ÐÏࡱá>þÿ |~þÿÿÿ{ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á€ ðR¿±lbjbj¤Þ¤Þ2pÆ´Æ´£E
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·‚‚ËËËËËÿÿÿÿßßß8d{ßÒMl—————ËËË9M;M;M;M;M;M;M$>O¢àQ:_M-ËËËËËË_MËË——4ŒMyyyˮ˗˗9MyË9Myyy—ÿÿÿÿÀCÉTê5ÐßyRy%M¢M0ÒMyRËFRyy$0RËJˆËËyËËËËË_M_MhËËËÒMËËËËÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRËËËËËËËËË‚‘: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2015
1. Title: Transactional Authority and Bureaucratic Politics
Authors: Daniel Carpenter andGeorge A. Krause.
Abstract: Bureaucratic politics research couched within the new institutionalism paradigm has largely focused on principal authority rooted in formal (institutional) mechanisms that are ultimately both devised and chosen by politicians. A nascent literature has emerged over the past two decades whose underpinnings reflect increasing gravitation towards a transactional authority perspective, one that is compatible with behavioral theories of organizations. This transactional authority perspective departs from an exclusive reliance on formal mechanisms insofar that agent compliance is motivated by either mutual or bilateral agreement for both the principal and the agent. This perspective is rooted in not only the agent’s “sanctioned acceptance” of the principal’s authority but also the principal’s “sanctioned acceptance” of the agent’s legitimacy. We explore the logical implications of this transactional authority perspective for better understanding principal–agent relationships in the study of bureaucratic politics. We conclude by recommending that future research should redirect scholarly attention towards analyzing informal compliance and resistance mechanisms in bureaucratic politics, as well as offer a richer pluralist conception of bureaucratic governance in a democracy.
2. Title: Bureaucratic Politics Arising From, Not Defined by, a Principal–Agency Dyad
Authors: John Brehm andScott Gates.
Abstract: We contrast two archetypal modes of research in principal-agency theory and in public administration: an aggregated mode which regards the agency as a unified whole, and a disaggregated mode attending to individuals. We argue for the virtues of the latter approach in that mechanisms are clear, verifiable, and specific. The aggregated approach may also be clear, at the cost of submerging internal conflicts while yielding powerful understandings of the cumulative performance of the agency. The challenge to those of us who advocate the individual, behavioral approach is to identify how to accumulate dyadic performance into larger structures of agency itself.
3. Title: Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions
Authors: Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd, and Hope Harvey.
Abstract: This article offers two theoretical contributions. First, we develop the concept of administrative burden as an important variable in understanding how citizens experience the state. Administrative burden is conceptualized as a function of learning, psychological, and compliance costs that citizens experience in their interactions with government. Second, we argue that administrative burden is a venue of politics, that is, the level of administrative burden placed on an individual, as well as the distribution of burden between the state and the individual, will often be a function of deliberate political choice rather than simply a product of historical accident or neglect. The opaque nature of administrative burdens may facilitate their use as forms of “hidden politics,” where significant policy changes occur without broad political consideration. We illustrate this argument via an analysis of the evolution of Medicaid policies in the state of Wisconsin. Across three Governorships, the level of burden evolved in ways consistent with the differing political philosophies of each Governor, with federal actors playing a secondary but important role in shaping burden in this intergovernmental program. We conclude by sketching a research agenda centered on administrative burden.
4. Title: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis of Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations
Authors: Hal G. Rainey andChan Su Jung.
Abstract: Prominent authors have claimed that government organizations have high levels of goal ambiguity, but these claims have needed clarification and verification. We discuss the complexities of organizational goals and their analysis, and review many authors’ observations about public agencies’ goal ambiguity and its good and bad effects. Then, we propose a conceptual framework to organize and make explicit the observations, as a set of interrelated propositions about relations among concepts that influence organizational goal ambiguity and that are influenced by it. Then, to verify or falsify these propositions, one needs to define and measure organizational goal ambiguity and other concepts in the framework. We describe research that has done so and that supports propositions in the framework, with emphasis on research that has analyzed organizational goal ambiguity using measures of three dimensions of goal ambiguity. We describe research using these dimensions, as well as other studies and translate these findings into additional propositions that extend the conceptual framework.
5. Title: Local Government Management and Performance: A Review of Evidence
Authors: Richard M. Walker andRhys Andrews.
Abstract: Local governments play a critical role in delivering services to the public. Over recent decades scholars have begun to empirically examine the relationship between the management and performance of local governments, locating this in economic, contingency, and resource-based theoretical frameworks. In this study, we undertake a comprehensive assessment of what is currently known about the management-performance hypothesis in local governments by integrating the empirical research that has been published over the past 40 years. We uncover 86 empirical articles that rigorously test the management-performance hypothesis and apply the support score review technique to the findings of these studies. Our analysis suggests that scholars have yet to explore all of the approaches to local government management with the same vigor. The majority of attention has been focused on the concepts of organization size, strategy content, planning, staff quality, personnel stability, representative bureaucracy, and networking. The evidence points toward strong positive performance effects resulting from staff quality, personnel stability, and planning, and moderate support for the benefits of networking, representative bureaucracy, and strategy content. Subanalyses reveal different relationships across dimensions of performance and organizational levels within local governments, and that the British and American scholars that have dominated these studies have largely drawn upon divergent theoretical perspectives. Directions for future research are also considered.
6. Title: This Could Be the Start of Something Big: Linking Early Managerial Choices with Subsequent Organizational Performance
Authors: Steven Kelman andSounman Hong.
Abstract: The influence of early events in the history of a country, a social phenomenon, or an organization on later developments has received significant attention in many social science disciplines. Often dubbed “path dependence,” this influence occurs when early events influence later outcomes even when the original events do not reoccur. “Path dependence,” however, has received little theoretical or empirical attention in public administration. This article discusses how early events in an organization’s history can come to influence later outcomes. The article then empirically tests for the presence of path dependence using data from Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in England and Wales, a cross-organizational collaboration inside local government. We find that early choices by the leader of the collaboration about which activities to prioritize to create collaboration set in motion a path creating collaborations that were more successful and less successful, producing differences in crime results almost a decade later. The most successful early priorities involved getting partner organizations to act in collaborative ways, rather than working to improve the attitudes of these organizations toward collaboration. We argue that path dependence should be examined in public administration research from a, prospective, prescriptive perspective, to learn more about what early managerial actions can produce better later results.
7. Title: Institutional Effects of Changes in Political Attention: Explaining Organizational Changes in the Top Bureaucracy
Authors: Peter B. Mortensen andChristoffer Green-Pedersen.
Abstract: All democratic countries have ministries for issues like foreign affairs, defense, transportation, education, and social affairs. Yet, we know little about what determines the number and issue content of ministries. Why do some policy issues have their own ministry while others do not and when are new ministries created? The article offers a theoretical argument for how creation and termination of ministries may be patterned from a policy agenda setting perspective that focuses on the importance of changes in political attention. The basic claim is that such changes in attention in combination with the issue preferences of the incumbent government are crucial for understanding significant changes in the ministerial structure. In a broader perspective, the article attempts to bring the literature on agenda dynamics into the study of bureaucratic structure in order to better understand organizational changes in the top bureaucracy.
8. Title: Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift
Authors: Thomas Schillemans andMadalina Busuioc.
Abstract: Principal-agent theory has been the dominant theory at the heart of public sector accountability research. The notion of the potentially drifting agent—such as independent public agencies, opaque transnational institutions, or recalcitrant street-level bureaucrats—has been the guiding paradigm in empirical accountability research. The aim of this article is first of all to signal the limits of principal-agent theory as a predictive model of how accountability evolves. A string of findings in accountability research shows that we are in practice often not dealing with the envisaged problem of drifting agents (or actors in accountability terminology). Unexpectedly, we encounter recurring reports of drifting principals, or more accurately forums, which mysteriously choose not to hold their agents accountable. The article puts forward possible reasons for the observed discrepancies encountered in public accountability research, by identifying why such situations are at odds with the model’s assumptions, as well as theoretical suggestions on fruitful ways to go forward. In the end, this study seeks to provide building blocks for theories of public sector accountability with an improved predictive capacity. This is done by connecting descriptive studies of the multifaceted character of accountability to “classical” principal-agent theory concerns about agency and control.
9. Title: New Leaders’ Managerial Background and the Performance of Public Organizations: The Theory of Publicness Fit
Authors: Nicolai Petrovsky, Oliver James, and George A. Boyne.
Abstract: We develop a theory of the effect of top management succession on the performance of public organizations. The theory is rooted in the fundamental characteristics of an organization’s publicness: ownership, funding, and regulation. We construct the concept of publicness fit—the match between the organization and the leader’s previous managerial experience. We argue that the effect of publicness fit on performance depends on the balance of adaptation benefits and disruption costs, which in turn depends on the prior performance of an organization. We propose a research agenda to empirically evaluate propositions developed from the theory of publicness fit.
10. Title: Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Theory
Authors: Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. andKenneth J. Meier.
Abstract: Recent years have seen a substantial growth in the large-N quantitative study of public management and performance. Much of the progress can be attributed to a small number of data sets on local governments in a few countries. The range of data sets suggests the validity of the overall hypothesis of management affecting performance, but the precise findings also vary across these and other contexts. These various and sometimes conflicting findings suggest that additional gains might be made through developing a theory of context and how context affects the management-performance linkage. This article seeks to take some initial steps in providing such a theory by incorporating such contextual variables as political context (unitary versus shared powers, single- or multiple-level, corporatist versus adversarial, with or without a formal performance appraisal system), environmental context (extent of complexity, turbulence, and also munificence; presence versus absence of social capital), and internal context (extent of goal clarity and consistency, organizational centralization versus decentralization, and degree of professionalism). The theory presents context as a set of variables that condition the impact of management in an interactive model. The theory seeks to unify the existing findings and present a series of hypotheses for further empirical testing.
11. Title: The Politics of Detection in Business Regulation
Authors: Julien Etienne.
Abstract: Detecting noncompliant behaviors is an important step in the enforcement of regulations. The literature on the subject is vast yet also narrow in its approach, in the sense that it has built on the assumption that regulators would always want to maximize information quantity and quality, while acting under two fundamental constraints: the regulator’s resources and the information asymmetry between regulator and regulatee. This article argues that regulatory agencies might not always want to maximize information: rather, other bureaucratic goals and concerns might shape detection preferences and tools of detection in what might seem to be unexpected and irrational ways. To support this argument, the article presents a case study of the regulation of industrial risks in France, which focuses on the detection of incidents—small losses of control—taking place in high-hazard sites. The study presents a rich set of observations. It finds regulators sharing with regulatees a restrictive interpretation of incident reporting obligations. It identifies also a range of third party informants—employees—who have been neither solicited by regulators to contribute to detecting incidents, nor have been particularly well received by them when they have done so. The motives of regulators that can account for these detection preferences are mixed, but an overarching one appears to be their concerns for reputational risk. Seen through such a lens, certain types of incidents and certain tools for detecting them appeared either unimportant, or on the contrary as deserving attention and effort. On the basis of the case study and other empirical illustrations found in the literature, the article then offers a more general argument about how bureaucratic reputation may shape detection practices in business regulation.
12. Title: How (Not) to Solve the Problem: An Evaluation of Scholarly Responses to Common Source Bias
Authors: Nathan Favero andJustin B. Bullock.
Abstract: Public administration scholars are beginning to pay more attention to the problem of common source bias, but little is known about the approaches that applied researchers are adopting as they attempt to confront the issue in their own research. In this essay, we consider the various responses taken by the authors of six articles in this journal. We draw attention to important nuances of the common measurement issue that have previously received little attention and run a set of empirical analyses in order to test the effectiveness of several proposed solutions to the common-source-bias problem. Our results indicate that none of the statistical remedies being used by public administration scholars appear to be reliable methods of countering the problem. Currently, it appears as though the only reliable solution is to find independent sources of data when perceptual survey measures are employed.
13. Title: Benchmarking and Interorganizational Learning in Local Government
Authors: David N. Ammons andDale J. Roenigk.
Abstract: Scholars have questioned the value of benchmarking as a means of advancing public sector performance and innovation, pointing instead to evidence of isomorphism among benchmarking organizations. The authors of this article assert that different types of benchmarking should be distinguished from one another in such assessments and suggest that the verdict for best practice benchmarking will differ from that for the more common form of benchmarking in the public sector, comparisons of performance statistics. They note that the absence of a coherent theory of public sector benchmarking—one relating benchmarking to interorganizational learning—restricts hypothesis formulation and testing and, hence, our understanding of the efficacy of this management practice in its different forms. This article offers five propositions on benchmarking and interorganizational learning, drawn from research literature and the experience of a set of city governments engaged in a best practice benchmarking project, as a step toward developing a theory of public sector benchmarking.
åNN/ffNÄ‹ÿ
14. Title: The Failure of Political Leadership
Authors: Montgomery Van45<>FGIUVWYb”•žÂÃÄíÜʹʨʹ”ŒqcVqKcV>ht45OJQJ^Jo(hicy5OJQJ^JhbR5OJQJ^Jo(hbRhbR5OJQJ^JhÌ"èhU<¬5OJQJ^Jh·uD5OJQJ^Jo(hÌ"èhÌ"èo(&hÌ"èhÌ"è5CJOJQJ^JaJo( hÝå5CJOJQJ^JaJo( hbR5CJOJQJ^JaJo(#hÌ"èhÌ"è5CJOJQJ^JaJ h$-Ó5CJOJQJ^JaJo(#hbRhbR5CJOJQJ^JaJ5VWX•ÄÕ
Ö
,Pòó`˜±²
2„…Ñý+"÷÷òíííèãÞÞÞãÙÙÙãÔÔÔÏÊÊÏgdÐpsgd)w¤gd$?ÃgdToŸgdßl$gd%j,gdbRgdU<¬gdÌ"è$a$gdt4ÄÍÎÔ
Õ
Ö
×
Ù
ß
à
+,45NOPYZñòóôõöñãÖÈ㻟»ÈŸ»È‚Ÿ»ÖrgZLEhToŸhToŸhÌ"èhÒ`Œ5OJQJ^JhToŸ5OJQJ^Jo(h%j,5OJQJo(hbRhU<¬5OJQJ^Jo(hbR5OJQJ^Jo(hvI¼hßl$5OJQJ^Jo(hßl$hßl$5OJQJ^JhÌ"èhU<¬5OJQJ^Jhßl$5OJQJ^Jo(hbRhbR5OJQJ^JhbRhbROJQJ^Jhä=hjŒ5OJQJ^Jhä=hU<¬5OJQJ^Jöüý_`hi–—˜¡¢°±²³µ»¼
012;<ƒñäÖÆñäÖ¹Æñ䬟”‡yk^ÖNk^Ö¹Nk^¬hvI¼h$?Ã5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ã5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh$?Ã5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh%j,5OJQJ^Jhs/Ê5OJQJ^Jo(h%j,5OJQJo(hbRhaNOJQJ^JhbRhbROJQJ^JhbR5OJQJ^Jo(hvI¼hToŸ5OJQJ^Jo(hbRhbR5OJQJ^JhToŸ5OJQJ^Jo(hToŸhToŸ5OJQJ^Jƒ„…†ˆŽÐÑÙÚûüý*"+","-"/"ðåØʼخ ¼Ø®“ƒuh[Må@Êhr7A5OJQJ^Jo(hbRh)w¤OJQJ^Jo(hbRhbROJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^JhvI¼h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(hbR5OJQJ^Jo(hvI¼hÐps5OJQJ^JhbRhbR5OJQJ^JhÐpshÐps5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^JhÐps5OJQJ^Jo(h)w¤5OJQJo(hbRh%j,5OJQJ^Jo(+","¬"Ô"‰(Š()A)û,ü,P--ø2ù2p3¯3P6Q6«6â6O<�P<�Œ<�¥<�ÐCÑCúõõúúððúúëëúúææáúÜÜáú××úúgdóSågdÿ_gd_,gdLz¥gd)ggd|ÿgdr7Agd)w¤/"5"6"«"¬"´"µ"Ò"Ó"Ô"Ý"Þ"ˆ(‰(Š(‹((“(”(ñäÖÈñºÖ‚ueZM?1Mh|ÿh|ÿ5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^Jh|ÿ5OJQJ^Jo(h)w¤5OJQJo(hbRh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(hbRhbROJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^JhvI¼h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(hbR5OJQJ^Jo(hvI¼hvI¼5OJQJ^JhvI¼hr7A5OJQJ^JhbRhbR5OJQJ^Jhr7A5OJQJ^Jo(hr7Ahr7A5OJQJ^J”()))?)@)A)J)K)ú,û,ü,ý,ÿ,--O-P-X-ñãÕñȸª€uhZLh>0LhvI¼h)g5OJQJ^Jh_,h_,5OJQJ^Jh)gh)g5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^Jh)g5OJQJ^Jo(h)w¤5OJQJo(h_,h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,h_,OJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^JhvI¼h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(hbR5OJQJ^Jo(h|ÿh|ÿ5OJQJ^JhvI¼h|ÿ5OJQJ^JhbRhbR5OJQJ^JX-Y--€--Š-‹-÷2ø2ù2ú2ü233o3p3y33®3¯3¸3¹3O6P6Q6S6U6óåØȺ¬Ÿ¬”‡yk^åPkåØȺCŸå”‡yh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(hvI¼hLz¥5OJQJ^JhLz¥5OJQJ^Jo(hLz¥hLz¥5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^JhR5OJQJ^Jo(h)w¤5OJQJo(h_,h_,OJQJ^Jh_,h)w¤OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^JhvI¼h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,5OJQJ^Jo(h_,h_,5OJQJ^Jh)g5OJQJ^Jo(U6[6\6ª6«6´6à6á6â6ë6ì6O<�P<�R<�T<�Z<�[<�‹<�Œ<�”<�ñäÖÈñÖ»«ƒxk]OkÖAOh[hóSå5OJQJ^JhóSåhóSå5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^JhóSå5OJQJ^Jo(h)w¤5OJQJo(h_,h_,OJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^JhvI¼h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,5OJQJ^Jo(hvI¼hÿ_5OJQJ^Jh_,h_,5OJQJ^Jhÿ_5OJQJ^Jo(hÿ_hÿ_5OJQJ^J”<�•<�£<�¤<�¥<�®<�¯<�ÏCÐCÑCÓCÕCÛCÜC6D7D?D@DbDcDdDñãÖƸ«ž…xj\xãN\Fã6Æh_,h_,5OJQJ^Jo(h_,h[5h[hóSå5OJQJ^JhóSåhóSå5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^JhóSå5OJQJ^Jo(h)w¤5OJQJo(h_,h)w¤OJQJ^Jo(h_,h_,OJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^Jh[h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,5OJQJ^Jo(h_,h_,5OJQJ^Jh[h[5OJQJ^JÑC7DdDùGúGGHtHbMdMrMtMÒMl¡l¢l£l¥l¦l¨l©l«l¬l®l¯l°l±lúúõõúúõõõõððõëõæäæäæäæääõgd°gd_,gdmwˆgd)w¤gdóSådDmDnDøGùGúGüGþGHHFHGHPHrHsHtH}H~H`MbMdMnMñä×Ǽ¯¡“¯…w“…jZñä×ÇOAh_,h_,5OJQJo(h)w¤5OJQJo(h[h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,5OJQJ^Jo(h[hóSå5OJQJ^Jh_,h_,5OJQJ^JhóSåhóSå5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^JhóSå5OJQJ^Jo(hÐ~œ5OJQJo(h_,h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,h_,OJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^JnMpMtMvMxM|MˆMŠMÐMÒMäMNlllllllŽlŸl lõêÝ䧙‹´™‰™|l^ÐQCQCh_,h_,OJQJ^Jo(h_,h_,OJQJ^Jh$?Ãh)w¤5OJQJ^Jh[h)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(h_,5OJQJ^Jo(Uh[hmwˆ5OJQJ^Jh_,h_,5OJQJ^Jhmwˆ5OJQJ^Jo(hmwˆhmwˆ5OJQJ^JhÌ"èh)w¤5OJQJ^Jh)w¤5OJQJ^Jo(hóSå5OJQJ^Jo(h_,5OJQJo(hºZV5OJQJo( Wart.
Abstract: The article reviews the book “The End of Authority: How a Loss of Legitimacy and Broken Trust Are Endangering Our Future” by Douglas E. Schoen.
l¡l¢l£l¤l¦l§l©lªl¬ll°l±lñå×ÏËÏËÏËÏË×hkbájhkbáUhj<hj<5OJQJo(h_,h_,5OJQJh[h)w¤OJQJ^Jo(0182P°‚. °ÆA!°"°# $ %°°S°à©b2ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð2(Øè 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€8XøV~PJ_HmH nHsH tHJ`ñÿJck‡e$1$a$ CJKH_HaJmH nHsH tH$A òÿ¡$Øž¤‹µk=„W[SOBióÿ³BnfhˆƒØÍ3¿\`õ?ê/ç[ج¶Géâ\Ä!ý-ÛRk.“sþÔ»..—·´aæ¿?ÿÿPK!¥Ö§çÀ6_rels/.rels„ÏjÃ0‡ï…½ƒÑ}QÒÃ%v/¥C/£}á(h"ÛëÛOÇ
»„¤ï÷©=þ®‹ùá”ç šªÃâC?Ëháv=¿‚É…¤§%[xp†£{Ûµ_¼PÑ£<Í1¥H¶0•ˆÙO¼R®BdÑÉÒJEÛ4b$§‘q_טžà6LÓõR×7`®¨Éÿ³Ã0ÌžOÁ¯,åEn7”Liäb¡¨/ãS½¨eªÔе¸ùÖýÿÿPK!ky–ƒŠtheme/theme/themeManager.xmlÌM
à @á}¡wÙ7c»(Eb²Ë®»öCœAÇ ÒŸÛ×åãƒ7ÎßÕ›K
Y,œ
ŠeÍ.ˆ·ð|,§¨ÚHÅ,láÇæéxÉ´ßIÈsQ}#Õ…µÝ Öµ+Õ!ï,Ý^¹$j=‹GWèÓ÷)âEë+&
8ýÿÿPK!ÇmœQtheme/theme/theme1.xmlìYMoE¾#ñF{oc'vGuªØ±hÓF±[Ôãx=Þzvg53NêjHHˆ‚z â•Z $ʯI)*Eê_à™ÝõN¼&IAõ!ñÎ>ï÷Ǽ3¾xéNÄÐ>’ò¸éUÏWL0”Č߫§ß¿zúÞ}rx÷§Ã{÷ïþh9TÛ8ŠT/¿ýìχ£?ýòþåxYÄÿöÃ'Ï~ý¼å3Sçù—~òèùƒO_|w¿¾)ð ïÓˆHt =aÆ+®æd NGÑ1-RlÆÄ1ÖRJøwTè ¯M1K£ãèÑ"®o
heÀ˓ێ½PL-‘|%Œàç¬ÅE©®hY7÷'qP.\LŠ¸=Œ÷Ëd·qìÄ·3I ofiéÞ‰£æ.ñ‰‰BúRbÝ-J¿îP_pÉG
Ý¢¨…i©KútàdÓŒh›F—i™ÍoÇ7;7Q‹³2«·È¾‹„ªÀ¬Dù>aŽ/ã‰ÂQË>ŽXÑáW±
Ë”ìM…_Äu¤‚H„qÔ)Ëh®°·ô+:ViØwØ4r‘BÑqÏ«˜ó"r‹Û!Ž’2lÆaûCŠb´ËU|‡»¢Ÿ!8^î›”8á>¾Ü £Ò,Aô›‰Ð±„VítàˆÆ׎…~lsàìÚ14Àç_=,ɬ·µožTV ÛGÚï"ÜѦÛæbHßþž»…'ñ.4ŸßxÞµÜw-×ûÏ·ÜEõ|ÒF;ëÐvõÜ`‡b3"G'äe¬§¦Œ\•fH–°O»°¨éÌñä'¦$„¯i_wpÀ† ®>¢*ì…8»êi&LY%\ÂÁÎ,—òÖxÒ•=ÖõÁö‰ÕÚ彜r6f· Ìá3´¢œTØÊ…”)˜ý:ªZ©K«ÕL«s¤å&CçMƒÅÜ›0€ [ÀË«p@×¢á`‚j¿Û½7‹‰ÂY†H†xHÒi»çcT5AÊrÅÜ@î”ÄHòŽñZAZC³}i' RQ\m¸,zo¥,ƒgQÒu{¤Y\,N£ƒ¦×¨/×=äã¤éàL_£¢.õ̇Y7C¾6í-fSå³h62ÃÜ"¨Â5…õûœÁNH„T[X†65Ì«4X¬%Yý—ëàÖ³2Àfúkh±²Éð¯i~tCKF#â«b°+Úwö1m¥|¢ˆè…Ã4`±‡!ü:UÁž!•p5a:‚~€{4ímóÊmÎiÑo¯Î®c–„8m·ºD³J¶pSÇ¹æ© ØVª»1îô¦˜’?#SŠiü?3Eï'pS°2ÔðáW`¤ëµéq¡B]( ©ß08˜ÞÙw±ð’
n“ÍAöõ[s–‡)k8ð©= Aa?R¡ dڒɾc˜Uӽ˲d)#“QuebÕ}Âúº®ê½ÝC!¤ºé&i0¸£ùç>§4ôS¬7§‡ä{¯zò±ÅF¹}Ø4™ÿsKvUKoȳ½·hˆ~1³jYU€°ÂVÐHËþ5U8åVk;ÖœÅËõL9ˆâ¼Å°˜D Ü÷ ýö?*|FLë
µÏ÷ ·"ø¡A3ƒ´¬>g¤¤]Ààdm2iVÖµé褽–mÖg<éær8[kv’xŸÒÙùpæŠsjñ,zØñµ][èjˆìÑ…¥Qv11¿iuâƒÛè-¸ßŸ0%M2ÁoJÃèÙ3uÅo%Ò¿ÿÿPK!
ÑŸ¶'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels„M
Â0„÷‚wooÓº‘&݈ÐÔ„ä5
6?$Qìí
®,.‡a¾™i»—Éc2Þ1hª:é•qšÁm¸ìŽ@RN‰Ù;d°`‚Žo7íg‘K(M&$R(.1˜r'J“œÐŠTù€®8£Vä"£¦AÈ»ÐH÷u} ñ›|Å$½b{Õ–Pšÿ³ý8‰g/]þQAsÙ…(¢ÆÌà#›ªLÊ[ººÄßÿÿPK-!‚Š¼ú[Content_Types].xmlPK-!¥Ö§çÀ6+_rels/.relsPK-!ky–ƒŠtheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!ÇmœQÑtheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-!
ÑŸ¶'¡ theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]œ
±Epÿÿÿÿ Äöƒ/"”(X-U6”<�dDnM l±l')*+-./01347+"ÑC±l(,2ð@ð @ñÿÿÿ€€€÷ðH ðð0ð( ð
ðð’ðð0ð( ð
ððB
ðSð¿Ëÿ ?ð¯¸:?@H!(ìóîù¼ÂÃÍ"!0!`%k%l%w%x%%a+k++Š+q,{,½,Ç,<-F-@.J.Í.×.•4›4N6W6y8ƒ8G<�M<�N<�W<�@)@Y@_@`@g@k@r@éBüBÏCâC²D·D£E¥E¦E¨E©E«E¬E®E²E¤:å:£E¥E¦E¨E©E«E¬E®E²E33²DºD£E¥E¦E¨E©E«E¬E®E²E5<�>FGIUXXb•žÄÍÕà+5OZñý_ i — ¢ °¼ 1<ƒÐÚü*6«µÓÞˆ ” !!@!K!ú$%O%Y%€%‹%÷*+o+y+®+¹+P.\.ª.´.á.â.â.ì.O4[4‹4•4¤4¯4Ï;Ü;6<�@<�c<�n<�ø?@F@P@s@~@°D±D¹DÅDèDòDEEEE E¡E¢E²EÆ„q04e’†n[G],-¾oÃņØð`<|ö÷O";0RI1%†RrSui‹¢WÂI†={uò,† Uz*¢mù ˜r=°Ç-9hÅs»–eme†.~ñþ
{R†v¬4†1L2Q —"†iAHA†åoG>ÝU†ß`å1_%V“ÇNH{†÷qÃìUû3†d]-©Z:KKKKn;„q0†<«?*7Õ:Aú¥^Bå ƒl{ œ2HÊ(û#!©qŸ÷m4-cqRrS˜4>¾P]üsaO-Â?†ýYnÏb~i‹(˜ì)ibôô>!]È.†`
RV:g&>!†Þ}N!ÔL†Ñ2Ë"â0R†Å\€|†MD-%;åblrBR]“a
6Ji¢ ÃávjÖ`†[JO 5J90†RY ø:[Æ
k 3q-r†jx 8I˜ Tpæ kÖ|†2~—
Óáy† kñ
?I‚†µ *«?=†¬#??*@£4leÚdw"
†¯šZûgÍKDÑ2Ë^Eõ-H—x€wÈôT„bS &½xË-Z“yðßwöIÖ>†:-þŠu
KKKKdw"
qîX†-h‚
K^R®
¶^‹VxBÄ
ƒ=#†/y¯pur †Ž²®
†‘'FfÆx-ZùdÄy‹(˜û)Fk{Z†fV¼Ü-ºp—'ºE†¬4Ô!~Qœ2H`ô?I‚‡be†˜@œÂFK-<"ŸˆlÝqÒu®Ëy/†x{øš]^ž~76=&†Ÿ³Í`
[åi¼*%50¢ ëRH&<Ñ^êØOC!†ùd{Õ/Ì"ïªþ[ëµhÜ2†™dª‰¥t†€wÈ8I˜ (fÜtl(†‚þÈ}¸t¶a9û~ð8—Ú7l±†4ö";ûg)n†Ép7v}gÓXd|•š&žH‰w¯Aâgb÷uáD\*í)#Jb”LåD†
)rÞ}†—W•GL$L†rÁQHœ+VÝò„/xCz.›^M~;¦|p%€FZPS7l±pS°#†¬±<>)†¢Sóávj†¥h5h 5†+a«l[µx• xCz‡be˜yFdxLÒy†ÈRAj>´nécR%V“†h¥a9Åó !`†ª}<œqõ}Q =¬7y]‚óRŽ-†É.¾zfÖ7¡½
ôeo[KH,~†HmPM~†MgÉ=Õj†Ö>m©?[%†'w…Jo8‡Lòy2\gQwez+™¾P]74™`A®émÞ!†|zè©Z:½*úÇB!†g;cq‘QQ£HûNK^R+a¥X„T
aNŠGAP†y8”½xˆÿS¹ãdëŽÏz†¸J„VZq†êT\
~†ÜaV'Po†_m4áiÅwÁÃTkPBÇ`
RQ1èýYn†pur Äp}†Àá ureP†&>!¬Z[FxX)!ÇB!x{øEC!©T‹K†ØOC!±vÚ>b(P!ä+]!é3îl„!NRÝQémÞ!ØJ#†g-í!òf³dÊ[z"·U&z†6'"´ZY†Q —"jI _†™m³"ä+]!Ý&»"û)†Õ/Ì"|zès\ÿ"=VÑG†§~#ã)9~†ŽK#»è+†I3#¬#?ƒ=#øi\;ØJ#p%€sHˆ#Áí†2K‹#¦|#RY †pS°#PBÇ¢9õ#üsa†D $É°yJ!4$â`„%†qG$÷EP$ÿ"e<�@VŒ$:*$þ[ë†p½$¢]'†©?[%3eá?Z]%â`„%vd†I1%¥lYK-,ª%Ò,½=†lÍ%ÐzÜ@ÓXñ%Ü!0†E&pOQÐbS &Øb*&Tâ(6=&'w«RH&2\¤qP&nYvC†tˆ&݉&¢]'÷EP$†tWˆ'~d:(éR·'ñkL†í>ß'×5ÛLß'”tAz†ÂW(R‰@†~d:(ã_(iT~tl(ëx¹,†dM´(úTâ(ÉpIê(Óé]†a#ù(Áj¹`†<>)^E†çW)!,©f†˜Ø)lÍ%†í)MQ{Œ"*Ú^ói†²LE*^lÍXÑNE*N9†È^Ñ*›:8T†ª[?+‚v+Œýo†(S…+QHœ+Î`»+q¥f»è+{pˆ¢C,@½I†ñ#,¡Dq[mK,+@p‘qb,ˆd&dèŸ,Ö>m†ëx¹,¯{uò,˜@œQ>,-÷m4-rtÌHÂFK-óRŽ-œJëN†2@—-çgGc†Åš-X*ˆy†¼Ü->o.-Dt†îtÂ.¦–z]È.¥X„†<}7/d|•†Ëy/dS}†ò„/: o=tjÝ/0ÞU0{zúOÜ!0ÈRAN+0gY|†*%50’BŸA5J90Ï$Œ}†;1š0ô©EFw2
þZ†>2"OÊM29!"e¼W°2¯f\µhÜ2NÜ~øw×3ui‹†+æ3DjìUû3ÅóX@£4‡;¿4åd5†ºpÇ4@L†5h 5‡^B^†
-A5¦PV5åd5tWˆ'×5ÎÂ5MD-†BÌ5IìD†ÇVï5
-A5“a
6”`dñ#6ghCH†81„6‰&7͇6ça†r!Ÿ6Q1膦@é6Xxî6)1:t‰&7˜XÐ\£~74\ƒ7bD9T=rÞ7€´Gr
F8c©]†…Jo8û~ð8ïªó8šÔB†N9?OiêQß9¯A:ÐKx_†s›:KKKKÎ3ù:±!‹q÷O";¬4MJJO;øi\;Ù%§|c;÷qÆvIu;ªRUÆ;ž~7†[UïU¼`fR>í>ß'IÖ>R]†±vÚ>lrBØMT?<#iq!{’?P[5=†TFž?tˆ&Ÿ?½*ú†O-Â?ØMT?‘Sá?
U|3eá?½-X{É8ç?½@}Ć*.}@˜Ø)†Ï-‡@ºT¥`†R‰@g†ÐzÜ@Z]%HAg;†:Añs6Ay8”†DOAhu†’BŸA8¯ÿ0xxxx333333333333(µA²LE*†&EÎANa†½.ÔANŠ†‘a†$,&D]”LåD|1ïq†IìDbl#gå>E½\†ô©EZÕvûn¸E‚v+†—'ºEí#öc†hFs™]†=bDF¦^^n†¬Z[F“yðÐ’FÊ"…o+w~G¼ L`ó#—Gº{9=€´G=VÑG’oÈt†{s
Hõ-H¦PV5p@HåoG†ghCH'\L†š&žH½tŒe¥HoaQÔ!~Q…ÁY#%Q@gKU†NRÝQÞQîìQqG$ªR)b;R«,¦q†š0hR‡L†ßZwRþ
{R;1š0†±y{RìiŽRÀá †(UõRÞ$AtxcSº#Sw/Ê=FZPS8TS)b;R†ÏTSó#—G3%€SÀ{«S‡;¿4†Üg/T˜4>›:8Tµgn†bD9T]z[TÎ ²mƒ¢TD $þ`ÂTÿS¹ï,!UÏrdi†@gKUÞU0
g€U‚þ³UxcS>ÝUC;ŒrXYYVáD¶^‹V4öOÊV©J$WûWûWÅ6…XÊM2:3œXàq•Y†Õ¬XÎ3ù:†±OµXº#S^lÍX\<ðjgÓXQ>,- qîXª}<ÅóX_/,J´ZYƒ¢T†ã`-Y<MYv†àq•Yv^mC†…ÁY<Z…&xFk{ZÍKD
þZHp†Ì[Üenxø:[†=ö^Í`
[Œ0’[(>Y†¯f\Í?\Iê(†½\úMö˜XÐ\~Ðf<1/Õ\Ås»†¬7y]Â>aQs™]Øð†c©]Hv¿I†Óé]vIu;š]^ph$^‡^B^ß`.›^†=ö^å1_ÐKx_¶a9†jI _l{ ó !`‘qb,†¼ L`èY`å ƒºT¥`”=Ö}Áj¹`‘QQ†ïU¼`§>Ö`_m†T
a݉&Na[mK,†9a€‘q†˜…aÎÂ5†˜>‘asq¥y†3jÕaßZwRçaôT„3b@Ïz†ì)ibõU~b1µH†øU b§~#†%;åb@VŒ$03cD.£BçgGcg-í!†va€cÑ^ꆅÑc(µA†UÝcš0hR†í#öc©J$Wvd0q|”`dˆd&d›@ÒMòf³d,-¾Znüd¦|#†9!"e2K‹#¦g+eª/eµ *^EeŽ²†æL\eå>E†–eme¥HgQweŠu
½tŒeduŒeFd†ú&fJiƒ,\f<}7/†¾zfs{Tq¥f3%€S!,©fqx{~ÐfXxî6ŠaÙf6Ýf<Z†bl#g¥^BLkQgäJ9r†g8|k=šZûgÇ-9hšK?OiÔuß<�MeBiÏrdiØb*&†Ïb~i±y{R4áiã`-YÚ^óiX–u†NFüi£~7DjtjÝ/v,…jÉ8ç?w¿jþ`ÂTÉ=Õjˆ4¶q\<ðjædkgÃTkZl!{’?†klV:g†é3îl<|ö<IeùlJ+Lê^(mˆšK†ô.‘mz*¢mAâÎ ²mÚHnèY`µgn„!ûg)nfR>†¦^^nV݆,mnºkj>´nh#ÛngV'Po½
ô†Ê"…oÄ"™o6GP†eoh¥¶.´orÁšv½oMg†Œýo]z[THpTFž?(Ap(S…++@pª[?+bEp=rÞ7¹C½p¤qP&†¡Dq„VZq• †<#iq±!‹qù ˜€‘qQ =†«,¦qÅwÁ#!©q{s
Hˆ4¶qŠaÙfˆlÝq|1ïq6SŽ~Rðq3q-rIeùl†äJ9r+æ3†C;Œrn[G° ùrÏ-‡@†y0®sb(P!öês{fM-DtÄy†)1:to
ývÞ$AtÅ6…Xð 0w?0w?0w?0w?ä.¢tª/e‰¥t(ApÈ}¸t’oÈt³U2…&xph$^Üenx[µx,mnfÆx&xn
þxï0¨<�†=.y6Ýf†Ö+OyrgOX*ˆy‹xÓu†˜yd]-sq¥y7ÕÉ°yxLÒyîtÂ.Óáy];yw†òy‰w¯·U&zé*N{†”tAzr=°†WhKzjx ‡.TzJi¦–z@Ïz¶.´o†ŽÏz¸`ÈO†%þz³qöwv{ÇNH{$,&Dé*N{‘Sá?MQ{
HR{͇6†jbS{½-X{qx{¦@é6mð{™dª†0q|ì~èvgY|öês†
U|[|çW)†\€|+w~G;¦|¦g+ekÖ|ä.¢t†y>Ø|BÌ5†dS}XYYVÄp}§R>Ï$Œ}dM´(ßMš}J<¿v†”=Ö}jbS{œqõ}\
~ô=†H,~03c†ã)9~WhKziT~¹;¸~j{Á~0¡N†NÜ~L s{TŸ<(>Y\*†4e’z+™jª8¯{pË4\ƒ7“Ï(kàI†Áí—x†úMöjªœå›…[w°2 Rñ Ép
j^òNÿ_atßwbƱ.h j<ShªTO>sr#ßl$ƒ}&‘m'»m(_,%j,ÐP.¥F/ÙI/†Z2'4t4.6ô6CJ8Ë9ä=Äe=E!@JJ@r7AíECïnD·uDVF0IÇK%MaNþSNbRºZVGYãPYÂ^rO_5a„7aHc
2eµQf)gjMiÓckalTHl[rÐps0@uI1vywicy‚X}/€ì,‚Wt„mwˆº=‰Ê=‰Ò`ŒjŒNJl’.~’v–=H›Ð~œdUõ ŸFjŸToŸ4 ðM þ2¤)w¤Lz¥£c¨7«U<¬[¬óT°·r°€±ì±÷´õ^¶v¶Ñ\ºA¼vI¼|W½r¾´¿ðÃ$?â
ɽ!Ês/ÊÂÍà8Î*Ъ-Ñå_Ñ$-ÓÿfÖ><ÙÈbÚÒrÛòCàkbá7"ãÝåóSå?5æÉçÌ"èGlèhëÖ-ìÊsì¢í
îÄ"îwñPóØE÷Ôù—Yù û“Eü`-ý|ÿ£E¥Eÿ@€VVàÅVV(DE±EX@XLXØ@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿG‡* €ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3.‡* €ÿArial7.‡ ŸVerdana;†‹[SOSimSunAï ë BŸCambria Math qˆ¤h;"Ûf–²1‡|hd
?;#~d
?;#~!-!),.:;?]}¨·ÇÉ & 6"0000 00
00000ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ=ÿ@ÿ\ÿ]ÿ^ÿàÿ([{· 0
000000ÿÿ;ÿ[ÿáÿåÿ ´œ‚€2€E€E 3ƒQüýHXðÿ?¨ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÌ"è2!xx ÿÿuseruserþÿà…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0Xˆœ¨¸ÄØ èô
,8@HP¨userNormal.dotmuser124Microsoft Office Word@pšJ2@¢yþé\Ê@·3ê5Ðd
?;þÿÕÍÕœ.“—+,ù®0´
X`t|„Œ”œ¤¬¨Microsoft~#€E
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345678þÿÿÿ:;<�=>?@þÿÿÿBCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijþÿÿÿlmnopqrþÿÿÿtuvwxyzþÿÿÿýÿÿÿ}þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿRoot Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀF *ÕTê5ЀData
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ91TableÿÿÿÿARWordDocumentÿÿÿÿ2pSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿkDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿsCompObjÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿ
ÿÿÿÿ ÀF#Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Îĵµ
MSWordDocWord.Document.8ô9²q