ࡱ> q` cbjbjqPqP 7::wu%l l l l l l l  (>(>(>8`>|> l?l?"???m@@ @T V V V V V V hV Ql Fi@m@FFV l l ?? mOmOmOFXl ?l ?T mOFT mOmOB l l 6?`? Q\(>gFf D 0 xK"66&l <@r BmOCC*@@@V V OX@@@ FFFF D*4d 4 l l l l l l  MINUTES Faculty Senate September 2nd, 2014 Senators present: Arrasmith, Baarmand, Barker, Brenner, Campbell, Carvalho, Converse, Cook, Cudmore, Davis, Finn, Gallagher, Jensen, Kozaitis, Lail, Marcinkowski, Miller, Perdigao, Nnolim, Rusovici, Shearer, Suksawang, Tenali, Tenga, Turner, van Woesik, Winkelmann; non-voting attendee: Dr. Richard Baney, Board of Trustees President van Woesik called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. and asked for a motion to approve the last meetings minutes. A motion was made and seconded, and the vote to approve was unanimous. Presidents Report Dr. van Woesik began by querying the make-up of the standing committees, a number of which are only nominally committees. Senator Tenali stated that the committee he heads up, the Academic Affairs Committee, had been joined by Sens. Cudmore and Lail. The Administra-tive Affairs Committee, headed by Sen. Brenner, was instructed to include more members than just the chair and Dr. Sharaf-Eldeen from Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. The same went for the Faculty Excellence Awards Committee, which was urged to add at least two more members; Sen. Arrasmith agreed to join this committee The Faculty Senate Scholarship Committee, headed by Sen. Rusovici, usually has very little going on until the awarding the stipends is due, but more members would be advisable before that point. Dr. van Woesik said hed like to task the chairs to populate their respective committees, and meet once a month so that each committee can provide a report at each meeting of the Senate. The Presidents Report: As a result of working closely with COO and Provost Dr. Dwayne McCay and Erik Kledzik, director of IT, the teaching working stations LCD displays are being replaced. All should have been replaced and the wiring redone by the end of the last week of this month. Concerning the upcoming SACS (the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, whose mission is stated as the improvement of education in the South through accreditation) visit, Drs. van Woesik and Arrasmith worked on the policies on Academic Freedom, policies of the responsibility and authority of faculty in academic and governance matters. Later, they assessed interest that shows the process by which the 鶹ýӳ Faculty Senate Subcommittees derive new policies, and follow the policies, with regard to the faculty role in governance. The Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee, held before the general Board of Trustees Meeting, took place 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. on April 24th, 2014, as chaired by Dr. Richard Baney. In his opening remarks, Dr. McCay cited the statistic of thirty new faculty, of whom fifteen are replacements. At this point the concern for a medical school, or associated health care/physicians assistants plan, was still under consideration. Among other topics discussed were the QEP-2 (Quality Enhancement Plan, Second Version), internationalization and global passports, as well as the SACS visit. Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Semen Koksal reported on our progress toward the top ten, suggesting to shift the lower end of the GPA. Several comparisons were made between FIT and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Wes Sumner reported on National and International Media Strategy by comparing past and present media releases and communication bytes. He noted an increasing trend for multiple language websites; few schools have Chinese, incidentally. Also the university is starting to target blue-ribbon schools. Dr. Marty Glicksman spoke on the state of our College of Engineering. We have a new Biomedical Engineering head, Dr. Ted Conway, who is a former NSF Director. With the College of Engineering, the Computer Science Department has been dissolved and there has been started a new Department of Computer Sciences and cybersecurity. There is also a new flight test engineering program. He commented that research can best be promoted by aligning teaching loads; new hires are almost solely research-minded faculty. Dr. McCays University Operations meeting took place May 14th, 2104. There were presentations by University Architect Greg Tsark on the Bisk Building, the mid-road beautification project, and the new chairs and lighting in Gleason Auditorium. Dr. McCay spoke on a new research committee, with new personnel for research-specific marketing and outreach. He also spoke on a new Research Incentive Program (RIP) for new, incoming faculty, which includes overhead return to research programs. Along with the issue of Greencarding, Dr. McCay spoke to open faculty solicitation for research equipment (clusters of shared equipment). Alison Bogart will be our new internal auditor, searching out fraud, waste, and abuse, and will report directly to Dr. McCay. A Summary of the Presidents Retreat (June 15-18, 2014; themes: Where we are, what do we have to do, where do we want to go, and how to get there. The answers to these questions came out that: we could continue our impressive growth and focus on strategic areas of research; A medical school was not considered feasible, at this point in time. Keep under review a potential law school. Note that industry leaders are indicating that they desire students with real-world, practical experience. Aim to improve admission standards. Several task forces were generated and reported at the retreat; (a) An Enrollment Task Force (led by Dr. Robert Niebuhr); an enhancement of campus tours; and possible implementation of a call center (b) An Internationalization Task Force (led by Dr. Kenkel); Internationalizing of the Campus Committee (ICC) which will hold lunch-and-learn sessions that will train faculty and obtain feedback on how they can be better supported. (c) A Retention and Task Force Committee (led by Mr. Rodney Bowers), with a goal from eighty percent to eight-five percent. (d) A Summer Programs Task Force (led by Dr. Gordon Nelson) to effect an increase in the marketing of summer camps on campus and abroad. A Summarization of the University Operating Council Quarterly Meeting under COO McCay; August 27th, 2014 Mr. Gary Hamm stated that we made our enrollment goals. We have 770 new freshmen and 100 new Ph.D. students. In all, there are 1,527 new students. A 1.5% Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) will be made, across campus, on October 1, 2014. There is money set aside for merit raises. These are to be decided by April 4th of next year; they involve four categories: Not Adequate, Adequate, Good, and Excellent. At this point details are being worked out. SACS is due on September 10th, 2014; SACS committee members come to campus in March of 2015. Old Business (At this juncture it was announced that the university was in lock-down mode as there had been reported a threat of a roving gunman; faculty senators with their backs to the grand window of the Olin Life Sciences moved to the side of the room.) Pres. van Woesik then turned to the approval sought for the universitys mission statement: 鶹ýӳ Mission Statement Approved by the Board of Trustees in October, 2013 With our focus on student success, 鶹ýӳs mission is to provide high-quality education to a culturally diverse student body in order to prepare students for entering the global workforce, seeking higher-education opportunities, and serving within their communities. The university also seeks to expand knowledge through basic and applied research and to serve the diverse economic, cultural, and societal needs of our local, state, national and international constituencies. In support of this mission, we are committed to: Fostering and sustaining a productive institutional culture of assessment leading to the continuous improvement of academic and administrative programs in order to promote student development; Developing an organizational culture that values and encourages intellectual curiosity, a sense of belonging and shared purpose among faculty, students and staff, and the pursuit of excellence in all endeavors; Recruiting and developing faculty who are internationally recognized as educators, scholars and researchers; Achieving recognition as an effective, innovative, technology-focused educational and research institution; Recruiting and retaining an excellent, highly select and culturally diverse student body; Continually improving the quality of campus life for all members of the university community; Providing personal and career growth opportunities for both traditional and nontraditional students and members of the faculty and staff; Securing and maintaining professional accreditation for all appropriate programs. After the statement was read through, discussion turned to appropriate wording. Secretary Shearer, with Sen. Arrasmith, offered that there was no need to put too fine a point on the verbiage. Accordingly the only change was in the first bullet-statement, now reading: In support of this mission, we are committed to: Promoting student development by fostering and sustaining a productive institutional culture of assessment that leads to the continuous improvement of academic and administrative programs. Approval of this wording and the whole statement will come to a vote at the next Faculty Senate meeting. The next issue under Old Business was the protocols concerning faculty evaluation at the Evans Library. The version given to the Senate is as follows: EVANS LIBRARY FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LIBRARY FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The 鶹ýӳ Faculty Handbook specifies that an evaluation of every faculty member's performance must be conducted annually. Also, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (Section CS 3.7.2) mandates that the institution must regularly evaluate the effectiveness of each faculty member. To this end, all library faculty shall prepare a Faculty Annual Report (FAR), citing professional accomplishments, activities, and recognitions during the evaluation period. 1.2. Faculty supervisors/directors/department heads are the evaluators for faculty in their departments. When there are subunits within these departments, the subunit supervisors are the evaluators for faculty in their subunits. When a faculty member has assignments that cross units or departments, the directors/department heads shall confer and develop an evaluation that reflects overall responsibilities. The Dean of Libraries evaluates the associate deans and/or the directors according to the organizational structure. 2. PRINCIPLES AND VALUES 2.1. The cultivation of library faculty as librarians who effectively serve the university community and mission is a fundamental goal underlying all 鶹ýӳ library faculty personnel policies. 2.1.1. Accordingly, the annual evaluation process serves as the basis for annual salary adjustments as specified by 鶹ýӳ policies. 2.1.2. The annual evaluation process serves as an opportunity for librarians to compile and document records of achievement and growth as they advance. 2.1.3. FARs and evaluations shall address 1) achievements of goals identified on the previous FAR, 2) unanticipated achievements, and 3) any extenuating circumstances that contributed to goals that were not accomplished. 2.2. The 鶹ýӳ Library and the community may reasonably expect all library faculty to meet standards of performance detailed in their position descriptions, evaluation criteria, library policies, and university policies, and to conduct their work in ways consistent with professional norms as expounded by the Association of College and Research Libraries Statement on Faculty Status. 2.2.1. The evaluation criteria listed on the FAR form provide the fundamental criteria for faculty evaluation. 2.2.1.1. Position responsibilities may be adjusted during the year. Any position responsibilities are discussed with the faculty member prior to adjustment. 2.2.2. The application of these criteria should not be interpreted as an attempt to restrict academic freedom, protection of minority opinions, dissent from professional orthodoxies, or honest and civil disagreement with administrative actions. 2.2.3. Library faculty are expected to adhere to the standards of conduct and ethical behavior as stated in the 鶹ýӳ Faculty Handbook. 2.3. Evaluations necessarily involve the exercise of judgment. Accordingly, evaluators shall include in every faculty members evaluation their rationales for assigning performance ratings. 2.4. While conciseness is a virtue, faculty members and evaluators alike should recognize that giving detailed accounts and rationales may be needed in order to understand each librarians unique work, to enhance individual strengths, and to rectify deficiencies. 2.5. Because it is expected that a continuous dialogue on the faculty member's progress will take place throughout the evaluation period, FARs and written evaluations are not appropriate media for unanticipated assessments of a librarians work. 2.6. In addition, the annual evaluation provides regular channels for library faculty to discuss with their supervisors their professional goals and any concerns. LIBRARY FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES January 28, 2014 Page 4 of 15 3. EVALUATION OF NEW LIBRARY FACULTY 3.1. A new library faculty member, regardless of rank, will be evaluated after six months, and thereafter during the regular annual evaluation period. 3.2. The new faculty member and his/her evaluator will set goals for the first six months. The evaluator shall initiate this goal-setting process. Discussion during this initial period provides an opportunity for the faculty and the evaluator to review the faculty member's progress and set further goals. 4. PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 4.1. Professional responsibilities are the fundamental criteria of the annual evaluation process. The minimal expectation is that each library faculty member shall fulfill his/her assigned professional responsibilities as detailed in his/her position description, guided by the criteria listed on the FAR form. 4.2. Librarians are also expected to demonstrate their ongoing engagement with the profession of librarianship and the larger communities of which the 鶹ýӳ Libraries are a part. While low levels of professional activity during any particular year may lower the placement of a librarian in the relative rankings for recommended salary adjustment for that year (see section 7), they are not sufficient grounds to exclude that librarian from consideration for salary increases. 4.3 Scholarly and service activities completed during the evaluation period should be identified. Expectations of scholarly and service activity increase with the librarians rank. 5. RATING SYSTEM 5.1. Evaluators shall assign ratings to the three individual categories, as defined in Appendix A, as well as to overall performance. Ratings complement narrative evaluations of accomplishments and deficiencies; they do not substitute for them. 5.2. The performance ratings are: Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory (See special requirements in section 5.3.) 5.3. A rating of Unsatisfactory indicates that a librarian s performance is so seriously deficient in minimally meeting expectations for his/her position that it puts his/her employment at risk. 5.3.1. The rating of Unsatisfactory shall be based entirely on the librarians performance of explicitly assigned responsibilities as detailed in the position description, during the evaluation period. 5.3.2. Whenever a rating of Unsatisfactory is assigned, the burden lies with the evaluator to demonstrate and document how, when, and in what respects the librarian has failed to perform his/her obligations as contained in the position description. The evaluator will also document his/her own interventions during the course of the evaluation period that demonstrate attempts to help the librarian improve his/her performance. 5.3.3. When a library faculty member receives a rating of Unsatisfactory, he/she may devise a plan of remediation with his/her supervisor and the concurrence of the Dean of Libraries. This plan shall be filed along with his/her current FAR and must be completed before his/her next annual evaluation. 5.3.4. When a library faculty member with continued appointment receives a rating of Unsatisfactory in two consecutive evaluations, his/her case shall be governed by the university policies. 5.4. The rating Needs Improvement is appropriate when there are specific and remediable deficiencies, LIBRARY FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES January 28, 2014 Page 5 of 15 even though the overall performance may minimally satisfy the performance expectations for a librarian at his/her rank. Whenever a rating of Needs Improvement is assigned, the evaluator shall provide specific recommendations for improvement in the evaluation. 5.5. The rating Meets Expectations is appropriate when the faculty member adequately meets the expectations of performance and previously identified goals with no significant deficiencies. 5.6. The rating Exceeds Expectations is appropriate when the faculty member meets the expectations in all categories and makes significant achievements in one or more performance categories. 5.7. Disputes concerning evaluator procedures, ratings, comments, and recommendations of salary adjustments shall be handled according to the Faculty Grievance Resolution Procedures. (See 鶹ýӳ Faculty Handbook.) 6. TIMETABLE 6.1. The 鶹ýӳ Libraries Planning Calendar, which will align with university requirements, shall include the dates for each stage of the evaluation cycle: Submission of the FAR Completion of the evaluators FAR reviews and evaluations Dean s review Submission and filing. 6.2 Faculty Annual Report (FAR) 6.2.1 Reviewed by the faculty member s director/department head and the Dean of Libraries, the FAR becomes part of the basis for salary adjustments (per 鶹ýӳ Faculty Handbook). 6.2.2 The faculty member shall prepare a FAR covering the evaluation period according to the format detailed in Appendix A, sign it, and forward it to his/her evaluator by the date specified in the 鶹ýӳ Libraries Planning Calendar. 6.3 Evaluation 6.3.1 Evaluators Role 6.3.1.1 The evaluator shall prepare a draft evaluation of the FAR according to the format detailed in Appendix B and notify the faculty member that a draft is available for discussion, if the faculty member desires. 6.3.1.2 The evaluator shall give a copy of the final draft of the evaluation to the faculty member and schedule a meeting with him/her at least three working days after providing the copy. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the written evaluation and any recommendations it contains. 6.3.1.3 Evaluators who jointly evaluate the same faculty member(s) must provide a single evaluation and recommendation. 6.3.1.4 The written evaluation shall rate and discuss each of the performance categories, as defined in Appendix A, and conclude with an overall rating and narrative assessment. 6.3.1.5 If the dean supports the recommendations, he/she signs the report and forwards it to the Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer (EVP/COO). 6.3.1.6 If the dean finds the report unsupportable, he/she will write an additional report and submit it to the EVP/COO for final evaluation. 6.3.2 Faculty Members Role The faculty member may request a meeting with his/her supervisor to discuss the draft evaluation before it is finalized and sent to the Dean for final review and signature. 6.3.3 Deans Role The dean reviews the written evaluations and may request revisions before signing. LIBRARY FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES January 28, 2014 Page 6 of 15 6.4 Response 6.4.1 After reviewing his/her evaluation, the faculty member may respond in writing on a separate sheet. This response will be attached to the FAR and evaluation as one file. 6.4.2 After the meeting with his/her evaluator, any faculty member may schedule a meeting with the Dean of Libraries to discuss the evaluation. All such discussion shall take place before the date the evaluations are due in the deans office. 6.5 Submission and Filing 6.5.1 To complete the evaluation file, a signature sheet, Appendix C, must be added as a cover to the FAR, the evaluation, and any written response to the evaluation. The signatures of the faculty member and the evaluator will signify that they have discussed the FAR and evaluation. 6.5.2 The complete evaluation file shall be forwarded to the Dean of Libraries for a final review. The deans signature on the cover page will signify that he/she has reviewed the file. 6.5.3 Upon completion of the review process, all documents shall be forwarded to the EVP/COO office. A copy of all faculty evaluations will be kept in the library personnel file. 6.5.4 No library administrator, faculty member, or other employee shall, without the consent of the librarian in question, share any annual evaluation with anyone other than the faculty member and his/her supervisor, except when that faculty member opts to include the annual evaluation in his/her dossier for promotion. 7. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS 7.1 Salary adjustments are determined annually, based both on the quality of the faculty members response to assigned responsibilities and his/her professional development and contributions. Salary adjustments are based on merit; they are not automatic. 7.2 Recommendations for salary adjustments are determined by the Dean of Libraries and finalized by the EVP/COO. The final decision rests with the universitys EVP/COO. 7.3 Salary adjustments are meant to reflect a range of merit. Individuals will be placed at points along this range. The universitys Board of Trustees and administration determine the amount of funds available for salary increase. 7.4 Directors/department heads role Directors/department heads will recommend percentages to the Dean of Libraries. 7.5 Deans role 7.5.1 The Dean of Libraries shall make salary adjustments within the available range specified by the university and in relation to overall performance accomplishments of all library faculty. 7.5.2 The dean shall consider the FARs and the written evaluations to compile an overall ranking of library faculty. 7.5.3 If a faculty position is vacant, funds from the vacant position may be added to the library-wide salary adjustments budget. 7.5.4 Once a budget for salary adjustments has been specified, the dean shall review evaluations, receive input from directors/department heads, and produce a listing of salary adjustments that ranks individual faculty on a percentage scale. 8. REAPPOINTMENT/TERMINATION Library faculty who have uncontested, favorable (Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, and Needs Improvement) evaluations shall be reappointed and may be considered for multi-year contracts. A decision not to reappoint may be made by the Dean of Libraries with advice from the line of supervision. As per the 鶹ýӳ Faculty Handbook, notice of intention not to reappoint shall be transmitted in writing by December 15, prior to the termination of his/her appointment. Any questions and requests for information should be addressed directly to the Dean of Libraries, LIBRARY. The library personnel attending the meeting had wanted approval by the general Senate, but nothing much was resolved. Pres. van Woesik pointed up these difficulties with the document gaining the Senates approval. (1) On Page 10, the following wording needed clarification: evaluations should be primarily qualitative. Adding these words to an evaluation document appears to open the door to potential subjectivity, whereas as the rest of the document is extremely clear and quantitative. (2) There was discussion about the ranking system (Appendix D, Pages 13 and 14). Although the Senate agreed with the proposed ranking system for librarians, most senators who contributed to the discussion did not see a need to explicitly define the proposed ranking system as equivalent to the more traditional ranking system of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor (on Page 13 the individual appointed to the rank of Assistant Librarian, equivalent to Assistant Professor, and the individual appointed to the rank of Associate Librarian, equivalent to Associate Professor, and then on Page 14, the individual appointed to the rank of Librarian, equivalent to Professor). Pres. van Woesik had wanted to move to discussion of the QEP-2 as has been handled by Sen. Marcinkowski, but saw that this should be given more time than was on hand at the moment, and so moved to the matter of the draft of the university-wide attendance policy for freshman students: Faculty Senate Executive Committee: Robert van Woesik, Gnana Bhaskar Tenali, Marc Baarmand, William Arrasmith, Razvan Rusovici, James Brenner, Robert Shearer Members of the Faculty Senate Academic Policies Committee: Andrew Cudmore, Brian Lail May 16, 2014 The current 鶹ýӳ attendance policy is outlined in the University Handbook as: Undergraduate Attendance Requirements Melbourne Campus Students registered for any course are expected to attend all lectures and must attend all laboratories, examinations, quizzes and practical exercises, subject to penalties specified by the instructor for that course. Students who miss class must obtain permission from the course instructor to make up missed work. This permission must be requested at the earliest possible opportunity, and before the absence if possible. The student must arrange with the instructor to make up the missed work. The makeup must be completed within two weeks after the absence. In the case of missed final examinations, the policy on Incomplete (I) applies. In mitigating circumstances, the instructor, with the concurrence of the academic unit head offering the course, may require an alternative to making up the missed work. If circumstances require a student to report late for a class or to leave before the class is over, prior notification should be given to the instructor if possible. Repeated occurrences may result in the student being temporarily denied admission to the classroom. The professor of military science of the Army ROTC unit has sole authority to determine attendance regulations in ROTC classes. The Faculty Senates Executive Committee and the Academic Policies Committee discussed the connection between attendance policies and retention. It is well known that attendance in classes is one of the many factors that influences retention rate (see: http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf ). As stated in the above cited report, Observing attendance patterns can help institutions identify those students who may not be performing at acceptable levels and recommend intervention strategies. Moreover, in a longitudinal study (Ishitani and DesJardins, 2002) found that the higher a students first-year Grade Point Average (GPA), the less likely they were to drop out of college. Therefore the main goal of an attendance policy for freshmen at 鶹ýӳ is to identify students who need help on academic and non-academic issues. The attendance policy should therefore help the students, and not simple penalize students for not attending classes. Therefore, the Faculty Senates Executive Committee and the Academic Policies Committee recommends the following: 1. Attendance should be taken in all freshman courses, campus wide (see 3, below). The instructor decides on the methods used to implement the attendance policy. For example, more than 4 unexcused absences could lead to failing the course, at the instructors discretion. The course syllabus should clearly spell out the attendance policy, and the instructor should emphasize the importance of the policy repeatedly during the course. 2. After four weeks of classes, the instructor, using the attendance data alongside any test results, decides whether a student is at risk of failure. 3. Given a risk of failure, intervention strategies could include make-up work, referral to Academic Support Center, and tutorial sessions. The students identified may be also given some supplemental instructions (e.g., tutorial sessions) to help the students make up for missed learning opportunities. These options should be discussed with the identified students. If there is an excessive number of unexcused absences, the option of dropping the course should also be discussed with the student. There should be no policy in place to involuntarily drop students from courses. 4. Information Technology (IT) should consider the following. To avoid using the class time to take attendance (especially in classes with a large enrollment), methods should be explored to automatically record student attendance. One possible option is to equip all classrooms with a card-swipe reader, and have every student record their presence as they enter the room. Cheaper alternatives and other time-saving methods should be explored by the IT department. "$*+,IQS[bclmwxµyqfq^Vfqf^f^fq^q^q^q^qfhROJQJhVeOJQJhmUh;0:OJQJh;0:OJQJhrg*h/CJOJQJ\aJhMCJOJQJ\aJh61CJOJQJ\aJ"hRhRCJH*OJQJ\aJhRCJOJQJ\aJh;4CJOJQJ\aJh?c hM5CJOJQJaJhOhM5CJOJQJaJh8hM5CJOJQJaJ+,p q 7 8 9 L M  c  89@A 8`gd=<`gd=< 8gd^ 8`gd^`gd^$a$gd^$a$gd/$a$gd{=b   ! ( o p q { ~ 4 6 7 8 9 K L M Q R T r Ž͵~uld\dddh 'oOJQJhumOJQJhum>*OJQJh[>*OJQJhg\hg\>*OJQJhg\OJQJh[OJQJhYOJQJhrhfOJQJhfOJQJhROJQJhtjOJQJh 2OJQJhk%OJQJhVeOJQJh;4OJQJhmUh;0:OJQJh;0:OJQJhKOJQJ$    X Y   p  b c g j { | ?AK𳫳{o{o{h"U[CJOJQJaJhqtACJOJQJaJh6CJOJQJaJh"U[OJQJh*OJQJh6OJQJhk%OJQJh6h6OJQJhm4OJQJ#h{B*CJOJQJ^JaJphh{OJQJhNOJQJh;4OJQJhumOJQJhLOJQJ'  ǬǑyaI5)h6CJOJQJaJ'h"U[0J#B*OJQJ^JmH ph"""sH /h"U[0J#B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph"""sH /hk%0J#B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph"""sH /hA(o0J#B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph"""sH 5h"U[h"U[0J#B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph"""sH 5hw|hw|0J#B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph"""sH 5hw|h"U[0J#B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph"""sH hw|hw|CJOJQJaJhw|hqtACJOJQJaJ yz{  OP}TWacĴĨĜĨocccccc[h^CJaJh^CJOJQJaJ)hehV4UB*OJQJ^JmH ph"""sH hV4UCJOJQJaJhA(oCJOJQJaJhw|CJOJQJaJhSICJOJQJaJh"U[h"U[CJH*OJQJaJh"U[h"U[CJOJQJaJ)h"U[h"U[B*OJQJ^JmH ph"""sH h6CJOJQJaJh"U[CJOJQJaJ"Az{{Yyd^`gdA(o  dgdA(o d^`gdA(o d^`gdw| d^`gd^ d^gd^  dgd^d^`gd^  $%VW³|p||dTha9hG6CJOJQJaJha9CJOJQJaJhw|CJOJQJaJhrCJOJQJaJhGhGCJOJQJaJhGhGCJH*OJQJaJhGCJOJQJaJhGhT!CJOJQJaJhGhL5CJOJQJaJhGh65CJOJQJaJhGh"U[CJOJQJaJh"U[h^CJOJQJaJCVk1[  T dgda9 & F+ T dgda9 T d^`gda9  T dgdG T d^`gdG T d^`gdA(oj1*+0MŹ}q}e}YM@hl(6CJOJQJaJh u4CJOJQJaJhl(CJOJQJaJhw|CJOJQJaJhT!CJOJQJaJhMCJOJQJaJhICJOJQJaJh{CJOJQJaJhvCJOJQJaJha9CJOJQJaJhGCJOJQJaJha9ha96CJOJQJaJha96CJOJQJaJha9hG6CJOJQJaJhr6CJOJQJaJ+   !2"3"4"d^`gdl($ T d^`a$gdl( T d^`gdM T d^`gdr T d^`gd{      } !*!L!N!!!!2"嶧thXI9Ih;hl(CJH*OJQJaJh;hl(CJOJQJaJhl(hl(CJH*OJQJaJhjrCJOJQJaJh u4CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhl(CJOJQJaJhl(h u4CJOJQJaJhl(hl(CJOJQJaJhl(hl(6CJOJQJaJ"hl(hl(6CJH*OJQJaJhw|6CJOJQJaJhl(6CJOJQJaJh u46CJOJQJaJ2"4"@"B""##8#9#@#A#C#######&***$+%+T+U+γ§whYMYAh:CJOJQJaJh2CJOJQJaJh[) h[) CJOJQJaJh[) h CJOJQJaJh,CJOJQJaJh>h,CJOJQJaJh, h>h,h>h,5>*hk%CJOJQJaJhbfhbfCJOJQJaJhA(oCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh>*CJOJQJaJhbf>*CJOJQJaJhbfCJOJQJaJ4"A"B"9#:####%&&'(((9))* & F,ddd[$\$gd, dd[$\$gd,$dd[$\$a$gd,$d^`a$gdbf$d^`a$gd$d^a$gdbf**V+,,,,-&-F-l-|--9../^/q//;0 7$8$H$gdFc^ddd[$\$^`gd, & F0ddd[$\$gd[) ddd[$\$^`gd[) ddd[$\$gd,U+,,,,,,---|-11|33;<@< >%>ABDD.D2DXD\DDDDE8EJͰuggggV hFc^6CJOJQJ]^JaJhFc^CJOJQJ^JaJhFc^CJOJQJ^JaJhk%CJOJQJ^JaJhFc^CJOJQJ^JaJ hk%5CJOJQJ\^JaJ hFc^5CJOJQJ\^JaJhk%CJOJQJaJhiCJOJQJaJh8CJOJQJaJh2CJOJQJaJh[) h[) CJOJQJaJ!;000^11112`222G333;4`44+555K6W666Z777K8x8 7$8$H$gdFc^x88699:>::;4;;;<@<<<@== >%>>>V?\?? @@@?AA 7$8$H$gdFc^AABsBBBC.DXDDDE?FFF GgGGHmHHIrIII7JJJK 7$8$H$gdFc^JJKKK_LrLM1MeNhNNNPP0P4PPPPPPQ:QJSUS[SlSWWXXX-Y1Y:YZZ^^kaaaaddffffffᦴᘔhFc^CJaJhvoh=<hFc^hvoCJOJQJ^JaJhFc^CJOJQJ^JaJ hFc^5CJOJQJ\^JaJhk%CJOJQJ^JaJhFc^CJOJQJ^JaJhFc^CJOJQJ^JaJ hFc^6CJOJQJ]^JaJ2KKKK LOLL MoMM+NNNNOVO0PPPP:QQKRVRR SFSUSlSS 7$8$H$gdFc^S TDTTT6UfUUU,VzVVV"W-WWWW-XXXX-Y:YYYHZZZ 7$8$H$gdFc^ZZX[[\\u\\!]]]9^^^^^9___:```HagaaaaObb 7$8$H$gdFc^bc"cccdadddevee9ffghkkllimmm$gdA`gdA`gd.iFddd[$\$^`gd, 7$8$H$gdvo 7$8$H$gdFc^ffffggzg{g}ggggghh=h>h?h@hhhhhjjjjjϷϟ}m]m]H}mm)hsh.iFB*CJOJ QJ ^J aJphhP6B*CJOJQJaJphh@<2B*CJOJQJaJphhsh.iFB*OJQJph%hsh.iFB*CJOJQJaJphhiCJOJQJaJhk%CJOJQJaJhjrCJOJQJaJhsCJOJQJaJh.iFCJOJQJaJhFc^CJOJQJaJ hvohFc^CJOJQJ^JaJhvoCJaJjjjjjk!k"kDkEkkkkkkkkkkkkkalelllllll@ACDFGIJPQRTU[\]^_abc{p{h2o!0JmHnHuhvo hvo0Jjhvo0JUhfbjhfbUhNhYOJQJhT!CJOJQJaJh{h{CJOJQJaJh{CJOJQJaJhbfhmE,CJOJQJaJhE<CJOJQJaJhmE,CJOJQJaJhjrCJOJQJaJST_`abc 8gdN &`#$gd+Z5 01h:p,v/ =!"#$% &@@@ MNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH f@f M Heading 3$<1$@&%5CJOJ QJ \aJhmHsHtHf@f M Heading 4$<1$@&%5CJOJQJ\aJhmHsHtHDA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No Liste@ MHTML Preformatted7 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@9!B*CJOJ PJ QJ ^J aJph6U@6 M Hyperlink >*B*ph:>@: MTitle$a$5OJ QJ \VC@"V MBody Text Indent `B*OJ QJ phB^@2B M Normal (Web)dd[$\$4 @B4 ,vFooter  !.)@Q. ,v Page NumberPObP ls No Spacing CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH ^Or^ 78tList Paragraphd^m$CJOJQJaJ>'> qComment ReferenceCJ44 %q Comment TextHH q Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ6O6 0]rwrro47>*S*Y(ph@&O& 0]nowrap16O6 0]rwrro57>*S*Y(ph@ROR Ptwvsn4/67>*CJOJQJS*Y(]^JaJo(phFV@F ^FollowedHyperlink >*B* ph(O( 6vdspncelf3*O* u highlight4X@!4 qtAEmphasis 56\]O1 qtAstVOBV ADefault $7$8$H$!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH DQD [) Char Char1CJ_HaJmH sH tH u+,pq789LMc 89@Az { {YCVk1[+234AB9: 9!!""V#$$$$%&%F%l%|%%9&&'^'q'';(((^))))*`***G+++;,`,,+---K.W...Z///K0x006112>22343334@444@55 6%666V7\77 888?999:s:::;3;H;\;;;[<<=%===6>>>4????@@#A'B(CCҶDDD8EEEȧԹFF%ҤG1HII*ʴJJʰKKK-LڲMMڱNO%>QϸRR23STܱUUVİWW%YYZ԰ձ;K020 00K0607K060, 0, 0L0MK000MK00MFK00LK00EK0<0=ܩ@0?h0K0B0CK0B0K0B0@0@@0@000 $$$'  2"U+Jfj>>>>4?6?????@@gAkAAA'B.BBBCCGDRDDD8E?EEEFF%G+G}GG1H7H}HHII_IhIII*J0JJJJJPKXKKKKKLLN NNNOOOO%P,PxPPDQHQQQQRTRRRRSSSTTTTZU^UUUVVWWWXxXXXXFZQZZZhhkkoorrwuwuyuyuzuzu|u}uuuuuuu333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333!{~QTWWXYpgjO P T W ac1}'*22@C"$$$%%|++DD[[c[e[l[m[[[\\\\s^t^^^-_._P_Q_____``````$`'`Z`\```gajaaadtettttu+u2uMuOuvuwuwuyuyuzuzu|u}uuuuuuuuuwuwuyuyuzuzu|u}uuuuuuu0QE~rW +:rd ({ 40I: h*Ƭl28W&:U\f1wG r$^Dg%F>)h>* ({y+}.!)r70uZ7;XJ8>{zG1CL kt5GXMHH"J ` NtP ({3~SnuWms:XBoj6[yX[9b]a^̇"HbhVGSdDtrdBdYf Mg-wi({l|eP?m .oV!k)P?mZ7; ` Nj6[b]3~S\QEtP>*d GSdt5G"Hbkgm|uWnjvy+rdG1C* )r70wG a^g%2(%w :w.oMH+I: 00pV*BE~Ȉh}&`/f3:                                                      .(                  䎞ac&k΄4lXV8ؐZVSzq        ,~vv?J$&84(S5                                                      'Αm0xwְpd"mXʶ*M d|—2$}~@tb         RԒtHb4|T!2.4U{V         mf=URIjCSI {isld}i(nQ hq {iu d}i(n-H8,] ) Y|eJBy%d}i("mHWov+ ) ^P:  I\J^YK-9v.VP:NIDYKv8gzsLZrhAN^]Pi):as@>D >Kv2V ) Md}i(SY ? [KJq7=Ek#%%"0WsS\}*@c:g&gKLB15DGv/ V P4e3l  ) %'{: as@kk ^z?q BK= k# Bi QM4 ,Z 'If[ sl0~ m HYN vaIZ^D N\)q yc]N vaIZZ 3l - sl ? o:u|V LFGe e d}i(^ 3P*$ ^Q7} gdEe@Cb^d}i(2x 6vlslX_5w60d}i(% ) C$KF Od}i(- ) Gm jYVkQr, ~00xo_Bw{ hQXd7FP]PiHY-gSe@nd}i(9FVyr_jO"9}:owO~ ) <F~b5HCD'sNk#(yaB A]ZSITygTxy_5w6DW/ (46~ {n19LQ I76}FVy3JS5>m QrKn7iRm ,Z q4:%d as@:d}i(iO` ) F~!{A%z!^Y_d}i(as@cP:ayn1K 5;!QY[46~.N ) U JUl$ ) AB%s"EB($ 5<bjBt[==UNIDPCRD y+ ) z` 0 B*!] {iX* ) H-%"%TWVv.Va]^M<znB{slK h'#I@.[u67@QK<'`$-wMl^ |u;;T\JlE%a=P @x~'u= <Off ?n-4@.`$Zd}i(:`d}i( u|V [d}i(G;AA KK=Uas@lQXDd}i( !R=J4O. mW/ $KFKOF JUlD c rhPT 6;~ !^*!vD!M~,O!:%d%"YLZ" @Cq"B(9"y"Y|"_jODE"nJ_#"%bZZ#;#a=%# {i}#d}i("#= A$Wd7${{K\<'`$KW%slc & ) G& ) +&7iRYTt'd}i(~'>Kd}i(=UN(d}i(,)KLG)-,)^ |49)C)C)v_GN) ) 3P*J(H+8Ni +Qgd+m7! +/|84:+%"uX+n1*,d}i( ,sl%~U, ) @,h;~-dc6~'-nVCBg3=- C-!R=JE. ) +K. ) f=/4Yq\/s.|5/vaIZBR/^/d}i(L30%"@G0e#4[&:J0$KF+]0= ` 0KIsCOf1 6Su1d}i(n1!xdx1*T2= n2<2kQBa2m6}3-`Pb3Q#3 ) C?30xoTUy3d}i( 3 JUl/|84dx1 E4 6[5 ) ^.5 ) /u5G)O5 )  59 6UD6 {iR?6HW_5w6Z#m6YS:v6&:J06as@6vaIZ7'tm7{Nq7mB8Gz F8E i#B8> ,8)NTQM_ 9L%9uR?=9d}i( 9/|84u9 {io:gz+:]Pi!: ) @c:aB;AB%, $;3ENu;;0Wh;WheN;LZ"8QH<]PiOn5<#>[qw0>a9>zwh >7$>)q Md>vaIZM>0kGo%>!R=J.>k#%R%9?ovuR?j'K 3G^?=X~as@Npiv @{zUu%*Ad}i(9*ABZJAAk#%yaB>KnVCBcjeJBGe egbB49)bjBn^kaB[BYyB]^MB^KIsC>I5HC:v6 CP#^C"UD< E^s"E FCdE4@ZQqEANdrEFVy[sENLqgdEA4bq}E>E_5w6inE[sCEKL}E-,) F2kVMgQFQMhFlWTF 7ouF j$KF#^CLFzwh15DGvD!3GrwG ) 0kGg3=-\TGb},_H {iwkH>IaIW/ ;IB IV !R=JQXKJ*G=BZJmB8J3G^?\nJRIj_K ) j'KRIj^YKw=lBKW/ PL ) Kl^Ll LBZJ_LwkHKLMhbL~']^M C QMFVyzm'N ) 8N+&[N[q3ENU\1N ) vN\TG{N:o'sN&:J0_jOX#`"?O= lPsx-`P\nJrhP$XPGz^QKIsCQ%T`Qd}i(7@QqYsR)NTQA$"VQr2dQd}i(!QNckQOff^}Q ) qYsR +h*yR[qPCRGzIRd}i(bRp3JSKbS_5w68Sas@gS^YSDE"&S/s}-gSe3_S ) HT JUlST\JhNT46~T3TBZJ'T O/T#"T)Uda{zUKgUgd+b+&VBKv.VPCR2kV ,8TpVf=/gVd}i(V JUlkVv[Wd}i((WOn<lW+!Y8XpjUX^QX3G^?$XBa24YYy+!YHWfY%"]Z=E;#Z>vaIZn)NZ=E+ZeZ]PiUZ= %bZRIjPZX}I@.[Ue#4[fk[+Z[&~L[KIsC'\e@{{K\:r\^\[q!\uR?sS\SIU\"$:\ JUlN\0~ ] ) yc]egbBj]^`]^_Ll=_-`P-_ je3_}*)8_n^knJ_v_fk[I_ >3_sl.` X#`KJ' V`as@;`;lBaw=lxav.VyaP:dalWa ) A4b Czub&D=Lb JUlOc JUlc.>NcdcD c IcPZ:%d>IBd ) WdvNgdNUd>oxd[qeCdEJ e ) P4e^D L;e?q gBe?me>ye}3$ eO~fj)fJ^f~'Rxf= O~fyQmHf ) Off$KF Lf {iOrf/|84Kg~-z=,gR*TyggdwHgfg'sN[}gsl8gd}i( +hn2zwhAA WhTpVE ilP {i`]]Pihm@si I ui,Z Hi Ai ) i ) jd}i(9-jxa j:v6RIjNIDcjG;B4Jk/Tn^k h JUlTw=lK 0l 53|l ) [$m= 4>m:owCmKLyQmUnym:v6hm-wM?ma=QrKn79Ln/u5snov:oM>baou|V & z ) lAzNApWzM_ 9gz4O. ^zF8QzG;Azd}i(F#{n1%'{&SBw{kVV||[qx"|eN;0|_5w6:|ba|kQ| JUls.|_76}zubX}]}K4}D9}9"y"b}ay/s}lAz&~ov46~Zr, ~@,=X~q\/M~x"|a=R*ANKIsCnKJR%9? >Y ?Gzu6ond-i&PPvN-q1L7jr~ix[;pu(7DR^>3 IG N  {c +f H + @ uY Ez  [) ) w , , MJ )R k fvUz|:+EY]/Vsdub8PqJY;RdX V1buwJQ|_;hFu*$U a F($0X]`1mx`k|CBG.?A0W5X7LN"L?Nu$>MbgjPt|5h> 9 a :!I-![;!G!Xl!2o!"<9"z5#<#4m#y#$n&$lE$Qm$Y%N%Q%W%^%(a%y&1&'>'T'-['Jo'~'T(e(e)~G)%M)U) **C*+Y+++1:+(A+k+6E,mE,BZ,9.7.sE. (/2/%4/A/a/s/s/0,:0K01A1Q1Xw1w 2t0252!52@<2a2Hh2m2I63B<3sG3c3)r384;4S=4H4N4Q4wg4m4 u45G25=65R5}N6P6lQ6S6S60U6f6}6@ 7h7)7<.7#?7|O7Q7c7e88818Z89%9.9\9;0:c:h:x:4;@;;:V;%r;<<=<E<Vn<z<=%=gK=3 >z >{6>p>e}>? ?;A?xP??|?(@*@k=@u@AA{3A9ADA MAqtAlBMBB ;B?B{Cu C@6CPCt0D%?DCD2mDuDxD{D1E*E9EAEKE hE"FoQFVF.iF$nFxF3G(TGlGH:H@H8WHIoHl}HIG7IUGINISIdIsI3|IhJ!KHK_WKL<LLXL pL:M#M6MMMVMeMMN0Nq>OOOKzOJPPs"PSPxP`QQ6QH=QAQpQNxQLR+cRkR'S SNS]S(~SL~S TT0TJTMT6lTU UUT/UV4UmUPV2\VcVWZ{WxVXnX YY-:Y=MY]YgYvYZ+Zpfhhh2hBhEh ahthi~iP*iXNipUi j@j'Uj;ej k80kjkfll7l:l7mmfm-!m7mumZGn6ooo o 'oA(o6o5]p]po|prr1rGrgrjrur{rls-t78tItPtutwt!bu%budvGvovvov2vZYvY_v, wWDwfw$xLxypeyjyfzz1z?zFz]z8bzvzzz {{2{F{{}||*E|AL|oO|Z|8u|w|_}la}a}Qf}Ki}i8~k$1@L^]"KL|]7CV^_:&+3SLMe@61>^Dw > U2Dqhn4QRnxX6d6svxwxx|i.B*T'=*+01+D%DQ 2O4L p55(0+99bfjm+1]Z+z+.I.8Njz"45:wE[ -K|#"35!6}7AYy|V 2)7>8Eq,Oq'^247BH^(cX_n.MZPOU_Nax"+.;_f;m}h:0]Q4r45hWkokAuDE.AMUst y w,x.Tgr,} ^te#A9w:CGT vWLlqWrz)p XIed~,_041or^z113e@]^93auxFZ&<JBOi]4+d7/XfUk|'t\5hSw*?qTY}%%QR=f+l9t{ /kQGZNZ [/v0wx{Zt *;}T_UelS kw % RTe_n-t2G:P,v)TE7Q35a9\KLOV27VgKjpAv1]``;h K$'X7Chel(\Vgz~O$@^A?ZJ'JKUVwNnn |8M9CPE.e5CC$g $/37Klu%NaTzY9` 2Zwm6c@P_ spup eLV|V4wJ(mfs ==SW]sQ "22=mZZw{:Z{{l- U 8FP tj{ %$^`"k%bWT!'.-5h9QSy *.s;O7aSYxxyl95**NUP_`qky"<@L0ixiy08~o I^m V"*6D7BMZrc #;BL\dBK:Y`gW :|/OVeq BGYchj|x5G|,ns>4&=^6a77t)*t*GIx10zB&kk.AL%&5+;y+E`Nb KM,LN/5fex{~3!=xrL$/7LdUe&-Mr?ehj, p7cV#ueTeTKp0@L;<rErF:ru@@@D@@@P@@@p@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx Arial?& Lucida Sans5& :[`)TahomaC Garamond-Bold9GaramondG Garamond-Italic7&{ @Calibri9& "[ Segoe UI7K@Cambria?5 :Cx Courier NewM Calisto MTCambria;WingdingsG5  jMS Mincho-3 fg"1h)gy)'0c<c<!4d;u;u 2qHX ?M2DRAFT of MINUTESRobert L. ShearerRobert L. Shearer0                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / Oh+'0 , L X dpxDRAFT of MINUTESRobert L. ShearerNormalRobert L. Shearer48Microsoft Office Word@(B@:(@c՜.+,0 hp  Great Works Created Here<;u DRAFT of MINUTES Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`acdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fj1Tableb]WordDocument7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q