ࡱ> knj Zbjbj 7xxR+bb8,&tF&H&H&H&H&H&H&$;(*fl&l&&XF&F&Nv0_up f2&&0&nW+8W+vvl&l&&W+b* :    Department of Philosophy and Religion The University of 51 Mississippi Promotion and Tenure Standards Revised 11-9-16 General Remarks The purpose of this document is to refine the broad criteria for promotion and tenure outlined in the Universitys Faculty Handbook (effective date July 2014) in light of the disciplines of philosophy and religion. The guidelines described below are intended to assist the Department in assessing candidates, to give candidates guidance as to the Departments expectations, and to help those outside the Department understand its standards. They apply to Departmental tenure and promotion decisions made from the effective date forward. Tenure and promotion decisions are arguably the most important decisions that a department makes. In setting forth these standards, the Department seeks to strike the appropriate balance between, on one hand, vague and poorly articulated norms and, on the other hand, grasping for a greater degree of quantification than academic job performance legitimately allows. Collegiality is not mentioned below as a distinct performance category, but it is nonetheless expected that candidates will have shown themselves to be professional, cooperative and helpful in their interactions with colleagues, students, and other members of the University community. Collegiality includes not only refraining from abrasive and non-responsive behavior, but also constructive helpfulness, such as might be shown in a willingness to guest teach a colleagues class, or providing feedback on an article draft. It is incumbent upon the candidate to retain and present evidence needed for the Department to thoroughly consider the candidate's record. A. Tenure-line faculty members For convenience and clarity we articulate our expectations here in terms of the traditional categories of teaching, scholarship, and service. As per the Deans recommendations, these categories will be weighted approximately 40% teaching, 40% scholarship, and 20% service. A.1. Tenure Tenure represents a qualified expectation of continued employment and as such it should be granted only to candidates who have established a record of professional excellence and who are likely to continue to be an outstanding asset to the University in fulfilling its mission. To a greater degree than in promotion decisions, tenure decisions are 1) forward-looking, in the sense that they reflect judgments about a candidate's expected future contributions, and 2) require assessing the totality of a candidate's performance to date. In light of these differences, promotion in rank does not necessarily imply that one merits tenure. A.1.A. Teaching The Department expects clear evidence of consistently high quality instruction at all levels of a candidate's teaching responsibilities as shown by a variety of measures. Such evidence must include student evaluations (from all courses taught at the University) and peer teaching evaluations. Other relevant evidence might include teaching awards and other forms of public recognition, successful direction or participation in independent student work (such as theses and independent study courses), innovative developments of new or existing courses, participation in teaching workshops, and the accomplishments of present and former students. It must be apparent that the candidate is an effective teacher who takes teaching responsibilities seriously and deals with students respectfully, fairly, conscientiously and professionally. Student evaluations are probably the most widely used and commonly cited measure of teaching effectiveness. However, because student evaluations can be affected by many factors other than the quality of teaching, they are more meaningful when supplemented by other measures of teaching quality. A.1.B. Scholarship The Department expects a steady output of quality scholarship that indicates a research agenda that goes beyond the dissertation. In tenure evaluations we are looking for scholarship that provides strong evidence that the candidate is capable of publishing work that will make a significant contribution to the field throughout his or her career. In our fields quality scholarship is usually the result of sustained reflection and study. There is an emphasis on original thought, and when work is published, it is often the result of a long process of revision that may take years for a single article. Additionally, rejection rates for many journals in philosophy and religion are higher than in many other fields. Many journals have rejection rates of over 90%, and rejection rates at some national conferences (such as the American Philosophical Association) are almost as high. As a result, our disciplines do not generally expect the quantity of publications that is regarded as standard in some other fields. We are reluctant to state a numerical standard at all, and some noted programs in our fields refuse to do so. However, as a general indication, we expect the scholarly equivalent of three standard-length articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and two peer-reviewed presentations at national conferences. We want to emphasize that achieving numbers alone is not sufficient. The published work must be of sufficient quality to indicate the likelihood of worthwhile work over a long period. Quality indications include both objective measures and more subjective judgments. Publication in a prestigious journal in our fields is a strong indication of quality. While there is no standard rating of journals, there is general agreement about what the top journals are and general agreement about what journals should be regarded as mid-level. The rejection rates of journals are usually correlated with how highly regarded a journal is. Some journals, though not the highest rated in the discipline, may be the most respected in some subfield of a discipline. So, for example, if we have hired someone to teach in a field such as Business Ethics or Buddhism, publishing in the top journals of the subfield is regarded as a significant indication of quality. Conferences can usually also be ranked in terms of selectiveness or prestige. There is general agreement about which ones are the most prestigious. Besides the venue of publication or presentation, another quality indication is the kind of publication. Does it deal with an important issue in the field? Does it display an original way of dealing with the issue? Publications that deal with less important issues or that utilize more pedestrian approaches may be less significant. While there is a degree of subjectivity in judging the scholarly importance of a journal article, it is possible to reach consensus in many cases. Departmental judgment can be aided when a candidate requests the department to get an outside evaluation by a respected scholar from another university. The kind of judgment of quality we are describing can only by accomplished by actually reading the article with some knowledge of the relevant field. Counting numbers of articles is not a substitute. In our fields the peer-reviewed journal article, rather than the book, is the standard unit of scholarship. We do not expect a candidate to publish a book to qualify for tenure or promotion to Associate Professor. Part of the reason is that most books published at this stage are likely to be revisions of doctoral dissertations and, at least in our fields, doctoral dissertations do not often make good books. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but usually it takes work that shows a scholarly maturity that goes beyond what doctoral students generally achieve to do the kind of scholarship we recognize as significant. Our term scholarly equivalent is intended to acknowledge that while the peer-reviewed journal article is the standard, there may be a variety of ways to make worthwhile contributions. It would be inappropriate to attempt to define such equivalences precisely. However, as a rough guide, a book review in a respected journal would ordinarily be considered roughly equivalent to a presentation at a prestigious conference but of less value than a journal article. A chapter published in an edited and peer-reviewed collection would normally be considered the equivalent of a journal article. Other forms of scholarly contributions, such as editing an anthology, writing a textbook, writing an encyclopedia article, or co-authoring an article or presentation are also positive contributions, but, with some notable exceptions, these would usually be considered to be of lesser significance than an otherwise comparable single-author original work. Other things being equal, of course longer works are valued more highly than short ones. Substantial drafts of work in progress are also of significance, though they should not be equated with published or accepted work. Publications and presentations made prior to service at USM count, but for somewhat less than similar contributions made during a candidates USM service. Publications that have not yet appeared but that have been unconditionally accepted for publication (or are in press) are to be considered the same as published work since it is not uncommon in our fields for as much as two years or more to elapse between a submission to a respected journal and the date of its publication. A.1.C. Service The Department expects substantial service contributions to the Department and, at a minimum, to one of the following: the College, University, general public or discipline. As a relatively small Department, substantial Departmental service contributions are expected. Faculty must exhibit a willingness do their share of departmental work and be reliable in performing assigned tasks, including committee assignments as departmental representatives, and assignments related to departmental assessment, recruiting and retention efforts. Since many candidates are eligible for tenure at a relatively early stage of their careers, however, it is understood that the candidate's service opportunities to the College, University, general public or discipline may be limited. Nonetheless, a wide variety of activities will be considered positive service contributions. Departmental service includes, but is not limited to, serving on departmental committees, taking on special responsibilities (such as student advisor), and coordinating departmental functions (such as a Nau Lecture). College service includes, but is not limited to, serving on standing or ad hoc committees such as College Council. University-level service includes, but is not limited to, serving on standing or ad hoc committees and bodies such as Academic Council and the Faculty Senate, contributions to campus-wide student organizations (such as being the faculty advisor for Phi Beta Kappa), and obtaining external grant funding. Service to the discipline includes, but is not limited to, editing a journal in one's field, service to a Professional organization (such as the American Philosophical Association), and hosting or planning a conference. Service to the general public includes sharing one's professional expertise with public, educational or community organizations; it does not include contributions as a citizen that do not draw on the faculty members academic expertise, such as participation in political campaigns or charitable causes. The pursuit of external funding is a positive service contribution but is also quite rare for members of our disciplines, since external sources of funding in philosophy and religion are very limited. A.2. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor A.2.A. Teaching The Department expects clear evidence of consistently effective instruction at all levels of a candidate's teaching responsibilities as shown by a variety of measures. Such evidence must include student evaluations (from all courses taught at the University) and peer teaching evaluations. Other relevant evidence might include teaching awards and other forms of public recognition, successful direction or participation in independent student work (such as theses and independent study courses), innovative developments of new or existing courses, participation in teaching workshops, and the accomplishments of present and former students. It must be apparent that the candidate takes teaching responsibilities seriously and deals with students respectfully, fairly, conscientiously and professionally. A.2.B. Scholarship Promotion to Associate Professor requires work that deals with significant issues in interesting and original ways. The work needs to exhibit a scholarly maturity that goes beyond what is typically achieved at the doctoral level. The scholarly equivalent of three standard-length articles in recognized peer-reviewed academic journals and two peer-reviewed presentations at national conferences could be sufficient if the work is of sufficient quality. (See the remarks on quality assessment in A.1.B.) Evidence of scholarly quality may include reviews of published work by respected scholars at other universities. A.2.C. Service The Department expects significant service contributions to the Department, including those departmental expectations listed under the service component for promotion to Associate Professor. In addition at a minimum we expect reliable service to one of the following: the College, University, general public or discipline. A.3. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor A.3.A. Teaching The Department expects clear evidence of consistently effective instruction at all levels of a candidate's teaching responsibilities as shown by a variety of measures. It must be apparent that the candidate takes teaching responsibilities seriously and deals with students respectfully, fairly, conscientiously and professionally. A.3.B. Scholarship The Department requires an important and coherent body of work in a particular scholarly area that includes refereed publications in scholarly journals or books and culminates in the scholarly equivalent of a book published by a recognized academic press. (The scholarly equivalent of a book might be a series of articles published in respected journals in the candidates field articles which, like a book, are devoted to a coherent theme or topic.) The candidates scholarly contributions should be substantially greater than those that served as the basis for promotion to Associate Professor. However, our primary concern is with assessing the quality of the work. At this level we are looking for the kind of contribution that makes a notable positive impact on the field. Factors described in the accounts of quality assessment in A.1.B. are relevant. Evidence of scholarly impact and quality can also include favorable reviews of the book, references to the candidates work by other scholars, and inclusion of the work in anthologies or textbooks. It should also include positive assessments of published work by respected scholars with expertise in the candidates area from other universities. A.3.C. Service The Department expects significant service contributions to the Department and two or more of the following: the College, University, general public or discipline. A.4. Third Year Review During a candidate's third year of full-time service at USM in a tenure-track position, the candidate will undergo a comprehensive review of his or her progress towards tenure. The main purpose of this review is to assist the candidate by identifying possible weaknesses in the candidate's record of contributions well in advance of the tenure decision so that he or she has the opportunity to address these weaknesses. In the Department's view, it is inappropriate to make third-year review into a kind of proto-tenure decision. Only in cases in which a candidate's deficiencies are such that they are unlikely to be corrected or reversed should a negative decision be made. For example, if a candidate has been shown to be negligent in fulfilling his or her duties as a teacher or in performing required departmental service, despite admonitions from the Department, that failure could be grounds for a negative decision. Furthermore, a negative decision in the pre-tenure review can result in a terminal contract (see Faculty Handbook, 9.7.1 and 9.72). On the other hand, the fact that a candidate has not yet had articles accepted for publication does not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for a negative decision, particularly if the Department remains confident of the candidate's scholarly potential and if the candidate continues to make concerted efforts to publish worthwhile scholarship. B. Full-time, Non-tenure-line Faculty Members In concert with university policy, full-time and non-tenure-line faculty members with a terminal degree in the field in which they teach may be promoted from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor to Teaching Professor. Full-time and non-tenure-line faculty members without a terminal degree in the field in which they teach may be promoted from Instructor to Lecturer to Senior Lecturer. Following historical precedents, full-time and non-tenure-line faculty members do not face the same requirements for promotion as tenure-line faculty members in terms teaching, scholarship, and service. Instead, full-time and non-tenure-line faculty members may be promoted from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor to Teaching Professor following a formula that weighs teaching 60%, scholarship 20%, and service 20%. Full-time and non-tenure-line faculty members may be promoted from Instructor to Lecturer to Senior Lecturer following a formula that weighs teaching 80% and service 20%. B.1. Teaching The Department expects clear evidence of consistently high quality instruction at all levels of a candidate's teaching responsibilities as shown by a variety of measures. Such evidence must include student evaluations (from all courses taught at the University) and peer teaching evaluations. Other relevant evidence might include teaching awards and other forms of public recognition, successful direction or participation in independent student work (such as theses and independent study courses), innovative developments of new or existing courses, participation in teaching workshops, and the accomplishments of present and former students. It must be apparent that the candidate is an effective teacher who takes teaching responsibilities seriously and deals with students respectfully, fairly, conscientiously, and professionally. Student evaluations are probably the most widely used and commonly cited measure of teaching effectiveness. However, because student evaluations can be affected by many factors other than the quality of teaching, they are more meaningful when supplemented by other measures of teaching quality. B.2. Scholarship The Department of Philosophy and Religion promotes faculty members from Instructor to Lecturer or Lecturer to Senior Lecturer without an expectation regarding publication of research, given that these faculty members typically teach larger loads than tenure-line faculty members. Nonetheless, since research publications often create positive effects in the classroom, academic research authored by the faculty member in question that is published in a scholarly book, journal, or other venue, and which demonstrably improves the classroom performance of the faculty member, may provide a form of evidence of effective teaching. Promotion from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor or from Associate Teaching Professor to Teaching Professor requires work that deals with significant issues in interesting and original ways. The work needs to exhibit a scholarly maturity that goes beyond what is typically achieved at the doctoral level. The scholarly equivalent of two standard-length articles in recognized peer-reviewed academic journals or peer-reviewed presentations at national conferences could be sufficient for each promotion if the work is of sufficient quality. (See the remarks on quality assessment in A.1.B.) Evidence of scholarly quality may include reviews of published work by respected scholars at other universities. B.3. Service The Department of Philosophy and Religion expects service contributions to the Department, including regular participation in departmental faculty meetings and initiatives. Faculty must exhibit a willingness do their share of departmental work and be reliable in performing assigned tasks, including committee assignments as departmental representatives, and assignments related to departmental assessment, recruiting, and retention efforts. Further service to the College, University, general public or discipline, although not required, also may be considered positively. C. Early Promotion Following provisions of the Faculty Handbook, individuals with qualifications far exceeding departmental guidelines may receive consideration for early promotion.      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 2 &'NXlmuxy|}~  $ - ϱކyncccXMBh0 h{yB*phh0 h1B*phh0 h1B*phh0 h;0#B*phh0 hd.B*phh0 hd.5B*phh0 h(5B*phh0 h B*CJaJphh0 hV"B*CJaJphh0 hB*CJaJphh0 h;0#B*CJaJphh0 h=PB*CJaJphh0 h=PB*phh0 hoB*phh0 h9#8B*ph'Nm}~  (xz`gd|gdV&`gdV&gdd.$a$gd$a$gd9#8- . k   % / H M O U X Y / = B C N ^ |     ӽӲӧӽ޽鲧Ӝ{ph0 htB*phh0 hhTB*phh0 hdB*phh0 h{uB*phh0 h oB*phh0 h?B*phh0 hoB*phh0 h\B*phh0 h 5B*phh0 h=PB*phh0 hB*phh0 h;0#B*phh0 h1B*ph(   L a 7 9 ')OVZbz{XǼݱݛzozdYLh0 hV&5B*phh0 h9#8B*phh0 hg B*phh0 he3B*phh0 h{uB*phh0 h'B*phh0 hd.B*phh0 h GB*phh0 hEB*phh0 hB*phh0 hZ0eB*phh0 hdB*phh0 h?B*phh0 hdB*phh0 hV&B*phh0 h G7B*phXY$'@KyAR1uwxzķuj_j_TIh0 hy8%B*phh0 h/B*phh0 h[B*phh0 h?B*phh0 h1B*phh0 h'B*phh0 h5.B*phh0 hd.B*phh0 hZ0eB*phh0 h9#8B*phh0 hZ0e5B*phh0 hKC5B*phh0 hV&5B*phh0 h~tB*phh0 hV&B*phh0 h)mB*phz|}~567ERef~  "1ӽӽ{peeZZpZeZh0 h)RB*phh0 hdB*phh0 h\;B*phh0 h@/B*phh0 h:B*phh0 h{uB*phh0 hy8%B*phh0 he3B*phh0 htB*phh0 h(B*phh0 h|B*phh0 h9#8B*phh0 h[B*phh0 hKCB*phh0 hV&B*ph# #L&*,,,,8045555556`gdZ0egdZ0e`gdm<gdA'kgd`gd|138Tt} hit齲鑆{ȑph0 hsB]B*phh0 hEB*phh0 hm<B*phh0 h~tB*phh0 hdsB*phh0 h@/B*phh0 h:B*phh0 hR$B*phh0 h(B*phh0 hTHB*phh0 hV^ B*phh0 h)RB*phh0 hdB*ph*ty{|!'Q'Z'p'{p{e{ZOZh0 hR$B*phh0 hg=B*phh0 h|QB*phh0 hSB*phh0 hB*phh0 hy&B*phh0 hKCB*phh0 hV&B*phh0 hTHB*phh0 h9#8B*phh0 h"wB*phh0 he3B*phh0 h(B*phh0 h)RB*phh0 h?B*phh0 h~PB*php'''''' (((((&(a(j((()B)g)h)))))))*Y******++++++++++d,l,~,,,,,,,,,,ȧޜ޽ޜh0 hTHB*phh0 hSB*phh0 hv^B*phh0 hA'kB*phh0 h .B*phh0 hg=B*phh0 hR$B*phh0 hV^ B*phh0 hC>fB*phh0 hj#B*ph6,,,,,,,,,--3-L-----.G.b.../7090111#2$2X2Y2g2k2223Ƚ{p{p{eeZh0 hVB*phh0 hd.B*phh0 hQB*phh0 h(B*phh0 h B*phh0 hB*phh0 h RB*phh0 h^vB*phh0 hy8%B*phh0 h'B*phh0 hZ0eB*phh0 hsB]B*phh0 hy&B*phh0 hKCB*phh0 hV&B*ph#33C4445555555555506h6i6l666 9 9999!9Ƚ~shӽ]R]Gshӽh0 h@/B*phh0 h{uB*phh0 hVB*phh0 hKCB*phh0 hV&B*phh0 hTHB*phh0 hsB]5B*phh0 hZ0e5B*phh0 hKC5B*phh0 hV&5B*phh0 hZ0eB*phh0 h'B*phh0 hy&B*phh0 h\;B*phh0 h^vB*phh0 hB*ph6 9 99 9;;;;<<==*=,=z>{>>>ICJCZC[CDDDD 8gdVgdJ`gdZ0egdZ0e!9;;;;;;;;;;<$<:<<<<<<<<<=====ӲӲwj]jPEh0 h;0#B*phh0 h9#85B*phh0 h 5B*phh0 h|5B*phh0 hKC5B*phh0 hV&5B*phh0 hB*phh0 h(B*phh0 hQB*phh0 h B*phh0 hy&B*phh0 hV&B*phh0 hZ0eB*phh0 hC>fB*phh0 hKCB*phh0 hB*ph===y=====w>y>|>~>>>>?X@AAC0CHCICKCMCNCOC[CCCDDD޽ާޜ{ާppbh0 hV&5B*\phh0 h B*phh0 hOB*phh0 h8B*phh0 hB*phh0 h$3(B*phh0 hV&B*phh0 hB*phh0 h@/B*phh0 h{uB*phh0 hVB*phh0 hZ0eB*phh0 hy&B*phh0 hKCB*ph DDDDAD]DyDDDDDDDEEEEEEFF$FJFSFFFFF5GdGGGGJHHHHHHHHHHȻȮzzzzmmh0 h^vB*\phh0 hB*\phh0 h/B*\phh0 hJB*\phh0 h{uB*\phh0 hHB*\phh0 hEB*\phh0 hVB*\phh0 hZ0e5B*\phh0 hV5B*\phh0 hKC5B*\ph*DEIIIIIMMMM2Q\R]RpRqRTTWWWWZZZgdlgdV&`gdV& 8gdV& 8gdJHHHHHHHMIPI^IkInIoIIIIIIIJ4KLLM#M/MMMQQ]RaRpRRR4S̿~s~h~h[h0 hlB*\phh0 hlB*phh0 h)mB*phh0 hV&B*phh0 h aB*\phh0 h"pB*\phh0 hG5B*\phh0 hV&5B*\phh0 hV&B*\phh0 hB*\phh0 h{uB*\phh0 hHB*\phh0 hEB*\ph#4S9SSSS TETFTNT^T_T`TiTTTTTTnUVVWWWWWWWvYwYYYZZZZ)ZZZZ󴩴枓}p}eh0 h=PB*phh0 hh5B*phh0 hhB*phh0 h)mB*phh0 hGB*phh0 hlB*phh0 hB*phh0 h aB*phh0 hKCB*\phh0 h)mB*\phh0 h"pB*\phh0 hlB*\phh0 h aB*\ph'Z)ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ$a$gdVgdlgdhZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZh0 h=PB*phjhQU*h mHnHu*hQjhQUh !jh !U5 01h:pT/ =!"#$% *~06666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@66_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List <& < 1Footnote Reference4@4 T0Header  H$6/6 T0 Header CharCJaJ4 "4 TFooter  H$6/16 T Footer CharCJaJPK!pO[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;.n̨̽\A1&ҫ QWKvUbOX#&1`RT9<l#$>r `С-;c=1g3=KjK爉ŬʉaqHwo?x}>6!N J?6v?w_Z3tç$y/,YVϲYLcDt~q"9⧣E"g 36AxgKA,Ɖڳ=&-䧘"󷡳<+)/騳2YfEA5i5r{F2rhnz*kU̘aby&Z4MtoKnwu[K@Y5Fm3AM2ޕaŨ; uۭ=: ުv|TV_>%^/*!C!=I.pŭG2#=u{A*?xMVfȯ׆h,"N~e /w$wmBTRUzcn5fwЪtq:nT=q k:V=*^&whv3om <"^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-!pO[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 -_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Atheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] R *****--  Xz1tp',3!9=DH4SZZ.012356789;<=?@B6DZZ/4:>A $&-!8@0(  B S  ?))RRRRRRRRRRRR/:  Vf!!L%O%'')RRRRR333333333u|XY| } $$----1133334455~6699M;N;<<AAAAAAB4CuCuCxDxDDD E#E/EEIIJJ4K9KKKK LELFLGLGLNL_L`LiLLLLLLLLOOOOO]P_PpPQQRRRRR8' ^`OJQJo( 8^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o  p^ `OJQJo(  @ ^ `OJQJo( x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo()(h?,K(P!i1 \bG^Z[&[6[IR[*\F{\k#]sB]V]^S^v^G_'`.`E`U`n` \aWbxb8cYbc;dd[dea#e-eZ0e`1epHe;ceC>fGh'ijf(j(j8/joBj`jbgjojkA'k;kg_k@>l m)nq0n;n:LoPxopD p"pqpHqhaqsr0sNs\sdsisnst)2t~tKu nu^v^vw"w{y%y3yBy1'zG||5O|8T|c}{}G~*#~8d~{ ozm..3BX!0 UlP (>~P/p-B~ocixp-@/E?\_Qdd/:ahA2_\;/PF  !G 8~-B=Gvv??MIh X.gs1PNA#FP^'; "b,:CVG#JvEZZ0`8BZU"Hde$$ {I5rs(nnm 5K#1J:[z1I0Z<KRts% jbTH/1pj3|QA<s>2hTW}E,F.S?O{uyAKCxxH/MO DfipvD{Ogd5O=P&KBmp 0[=J}N m Rm* 9[FN^V`v!obhl; 'J}o:EXjtd.l/Ums|<NW .K"?HSc~m.SJeg+I)miO>g 8/1%2fm<AK!U:vbwG;~1OC{(UU[V&Mu[:g=k=g =%l5tzZ'C{DVkbLG|^@Ql*Vw<UPLSRR@R@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3 *Cx Arial? *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"1hYSGYSG+;ئ E* E*!x4RR2QHP ?K#2!xx ,Draft #1 Sam Bruton Maureen Ryan  Oh+'0 $ H T ` lx' Draft #1 Sam Bruton Normal.dotmMaureen Ryan2Microsoft Macintosh Word@F#@j@&4sp@&4sp E ՜.+,0 hp|  '*R  Draft #1 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY[\]^_`acdefghilmpRoot Entry F/upo1TableDg+WordDocument 7SummaryInformation(ZDocumentSummaryInformation8bMsoDataStore0_up0_upTXXXS2WXHWDU5Q==20_up0_upItem PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2004 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q