgdP dgdI@\ dgd[h dgdj  & FdgdV &d P gd@gd@ CKv +s5LQܵ܋܋܋pp܋hH]3h,BCJOJQJaJh(CJOJQJaJhH]3h_CJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJh.5CJOJQJaJh_h.5CJOJQJaJh^CJOJQJaJhBbCJOJQJaJhTCJOJQJaJh,BCJOJQJaJh_CJOJQJaJ'QTl!()/18:TUY]m{["_c;پپپپٲپ~rhjCJOJQJaJh(CJOJQJaJhH]3h@6CJOJQJaJhhM4CJOJQJaJhACJOJQJaJh,BCJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJh_CJOJQJaJhTCJOJQJaJhH]3h_CJOJQJaJh jCJOJQJaJ,(f%()*-.2=BQUVٴrr`N>heHh@5CJOJQJaJ"heHh]p5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHhI@\5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHhuQk5>*CJOJQJaJh?5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHhV5>*CJOJQJaJhBb5>*CJOJQJaJhV>*CJOJQJaJhjCJOJQJaJhI@\CJOJQJaJhVCJOJQJaJh?CJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJVW ?IL'aŹŹѭwkѡѡw_P_hH]3h3CJOJQJaJhf |CJOJQJaJh[CJOJQJaJhjCJOJQJaJhVh[CJOJQJaJhVh@CJOJQJaJh$bCJOJQJaJh(CJOJQJaJhI@\CJOJQJaJhVCJOJQJaJhH]3h[hCJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJheHh]p5CJOJQJaJ'6FGIij ,07ns yj^jRjRj^j^j^j^jhVCJOJQJaJh$bCJOJQJaJhVh CJOJQJaJhI@\CJOJQJaJhH]3hPCJOJQJaJh3CJOJQJaJh|CJOJQJaJhH]3h*CJOJQJaJhH]3h CJOJQJaJhH]3huQkCJOJQJaJhH]3hf*eCJOJQJaJhL CJOJQJaJhf |CJOJQJaJSe./0P4;TUʻ|maRRREhBbh"0PCJOJQJh$bh$bCJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJh$bh(CJOJQJaJh(CJOJQJaJhZ2pCJOJQJaJh$bCJOJQJaJhH]3h*CJOJQJaJhI@\CJOJQJaJhH]3hPCJOJQJaJhVh@CJOJQJaJh~4CJOJQJaJhuuCJOJQJaJhVhPCJOJQJaJP67U!!!n##''++,,"-1o6q666$d$Ifa$gdBbh`hgdl5 & FgdeHgd3gd@h^hgdBbh^hgd(gdI@\5 9 S T ^ _ b e g } ~ !!!J!x!!!!!!!!!!!߾Ⱦm["heHhI@\5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHh]p5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHh*5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHhV5>*CJOJQJaJhBbhZ2pCJOJQJaJh*CJOJQJaJhlM;CJOJQJh.pCJOJQJh$bhZ2pCJOJQJhZ2pCJOJQJhBbh"0PCJOJQJh$bCJOJQJ#!!!!2"C"j"|""m#n#o#t####1$B$$$$$$9'ʻsdUIIhI@\CJOJQJaJhH]3hf*eCJOJQJaJhH]3hH]3CJOJQJaJheHhf*eCJOJQJaJheHh3CJOJQJaJheHhE>CJOJQJaJhH]3hE>CJOJQJaJhlM;CJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJ"heHh@5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHh]p5>*CJOJQJaJ"heHhuQk5>*CJOJQJaJ9'T'U'''''''))^*h*m*s***++,,,,ʾ֯rcWK9"h|h j5>*䴳ϴo7䴳ϴ䴳ϴee䴳ϴڳ䴳ϴ6Cϴ䴳ϴe*䴳ϴ3>䴳ϴ5䴳ϴڳ䴳ϴ3䴳ϴ;䴳ϴ3ڳ䴳ϴ,!-"-#-;------.....!.,./.0.1.5...$1%1/1015"566666666͵͵͵͵͵͵͵͵͵͵͙ͩyհ-<h{5OJQJaJh-<h"0P5OJQJaJh-<hC5CJOJQJaJh-<h{5CJOJQJaJh-<h"0P5CJOJQJaJhH]3CJOJQJaJho7CJOJQJaJhlM;CJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJ"h|heH5>*䴳ϴ"|"05>*䴳ϴ$666666666'7+7777777777788888ξ~n_PA-<ho7CJOJQJaJh-<haCJOJQJaJh-<hxnCJOJQJaJh-<h@6CJOJQJaJh-<h9999;Ľӽӭӽӭӽӭӽӭӽӭӽ999(##gd@kd$$Ifl֞; #.yA t0644 la;;[>\>o>>7?8?U@Z@@BFB9C>CmCsCCCCCC>DDDDGGGGGGH༰weS"h|h.p5>*CJOJQJaJ"h|h"0P5>*CJOJQJaJ"h|h j5>*CJOJQJaJh.pCJOJQJaJho7ho7CJOJQJaJhH]3CJOJQJaJhl5CJOJQJaJhfmpCJOJQJaJho#CJOJQJaJho7CJOJQJaJhH]3h@CJOJQJaJhH]3h@6CJOJQJaJ9>xBDGGGMMMMMMMMMMM)N*N+N,N-N$a$gdkD dgdkDgdihgd@HHHHHHHHHiIIIIIITK\K`KdKKKL*L>LVLWLLLLM5M7M@M`MjMkMlMvMwMMMMMMMMMMܠܠ蔠}y}h}jh}UhH]3hfCJOJQJaJhECJOJQJaJh?CJOJQJaJhO#CJOJQJaJh1CJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJhG@_CJOJQJaJhvGJCJOJQJaJhTCJOJQJaJh\CJOJQJaJ/MMMMMMN N N!N"N#N(N*N,N-NhH]3hfCJOJQJaJhkDmHnHujhRUmHnHuh-<mHnHujhRUhkDjh}Uh}21h:p3/ =!"#$% $$If!vh5B$#vB$:V l t065.$/  / $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/  / $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/ / $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/ $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/ $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/ $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/ $$If!vh5.5y55555U#v.#vy#v#v#v#v#vU:V l t065.5y55555A/ j 0 OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J RNormal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List @@@ @ List Paragraph ^m$B'B @0Comment ReferenceCJaJBB @0 Comment TextdCJaJB!B @0Comment Text CharCJaJ@j@ @0Comment Subject5\N"AN @0Comment Subject Char5CJ\aJRRR @0 Balloon Text dCJOJQJ^JaJNaN @0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJD rDI@\0RevisionCJ_HaJmH sH tH >> kDHeaderdH$.. kD Header Char> @> kD0FooterdH$.. kD0 Footer CharPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] -F  VVVY QV!9',68;HM-N(*+,-./123458FHIP67h8o8888888889&9=99-N)0679:;<=>?@ABCDEG3KMY!L# AA@0(  B S  ?_GoBack .F .FEEF#F.F{ EEF#F.F333EEF#F.F9y$ { B%<@r8K4D6 JqC[\a(u,B_@l57o# (i&s*-<ACP}YBG[hO:Vf1.pEE@-F`@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@ Calibri5" TahomaACambria Math"1hc c gl i;#~l i;#~!0EE:HP  $Pih2!xxPaul kelly.ahearn      Oh+'04x  $,PaulNormalkelly.ahearn2Microsoft Office Word@@l5@hl@hll i;՜.+,0 hp   Microsoft~#E  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghjklmnoprstuvwx{|Root Entry F^R~Data K1TableS+WordDocument 4SummaryInformation(iDocumentSummaryInformation8qMsoDataStoreP:OZ24J0HG4MVWCBA==2P:OItem  PropertiesUCompObj y   F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q