Citation
State legislative program evaluation

Material Information

Title:
State legislative program evaluation an assessment of recent claims of direct utilization in the States
Creator:
Haddock, Robert E
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 278 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Political planning -- Evaluation ( lcsh )
Legislative oversight -- States -- Evaluation -- United States ( lcsh )
Legislative oversight -- U.S. states -- Evaluation ( fast )
Political planning -- Evaluation ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 260-278).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robert E. Haddock.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
41470397 ( OCLC )
ocm41470397
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1998d .H33 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM EVALUATION:
AN ASSESSMENT OF RECENT CLAIMS OF DIRECT
UTILIZATION IN THE STATES
by
Robert E. Haddock
B.S., University of Southern Colorado. 1971
M.A., University of Colorado, 1981
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Administration
1998


This Thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
in Public Administration
degree by
Robert E. Haddock
has been approved
/9
Date
'9^


Haddock, Robert E. (Ph.D., Public Administration)
State Legislative Program Evaluation: An Assessment of
Recent Claims of Direct Utilization in the States
Thesis directed by Professor Peter deLeon
ABSTRACT
A common public policy theme (developed primarily
through federal evaluations studies) is that program
evaluations are rarely used. According to the
literature, to be used directly, an evaluation must
provide relevant, timely, credible data that decision-
makers use to inform policy or improve government
programs. Conversely, evidence from the states suggests
that their program evaluations are being used in a manner
suggested by the literature (i.e., informing policy and
improving programs). Alan Rosenthal of Rutgers
University argues that state legislative program
evaluations are used because they provide data state
legislators need to carry out three primary duties
crafting legislation, addressing program problems, and
budget decision-making. State program evaluation has not
been studied closely, however, and the state claims have
not been documented.
in


I
This thesis investigates state claims. To do so, a
survey was sent to 41 legislative program evaluation
offices in 35 states. State responses provided data used
by this research to examine evaluation utilization
theory. Further, chi-square analyses and other
statistical methods examined various variables that
reportedly influence utilization. The data raise
questions regarding prior researchers' conclusions that
program evaluations at all levels of government are
rarely used.
Thesis concluded that public policy's commonly held
theme that evaluation is not used may need refinement to
account for what appears to be direct uses of state
legislative program evaluations. The reasons for the
higher level of use in the states as compared with
federal levels are still not clear, however.
Future studies are needed to verify the results here
and to provide in depth case studies of state program
evaluation.
I recommend its publication.
Signed
Peter deLeon
IV


CONTENTS
Tables................................................viii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..................................1
Purpose...................................6
Scope of the Study........................9
Significance of Research
to Current Theory........................12
Reasons for the Study....................13
Organization.............................22
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EVALUATION..........23
From the Roots of the Policy Sciences and
Policy Analysis..........................23
Definition of Program Evaluation.........28
History of Program Evaluation............32
State-level Program Evaluation...........42
Setting the Stage: Sunset Legislation
in the States............................45
Legislative Program Evaluation
Offices..................................48
In Summary...............................53
3. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK....................................55
Introduction.............................55
v


Current Theory is Dependent on Federal
Studies..................................59
The Public Policy Paradigm...............63
The Knowledge Utilization Paradigm.......67
Attempts At Reconceptualizing
Program Evaluation.......................70
Variables Affecting Utilization..........7 6
Utilization Focused or Academic
Evaluations: Rigor or Relevance..........81
Stakeholder/User Involvement.............83
The Rational Decision-making Model.......91
Further Study is Needed..................97
4 METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITS OF
RESEARCH.....................................103
Study Design............................112
Factors Affecting Use...................122
Secondary Hypotheses That Will
Be Tested...............................124
Analysis of the Data....................135
Methodological Concerns.................136
Measuring Validity and Reliability......139
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.........................146
Primary Hypothesis......................146
Examining the Research Population.......147
Characteristics of State Offices........151
vi


Reported State Legislative use of Program
Evaluations in Raising Legislation.......157
Evaluated Agency Implementation of
Recommendations.........................167
State Program Evaluation Linkages with
Budgetary Processes.....................175
Summary of Descriptive Statistics.......180
Secondary Hypotheses....................182
Discussion..............................209
6 CONCLUS IONS..................................215
Analysis of Findings....................215
Result and Comparisons..................217
In Summary..............................227
7. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY THEORY........228
Reasons for the Apparent Differences in
Federal and State Utilization Levels.... 241
Summary.................................246
APPENDIX
A. Issues for Further Research.........250
B. States Conducting Regular Program
Evaluations.............................252
C. Survey of The States On Selected Program
Evaluation Characteristics..............254
REFERENCES........................................260
VI1


TABLES
Table Page
5.1 Legislation Reported By State And Topic Origin...160
5.2 Numbers of Recommendations Made, Implementation
Status, and Types of Follow-up Used.............174
5.3 State Program Evaluation Linkages With Budgetary
Decision-Making...................................179
5.4 Chi-square analysis of LEGISINTRO and STANDCOM...189
5.5 Chi-square analysis of LEGISINTRO and STATAUTH...191
5.6 Chi-square of LEGISINTRO and Topic of Evaluation.193
5.7 Chi-square analysis of RECOMIMP and MANDIMP......197
5.8 Chi-square analysis of RECOMIMP and FORMALFU.....199
5.9 Chi-square analysis of BUDUSE and REPTREV........203
5.10 Chi-square analysis of BUDUSE and TOPSELECT......204
5.11 Chi-square analysis of BUDUSE and ORGREPT........206
viii


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Citizen dissatisfaction with government is
widespread. Only 20 percent of Americans trust government
to do the right thing most of the time, down from 76
percent only 30 years ago (House: 1994, 239) Evidence of
citizen dissatisfaction can be seen in California's
Proposition 13 and Colorado's Amendment One (the TABOR
Amendment) that attempt to limit state government revenues
and, at least theoretically, the very process of
government itself. Such citizen initiatives follow the
advice given by Ostrom (1989) who suggested that only
"radical" solutions such as dismantling the bureaucracy
can redirect government to its proper role and functions.
On the other hand, Wamsley and his colleagues (1990)
argued for a refounding of public administration to
address the perceived deficiencies in government. Wamsley
(1990, 50) stated that "public administrators should be
committed to (1) praxis, critically conscious action or
pursuit of goals; and (2) reflectiveness, thoughtful and
critical assessment of action taken, in order to learn
from experience." This position is similar to one
1


expressed by the National Civic League (1993, 6), which
asserts that government can be responsive and of value to
its citizens.
The National Civic League further declares that "new
tools such as performance measurement and performance
budgeting and auditing provide mechanisms for doing the
critical assessments suggested by Wamsley. Havens (1992,
21) adds
The more that we know about how our programs are
functioning, effects they are having, and at what
cost, the more likely we are to search out ways of
making them more efficient and more effective. To a
substantial degree, this knowledge is the public-
sector manager's surrogate for the profit-and-loss
statement of the business sector.
While performance measurement' and budgeting are
interesting topics, the focus of this dissertation is in
the third area identified by the National Civic League
performance auditing or program evaluation. More
specifically, this thesis focuses on state legislative
program evaluation.
This "tool" is not new at either the federal or state
government levels. Prior research by a number of scholars
(e.g., Suchman, 1967 and Chelimsky, 1985) pointed out that
program evaluations were being done in public health and
education by the Federal Government at the beginning of
2


this century. On the other hand, program evaluation as
practiced at the state government level has had a much
shorter history. While the National Conference of State
Legislatures (1992) found several states conducting
evaluations in the mid-1960s, the majority of states
established operational legislative program evaluation
offices in the mid-to-late 1970s usually as a result of
their Sunset initiatives.
More recently, Bunderson (1995, 1) surveyed 67 state
legislative auditors, legislative research, and other
specialized legislative offices in 50 states. He
identified what he contends are 50 legislative performance
audit or evaluation offices in 40 states. Further
research reveals that 41 of these state legislative
offices conduct regular, systematic program evaluations.
(The reasons for the differences between Bunderson's
findings and those obtained by this thesis are explained
in Chapter 4). The 41 state legislative program
evaluation offices that conduct regular, systematic
program evaluations are the focus of this dissertation.
In spite of the growth in size and importance of
state legislative (as well as local) evaluations, McCall
(1987, 6) found little had been written about these
3


topics. Alkin and associates (1979) described the
utilization of evaluations in five school districts but
state legislative program evaluation utilization has not
been studied in-depth. Previous researchers including
Williams and Evans (1969), Wholey (1970), deLeon (1988),
and Weiss (1980) primarily focused their studies and,
thus, developed their conclusions based on studies of
federal program evaluations. The conclusions reached by
knowledge utilization researchers and public policy
scholars, that evaluation is little used, has since become
the accepted theme regarding evaluation utilization at all
levels of government.
While this argument may hold at the federal level,
increasing evidence from Kansas, Florida, and other states
suggests that evaluation is being used regularly by state
legislators to do precisely what the National Civic League
has envisionedthat is, informing policy and improving
governmental programs. In fact, evidence from a number of
states suggests a level of direct use by decision-makers
not identified in earlier studies at the federal level.
For example, Wheat (1991, 385) found significant use of an
evaluation in budgetary decision-making in New York.
This dissertation holds promise, therefore, of
4


providing a refinement to commonly held assumptions
regarding the utilization of state legislative program
evaluation. Such a reassessment should add to the
knowledge bases of both the public policy and knowledge
utilization literatures by determining if there are
identifiable differences between state and federal
utilizations.
Additionally, recent efforts by the Congress to shift
programs, dollars, and responsibilities to the states
(e.g., welfare reform) add an element of timeliness to
this research since the states will soon need to evaluate
an even wider array of programs previously managed by the
Federal Government. With the new welfare block grants,
the Federal Government may have less to say about the
shape of programs funded and managed at the state level
(Havens: 1992, 23). Thus, an in-depth study of state
legislative program evaluation is critically important
since state legislatures soon will play a more pivotal
role in shaping and managing various block granted
programs that have long been the cornerstones of federal
social policies.
5


Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to explore state
legislative program evaluation utilization. This study
examines the direct utilization of evaluation results in
three areas identified by Rosenthal (1974, and 1985),
namely, lawmaking, management of state agencies via
recommendation implementation, and budget formulation.
The addition of program evaluation with its ability to
provide information to state legislators was, in fact, the
single most important factor in the state legislative
improvement movement in the 1970s, according to Rosenthal
(1974) Brewer and deLeon (1983, 154) appear to agree.
They have stated that
Information is an important source of power, both for
individuals and for organizations (Heiss 1974; Rich
1979) Similarly, evaluations conducted by the
executive branch will tend to shift power in that
direction. This explains why legislatures at the
national and state levels have increased the amount
of evaluations they do. Because information is a
source of power, evaluation research is likely to
continue to be an important activity in the policy-
making process.
But Brewer and deLeon (1983, 154) also warned that program
evaluation is unlikely "to perform the ideal function for
which it was designed; that is, to find out what programs
work and to deliver criticism with the hope that the
6


Thus, a primary
solutions will be adopted or supported."
concern here is to test for direct state legislative use
of program evaluation reports in the three areas
identified by Rosenthal to determine if state evaluations
are performing the feedback and improvement functions for
which they were intended. While such an approach may run
contrary to the accepted paradigm (that evaluations are
not used), it appears consistent with more recent work by
Patton (1988, 11) who reported that some program
evaluation offices have had "dramatic impact on programs
and decisions." Furthermore, Patton cited a number of
examples of evaluations that he contended have directly
influenced programs.
This dissertation, therefore, is both unique and
important for the following reasons:
1. Theories resulting from federal program
evaluation studies might not be universally
valid since they are largely untested in the
context of state government (legislative office)
evaluations. This dissertation tests theory
validity at the state level.
2. There is increasing evidence suggesting that
program evaluation results from state
7


legislative evaluation offices may meet the
criteria of having direct effects on programs
when implementation frames are adjusted for
state legislative cycles (approximately two
years). This dissertation, then, studies state
legislative use of evaluations over a two-year
cycle.
3. Since the research will group evaluation offices
by various structural characteristics (e.g.,
type of legislative oversight committee), there
also are important practical implications for
states with evaluation offices. Such
information about the effectiveness of
structurally diverse offices should be useful to
states as they continue to build their
evaluation capabilities.
Scope of the Study
This dissertation examines how state legislative
program evaluations are directly utilized. Further, the
research examines six independent variables proposed by
the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and
8


others (e.g., Bunderson) that reportedly influence the use
of evaluations including: (1) the type of legislative
committee (standing or other) providing oversight of the
program evaluation office, (2) the type of follow-up
(formal or less formal) used by legislators to determine
the extent that evaluated agencies have implemented
recommendations, (3) whether the state mandates
implementation of recommendations, (4) formal linkages
that exist between program evaluation oversight offices
and budgetary oversight committees, (5) whether the
oversight body has the power to introduce legislation, and
(6) whether the evaluation topic originated from
legislators or constituents ("fire-alarm type) or was the
result of the normal cycle of audits and/or was suggested
by evaluation staff ("police-patrol" type). More
concretely, the focus of this dissertation is to examine
whether state legislative program evaluations have been
used directly by legislators or evaluation office
oversight committees in three key areas: lawmaking; agency
management problem resolution; and budget formulation.
The dissertation tests for what Cook and Pollard
(1977) described as direct use (that the evaluation was
used directly in public policy debate or to improve
9


programs). Further, the research also examines
propositions from Leviton and Hughes (1980), Mitchell
(1980), and Hill (1980), who found that if they took a
longitudinal view (i.e., a two-year period) of federal
evaluations, that there was increased evidence of federal
decision-maker (e.g., congressional) use of evaluations.
This hypothesis is tested at the state level using program
evaluations conducted by state legislative evaluation
offices. Whitehead (1985) has suggested evidence of
higher use of evaluation results in a study of
congressional use of evaluations. Carol Weiss (1989) has
reported similar findings. While there have not been in-
depth attempts to determine state legislative use, Wheat
(1991), in a study of New York's state legislative program
evaluation office, found a level of use that appears to
meet Cook and Pollard's criterion of direct use.
This thesis uses either individual evaluation reports
or the recommendations contained in these reports as the
units of analysis for studying decision-maker utilization
of state legislative program evaluation. The study
population includes 41 legislative program evaluation
offices conducting systematic evaluations in 35 states.
A mail survey was used to obtain information from the
10


41 state legislative program evaluation offices.
Descriptive statistics are used to explore state program
evaluation utilization. Chi-square analyses are used to
compare similarities and differences between program
evaluation offices with different oversight committee
structures, statutory authorization to introduce
legislation, ways of identifying topics for evaluations
and to examine relationships between and among different
state levels of recommendation implementation and factors
identified in the literature that reportedly influence
such implementation. Bonferroni analyses and a Fisher's
exact test also are used, as appropriate, to further test
and corroborate results obtained by the chi-square
analyses.
Significance of Research to Current Theory
Despite the growth in program evaluation at the state
government level and reports of significant results,
McCall (1987) related that state legislative program
evaluation has been neglected in the public policy and
knowledge utilization literatures. This thesis holds
promise, therefore, of adding to the knowledge base of
11


public administration through a study of an area (state
legislative program evaluation) that has been largely
ignored by the research. This dissertation proposes to
add to this knowledge base by testing theories regarding
the utility of program evaluation at the state government
level. Specifically, the research examines direct state
legislative use of program evaluations published by state
evaluation offices for the period from 1993 through 1995.
If such direct use is identified, then this may argue for
a refinement of current policy evaluation and knowledge
utilization theories with regard to state government use
of evaluation results.
Reasons for the Study
There are a number of reasons underpinning the need
for an in-depth examination of state level (legislative)
program evaluation. First, state legislative program
evaluation meets Polsby's (1984, 146-174) three criteria
that qualify it as a governmental innovationbreaks with
the longstanding tradition that the executive branch
should provide information to state legislators, is wide-
scale (most states have program evaluation offices that
12


perform regular evaluations of various state programs and
functions), and is of lasting importance. Patton (1978,
48) argued that the information provided to legislators is
of great significance, saying
The fact that information is involved in evaluation
makes it a political process. Information leads to
knowledge; knowledge reduces uncertainty; reduction
of uncertainty facilitates action; and action is
necessary to the accumulation of power.
Thus, program evaluation should be examined to identify
the reasons, if any, why it is of particular use to state
decision-makers.
This ideathat some innovations are more useful at
particular levels of governmentis not unique to state
program evaluation's usages. Savas (1987) and the
President's Commission on Privitization (1988) found
numerous examples of successful local government uses of
privitization but found fewer successes at state and
federal levels. Privitization is an innovation that
appears to be most useful, and therefore, most used, at
the local level. Likewise, program evaluation may be
particularly useful at the state level since legislators
appear to use evaluations in their lawmaking, management
problem resolution, and budget formulation functions. For
example, Colorado (1993 Annual Report, 46-47) states that
13


Thirteen of 38 audits released in 1992 made
recommendations for statutory changes. Audits
recommending statutory change usually identify either
the Legislature or the audited agency as the party
responsible for legislation. The Legislative Audit
Committee (LAC) agreed to recommend legislation on
eight of the 13 recommendations. Agencies agreed to
pursue legislation in five of the nine cases [where
they were identified as the party responsible].
During the 1993 Session, the [Colorado] General
Assembly passed one Senate bill and five House bills
resulting from recommendations made or studies
conducted by the [Colorado] State Auditor's Office.
In spite of the significant number of evaluation studies
done at the federal level, McCall (1987) and Patton (1986)
reported that state evaluation had been virtually ignored
and unstudied.
Another reason for conducting this research is that
few evaluation studies have attempted to survey
legislative opinions regarding evaluation. Weiss and
Bucuvalas (1980, 5) admitted they did not include
congressional opinions in their study of federal program
evaluation usage because of problems other researchers had
encountered (e.g., the length of the legislative cycle and
the predominant concerns of lawmakers for addressing
diverse interests). By the mid-to-late 1980s, this
tendency began to change as more researchers began to
focus new attention on congressional utilization of
evaluations. Notable examples include research done by
14


Florio (1979), Leviton and Hughes (1980), Mitchell (1980),
Hill (1980), Whitehead (1985), and Weiss (1989) herself.
Both Hill and Mitchell found that when they allowed a
sufficient amount of time to be factored into their
studies of congressional use (approximately two years),
the results revealed a higher level of legislative program
evaluation use than had been previously identified. Once
again, however, these studies focused on federal
evaluations and congressional views. There is a need,
therefore, to do similar research at the state level.
The neglect of state program evaluation is quite
surprising for another reason, according to Alan Rosenthal
(1974, and 1985) of Rutgers' Eagleton Institute of
Politics. Rosenthal proposed that program evaluation was
the single most important element in the state legislative
improvement movement during the 1970s because evaluations
help state lawmakers address their three chief functions
crafting laws, cutting budgets, and addressing management
problems in state agencies. It will be possible to assess
Rosenthal's claims by studying state program evaluation
reports and recommendations to test if they have resulted
in program improvements in the three areas he identified.
A fourth reason for reopening the discussion is that
15


while previous research has reported rare examples of
direct usage at the federal level, more recent studies
(Wheat: 1991, 385) suggest significant direct use within
the states. For example, Wheat reports that a New York
Legislative Commission's review was used by the state's
Expenditure Commission to reduce the training funds
appropriated to an agency from $40 million to $17 million.
Texas and Minnesota report similar significant
potential and actual dollar savings that may result from
their program evaluations. The Texas State Auditor's
Office recently completed a performance review of all
state agencies culminating in a report, Breaking the Mold:
New Ways to Govern Texas. The report projects a potential
fiscal impact of $5.2 billion for 1992-93 and a five-year
impact of $12.3 billion if evaluated agencies implement
recommendations made in that state's program evaluations.
Minnesota reports actual savings of $9 million "directly
generated by a program evaluation of its post-secondary
Vocational Education institutions and almost $30 million
resulting from state program evaluation studies of Medical
Assistance expenditures." In both cases, while the
evaluations provided solutions to address specific
agencies' problems, the reports were targeted to
16


appropriate legislative bodies that have the power through
legislation, budget formulation, and the ability to hold
agencies accountable to address the problems identified in
the program evaluation reports.
Colorado provides further evidence of "direct" use in
a second legislative function suggested by Rosenthal
lawmaking. In its 1989 Annual Report, the State Auditor's
Office related that members of its program evaluation's
oversight body, the Legislative Audit Committee (LAC),
introduced 20 bills during the 1989 session "that
extensively utilized recommendations from program
evaluations." In the 1990 session, eight bills sponsored
by Audit Committee members originated from program
evaluations. All eight were enacted into law. Further,
LAC members sponsored another eight bills that were
enacted into law during the 1991 session (Colorado State
Auditor's Office, 1991 Annual Report). Nor is Colorado
the only state showing such results. Kansas, Florida, and
Nebraska report similar levels of legislative use of
evaluations in bill-raising efforts. Since 31 state
evaluation offices report to committees having statutory
authority to introduce legislation (Bunderson: 1995, 4),
it should be possible to determine the extent that program
17


evaluations are being used by legislators in other states
in crafting legislation.
Further, there is evidence that state legislative
program evaluation may address Rosenthal's third primary
function of legislatorscorrecting management problems in
state agencies. NCSL (1992) has advised state
legislatures that
To be effective, program evaluation requires active
legislative support and involvement. Legislators must
work toward enacting the evaluation recommendations,
support the evaluation staff (particularly on
controversial studies), and ensure that the executive
agencies respond to the legislature's
recommendations.
The Illinois Office of the Auditor General reports
that 100 percent of the recommendations it made to
executive branch agencies in 1993 legislative program
evaluations were implemented entirely (Illinois Office of
the Auditor General, survey responses, 1996). Sonnichsen
(1989: 49-66) found a similar rate of implementation in
his study of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
However, there are differences in the methods used by
Illinois and by the evaluators studying the FBI. In the
case of the FBI, the Bureau was mandated to implement all
of the FBI Inspector General's recommendations. Agencies
in Illinois have the option of accepting or rejecting
18


recommendations. It will be possible, therefore, to test
the effects of such mandatory provisions at the state
level since 11 states have similar provisions mandating
that evaluated agencies implement evaluation
recommendations, according to NCSL (1992).
Dibella (1990, 118) observed that once an evaluation
has been prepared and presented there is a "critical need
for follow-up." Follow-up refers to procedures that
examine whether or not the recommendations of the
evaluation report have been implemented in some fashion
(Bunderson: 1995, 58). According to Dibella (1990),
rarely are evaluation recommendations totally or
immediately accepted for they enter an information and
decision-making arena buffeted by a variety of contending
issues and forces. He recommended, therefore, tracking
the status of recommendations to give greater visibility
to their use and, in doing so, providing some assurance
those recommendations will be implemented. Several state
legislatures have recognized the importance of having
agencies respond to and implement their recommendations.
Currently, 11 states have follow-up procedures mandated by
law (NCSL, 1992). Hendricks and Papagiannis (1990, 121)
contended that this area (recommendation implementation)
19


deserves further study, saying,
"Unfortunately, we as a profession have paid little
attention to the topic of recommendations" and
whether these recommendations have been implemented
or not.
Since the state legislative evaluation offices in
Bunderson's study reported that they use various methods
to determine the level of executive agency implementation
of recommendations, it will be possible to determine with
some precision individual states' recommendation
implementation levels. It also appears that the research
here could provide practical information to state program
evaluation offices regarding what types of recommendation
follow-up (i.e., formal follow-up) are most useful.
A final reason for studying state program evaluation
is that the field continues to grow. This research found
41 program evaluation offices conducting regularized,
systematic evaluations in the states, three of which were
given legislative authority to conduct evaluations as
recently as 1993. The growth at the state level may be
expected to increase further as the Republican Congress
and the Clinton Administration turn over a wide array of
programs to the states.
The common view of evaluation theorists for many
20


years has been that the impetus and support for
evaluations at the state and local level have come from
the Federal Government. However, Lyon (1978) found that
65 percent of the evaluations reported actually were
initiated and supported by state and local governments.
The above reasons point to a need for a comprehensive
study of state program evaluation offices. As Kuhn (1962,
4) observed, "an apparently arbitrary element, compounded
of personal and historical accident, is always a formative
ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific
community at a given time." He further reasoned that any
paradigm is "predicated on the assumption that the
scientific community [the experts]-knows what the world is
like." Smith (1993, 237) adds that
There has been little response to the repeated calls
over the past 20 years for increased empirical study
of evaluation practice to describe the nature of
actual practice; to compare the feasibility and
effectiveness of alternative models, methods, and
theories; to provide a basis for the development of
descriptive evaluation theories; and to assess the
utility of prescriptive theories.
It would appear, therefore, that the accepted
paradigm regarding program evaluation utilization might be
studied further with an expected outcome being a better
understanding of how state decision-makers (legislators)
21


use program evaluations in carrying out their primary
responsibilities of making laws, correcting agency
problems, and formulating budgets.
Organization
This dissertation is organized in seven major
sections. The first chapter, the Introduction, broadly
defines the purpose and scope of the study. The second
chapter provides a historical perspective of program
evaluation and its antecedentsthe policy sciences and
policy analysis. The third chapter discusses the
literature and current themes and theories from the policy
and knowledge utilization literatures regarding the use of
program evaluations. A methodology section, chapter 4,
describes the survey, data sources, and statistical
methods used in the study. The detailed results of the
analysis are presented in chapter 5. Chapter 6,
summarizes the results and discusses the study's findings
in context of the literature reviewed. Finally, chapter 7
discusses the findings in light of their potential
implications on public policy theory.
22


CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EVALUATION
From the Roots of the Policy Sciences and Policy Analysis
McCurdy (1986, 62) said that program evaluation was
one of the successful applications of policy analysis.
The history of program evaluation is, therefore, deeply
intertwined with the history of policy analysis and the
policy sciences. A short discussion of these two subjects
appears in order. Following that, this thesis defines
program evaluation as it is used here, discusses the
history of program evaluation beginning in the Federal
Government, and then traces the history of state
evaluation efforts, the topic of this thesis.
DeLeon and Overman (1989, 405-406) observed that, the
policy sciences have a long past but a short history.
Nagel (1990, 422) agreed, saying, "human beings have been
conducting policy analysis ever since they have existed."
Although deLeon and Overman (1989, 405-406) found
that some scholars trace policy advice "back to the
beginnings of civilization," they argued that "systematic,
continuous policy counsel probably grew out of the church-
state relationship." While not speaking specifically of
23


the policy sciences, Waldo (1988, 8) found similar
linkages saying, "modern administrative technology owes
much to the Church as exemplar and teacher, matrix and
model."
The concept of policy advice became institutionalized
with the advent of the Italian Renaissance, according to
deLeon and Overman (1989, 406). Among the early purveyors
of advice they cited are Machiavelli, Thomas More, and
Francis Bacon.
One can obviously find examples of policy advise in
the past. However, the policy sciences are much more
recent and are largely an American phenomena. DeLeon and
Overman (1989, 408) have stated that American pragmatism
and the instrumental philosophies espoused by William
James and John Dewey profoundly influenced the development
of the social sciences and, thus, the policy sciences that
arose from this discipline. They contend that James'
search for societally relevant knowledge and, later,
Dewey's extension of James' notions to develop a
transformed situation are key premises of the policy
sciences. Harold Lasswell specifically cited Dewey's
contributions in his preface to A Pre-View of Policy
Sciences. DeLeon and Overman (1989, 409) agreed with
Lasswell, stating that Dewey "outlined an instrumental
24


process of inquiry that stands at the heart of
contemporary policy analysis." Nagel (1990, 423) added,
however, "one might consider Harold Lasswell to be the
founder of systematic policy science partly by virtue of
his editing The Policy Sciences (1951)Other important
contributors--such as Charles Merriam (1926), Robert Lynd
(1939), and Robert Merton (1936)--were instrumental in the
push for applied social research. Nonetheless, it is
Lasswell, who is recognized by most observers including
deLeon (1988) and Nagel (1990) as "the modern founder of
the policy sciences."
Although Lasswell (1951, 3-14) recognized the
contributions of the existing social sciences in resolving
human issues, he also observed that there was a need for
the creation of new institutions to address what he termed
the fundamental problems of mankind. Lasswell envisioned
the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to address
these problems but few analysts were able to heed his
call. Two groups that did were operations researchers and
economists who stepped forward as the first policy
analysts (deLeon, 1988, and Hawkesworth, 1988). Lineberry
(1982, 7) claimed that the practical roots of the policy
sciences could be directly traced to economics and, more
specifically, to Koopmans' efforts to develop a resource
25


allocation plan during World War II. Levitan (1992, 2)
adds that econometric advances in the 1920s and 1930s laid
the foundation for the first quantitative studies done of
American soldiers in 1945 and of penal rehabilitation
efforts in the 1950s. Conversely, Majone and Quade (1980,
5) found evidence supporting their beliefs that systems
analysis was first on the scene and, thus, central to the
development of policy analysis.
As is the case in many endeavors, however, visibility
also has its pitfalls. DeLeon and Overman (1989, 416)
related that
At the same time that operations research and
economic tinkering in the guise of policy analysis
were gaining influence, a frontal attack on such
systems of rational calculation and control was also
being mounted.
Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbloom (1953) were among
the first to speak out against what they called the
rational-comprehensive approach (a central tenet of the
economics and systems analysis approaches), calling it
"dangerous and unworkable." Wildavsky (1969) went even
further, criticizing the systems employing such techniques
such as program planning budgeting systems (PPBS) Green
(1972) and Heller (1975) found similar limitations in
economic analyses used to address social issues, while
Hoos (1983) criticized systems analysis because of its
26


insensitivity to public policy issues.
These attacks on the rational comprehensive approach
that initially was used by policy analysts, underscored
Lasswell's view that the policy sciences required a
multidisciplinary perspective. Dror (1970, 138)
emphasized this same need, contending that the scientific
methods in use at the time were inadequate to meet the
requirements of relevance and the needs of humanity.
DeLeon and Overman (1989, 416) have stated that, despite
these warnings, the "classic text of the time, A Primer
for Policy Analysis (1978) by Stokey and Zeckhauser,"
provided generic policy techniques "ranging from
differential equations and queuing models to linear
programming and cost-benefit analysis" that exemplary
methodologies analysts thought were "applicable regardless
of the policy problem."
DeLeon and Overman (1989, 417) further related that
as an alternative to various systems analysis models,
other policy theorists began thinking of policy analysis
in terms of a policy cycle. May and Wildavsky (1978)
theorized that the cycle included agenda setting, issue
analysis, implementation, evaluation, and termination.
Brewer and deLeon (1983) defined a similar policy process
that included initiation, estimation, selection,
27


implementation, evaluation, and termination. This process
approach differed strikingly from Nagel (1990) who equated
policy analysis with program evaluation. DeLeon and
Overman (1989, 417) have cautioned, however, that while
the term "evaluation" is identical with those used in
models of policy analysis, the meanings are quite
different. "The policy process models stress the
political and organizational uses and abuses of policy
evaluation" rather than the "techniques and methods of
evaluation," according to deLeon and Overman.
Definition of Program Evaluation
Program evaluation is often discussed as if it were
an idea with universal agreement as to what it does and
does not include. This is not the case, however, so
further clarification of what program evaluation includes
and excludes, is presented here.
In an attempt at delineating evaluation, Wholey
(1989, 5) defined the "objects" to be evaluated as
"programs, intended program performance, assessments of
program performance, and the factors that influence
performance. He also noted that the results of such
reviews must be communicated to "policy makers, managers,
staff, and interested others." Greenberg and Mandell
28


(1991, 646) agree with Wholey regarding communication,
saying that "It seems self-evident that the more decision-
makers are aware of research findings and the better they
understand them, the greater is the likelihood of the
research being used."
Wholey's definition adds several important
conditions, including the requirements that the
performance of programs be evaluated and the results
presented to decision-makers. Wholey's definition is
still too broad, however, prompting further inquiry to
identify more specific examples of precisely what
activities are entailed in evaluation. In response,
Wholey (1989, 5) listed "auditing, inspection, management
analysis, monitoring, planning, policy analysis, and
research" as types of program evaluation activities.
Other evaluators took issue with several of these
"activities." While Chelimsky (1985, 484) and Levine and
Williams (1979, 24-25) agreed that performance auditing
should be included, they drew the line at including
financial audits in the taxonomy of program evaluation.
This is an important distinction. Chelimsky (1985)
stressed that while "financial auditing and evaluating can
learn from each other, they are significantly different in
history, development, and viewpoint." She argued that
29


including financial auditing in the program evaluation
definition confused its focus and added a level of
accounting examination that was of little benefit to the
program evaluation process.
A third area of disagreement among- evaluators lies in
the area of program monitoring that Rossi and Freeman
(1989, 170) defined as "the systematic attempt by
evaluation researchers to examine program coverage and
delivery." Rossi and Freeman (1989, 44) included
monitoring as a major class of evaluation. Other experts
disagreed with the idea that monitoring is evaluation.
Nathan (1988, 124) argued that evaluations (unlike
monitoring) are independent, systematic studies as opposed
to the more internal, less regularized oversight
envisioned by monitoring.
In keeping with Chelimsky, Dunn, Brewer and deLeon,
McCurdy, and Nathan, we consciously exclude financial
audits, policy analysis, planning, and monitoring
activities from this research's definition of program
evaluation. There are several reasons for this. First,
personal evaluation experiences by Chelimsky (1985) point
out that the emphasis and viewpoints of financial audits
are significantly different from program evaluation
research and practice. This is because financial audits
30


mandate compliance with predetermined financial standards
while program evaluations do not. Performance audits or
management audits meet the definitions accepted by many
experts as program evaluations and are, therefore,
included under the definition of evaluation employed by
this paper. Second, in spite of Nagel's insistence on
equating policy analysis and program evaluation, actual
practice, again, argues that they are more different than
alike. Policy analysis and planning are much more
prospective while program evaluation is much more
retrospective. While Bobrow and Dryzek (1989, 6) stated
that policy analysis can be either prospective or
retrospective, Nathan (1989, 14) with Brewer and deLeon
(1983) insisted that program evaluation is focused on
studying public programs or policies already adopted
(i.e., is retrospective).
Furthermore, Nathan (1989, 14) noted that merely
asking questions about programs on an infrequent basis
(i.e., monitoring) is not enough for it to be an
evaluation, so the self-evaluating model suggested by
Wildavsky (1972, 509-520) also is not included in the
scope of this research. Instead, the research envisioned
here focuses on independent, external, formal state
legislative program evaluations. This research also
31


excludes, therefore, audits done by inspector generals
since these are typically done by auditors attached to
executive branch agencies.
In summary, program evaluation as defined by the
research proposed here follows Rossi and Freeman (1989,
18) who observed that evaluation should be a systematic,
regular, independent, and retrospective process of
assessing governmental program outcomes. Therefore, the
research will follow Chelimsky (1985), Dunn (1981), Nathan
(1989), and others, by excluding financial audits, policy
analysis, planning, and monitoring activities from its
definition of program evaluation.
History of Program Evaluation
The 1960s saw a dramatic increase in the use of the
program evaluation model. DeLeon and Overman (1989, 421)
stated that this is because
the obvious purpose of policy analysis was to learn
from public programs so that the social objectives
expressed in the early 1960s could be met with new
and more effective programs. In many circles,
evaluation was considered to be the policy analysis
sine qua. non where the analytical rubber met the
policy road.
As McCurdy (1986) observed, program evaluation is an
application of policy analysis and its roots are tied to
the development of the policy sciences and analysis. The
32


roots of various methodologies used by the evaluation
community can be found in a number of disciplines.
Madaus (1983) traced program evaluation's origins to
1870 student achievement studies conducted in British
schools. On the other hand, Suchman (1967, 14-15)
asserted that the roots of the first "scientific
evaluations" could be found in research done by U.S.
public health pioneers in the late 1800s. Rossi and
Freeman (1989, 22) agreed with Suchman, stating that
public health studies were among the first systematic
program evaluations. They added that educational
evaluations of literary and occupational training programs
also were commonplace in the United States prior to World
War I.
McCall (1987, 3) disagreed, arguing, instead, that
the roots of "formal" program evaluation can be found in
the 1921 Budgeting and Accounting Act that created the
General Accounting Office (GAO) and required financial
audits of federal agencies. He stated that, until 1966,
the GAO's primary focus was on financial audits and
financial transactions which, as we have seen, should not
be viewed as program evaluations. McCall (1987, 3)
pointed out that the GAO was the first governmental agency
to begin doing systematic program evaluations under Elmer
33


Staats, Comptroller General of the GAO in the mid-1960s.
Daniels and Wirth (1983) identified three periods of
evaluation research with the following temporal foci
The first, evaluation research as efficiency,
encompassed the time frame from 1910 to World War II.
The second phase, evaluation as field research, was
from World War II to 1963. The third phase,
evaluation as social experimentation, was from 1963
to 1974.
Perhaps a fourth phase should be added to Daniels'
and Wirth's timetable. The period from the mid-1970s to
the present might well be described as evaluation as a
governmental institution (or perhaps, bureaucracy) because
evaluation has become widespread in the Federal Government
as well as in state and local governments since the mid-
1970s.
A closer look at evaluation practice over the past
quarter century shows that the methods brought forth by
education, psychology, and public health have been joined
with techniques arising from criminal justice and family
welfare (Light: 1994, 223), transforming evaluation into a
major governmental function. Sirotnik and Oakes (1990,
37) state that
There have been many new directions in the theory and
practice of evaluation over the past quarter of a
century or more. During this time program evaluation
has emerged as a body of knowledge in its own right.
Beginning with the tradition of evaluation research
(Suchman, 1967) just a sampling of the many
subsequent directions includes discrepancy evaluation
34


(Provus, 1971), decision-oriented evaluation
(Stufflebeam and others, 1971), goal-free evaluation
(Scriven, 1972), adversary evaluation (Owens, 1973),
transactional evaluation (Rippey, 1973), responsive
evaluation (Stake, 1975), democratic evaluation
(McDonald, 1976), illuminative evaluation (Parlett
and Hamilton, 1976) evaluation as connoisseurship
(Eisner, 1977) utilization-focused evaluation
(Patton, 1978), qualitative evaluation (Patton,
1980), benefit-cost evaluation (Thompson, 1980),
effective evaluation (Guba and Lincoln, 1981),
stakeholder-based evaluation (Bryk, 1983), and
naturalistic evaluation (Williams, 1986).
Patton (1986, 14-16), Chelimsky (1987) and McCall
(1989), stated that while one may find examples of earlier
evaluations, systematic program evaluation (as opposed to
financial audits) really began in the 1960s and 1970s when
the Federal Government started spending massive amounts of
money evaluating Great Society programs. Campbell (1994,
291) places the birth date of program evaluation more
exactly, saying "Edward Suchman, sociologist, founded our
field in 1967 with the book, Evaluation Research:
Principles and Practices in Public Service and Social
Action Programs." On the other hand, Patton (1990, 45)
has written that the "watershed date for evaluation was
1975 when the Handbook of Evaluation Research, edited by
Struening and Guttentag, was published" and the
"Evaluation Research Society and the Evaluation Network
were formed."
Regardless of the exact date, Havens (1992, 22) tells
35


us "the need for systematic, rigorous assessments of
programs, particularly of their costs and benefits,
generally came to be recognized in the 1960s." Smith
(1993, 238) adds that "the initial impetus and financial
support for evaluation came from the federal government"
largely in response to the social programs spawned by the
New Frontier of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon
Baines Johnson. As a result, program evaluation
researchers have focused their principal attentions on the
Federal Government's program evaluation efforts. More
than ten years ago, Patton (1986, 18) found more than
1,700 evaluation reports issued by the GAO and 18
inspector generals (executive branch auditors) from 1973
to 1975 alone. Thus, when most researchers discuss
program evaluation, they tend to base their conclusions on
studies of federal program evaluations.
McCall (1987) proposed that the agency taking the
lead in conducting program evaluations at the direction of
Congress was the General Accounting Office (GAO). As
discussed earlier, the GAO was established by the Budget
and Accounting Act of 1921 to review federal agencies.
From 1921, the GAO focused on financial reviews and audits
until 1966 when it began performance and programmatic
reviews (Chelimsky, 1984). The U.S. Congress formalized
36


this role in 1974 by creating a Program Analysis Division
in the GAO. Since then, the GAO has continued its two-
pronged focus of doing financial audits and performance
audits or program evaluations.
Davis (1975, 121) found significance in the increase
in legislative oversight during the past half century. He
pointed out that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there
mention of oversight let alone audit, investigation, or
evaluation, nor is there language giving Congress the
power to oversee the activities of the executive branch.
Davis contended that such a capacity is implied from the
broad legislative powers given Congress. Rosen (1982, 21)
added, however, that congressional oversight has been
tested in the Supreme Court with the following outcome:
The legality [of legislative oversight] has been
established repeatedly. Chief Justice Warren Burger,
speaking for the Supreme Court in Eastland v. United
States Servicemen's Fund affirmed the
constitutionality of legislative oversight by
referring to a 1927 decision of the court as follows:
"This Court has often noted that the power to
investigate is inherent in the power to make laws
because a 'legislative body cannot legislate wisely
or effectively in the absence of information
respecting the conditions which the legislation is
intended to affect or change. McGrain v. Daugherty,
273 U.S. 175 (1927)."
In addition to Supreme Court rulings, the Congress
itself has taken steps over the past 50 years to
strengthen its oversight and evaluation roles. Rosen
37


(1982, 49) argued that the following congressional acts
served to institutionalize oversight in the legislative
branch:
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
requires all standing committees of Congress to
exercise "continuous watchfulness" over agencies
under their jurisdiction.
The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968
calls on legislative committees to review
grants-in-aid programs to determine whether the
programs are meeting their intended purposes and
whether changes should be made to the programs.
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
requires the Congressional Research Service to
make experts available to committees to evaluate
legislative proposals and to provide each
committee with a list of laws that are due to
expire and a list of subjects and policy areas
that the committee might profitably analyze in
depth. The Act also requires all legislative
committees to report at the end of each Congress
on their oversight work.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 gives Congress improved
institutional means for controlling the budget
by establishing the Congressional Budget Office,
budget committees in each house, and related
processes. The Act also directs the General
Accounting Office to establish an office of
program review and evaluation and to recommend
to Congress methods for reviewing and evaluating
federal-funded programs.
Congress also created a National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) and then used NAPA's draft bill as a
model in creating the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1979. The legislation requires comprehensive
38


program evaluations of all federal programs on a phased
basis. Additionally, Congress created the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972 and the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) in 1974. The Office of Technology
Assessment conducted studies that identified "the range of
likely positive and negative consequences of policy
alternatives affecting the use of technology," (Hildes:
1992, 111) OTA was terminated in 1995. CBO provides
analytical advice to Congress on the development of the
national budget (De Vere: 1992, 97) with such non-partisan
skill that CBO is often cited by executive branch
spokespersons. Further, the Congressional Research
Service, a department within the Library of Congress,
provides analytical work on request to members of Congress
(Duffy: 1992, 105).
Richardson (1991, 37-41) states that the GAO's
efforts in creating a Program Analysis Division in the
1970s (later becoming the Program Evaluation and
Methodology Division in 1983) were key steps in the
evolution of congressional evaluation efforts.
The effect of Congress' efforts to improve its
information and analytical capabilities can be seen in
growth in the size and number of congressional oversight
agencies and staff. Aberbach (1990, 5) found an increase
39


in congressional oversight staff of more than 200 percent
in the 1980s. Neustadt (1965, 103) argued that increases
in oversight staff put Congress in a position where it has
at least as much to do with executive branch
administration as does the incumbent in the White House.
However, Richardson (1992, 18) informs us that "at
about the same time that the GAO's new division was
created, the data gathering and analytical functions of
the entire executive branch began falling into neglect."
While congressional agencies (e.g., GAO and CBO) and
legislated evaluation requirements continued to grow in
the early 1980s, the executive branch's evaluation
capacity declined. Richardson (1992, 17) believes that
many problems with federal evaluation can be traced back
to the use of private contractors who conducted many of
the earliest evaluations:
It is true, of course, that attempts at evaluation
have always been subject to certain weaknesses, some
of which grew out of the widespread reliance on
contractors to do the evaluating. [This problem, was
coupled] with the typical contracting agency's own
inability to define with precision what it wanted to
have evaluated, and then to monitor the contractor's
performance of the defined task.
Blalock (1991) relates that the declines in federal
program evaluation are consistent with the initiatives of
the Reagan presidency that mandated greater responsibility
for state and local governments, including the
40


responsibility for program evaluation, while reducing and
restricting federal executive branch program evaluation.
Eleanor Chelimsky (1984, 1988) found serious declines in
federal executive evaluation staff and resources
throughout the 1980s. More recently, Magano (1992, 188)
argues that "evaluation at the Federal level is in
retreat, a favorite target of budget cutters." He states
that the main reason for the reduction in federal
evaluation activities is that evaluators too often failed
to "target issues facing decision-makers, were slow in
responding when they did, and were ineffective in
communicating their results." Grob (1992, 175) adds that
too often evaluations were "irrelevant, too long,
esoteric, unavailable when decisions were made,
politically biased, and impractical in their
recommendations." Even more recently, Denver area GAO
officials report that they also have experienced cuts in
their budgets resulting in layoffs of program evaluation
personnel (telephone interviews with GAO Officials).
Havens (1992, 23) contends that the cuts in executive
branch budgets and personnel have contributed to an
erosion of federal evaluation capability accompanied by a
loss of national-level data.
In summary, program evaluation, like the policy
41


sciences and policy analysis, has had a long past but a
short history. While Suchman (1967) placed the first
"scientific evaluations" in the late 1800s with research
done by public health officials, most experts argue that
systematic program evaluation began in the Federal
Government in the 1960s and 1970s. More recently, federal
evaluation efforts have seen declines both in the
executive and, to a lesser degree, in the legislative
branches. As the Federal Government transfers more
programs and responsibilities for evaluating these
programs to the states, there may be further declines in
federal evaluation capabilities.
State-level Program Evaluation
Federal program evaluation efforts have declined from
their high levels in the 1970s and 1980s. In the states,
the situation is somewhat the opposite. While one state
(New York) eliminated its stand alone program evaluation
agency in the early 1990s, most states have continued to
increase their capabilities and several states, such as
Nebraska, Idaho, and Michigan, have created program
evaluation offices within the past five years. Bunderson
(1993) identified what he viewed as 50 legislative program
evaluation offices in 40 states. Some states, like
42


Massachusetts and Oregon, have two legislative program
evaluation offices; Texas is even larger with four program
evaluation agencies. A closer review of the offices
identified by Bunderson argues that there are actually 41
program evaluation offices doing regular, systematic
program evaluations in 35 states. Nine of the offices
Bunderson initially identified either do program
evaluations infrequently or do specialized reviews (e.g.,
information system reviews or education program
evaluations only). These types of evaluation offices do
not meet this dissertation's requirements of conducting
systematic program evaluations.
In spite of the growth in the size of state program
evaluation efforts, the common wisdom has been and still
appears to be (Klemanski 1992, 207) that state governments
have been slow to follow the Federal Government's lead
with respect to evaluation. Klemanski (1992, 207), in his
review of Blalock and colleagues (1991), appears to argue
that little or nothing was being done by the states in the
1960s and 1970s. The evidence does not entirely support
this argument, especially in the mid-to-late 1970s.
Brown and Craft (1980, 260) confirmed that only a few
states were conducting evaluations in the 1960s. They
found only five published state program evaluations prior
43


to 1971, but, by 1977, they reported that the Legislative
Program Evaluation. Section at Rutgers University had
received 134 reports from 20 states (Brown and Craft,
1980).
Rosenthal (1985) proposed that one reason for the
late start by the states in terms of evaluation programs
was that state legislators did not naturally "take to"
program evaluation and oversight but rather "delighted" in
the business of lawmaking. He added that this changed
when state lawmakers recognized the usefulness of program
evaluation information in crafting bills, addressing
agency management problems via the implementation of
recommendations, and in formulating budgets.
Brown and Craft (1980) did not argue with the premise
that the states began their program evaluation efforts
after the Federal Government. Nonetheless, they contended
that there has been widespread neglect in researching the
area of state program evaluation. Thus, there is a common
assumption held by some that the states still need a "how
to" cookbook like the one published by Blalock (1991).
While Blalock's book provides informed discussion on state
evaluations of the Comprehensive Education and Training
Act, it is hardly the first "how to" cook book of state
program evaluation. That honor is more appropriately
44


assigned to Hatry and his colleagues (1981) with the
publication of Practical Program Evaluation For State And
Local Governments by the Urban Institute. Furthermore,
when Sunset program reviews--especially during the 1970s
and 198Os--are included in the taxonomy of program
evaluation, many states have a history of evaluation of
several decades or longer.
Setting the Stage: Sunset Legislation in the States
Many states began their program evaluation efforts as
offshoots of the Sunset process (NCSL 1992). Sunset laws
"were seen as anti-big government and pro-consumer" and
promised to "reduce the size and costs of government,"
according to Kearney (1990, 49). He (1990, 49) adds that
"Sunset's purpose was to establish systematic legislative
oversight of executive branch agencies." In most states,
this oversight involved periodic evaluation of every
agency, board, commission, or program by legislative staff
(Michigan Legislative Services Bureau, 1992). Once again,
however, the idea for the Sunset reviews embraced by the
states in the 1970s can be traced to the Federal
Government. The first call for studies to sunset
(terminate) federal agencies came from William 0. Douglas,
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Securities and
45
i
I


Exchange Commission (Kearney: 1990). According to Behn
(1977, 104), Douglas suggested that federal agencies
should be abolished or "sunset" after ten years.
While the Sunset concept might have originated at the
federal level, it was a state innovation in practice.
Kearney (1990, 49) writes that "between 1976 and 1982 all
50 states and Congress considered adoption of Sunset laws"
with 36 states actually enacting such laws. Conversely,
the Federal Congress never did pass a comprehensive Sunset
Act, even when it was a congressional priority in 1976.
Hamm and Robertson (1981) claimed that states adopted
Sunset primarily because of their low levels of
legislative professionalism and lack of oversight
mechanisms.
According to Kearney (1990), Colorado was the first
state to recognize formally this need for greater
oversight, enacting its Sunset law in 1976. Kearney
(1990) says that Colorado's law was in response to
lobbying by the citizen's lobbying group, Common Cause,
but the Sunset concept "enjoyed the support of liberals
and conservatives across the United States."
Sunset legislation has had some success. Common
Cause reported that, from 1978 to 1981, 16 to 23 percent
of the agencies reviewed by states nationwide were
46


terminated (Indiana Legislative Services Agency, 1992).
Although Sunset experienced some success in the states,
this achievement was short-lived. From 1984 to 1988, only
about 13 percent of the agencies reviewed by all states
with Sunset laws were terminated. Kearney (1990) relates
that "the rapid march to adoption of Sunset," has been
followed by a "growing number of defections" with North
Carolina being the first state to call a halt to Sunset in
1981. No new enactment of Sunset has occurred since 1981.
Six states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Wyoming, and, in 1993, Michigan) have repealed
their Sunset laws. Six other states (Oregon, Montana,
Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Connecticut) have
allowed Sunset to lapse into inactivity (Michigan
Legislative Service Bureau, 1992) While Curry (1990, 62)
reports that the first 12 years of Sunset in Texas were
"productive" in eliminating agencies, Kearney (1990, 55)
finds that a "growing number of other states have
abandoned Sunset as a failed reform." Texas is an
exception to this as it continues to fund a strong Sunset
office.
In its 1996 legislative session, Colorado's General
Assembly debated a number of bills that contemplated the
elimination of Sunset. Although the Colorado Legislature
47


did not abolish Sunset, it appears to be a concept that is
no longer seen as the solution to improving Colorado State
Government.
Legislative Program Evaluation Offices
While Sunset has been written off by a number of
researchers and states as a spent reform (Bardach, 1976;
Behn, 1977; deLeon, 1983), it has had a number of
beneficial spillover effects, most noticeably in terms of
program evaluation. The Indiana Legislative Services
Agency (1992) reports that Sunset was the cornerstone for
the creation of many state legislative program evaluation
offices; Colorado is an example of. this movement.
Until the mid-1960s, the Colorado State Auditor
reported to the Governor, rather than to the General
Assembly. In 1965, Colorado voters passed a state
constitutional amendment, placing the Auditor in the
legislative branch and creating a Legislative Audit
Committee (LAC). Like its federal counterpart, the GAO,
the Colorado's State Auditor's Office initially only
conducted financial audits. This changed with the passage
of Colorado's Sunset Law in 1976. Colorado's Sunset
provisions only applied to boards, commissions, and
agencies in the Department of Regulatory Agencies. In its
48


1979 legislative session, the Colorado General Assembly
again amended statutes to allow the State Auditor to
conduct performance audits (program evaluations) of all
state agencies, programs, and functions in addition to
regular annual financial audits. The legislation creating
the program evaluation function also transferred
responsibility for Sunset reviews from the Legislative
State Auditor to the Department of Regulatory Agencies
overseen by standing committees of the General Assembly.
The Department of Regulatory Agencies still is responsible
for reviewing boards and commissions under existing Sunset
provisions.
Colorado's move to place program evaluation in the
legislative branch is not unprecedented. Almost all
legislatures have joint committees that oversee the
program evaluation function. Massachusetts uses a
separate post audit and oversight committee for each
chamber. NCSL also reports that Georgia is the only state
that does not use a committee,- the legislative auditor
reports to the entire legislature and works directly with
standing committees. Composition of committees varies,
but the majority are bipartisan. At least eight states
require members of the fiscal committee to be appointed by
the leaders of the legislature and at least 10 states
49


appoint legislative leaders to the evaluation committee.
The South Carolina Legislative Audit Council appoints
public members. Contrary to NCSL's assertions, Hawaii
also reports that it, like Georgia, does not report to a
particular committee but, rather, works independently with
standing committees of the legislature.
Recently, the Idaho Legislative Services (Bunderson:
1995, 1) surveyed legislative evaluation offices. Of the
state evaluation offices responding to the Bunderson
survey, 13 report to standing committees of their
legislatures, five report to fiscal committees, 23 report
to a special evaluation or audit committees, and six
report to either their entire legislatures, a
constitutional committee, no committee, or a citizen's
committee (Bunderson: 1995, 4).
The structure of a state legislative program
evaluation committee has important ramifications,
according to NCSL (1992). Program evaluation offices
reporting to standing committees of their legislatures
represent one end of the spectrum representing close
proximity to the legislative process. At the other end
are program evaluation offices reporting to special audit
committees (e.g., Florida), representing greater
independence from the nominal constraints of the
50


legislative process. Fiscal committees represent a middle
range.
NCSL (1992) reports that the method of structuring an
evaluation function varies from state to state. The three
main structures have the following advantages and
disadvantages:
Evaluation by standing committee is closest
to the legislative process. Advantages of
this approach are that members are
knowledgeable about and interested in the
program area under review. Disadvantages
are that members are often advocacy
oriented and may be too close to agencies
and programs to render independent
objective assessments. Oversight by special
program evaluation or audit committee has
the greatest independence from the
legislative process. This approach
provides the most objective assessment of
agency performance. Specialized staffs
have the capacity to conduct evaluation
studies. However, legislative members of
specialized committees often are unfamiliar
with the issues to be evaluated. Another
disadvantage of the special evaluation
committee approach is that generally these
committees do not have the authority to
"raise" legislation. These committees must
work through legislative standing
committees to get legislative changes
enacted. Evaluation by a fiscal committee
represents the middle range on the
continuum. Its advantages are its direct
link with the budget process. However,
this also is a weakness, since staffs are
already committed to budget work and adding
program evaluation increases an already
heavy workload.
Neither in Florida nor in any other states does the
evaluation function report directly to the state's
51


executive leadership. Many state executive branch
agencies in Florida as well as in other states employ
internal auditors (the state equivalent to federal
inspectors general) to conduct reviews of programs. As
stated earlier in this chapter, internal audit reviews
performed by executive branch evaluators are outside the
focus of this thesis.
Indiana analysts (1992) found that "almost all
legislatures use joint, bipartisan committees to conduct
legislative program evaluations. Jones (NCSL, 1988)
argued that these attributes--the ties to legislative
committees and independence from the executive branch, as
well as their nonpartisan natures--are important reasons
why state evaluation offices have a high degree of success
in getting legislative decision-makers to use their
studies. For instance, in Colorado, the LAC is the only
committee of the General Assembly where a member of the
minority political party may serve as committee chair.
Legislative state program evaluation offices are the
subject of this dissertation. More specifically, this
thesis studies state legislative program evaluation
offices to determine if they have had any greater success
than federal program evaluations or Sunset reviews. Some
states report significant successes resulting from their
52


program evaluation functions. For example, Utah estimates
that it has saved $10 for every dollar invested in program
evaluation. Further, Virginia reported (in 1991) two-year
savings of more than $19 million resulting from its
program evaluations (Indiana Legislative Services Agency,
1992) .
In Summary
In review, state legislative program evaluation roots
can be found in American pragmatism and the policy
sciences. Although program evaluation offices have
operated in the Federal Government since the turn of the
century, state program evaluation agencies have had a much
shorter history beginning, primarily, with early state
Sunset efforts. Unlike its federal predecessor, state
legislative program evaluation has been rarely studied.
An exception to this has been the rather extensive
research done of state Sunset practices. While evaluation
efforts at the federal level have declined, the number of
state evaluation offices, with the exception of New York,
have increased over the past decade. The focus of this
dissertation is on state legislative program offices.
Program evaluations, as defined above, include performance
audits, management audits, operational audits, program
reviews, compliance audits, management efficiency reviews,
53


sunrise/sunset reviews, and performance measurement
conducted by state legislative offices independent of the
executive branch. This is, consistent with NCSL (1992)
that defined state legislative program evaluation as the
Systematic review of executive agencies and the
programs they administer. This review is essentially
backward looking and assesses how agencies and
programs have been working. Activities under this
definition include performance audits, program
evaluations, management reviews, program result
reviews, and sunset reviews.
As the next chapter shows, current themes in the policy
evaluation and knowledge utilization literatures, based
primarily on studies done of federal evaluations, hold
that program evaluations are rarely if ever used by
decision-makers to improve programs or inform policy.
This dissertation will argue that such theories may
require further refinement as a result of the utility a
number of states have found with program evaluations.
54


CHAPTER 3
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Introduction
Brewer and deLeon (1983) and McCurdy (1986) related
that program evaluation is one of the primary success
stories of policy analysis. The apparent success of
program evaluation's diffusion (as outlined in the
previous chapter) can be viewed from a number of
perspectives. First, program evaluation has been highly
successful in moving from the Federal Government to many
state and many local governments. .While this represents
an interesting perspective, this dissemination of program
evaluation is not a part of this dissertation. Likewise,
local government program evaluation efforts also are
outside this research.
Another perspective regarding the "success" of
program evaluation has been the significant growth in
evaluation methodologies as seen in McCurdy's Public
Administration: A Bibliographic Guide to the Literature.
He related (1986,7) that "40 percent of the most important
titles in public administration are practical instruction
manuals" of which many are how-to-do-it books on policy
55


I
analysis, program evaluation, economic analysis, or
systematic thinking. But, again, evaluation methodologies
are not the focus here.
Rather, the clear focus of this thesis is on how
program evaluations performed by state legislative offices
are used by state legislators- in their decision-making.
More specifically, the focus is on direct use by
legislators and other decision-makers (e.g., evaluated
agency managers) in the three key areas identified by
Rosenthal (1974, and 1985): lawmaking; budgetary decision-
making; and agency problem management and resolution
(i.e., implementation of recommendations). Fishman (1989,
29), identified the following six similar "windows of
opportunity" where evaluation can influence congressional
decision-making: (1) development of new legislation, (2)
re-authorizing of existing legislation, (3) annual
appropriations and budget cycles, (4) oversight hearings,
(5) congressionally mandated evaluations, and (6)
expansion of the body of knowledge of decision makers.
By direct use in lawmaking, we mean that the
evaluation results (findings and/or recommendations) are
used by a legislator or legislators in part or extensively
to craft legislation to address an agency or program
problem(s) identified in the program evaluation.
56
I


Similarly, direct use in budgetary decision-making means
that an evaluation either in part or completely is used by
a legislator or legislators in discussions to increase,
decrease, or continue a state government agency, program,
or function's budget as a result of findings or
recommendations contained in the program evaluation.
Finally, an evaluation is defined as directly used in
agency problem management or resolution when a legislator,
legislators, or agency managers use the evaluation in
whole or part to address agency management problems.
Typically, this is done through evaluated agency
implementation of evaluation recommendations with
oversight by the legislative committee to ensure that
implementation occurs. Many states use some sort of
follow-up process to bring the agency or program back
before the legislative oversight body at a later time
(typically within two years) to determine if the agency
has in fact corrected the problems it earlier agreed to
address that were identified in the program evaluation.
Although there are a variety of ways that an evaluation
oversight body can follow up on recommendations, for the
purposes of this thesis the various types have been
classified in two groups. The first is defined here as
less formal follow up. Less formal follow up includes the
57


following: evaluated agencies submit periodic reports,
program evaluation analysts periodically track status and
evaluated agencies submit reports. Bunderson (1995)
identified these types of follow-up. The second type of
follow up is more formal. This type of follow up includes
the following: the evaluation office uses a tracking
system, the oversight committee revisits the report by
holding a follow-up hearing with the evaluated agency to
assess the status of recommendation implementation, and
follow-up audits (evaluations) and subsequent follow-up
hearings are conducted. Again, Bunderson (1995) also
identified these types of follow-up.
The Task Force on Performance Auditing (Association
of Government Accountants: 1993, 8) underscores the
importance of formal follow-up, recommending that
performance audit/program evaluation offices actively
monitor the results they are achieving. The Task Force
states that program evaluation offices monitoring
recommendation implementation are more likely to see
higher levels of implementation than are offices that do
little or no monitoring.
58


Current Theory is Dependent On Federal Studies
Various arguments can be made against a critical
study of state government legislative program evaluation.
Probably the most common and, on the surface, most
compelling argument appears to be that program evaluation
already has been widely reviewed from various perspectives
and widely discussed since the early 1970s. This point
has some validity. Bedell (1985, 109), for example, found
more than 4,000 utilization research studies by the mid-
1970s, producing volumes of research findings, scholarly
articles, and subsequent hypotheses regarding the
usefulness (or, more commonly, lack of usefulness) of
evaluations.
There is an inherent and overriding problem in the
theory generated by the research from the 1970s and 1980s
that pleads for a reassessment of program evaluation.
Namely, virtually all of the earlier research focused on
federal program evaluations and federal executive branch
decision-maker use of evaluations, ignoring not only
congressional usage of evaluations but, more importantly
here, state program evaluations. By the mid-to-late
1980s, a number of evaluators (e.g., Whitehead, 1985; and
Weiss, 1989) had further expanded the scope of their
efforts to include congressional use of program
59


evaluations. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Alkin,
1979; Richard Brown, 1979; and S.D. Brown, 1982), most
researchers have continued to ignore state and local
evaluation efforts. This neglect of state legislative
program evaluation usage remains an issue. It represents,
therefore, a relatively unexplored area with potential for
further adding to the knowledge base of how decision-
makers--in this case state legislators and managers of
evaluated agencies--use program evaluations.
One result of the extensive research of federal level
evaluations is that there is a significant body of
literature discussing federal decision-maker use of
program evaluation. Since most of the research has
studied federal program evaluation, scholars have tended
to reach similar conclusions, thus resulting in a corpus
of theory or a theme that is, not surprisingly, rather
uniform. While the research forming the central theme on
evaluation might be termed "public administration"
literature (McCurdy: 1985, 15, says that public
administration draws upon economics, sociology,
psychology, political sciences and business
administration) two primary streams of thought offering
important insights into evaluation usage come from the
policy evaluation and sociology (knowledge utilization)
60


literatures. Several issues arise when one attempts to
separate the research done on evaluation by public policy
researchers and by knowledge utilization scholars. First,
some researchers do not easily fit into only one group but
could easily belong to either the policy or knowledge
assemblages (e.g.,. Carol Weiss). Second, the policy and
knowledge utilization literatures share common roots.
Glazer (1983) and Curtis and Petras (1970) traced the
origins of knowledge utilization back to James and Dewey.
As was discussed earlier, deLeon and Overman (1989)
similarly traced the origins of the policy sciences to
these American pragmatists. Further, the public policy
and knowledge utilization themes appear to converge in the
late 1970s or early 1980s with both focusing less heavily
on methodologies--which was an early focus of the public
policy literature--and more on evaluation utilization.
While acknowledging these issues, we have chosen to
separate initially the public policy and knowledge
utilization literatures to discuss their contributions to
the theory on evaluation use. There are several reasons
for this. First, as McCurdy (1986, 40-41) informed us,
"initially the policy approach drew its strength from the
disciplines of economics and political science" whereby,
early
61


public policy analysts showed practitioners how to
apply economic ways of thinking to the choice, scale,
and design of public services. In the beginning, in
books by Roland McKean and Hinrichs and Taylor, the
emphasis lay on comparing costs and benefits. By the
publication of the second edition of Haveman and
Margolis1 Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis,
economic thinking was being applied to all sorts of
expenditure problems in all sorts of ways. To answer
the question, "what can policy analysts do?," E.S.
Quade wrote the widely read Analysis for Public
Decisions. And early analysts from political science
and other disciplines spent a great deal of time
trying to interpret the way in which government
policy got made. To clarify this research for
students of policy analysis, authors like James
Anderson promoted the idea that policy could be
studied in stages (identification, formation,
implementation, and evaluation). Others such as
Thomas Dye used different models to explain different
policy areas. It was here that policy analysis
broadened into the policy approach.
In other words, the original focus of public policy
researchers was primarily twofold.. One core focused on
methodologies (finding the most efficient solution through
economic analysis or systems analysis). The second locus
attempted to explain policy in political or institutional
ways.
Conversely, early knowledge utilization researchers
(e.g., Caplan and his colleagues, 1975) were more
concerned with the study of how knowledge is put to use,
any use, with less emphasis on political factors. Holzner
(1978) suggests that the work in this area represented a
new "sociology of knowledge application" that included an
analysis of knowledge production and use. Glazer (1983,
62


t
2-7) described knowledge utilization as the study of the
application or use of available knowledge or technology by
users.
It is important, therefore, to begin with a review of
some of the major contributions to the evaluation
literature that have come from these two streams of
thought. For ease of discussion, these streams are
grouped in the following two primary areas:
1. contributions provided primarily by public
administration, political science, and economics
researchers (public policy theory) and
2. contributions primarily from sociologists or,
more specifically, knowledge utilization researchers
(knowledge utilization theory).
The Public Policy Paradigm
As McCurdy (1986) observed, several decades of
research by public policy researchers, work primarily
based on observations of federal program evaluations, have
greatly increased the understanding of scholars regarding
how to do program evaluations and where evaluation fits in
the policy process described by May and Wildavsky (1978)
and by Brewer and deLeon (1983) Other public policy
researchers such as Lindbloom and Cohen (1979) and
63
j
i
i


Lindbloom (1990, 161) pointed out the, limits of
professional inquiry. Further, deLeon (1988, 106)
described how politics dominates evaluation, while Stone
(1988, 306) challenged the dichotomy of analysis and
politics. Other scholars, such as Jenkins-Smith (1990,
221-224) have observed that analysis should be used
prudently to address tractable issues, thus increasing the
chances of its being used. Even more recently, Jenkins-
Smith and Sabatier (1993, 3) have attacked the "stages
heuristic" approach to public policy put forth by
Lasswell, Easton, Anderson and Jones that "breaks the
policy process into functionally and temporarally distinct
subprocesses."
Regardless of whether one accepts the stages
heuristic model or not, it is clear that the research done
on public policy and evaluation has not only helped to
expand our knowledge of the public policy process but also
has identified some best practices for doing program
evaluations. What is more important, the research done
over the past several decades also has been used by public
policy researchers to arrive at a central theme
postulating that program evaluation fails to meet promised
expectations. This theme is best summed up by deLeon
(1988, 33) :
64


Unfortunately..., evaluation proved a questionable
activity. Not only were evaluators seldom able to
identify the sources of programmatic shortcomings,
but they were rarely able to be responsive to the
policymakers' needs for better information. Most
critically, they were not able to address the pivotal
policy questions: Are these programs working? if not,
why not and what can be done?
DeLeon is hardly alone in this assessment. Earlier
research by Williams and Evans (1969, 453) led them to
conclude that
In the final analysis, the best test of effectiveness
of program evaluation was its outcome on implemented
policy, and by that standard there were few, if any,
successful evaluations.
The results from studies of federal executive
reported use of evaluations were so consistent in pointing
in this direction that Wholey (1970, 46) reported
"unanimous agreement" among researchers that evaluation
had failed to affect decision-making in any significant
way. This viewpoint, that evaluations are not used, is
widely held among public policy researchers. In their
book, Using Evaluations: Does Evaluation Make a
Difference? (1979), Alkin and his colleagues provided a
forum where professional program evaluation researchers
debated this theme, with the outcome being, once again, a
rather widespread concurrence that while examples of use
can be found, evaluation usage still is problematic.
Although public policy analysis may have begun with a
65


focus on how-to-do-it methodologies and the study of how
policy gets made suggested by McCurdy (1985), other early
public policy researchers (e.g., Wiliams and Evans, 1969)
focused on how program evaluation was being used. Jones
(1983, 174) stated that
As any evaluation researcher will tell you, it is one
thing to do a worthwhile evaluation of a governmental
program or policy and quite another to get the
evaluation used by policy makers. The problem of
putting evaluations to use has become an important
topic of study for both academics and practitioners
in the field of evaluation research.
Jones added that unless a program evaluation is "given
serious hearing when program decisions are made," it has
failed in its major purpose. Goldenberg (1983, 515)
argued that, while difficult, it is desirable that
evaluation serve three purposes--improving programs,
increasing control over those responsible for
implementation, and influencing outsider responses toward
the program. Palumbo and Nachmias (1983, 70) added that
"In many ways, evaluation research is an analytic
continuation of reformist traditions" where evaluators
find ways of making government both more effective and
more responsive. They maintained that while there is no
ideal evaluation paradigm since the dominant model (the
rational comprehensive) is methodologically and
institutionally inadequate, that the current challenge for
66


evaluation practitioners and researchers is to define what
that ideal paradigm might be. Further, they (1983, 68)
stated that the traditional view (that evaluations should
lead to terminate-continue decisions (i.e., summative
evaluation) has been replaced by a new awareness that
evaluations should play a program improvement role
(formative evaluations). This awareness is the result of
findings that many evaluations are inconclusive (Bernstein
and Freeman, 1975) .
Public policy's emphasis on evaluation usage and the
development of a new paradigm that viewed use in light of
the political constraints imposed on government resulted
in a convergence of thought between public policy and
knowledge utilization researchers.
The Knowledge Utilization Paradigm
The findings obtained by early knowledge utilization
researchers including Caplan (1975), Weiss (1972), Weiss
and Bucuvalas (1980), and others did not diverge greatly
with those arrived at by public policy researchers. Most
early knowledge utilization researchers used Cook and
Pollard's (1977, 161) definition of what constituted
direct use of program evaluation--that there was "serious
discussion of the results in debates about a particular
67


policy or program and there was evidence that in the
absence of the research information that those engaged in
policy or program activities would have thought or acted
differently"--to test whether program evaluations had
affected the actions of decision-makers. Using this
definition, early knowledge utilization researchers
concluded that federal program evaluations were rarely, if
ever, used in a direct way by decision-makers. Weiss and
Bucuvalas (1980, 8) summarized their findings:
There was a significant discontinuity between
[federal] government commitment, as evidenced by the
expenditure of money and the surrounding rhetoric,
and the neglect of the information that various types
of evaluations produce.
Further, Chelimsky (GAO: 1987) reported that by 1977 even
the GAO had concluded that too many federal evaluations
done by contractors and federal agency inspector generals
were of limited use to decision-makers. Thus, Mangano
(1992, 188) reported that executive branch "evaluation at
the Federal level is in retreat." Palumbo and Nachmias
(1983, 70) argued that this occurred because
program evaluation is likely to be the first cutback
when programs are being retrenched. In the 1960s and
1970s, evaluations were used to legitimize government
intervention by demonstrating that government was
concerned with the accountability of new programs.
But now that public programs are being curtailed,
often irrespective of their effectiveness, evaluation
research is less justified and may even become a
liability.
68


Like most public policy researchers, many researchers
from the knowledge utilization community concluded that
program evaluation was not used because it did not inform
policy makers or improve programs (Weiss, 1973).
Leviton and Hughes (1981, 527) observed that this
type of use (informing policy and improving programs) has
been termed "information processing" by Weiss (1978).
Rich (1977, 200) called it "instrumental use." Regardless
of what terminology is used, the requirement for such
utilization is that there must be an attempt to relate the
findings to the policy or program under study or there
must be evidence that the results have been used in a
specific way by decision-makers (Leviton and Hughes: 1981,
527-528).
In addition to direct use (the focus of this
dissertation), there are other types of utilization,
according to Greenberg and Mandell (1991, 637) that are
far "less dramatic, far more subtle and, consequently,
more difficult to detect." These include, for instance,
persuasive and conceptual utilization, according to
Leviton and Hughes (1981, 528). These types of use--
persuasive and conceptual--are not the focus here.
69


Attempts At: Reconceptualizinq Program Evaluation
Recently some knowledge utilization researchers
(e.g., van Wiliken, 1989) have attempted to "rescue"
program evaluation. These researchers proposed that the
lack of use found previously might be the result of what
they call Cook and Pollard's overly narrow definition of
"use that emphasizes the direct, concrete effects of
information on decision-making. Leviton and Hughes (1981,
527-528) pointed out that as knowledge utilization
researchers came to agree that direct, observable effects
of federal evaluations were rare, they then began Co look
at how decision-makers use evaluations in other ways.
These researchers later concluded that utilization was not
a unitary idea but, rather, that there might be different
types (i.e., a range) of use.
Rich (1977, 200) for example, assembled considerable
evidence of what he called "conceptual use" by policy-
makers He argued that conceptual use existed when an
evaluation influenced a policy-maker's thinking about an
issue without having the information being put to a
specific, direct, or documentable use. Weiss (1980, 390)
later referred to this type of use as "knowledge creep."
Tallmadge (1977) found evidence of such use in U.S.
Department of Education funding decisions regarding the
70


dissemination of education innovations. Weiss (1977b)
consistently argued in favor of the importance of
conceptual use of evaluations in public policy decisions
and programs.
Furthermore, Leviton and Hughes (1981, 528) and other
researchers identified still another form of use, they
term it, "persuasive use" of evaluations. Persuasive use
exists when decision-makers draw on evaluation evidence in
an attempt to convince others to support their political
positions or to defend their positions from attack
(Leviton and Hughes: 1981) Patton and his colleagues
(1977) were among the first to conclude that while there
was little evidence of use supporting instrumental
theories, the research did support a conclusion that
evaluations can have significant "enlightenment" use. On
the other hand, Wildavsky (1979), and Lindbloom and Cohen
(1979) pointed out that while evaluation may be one source
of information for policy makers, it is not necessarily
the best guide..
In a later study, Patton (1986) confirmed earlier
views that the direct, tangible effects of federal
evaluations on programs, activities, and functions were
marginal. However, Patton also reported that decision-
makers appeared to use evaluations frequently to reduce
71


uncertainty, fill knowledge gaps, and speed up their
decisions. Pelz (1978) argued that specific categories of
use actually are blurred and, that researchers should
think, instead, of use as either "primarily instrumental"
or "primarily conceptual." Whiteman (1985, 206) developed
a two-dimensional framework that .included most types of
utilizations that have been described in the literature.
According to Greenberg and Mandell (1991, 637), Whiteman
collapsed each type into discrete categories for
convenience but, in fact, the categories are a continuum
as follows:
Concrete [direct] utilization refers to situations in
which specific conclusions and findings from policy
research directly affect specific decisions.
Conceptual utilization, in contrast, refers to cases
in which research affects the general intellectual
orientations of policy actors. Conceptual
utilization might, of course, affect specific
decisions in the future, but in an indirect way. The
second dimension in Whiteman's framework is the
substantive/elaborative/strategic. Substantive use
occurs when research determines the basic outlines of
an individual's position (concrete-substantive use)
or orientation (conceptual-substantive). Elaborative
use occurs when research refines a policy actor's
position or general orientation. Strategic use
refers to the role of policy research in advocat[ing]
and reaffirm[ing] policy positions after they have
been determined.
Knowledge utilization researchers and public policy
scholars, thus, have added greatly to our understanding of
how decision-makers use evaluation knowledge and the
various ways that knowledge can be used. But, in spite of
72


I
I
the efforts by various researchers to expand the
boundaries of what makes up use, the proverbial "bottom
line" of both the public policy and knowledge utilization
theories is still that program evaluations rarely result
in discemable modifications to program or policies.
Leviton and Hughes (1981, 528) pointed out that the most
significant criterion determining use is whether
evaluations affect decision-making in a direct or
immediate way (Cook and Pollard's 1977 definition).
Applying this standard to federal evaluations, it is easy
to see why most researchers concluded in the 1970s and
early 1980s that there was little evidence of use.
There appear to be some important exceptions to these
findings. For example, Jones (1983, 174-184) argued that
the National Institute of Education's (NIE) evaluation of
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was
used extensively by Congress in 1977-1978. Leviton and
Hughes (1981, 533) agreed, reporting that the NIE
evaluation was used by Congress in 22 separate amendments
to compensatory education legislation. While the NIE
approach of using a modified systems process versus
traditional goal centered methods appears to have provided
evaluation information useful to decision makers, it must
be noted that even Jones (1983, 182) viewed NIE as a
73
I


"special case." Jones (1983, 182) said that "few
evaluation agencies will have the unique organizational
arrangement that allowed NIE so much independence, nor are
they likely to have as much money available for research,"
thus limiting the generalizability of NIE's model. As
Palumbo and Nachmias (1983) pointed out above, when
programs are being retrenched, evaluation often is the
first cutback. Such is the case with the NIE. It has
since been disbanded.
Szanton (1988, 590-602) and Baum (1988, 603-615)
provided yet another example of an evaluation, by the
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), that
they contended was pivotal to the passage of the Family
Support Act of 1988. Szanton (1988) argued the
ingredients for MDRC's highly successful assessment were
its clear and timely findings based on convincing research
methods, used by an impartial organization in a variety of
forms and forums. Baum (1988), who worked for Senator
Patrick Moyniham in drafting the Family Support Act
resulting from the evaluation, was optimistic in stating
that perhaps this case, where evaluation was used to help
craft a public law, represents "a new and wonderful phase,
in the social science, policy making relationship."
However, Baum (1988, 614) added that this also may "just
74


be the happy exception that proves the research-policy
rule of the last 20 years." Peter Rossi (1987) summed up
the research-policy rule into the following set of laws:
The Iron Law: The expected value of any net impact
assessment of any large-scale social program is zero.
The Stainless Steel Law: The better designed the
impact assessment of a social program, the more the
resulting estimate of net impact will be zero.
The Brass Law: The more social programs are designed
to change individuals, the more likely the net impact
of the program will be zero.
The Zinc Law. Only those programs that are likely to
fail are evaluated.
In his conclusions, Szanton (1988) appeared somewhat
less optimistic about the potential for future evaluation
successes in influencing policy. He stated that the
circumstances giving analysis the importance it had in
welfare reform were highly unusual. More specifically,
Szanton (1988) contended that ideologies were beginning to
converge, regional differences were not at issue, there
were no powerful constituencies opposed to the change, and
Congress was not "data proof." Thus, while there have
been examples of successful evaluation utilization in the
Federal Government, they appear to be (1) the exception,
or (2) the result of highly unusual circumstances or
conditions as described by Jones and Szanton above. Since
a number of states, Florida, Kansas, and Wisconsin, report
more regular, systematic use of their evaluations by
legislators in the crafting of legislation, this area is
75


worth further study. Looking for legislator direct use of
state legislative program evaluations in bill crafting is
one focus of this dissertation.
Vari ables Affecting Utilization
Paralleling the efforts to identify types of
evaluation use has been the work by a number of
researchers to identify the variables affecting
utilization. A great deal of research has been done
(e.g., Patton) to identify clusters of variables that are
related to decision-maker use of evaluations. Leviton and
Hughes (1981, 523-543) identified five major clusters of
variables--relevance, communication, information
processing, credibility, and user involvement and
advocacy. Greenberg and Mandell (1991, 642) state that
The literature on research utilization suggests that
two sets of factors influence the types and extent of
the policy effects of [evaluations]. The first set
are those associated with the conduct of the
[evaluation]. Although the exact taxonomy differs
somewhat from author to author, the operations-
related characteristics most commonly cited generally
fall into one of five categories: (1) credibility,
(2) timeliness, (3) communicability and visibility,
(4) generalizability, and (5) relevance. The second
set of factors are characteristics of the policy
environment into which results of [evaluations] are
inserted. Weiss's [1983] I-I-I (Ideology-Interests-
Information) framework is valuable in understanding
them.
Although Greenberg and Mandell relate that
76


utilization may be described using a variety of
characteristics depending upon the author, this research
accepts Leviton and Hughes' (1981) five clusters of
variables as a starting point for discussing how these may
affect utilization. The reason for this is that the
factors suggested by Leviton and Hughes appear consistent
with those suggested by a majority of other scholars.
A number of researchers have argued that relevancy is
a product of two primary attributes--it must meet user
needs (Lynn, 1978; Nielsen, 1975) and it must be timely
(Falcone and Jaeger, 1976; and Guba, 1975) Mitchell
(1990, 109) states that
The underlying problem, according to many scholars,
is that evaluations have simply failed to be relevant
to the major policy debates of our time (deLeon,
1988, Fisher, 1987). Assuming relevance is the key
issue, an obvious way to increase utilization is to
link evaluation more closely to user needs and policy
circumstances (Nathan, 1988). In fact, the
literature has begun to make these linkages by
examining how and why key policy actors (such as
legislators, administrators, lobbyists, etc.) use
evaluation research (Chelimsky, 1987).
Based on Mitchell's discussion and definitions, relevance
(in terms of how decision-makers use evaluations) appears
to be of key importance to this thesis. It is important
because we attempt to determine how state legislators use
state program evaluations in performing their critical
legislative duties.
77


Second, according to the literature, to be used, an
evaluation must be communicated in a timely fashion. This
area also has been studied extensively. For example,
Weiss (1978) found that communication networks were rare
in bureaucracies and, thus, communications tend to be
obstructed (also see Leviton and Hughes, 1981).
Communications, as defined here, have several important
aspects. First, it is important to determine where the
evaluation originated. Evaluations originating from
legislators, news stories, and other highly visible or
public sources appear to be more predisposed toward
conceptual or persuasive uses than those originating from
a normal cycle of audits or from the evaluation staff
themselves. Second, according to NCSL (1992), in state
legislative program evaluation, the type of oversight
committee to which an evaluation office communicates its
reports results in significant variations of use. For
example, NCSL (1992) has stated that evaluation offices
reporting to standing committees of their legislatures
have greater likelihood of having legislation drafted
because standing committees have the power to introduce
legislation. Bunderson (1995) adds that state legislative
program evaluation offices reporting to oversight bodies
with the power to introduce legislation have a higher
78


level of "success" than do offices reporting to oversight
bodies without such powers.
The three other criteria Leviton and Hughes (1981)
identified that influence use are information processing,
credibility, and user (stakeholder) involvement. Leviton
and Hughes (1981, 537) reported that the ways in which
evaluations are presented (information processing) affects
the extent of their use. This point was corroborated by
Caplan and his colleagues (1975) and by Florio (1979).
Furthermore, the credibility of the producer of the
evaluation has been found to be highly important (Leviton
and Hughes, 1981, 540). Of particular interest to this
research are the findings of Guba (1975) and Windle and
Bates (1974), who pointed out that the credibility of
evaluations is low when evaluators produce data that
sponsors or clients already know. Brown (1989, 258) is
even more adamant in this area. He stated that
Although evaluations are selected, approached, and
used according to a legislative perspective, they
must be planned, conducted, and reported
independently. When legislators and partisan staff
participate in the evaluation process, necessary
objectivity is compromised.
This is important because this dissertation will examine
where evaluation topics originated (e.g., legislators, the
public, or evaluation staff). The amount of user
involvement in selecting the evaluation topic has been
79


found (Patton, 1977 and Caplan, 1975) to be an essential
ingredient in understanding use. Later in this chapter,
this thesis discusses two key classifications of user
(decision-maker) involvement in selecting topics for
evaluation. These are "police-patrol" and "fire-alarm"
type of evaluations that originate from differing vantage
points. For example "fire-alarm" type of evaluations are
more likely to originate from legislators, and thus,
result in less independent reviews than those envisioned
by Brown (1989) above.
Finally, there also are characteristics of the policy
environment to consider. As stated earlier, one set of
factors has been developed by Weiss (1983). Weiss's I-I-I
framework, suggested that the greater the consistency
among existing ideologies, information from other sources,
and existing political interests, the less likely it is
that an evaluation will affect policy. Greenberg and
Mandell (1991, 652) supported Weiss' hypothesis "with
respect to concrete persuasive effects" However, their
experiments suggest that a high degree of I-I-I
consistency does not appear to greatly reduce the
likelihood of concrete-elaborative, concrete-symbolic or
the various forms of conceptual use. These findings are
important here since we test for various concrete (direct)
80


uses. This research, however, does not specifically
examine state legislative program evaluation in the policy
context suggested by Weiss. Such an examination is beyond
the scope of the present research. Since the present
research focuses on examining direct utilization, it also
does not look for conceptual use.
The research proposed here does not take issue with
the clusters of variables identified by prior studies.
Numerous researchers have shown that these variables play
prominent roles in getting evaluations used. While these
variables are not the primary focus of this dissertation,
they are important in light of how they affect evaluation
use as was discussed above.
Utilization Focused or Academic Evaluations: Rigor or
Relevance
Although most researchers report finding little or no
tangible evidence of direct use of evaluations at the
federal level, there still is a great deal of disagreement
among some of the more prominent evaluation researchers
regarding how best to enlighten and persuade decision-
makers. Two models that have been widely discussed are
the utilization focused model, championed by Patton, and
what Patton terms the "academic" model championed, he
says, by Carol Weiss. In the utilization focused model,
81


i
the evaluator focuses on identifying key decision-makers,
getting them involved, addressing their questions and
making recommendations that they are capable of
addressing, (Patton, 1988a). Patton viewed this model as
the best way to get evaluations used. Weiss (1988a and
1988b) countered, however, that the traditional
utilization focused evaluation advocated by Patton has
been, at best, an "indifferent success."
On the other hand, Weiss (1988a) described the
alternative model as "academic" evaluations that emphasize
research purposes, follow traditional standards of
methodological rigor, and work to add to social science
theory. Patton contended that this model does not produce
evaluations that are used by decision-makers and that such
evaluations result in little more than "academic"
exercises. Weiss (1972, 111) agreed with Patton on one
point. She says that the "academic orientation sometimes
leads evaluators to stop short of drawing conclusions when
they report their results. As they see it, their job is
to conduct the study and analyze the data; it is not to
recommend action."
Regardless of which side one agrees with, both Weiss
and Patton appear to be concerned with one thing--
increasing the use of evaluation in a variety of
82


instrumental, facilitative, and enlightenment forms (Smith
and Chricop: 1989, 7). The facilitative and enlightenment
models are legitimate uses of evaluation. The focus of
this thesis, however, is specifically on instrumental
(Cook and Pollard, 1977), information processing (Weiss,
1978), direct, concrete (Greenberg and Mandell, 1991) use.
Therefore, the utilization-focused approach in its efforts
to identify use (in this case direct use) of program
evaluations is addressed on the state level. The present
research takes issue, however, with the utilization-
focused model's focus on addressing key decision-maker
questions and making recommendations to address these
specific questions. Instead, this thesis argues that
"police-patrol" evaluations are more often conducted by
state legislative program evaluation offices with the
result being more direct utilization by state decision-
makers. This issue is discussed in more detail below.
Stakeholder/User Involvement
There is debate in the evaluation research community
regarding the extent that stakeholders should be involved
in identifying topics and whether the purposive rational
action model suggested by Patton and others is the most
appropriate for studying evaluation. Each of these themes
83


is discussed in detail below.
Several models have been suggested for studying
stakeholder involvement. The utilization-focused model,
advocated by Patton (1988a and 1988b), seeks to identify
key decision-makers, get them involved early on, address
their questions, study variables they want studied and are
capable of manipulating, and communicate early and often.
Patton (1988a) argued that this model is the most
conducive for getting evaluations used because it ensures
that the key stakeholders are involved in the evaluation
throughout. Weiss (1972, 13) added that "Lesson No. 1 for
the evaluator newly arrived on the scene is: Find out who
initiated the idea of having an evaluation of the program
and for what purposes."
On the other hand, Grob (1992, 179) disagrees,
arguing, instead for a different orientation. He claims
that
Generally, policy makers do not specifically request
evaluation studies. Instead, federal evaluation
staffs try to determine what studies the policy
makers need. The evaluation reports fall into a
"stew" of studies that policy makers consume.
In their study of congressional uses of evaluation,
McCubbins and Schwartz (1984) further defined and
described methods that resemble the approaches discussed
above by Patton and Grob. The first approach McCubbins
84


and Schwartz term "fire-alarm" oversight. The "fire-
alarm model involves selective monitoring by Congress
triggered by complaints from legislators, congressional
committees, citizens and interest groups who bring
potential problems to legislators' attention, according to
Wohlstetter (1990, 25). The "fire-alarm" model also
appears to closely resemble the utilization model
described by Patton 1988) on the preceding page which
entails that the evaluators study variables that decision-
makers want studied and are capable of manipulating.
Wohlstetter (1990, 31) concluded that practicing
evaluators ought to spend more time doing "fire-alarm"
type of evaluations. The present research tests whether
the "fire-alarm" model is used as extensively at the state
level or whether a second model, also discussed by
Wohlstetter, is used more frequently. The second model is
the "police patrol" model. Evaluation topics for this
model usually are the result of statutorily mandated
evaluations, regularly scheduled evaluations (the normal
cycle of audits), or suggestions from evaluation staff,
according to Wohlstetter (1990). The "police-patrol" model
appears to resemble the alternative model described by
Grob (1992) on the previous page whereby evaluation staffs
try to determine what studies policy-makers need. In this
85


model, legislators are less likely to suggest topics for
evaluation reviews. While federal evaluation activities
(e.g., those used by the GAO and inspectors general) use
both models, they often act to address congressional
questions in the "fire-alarm" mode (Chelimsky 1992, 94) .
State legislative program evaluation offices also have
seen an increase in the use of the "fire-alarm" model.
However, NCSL (1992) reports that a majority of states
still select topics for evaluation through legislation or
as a result of regular evaluation schedules or evaluation
staff suggestions--the "police patrol" model.
The "fire-alarm" model presents problems for the
present research since the focus here is on direct use of
evaluations. This model (described by Chelimsky) lends
itself most readily to identifying what Leviton and Hughes
(1981) described as the persuasive use of evaluation where
decision-makers identify the evaluation topic and the
evaluation team then attempts to provide answers and
recommendations needed by the decision-maker who initiated
the study. While the literature states that the "fire-
alarm" model is more often used to trigger evaluation
studies at the federal level, the present research
examines this assumption at the state level to determine
if this observation holds true in state legislative
86


program evaluations. There are several reasons for this.
First, this research tests for direct utilization of
program evaluations. The "police patrol" model appears to
be more likely to provide evidence of such utilization
since the results of the evaluations are presented to
decision-makers for action (Grob's alternative model).
"Fire-alarm" evaluations appear more likely to be
suggested by lawmakers who perceive that a problem already
exists and want further information regarding the extent
of the problem (i.e., Leviton and Hughes, 1981 persuasive
use). As stated previously, persuasive use of evaluations
is not the focus of this thesis.
Further, Dibella (1990, 117) contended that when you
open up the evaluation process in such a way (the "fire-
alarm" model) to stakeholders or decision-makers, "you
unfortunately open up the possibilities for having the
process coopted and manipulated" by these decision-makers
and stakeholders.
This is not a criticism of either the GAO or other
Federal Government evaluation or audit units. They do
excellent jobs of being as objective and independent as
possible in a politics-fraught environment. However, it
is more difficult to identify examples of direct use when
a topic, the questions to be answered, and, often, the
87


answers to the questions themselves have been suggested by
a political decision-maker. On the other hand, NCSL
(1992) reports that the active support and involvement by
key legislators and legislative leaders does a great deal
to facilitate the utilization of evaluations because the
evaluations are more likely to address issues in which
decision-makers have a high-degree of interest. In the
"fire-alarm" model, evaluators walk a fine line,
therefore, between objectivity and being coopted by
decision-makers that want to use an evaluation to convince
others to support their political positions.
Although some states use the "fire-alarm" model, the
second approach described by Grob (McCubbins and
Schwartz's "police patrol model") is an approach commonly
used by the states, according to NCSL (1992). In many
states as is often the case at the federal level, it is
becoming more frequent to see new legislation include a
requirement for a future evaluation of each new program,
policy, or activity after a specified period of time. In
other states (i.e., Colorado), it is common for evaluation
staff to identify topics for review and to recommend
reviews of these topics to their legislative oversight
bodies. Both of these approaches are examples of the
"police-patrol" model. This does not ensure evaluators
88


that their work will be used by decision-makers. It does
provide, however, some evidence that legislators see
evaluation as a useful and important part of the
legislative process as described by Patton (1978) and
Brewer and deLeon (1983) More cynically, it provides a
"cover" whereby legislators can assure constituents that
the issue of accountability has been considered. Of
course, this strategy may fail, if legislators choose not
to listen to the subsequent evaluations.
To reiterate, this research accepts Wohlstetter's
definition of "fire-alarm" evaluations as those initiated
by legislators, other legislative committees,
constituents, or by media stories. This thesis also
recognizes that Wohlstetter has found that the "fire-
alarm" model is more frequently used at the federal level.
Conversely, "police patrol" evaluations as defined in the
literature and used in the present research are those
evaluations that result from suggestions from evaluation
staff, arise as a result of the normal cycle of audits, or
are mandated for review by statutes.
For our purposes, the "police patrol" model appears
to provide better control over the introduction of topics
and viewpoints by key stakeholders or decision-makers
(persuasive use) and, thus, may assist in the
89


identification of evaluations that may have been used in a
primarily direct, instrumental manner by decision-makers.
Cook and Pollard (1977, 171) describe two conditions that
must be present for direct utilization. First, the
evaluation results must be used by decision-makers in
serious discussions regarding a policy or program.
Second, in the absence of information from the evaluation,
decision-makers would have thought or acted differently.
As stated earlier, Pelz, (1978) believed that the standard
for direct utilization was too exacting and, thus,
suggested that a modification--primarily instrumental--be
used to identify utilizations that were primarily direct
(i.e., when an evaluation was used in debates by decision-
makers and the evaluation results were a primary source of
information used by the decision-makers).
Smith (1980a) argues, contrary to accepted belief of
stakeholder-oriented theorists (i.e., Patton), that many
decision-makers contend their participation in specifying
what the evaluation should look for (i.e., the "fire-
alarm" model) does not improve either the quality or
usefulness of the evaluation. This dissertation accepts
Smith and takes the position that the degree of
stakeholder involvement advocated by Patton (utilization
focused/"fire-alarm") may not be as necessary for getting
90


evaluations used (as Patton has argued).
Further, while House (1976, 1979) and Stake (1986)
agreed that stakeholders were an important element of the
evaluation process, they found stakeholders of interest
not so much as a means of increasing the effectiveness of
evaluations but to counteract the concentration of expert
control in decision-making (Smith and Chiricop, 1989, 12) .
Wohlstetter (1990, 29) notes further that "patrolling" is
practiced primarily by specially created legislative
program evaluation offices, (i.e., state legislative
program evaluation offices), the very topic of this
dissertation.
The Rational Decision-making Model
The second point raised above is whether the
purposive rational action model (with its focus on
solutions and outcomes) is the best way to gauge
evaluation use. Stone (1988, 4-5) stated that "the
project of making public policy rational rests on three
pillars: a model of reasoning, a model of society, and a
model of policy making. The model of reasoning is
rational decision-making," whereby decisions "are or
should be made in a series of well-defined steps as
follows:
91


1. Identify objectives.
2. Identify alternative courses of action for
achieving objectives.
3. Predict and evaluate the possible consequences
of each alternative.
4. Select the alternative that maximizes the
attainment of objectives."
The question of whether the rational action model is
the most appropriate way to assess the use of evaluations
continues to be the subject of some debate between
practitioners and evaluation scholars. Palumbo and
Nachmias (1983, 78) argued that while the rational
comprehensive model is methodologically and
institutionally inadequatethe proposed model is
unattainable." Further, Leviton and Hughes (1981, 526-
527) observed that direct use (defined as program
improvements or serious discussion in policy debate) still
is the "bottom-line" criterion for utilization.
The origin of the rational action model is tied to
the origins of the rational school and thus policy
analysis. McCurdy (1986, 40) stated that policy
analysis/program evaluation was one of two applications
that emerged from the rational school. He argued that
When public administration began to emphasize
applications, practicing administrators turned to
scholars for solutions and the rational school
bloomed. Solutions were in demand.
92


Full Text

PAGE 1

0#)1)201#3)*4%24#)3#1#%56 #5#00)00)5%74)/)5/1#0%784)/ 19#%55+)0#)0 4)+! 0"0/:.;: #"/:.<: # "/8" 8* *# :..<

PAGE 2

"5"55"91:"5" :7'1$5 $3' '4$$1; "5'6$ *1 1 7!=>> >/ >?@ 8

PAGE 3

!" #$%$&$'$&( )*+$'#$, +,#$&%&%''''&&.#$'-"$$#$/$&$&!)' 0!'$'$1 -'' *& %2)0%.0 %&3#$3#$1!,#33$$#1 !+!-#,#$&''$'($'!3+ ,#$&'#1'%$&+! #$'$#1&,#$&' 3,$#,&$#1$#!$'$&4 ''$&-3#$1$3,+,&& 3+'.&,'#1,$&-!'''++'' !!$3+,#$&'$&+'$&&& '++'1!#$$$&-$&+3#$1& $3,$&+3+'(%#&'&!#-+' &$,'$1+'!'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&'''!13,$' #+$'#'&1!3$1$'5 -$&+#+$'#$&''$&+3+3#'& +$'$&6$&+)3+,#$&!'& &'$#'#1!7,&!'#$'!, &&& $$$

PAGE 4

0!$'!'$'$&,'$+''#$'0' ',17''&#+$'#$,3+,#$& --$'$&89'')'3&''3,$' 1!$''!:$&,#$&$#$/$& !1;!!$6'<''&! '$'$#!':$&,$',$#'! 3#1$&-#&$#$/$&0!$' <'$&'+$&+3$'!'=&#'$&'! 3+,#$&'###,#'-+,&& #1' 0!'$'&#!3#$3#$1='!# !!,#$&$'&'1&-$&& &-7!33'$''-' #+$'#$,3+,#$&'0!'&'-! !$+!#,#-'$&!'''37$! -##,#''$##&#!7, ;'$'&,$-1!'#'! &3,$$&3!''$'-'3+ ,#$& &$'3#$$& )$+&>>*1 $, <

PAGE 5

.?00) 0#',$$$ .% 0 0?".0? 3'@ )3-!)1 )$+&$-$&-'! .&0!1 '&'-!)18 ?+&$/$& )0?.%*2%.AB?"?;C%*%0?8 ;!'-! #$1)$&'& #$1%'$'8 "-$&$$&+,#$&D $'1+,#$&8 )6#,# +,#$& )$&+!)+)&'*+$'#$& $&!)'9 *+$'#$, +,#$& ?--$'D &)198 8CE?;0*0%0%"0?0.%* ;%E?A99 &$&99

PAGE 6

.&0!1$'"3&&&;# )$'9 0! #$ #$1 $+@8 0!A&7#+$#$/$& $+@F %3'%&3#$/$&+ +,#$&F C$#'%--$&+$#$/$&F@ $#$/$&;'%$ ,#$&'$+#,&D )!#G'&,#,&D8 0!$&#"$'$&6$&+# ;!)1$'F 0?"?*?BH"%0%)?.)%"*0)?; )%.8 )1"'$+& ;'%--$&+' )&113!''0!E$## 20' %'$'-!"89 !#+$#.&&'8@ '$&+C#$$1&#$$#$18 9)*0)%"").))?@ $113!'$'@ :$&$&+!'! 3#$&F .!$'$'-)?--$'9 ,$

PAGE 7

3)*+$'#$,'+ ,#$&'$&$'$&+*+$'#$&9F ,#%+&13#&$&&$&'@F ) +,#$&*$&+'7$! 2+1 '''F9 )1-"'$3$,)$'$'D )&113!''D "$'''$& @.?.*)?)9 %'$'-;$&$&+'9 '#&.3$'&'F &)1F F *.%0?);? 2*. ?*.H0?HD '&'-!%33&"$--&'$& ;#&)$#$/$&*,#' )1@ % "I %'''-;!'!9 2)'.&$&++# + ,#$&'9 .),1-0!)'?&)# + ,#$&.!$'$'9 ;.)@ ,$$

PAGE 8

0%2*) 0# + 9*+$'#$&321)%&03$?$+$&@ 9'-&$&'3#&$& )'&013'-;##763'F 98) +,#$&*$&+'E$!2+1 "$'$&6$&+F 9.!$6'<'$'-*B)0?&)0%".?D 99.!$6'<'$'-*B)0?&)0%0%0 9@.!$6'<-*B)0?&03$-,#$&8 9F.!$6'<'$'-.? &%" F 9D.!$6'<'$'-.? &;?%*; 9.!$6'<'$'-2")& 0C8 9.!$6'<'$'-2")&0? )*.0 9.!$6'<'$'-2")&?B 0@

PAGE 9

.% 0 0?".0? .$$/&$''$'-$&7$!+,&&$' 7$'3? &-%$&''+,&& !$+!!$&+'-!$7&-F@ 3&µ'+'8(,$&$$/&$''$'-$&&'&$&.#$-&$=' 3'$$&8&.#='%&&?&!0%2? %&&(!3#$$'+,&&,&' &#'!$##1!,13''+,&&$'#-)!$$/&$&$$$,'-##7! ,$+$,&1?'D(7!'++'! J$#J'#$&''!'$'&#$&+!1 &$+,&&$'33#&-&$&' ?&!!!&E'#1&!$'##+'( +--&$&+-3#$$&$'$& ''!3$,-$$&$'$&+,&&E'#1 9('!J3#$$&$'''!# $(3:$'$$##1&'$'$& 3'$-+#'K&(-#$,&''!+!-#& $$#''''&-$&&$&#& -:3$&J0!$'3'$$&$''$$#&

PAGE 10

:3''1!$&#.$,$*+8@(7!$! '''!+,&&&'3&'$,&-,# $'$$/&' 0!$&#.$,$*+-!#'!J&7 #''!'3-&'&&3-& +$&+&$$&+L3,$!&$''-$&+! $$#''''&''++'1E'#1,&' (' 0!!7&7!73+' -&$&$&+--'!1!,$&+&7! '!#$#17'!71'$&+!--$$&&--$,0 ''&$#+!$'&7#+$'!3#$6 '&+=''+-!3-$6&6#'' '&-!'$&''' E!$#3-&'&=&+$&+ $&'$&+3$'!-'-!$'$''$&$'$& !!$$&$-$1!$&#.$,$*+5 3-&$$&+3+,#$& '3$-$##1!$'!'$'-''&'#+$'#$, 3+,#$& 0!$'J#J$'&&7$!!-#' +,&&#,#' $'!1&-'!#' +)!&@F&.!#$'1D9(3$&! 3+,#$&'7$&+&$&3#$!#!& $&1!;#B,&&!+$&&$&+

PAGE 11

!$'&1?&!!!&3+,#$&' 3$!'+,&&#,#!'!! '!!$'1E!$#!$&#.&-&-) *+$'#'(-&',#''&$&+ ,#$&'$&!$6@'!M$1-'' '#$'!3$&##+$'#$,3+,#$& --$'$&!$66#F''##1''#!$)&'$&$$$,' &'&9(',1@F' #+$'#$,$'#+$'#$,'!&! '3$#$/#+$'#$,--$'$&9'' $&$-$7!!&&'9#+$'#$,3-& $,#$&--$'$&'';! '!,#'!-!''#+$'#$, --$'&+#'1'$3+,#$&' 0!'&'-!$--&'7&2&'&=' -$&$&+'&!'$&1!$'!'$':3#$& $&.!3(0!'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'!&+#'1'$ 3+,#$&'!-'-!$'$''$& &'3$-!+7!$&'$/&$3&'#+$'#$,'7##'##(,#$&'.## DF@(-&#$#!&7$&!' 8

PAGE 12

$ 3$'%#$&&''$'F('$! $#$/$&-,#$&'$&-$,'!#$'$' '#+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&!'& &'$$&63! ,$''!'$&#$&+ E$##$'&,&'@(E!#1F(*&DD( &E$''D(3$$#1-'!$'$'& !',#3!$&#'$&''&'$'-#3+,#$&'0!&#'$&'!1 &7#+$#$/$&'!'&3#$3#$1 '!#'!,#$&$'#$#'!''$& !3!+$&+,#$&$#$/$&## #,#'-+,&& E!$#!$'+&1!#!-##,# $&'$&+,$&-A&'';#$&!'' '++''!,#$&$'$&+'+##11' #+$'#'3$'#17!!$&#.$,$*+ !'&,$'$&5!$'$&-$&+3#$1&$3,$&+ +,&+'&-,$&-&'''++''#,#-$'1$'$&6' &$&$-$$&#$'$'!-##,# ;:3#E!8D9(-&'$+&$-$&'-& ,#$&$&+1$'$&6$&+$&7H 0!$'$''$&!#'3$'!-

PAGE 13

3,$$&+-$&&!#''3$&' +$&+!$#$/$&-'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&)!''''&'!#! &7#+''-!!3#$3#$1&&7#+ $#$/$&#$'1$&$&+$-! $&$-$#$--&'7&'&-# $#$/$&' %$$&##1&--'1!.&+'''!$3+'##'&'3&'$$#$$'!'' +7#--(&#&-$#$&'' !$''!'$&!''7$##'&&,# &,&7$1-3+'3,$'#1&+1! ;#B,&&E$!!&77#-#+&' !;#B,&&1!,#'''1! '!3-3+'-&&&+!'#,# ,&'8(0!'&$&63!'1-' #+$'#$,3+,#$&$'$$##1$3& '$&'#+$'#''&7$##3#13$,# #$&'!3$&+&&+$&+,$'#+& 3+'!!,#&+&!&'&'--# '$#3#$$' 9

PAGE 14

3' 0!33'-!$'!'$'$':3#' #+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&0!$''1 :$&'!$$#$/$&-,#$&'#'$& !'$&$-$1'&!#F&D9( #7$&+&+&-'+&$',$ &$&$3#&$&&+-#$& 0!$$&-3+,#$&7$!$'$#$1 3,$$&-$&'#+$'#'7'$&-! '$&+#'$3&-$&!'#+$'#$, $3,&,&$&!F'$&+'&!# F(27&*&D89(33+ 0!1!,'! &-$&$'&$3&'-37!$&$,$#'&-+&$/$&'$''FK$! F()$$##1,#$&'&1! :$,&!7$##&'!$-37$&! $$&0!$':3#$&'7!1#+$'#'! &$&#&'#,#'!,$&'!& -,#$&'!12'$&-$&$' '-37,#$&'!$'#$#1 &$&&$3&$,$1$&!3#$14 $&+3'' 227&*&D89(#'7&!3+ ,#$&$'&#$#1J3-!$#-&$&7!$!$7''$+&K!$'-$&7!3+' 7&#$,$$$'7$!!!3!! @

PAGE 15

'#$&'7$##3'33J0!'3$1 &&!$''-$'#+$'#$,' -3+,#$&3'$&!!' $&$-$1'&!#$&$-',#$&' 3-$&+!-&$3,&-&$&'7!$!!17$&&E!$#'!&33!1& &1!33$+!,#$&' &'($33'&'$'&7$!&71 &DD(7!3!'3+ ,#$&--$'!,!J$$3&3+' &$'$&'J;! &$&:3#'-,#$&'!!&&!,$#1 $&-#&3+' 0!$'$''$&!-$'!&$<& $3&-!-##7$&+'&' 0!$''#$&+--#3+ ,#$&'$'$+!&&$,'##1 ,#$'$&!1#+#1&'$&! &:-'+,&&#+$'#$,--$( ,#$&'0!$'$''$&''!1 ,#$$1!'#,# 0!$'$&'$&+,$&'++'$&+! 3+,#$&'#'-' F $

PAGE 16

#+$'#$,,#$&--$'1! $$-!,$&+$--'&3+' 7!&$3#&$&-'M''#+$'#$,1#'33:$#17 1'(0!$'$''$&!&'$'' #+$'#$,'-,#$&',761 1# 8)$&!'!7$##+3,#$&--$' 1,$''#!$'$'+ 13-#+$'#$,,'$+!$(! #'$3&3$#$3#$$&'''7$!,#$&--$')! $&-$&!--$,&'''##1$,'--$''!#'-# '''!1&$&$#!$ ,#$&3$#$$' )3-!)1 0!$'$''$&:$&'!7'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&'$#1$#$/;!! '!:$&''$:$&3&&,$#'33'1 !$&#.&-&-)*+$'#'.)*(& D

PAGE 17

!'+2&'&(!3#1$&-#&!' -,#$&'$&#$&+(!13-#+$'#$, $'&$&+!(3,$$&+,'$+!-! 3+,#$&--$(!13--##763 -##''-#('1#+$'#'$& !:&!,#+&$'!,$3#& &$&'8(7!!!'&' $3#&$&-&$&'(-##$&+' !:$'7&3+,#$&,'$+!--$' &+1,'$+!$'9(7!!! ,'$+!1!'!37$&#+$'#$&& @(7!!!,#$&3$$+$&#+$'#'&'$&'J-$6#L13(7'! '#-!#-$'&G7''++' 1,#$&'--J3#$63#J13( !-'-!$'$''$&$':$& 7!!'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'!,& '$#11#+$'#',#$&--$ ,'$+!$'$&!1'#7$&+K+&1 &+&3#'#$&K&+-#$& 0!$''$&''-7!.& ## FF('$'$'!!,#$&7' '$#1$&3#$3#$1$3,

PAGE 18

3+'(;!!'!#':$&' 33'$$&'-*,$&&+!'D($!## D(&$##D(7!-&!$-!1 #&+$$&#,$7$7613$(--# ,#$&'!!7'$&',$&--# $'$&6+&+''$&#('-,#$&' 0!$'!13!'$'$''!'#,#'$&+3+ ,#$&'&1'#+$'#$,,#$& --$'E!$!D9(!''++',$&!$+!'-,#$&'#'$&'1&+''$&#'-,#$&'.#E$''D(!' 3'$$#-$&$&+'E!$#!!,&&$&6 3!3'$&'#+$'#$,'E! ($&'1-7H=''#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$-&#,#-'!33' .& ##='$$&-$' 0!$'!'$'''$!$&$,$#,#$&3' !&$&'&$&$&!'3''! &$'-'$'-'1$&+$'$&6$#$/$& -'#+$'#$,3+,#$&0!'1 33#$&$&#'#+$'#$,3+,#$& --$'&$&+'1'$,#$&'$&89'' %$#',17''$&$&-$&-!

PAGE 19

'#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$' "'$3$,'$'$'':3#'3+ ,#$&$#$/$&.!$6'<''' 3'$$#$$'&$--&'7&3+ ,#$&--$'7$!$--&,'$+!$ '''1!$/$&$& #+$'#$&71'-$&$-1$&+3$'-,#$&' &:$&#$&'!$3'7&&&+$--& '#,#'-&$&$3#&$&&-' $&$-$$&!#$!3#1$&-#& '!$3#&$&2&-&$''&;$'!=' :'#'''333$-!' &'#'$&1!!$6'< '' )$+&$-$&-'!.&0!1 "'3$!+7!$&3+,#$&!' +,&&#,#&3'-'$+&$-$&'#' .##DF(#!'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&!'&&+#$&!3#$3#$1& &7#+$#$/$&#$'0!$'!'$'!#' 3$'!--$&+!&7#+'

PAGE 20

3#$$&$'$&!+!'1-&' #+$'#$,3+,#$&(!!'&#+#1 $+&1!'!0!$'$''$&33'' !$'&7#+'1'$&+!$'+$&+ !$#$1-3+,#$&!'+,&& #,#)3$-$##1!'!:$&'$' #+$'#$,'-3+,#$&'3#$'!1' ,#$&--$'-!3$-8!+!9 -'!$'$'$&$-$!&!$'1+-$&&-&3#$1,#$&&&7#+ $#$/$&!$'7$!+'+,&&' -,#$&'#' '&'-!)1 0!&-'&'&3$&&$&+!& -&$&63!:$&$&-'#,##+$'#$,( 3+,#$&;$''#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&' #'1='D@6F(!$$ !<#$-1$'+,&&#$&&,$&5'7$! !#&+'&$&+$$&!!:$,&! '!#3,$$&-$&'#+$'#'$'7$6 '#'''!,3+,#$&--$'! #

PAGE 21

3-+#,#$&'-,$''3+'& -&$&'(&$'-#'$&+$3& &FD D(+!!$&-$&3,$#+$'#'$' -+'$+&$-$&'1$&+ 0!-!$&-$&$'$&,#,$&,#$& '$3#$$#3''&-$&#' &7#+K&7#+'&$&1K$& -&$&1-$#$'$&K&$&$' &''1!#$&-37 0!'3+,#$&'!#:$&$&$-1 !'&'$-&17!1$$'-3$#'' $'$&6' 0!$'$5!'$&&,$&''-# 3$##,#'-+,&&5$'&&$<' 3+,#$&=''+'),'DF(&! '$&='.$''$&& $,$$/$&DD(-& &':3#'-'''-###+,&&''3$,$$/$&-&-7'''''& -##,#' $,$$/$&$'&$&&,$&! 33'''-#&!-'' !###,#*$7$'3+,#$&1 3$##1'-#!'#,#'$&#+$'#' 33',#$&'$&!$#7$&+&+& 3#'#$&&+-#$&-&$&'; :3#.#8 @6F(''! 8

PAGE 22

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

PAGE 23

;#$F(*,$&&+!'D($!##D( $##D(E!$!D9(&E$''D(!'#2!$##&$!##-&!7!&!1##7 '--$$&&-$-$&!$ '$'-&+''$&#'33:$#171'( !'#',#!$+!#,#-#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&'!&!&3,$'#1$&$-$?& +$&!7,!''$'-'&-# ,#$&'&&+''$&#,$7'0!$'& !-'$$#'!!'#,# 0!&+#-'3+,#$&$'<$ '3$'$&+-&!'&$&+%#&'&!# F&D9(-+'=+#&&'$#$$''&!#33'!3+,#$&7' !'$&+#'$3&#&$&!'#+$'#$, $3,&,&$&+!F'',#$&' !#3'#7'''!$!!$--&$&'5 -$&+#7'$&++'&''$&+&+& 3#'$&'+&$'7$##3''$#'''' '&!#='#$'1'1$&+'3+,#$& 3'&&$&''$-!1!,'# $&3+$3,&'$&!!'!$&$-$ %-!'&-3&$&+!$'''$&$'! 9 $

PAGE 24

7!$#3,$''!!'3:3#'$'+!-##,#&'$' E!8D9('++''$+&$-$&$'7$!$& !'';:3#E!3'!7H *+$'#$,.$''$&=',$77''1!'=' :3&$.$''P$&!$&$&+-&' 333$&+&1-Q$##$&QF$##$& 0:'&$&&'3'$$#'$+&$-$& 3&$#&###',$&+'!1'#!$3+,#$&'0!0:')%$=' ?--$ #3-&,$7-## '+&$'#$&$&+$&3 !"# 0!33M'3&$# -$'#$3-Q9$##$&-68&-$,61 $3-Q8$##$&$-,#+&$'$3#& &$&'$&!'='3+,#$&' $&&'3'#',$&+'-Q$##$&J$#1 +&13+,#$&-$'3'6'&1 C$&#$&$&'$$&'&#'Q8$##$& '#$&+-'3+,#$&'$'-$# %''$'&:3&$'J&!''7!$#! ,#$&'3,$'#$&''''3$-$ +&$'=3#'!3'7+ @

PAGE 25

333$#+$'#$,$'!!,!37!+! #+$'#$&+-#$&&!$#$1!# +&$'&#''!3#'$&$-$$& !3+,#$&3' .#3,$'-!,$&-J$J'$& '&#+$'#$,-&$&'++'1'&!#5 #7$&+&$'D !)%$=' ?--$#!'-$'3+,#$&=' ,'$+!1!*+$'#$,%$.$*%.( $&$##'$&+!D'''$&J! :&'$,#1$#$/&$&'-3+ ,#$&'J&!'''$&$+!$##''3&' 1%$.$'$+$&-3+ ,#$&'%##$+!7&$! *%.''3&'&!$+!$##'!7 &$$&+!'''$&.#) %$='?--$ $# $'.# !''!7$&+'!'#'A&'';#$& '3'$$##,#'-#+$'#$,',#$&'$&$##6$'$&+--')$&8' ,#$&--$'3$'!,$&+'1 !$1$&#+$'#$&2&'&9( $'!#3''$#$&!:&!3+ F

PAGE 26

,#$&'$&+'1#+$'#'$&!'' $&-$&+#+$'#$& ;!!$',$&!'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&1'''&!#='!$3$1 -&$&-#+$'#'5$&+&+&3#'$& '+&$'.)*(!',$'' #+$'#'! 0--$,3+,#$&<$'$, #+$'#$,'33&$&,#,&*+$'#'' 77&$&+!,#$&&$&' '33!,#$&'--3$##1& &,'$#'$'(&&'!!:$, +&$''3&!#+$'#=' &$&' 0!##$&$'?--$-!%$B' !3&-!&$&'$ :$,&!+&$'$&8#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&'7$3#&&$#1##$&$'?--$!%$B&#',1'3&''@()&&$!'& D6@@(-&'$$#-$3#&$&$& !$''1-!;#2-&,'$+$&;2( 7,!$--&'$&!!''1 ##$&$'&1!,#''1$&+!;2&! '-!;2!27'&$3#&## -!;2&'3B&#='&$&'%+&$' $&##$&$'!,!3$&-3$&+M$&+ D

PAGE 27

&$&'7$##3''$#!-' !--'-'!&13,$'$&'!' #,#'$&''!,'$$#3,$'$&'&$&+ !,#+&$'$3#&,#$& &$&'$&+.)*( "$##D(',!&&,#$& !'&33&3'&!$'J$$#& --##763J;##763-'3'! :$&7!!&!&$&'-! ,#$&3!,&$3#&$&'-'!$& 2&'&99D(%$&+"$##( #1,#$&&$&'##1 $$#13-!1&&$&-$&& $'$&6$&+&--1,$1-&&$&+ $'''&-'&!-$&+ !''-&$&'+$,+,$'$$#$1 !$'&$&$&+'3,$$&+'''& !'&$&'7$##$3#&),#' #+$'#'!,+&$/!$3&-!,$&+ +&$''3&&$3#&!$&$&' .''!,-##7633'&1 #7.)*(&$'& 3+$&&$'( &&!!$'&$&$3#&$&(

PAGE 28

','-!'1'1$&+ J&-'3-''$&!,3$#$# &$&!3$-&$&'J& 7!!!'&$&'!,&$3#& & )$&!'#+$'#$,,#$&--$'$& 2&'&=''13!!1',$'!' $&!#,#-:$,+&1$3#&$& -&$&'$7$##3''$#$&7$! '3$'$&$&$,$#''=&$& $3#&$&#,#'#'33'!!'! !#3,$3$#$&-$&'3+ ,#$&--$'+$&+7!13'-&$& -##763$-#-##763(''-# %-$&#'&-'1$&+'3+,#$& $'!!-$#&$&'+70!$''!-& 3+,#$&--$'&$&++#$/ '1'$,#$&'$&!''!-7!$!7 +$,&#+$'#$,!$1&,#$&'' '80!+7!!'#,#1 :3$&'-!'!3#$&.&+'' &!.#$&&%$&$'$&&,7$13+'!'' 0!&,$7-,#$&!$''-&1

PAGE 29

1'!'&!!$3'&'33,#$&'!'&###,#!,!;#B,&&7,*1&FD(-&! @93&-!,#$&'3##17 $&$$&'331'&##+,&&' 0!,'&'3$&&-3!&'$, '1-'3+,#$&--$'%'A!&@ (',J&33$1#&3& -3'&#&!$'$#$&$'#71'-$, $&+$&-!#$-''3'1+$,&'$&$-$ &$1+$,&$J-!'&!&1 3$+$'J3$&!''3$&!! '$&$-$&$1N!:3'O6&7'7!!7#$' #$J)$!88F('! 0!!'&#$#'3&'!3##' ,!3'1'-$&'3$$#'1 -,#$&3$'$!$K3!-'$$#$1& --$,&''-#&$,#'!'& !$'K3,$'$'-!,#3&'$3$,,#$&!$'K&''''! $#$1-3'$3$,!$' 7#33!-!!3 3$++$&+3+,#$&$#$/$&$+! '$-!7$!&:3$&+ &'&$&+-!7'$'$&6'#+$'#'(

PAGE 30

'3+,#$&'$&1$&+!$3$1 '3&'$$#$$'-$&+#7'$&++&1 3#'&-#$&++' ?+&$/$& 0!$'$''$&$'+&$/$&',&M '$&'0!-$'!3!&$ -$&'!33'&'3-!'10!'& !33,$'!$'$#3'3$,-3+ ,#$&&$'&&'5!3#$1'$&'& 3#$1'$'0!!$!3$''''! #$&&!'&!$'-!3#$1 &&7#+$#$/$&#$'+$&+!'3+,#$&'%!#+1'$&!3 '$'!',1''&'$'$# !''$&!'10!$#'#'-! '$'3'&$&!39.!3@ '$/'!'#'&$''''!'1='-$&$&+' $&&:-!#$,$7;$&##1!3F $''''!-$&$&+'$&#$+!-!$3&$# $3#$$&'&3#$3#$1!1

PAGE 31

.% 0 )0?.%*2%.AB?"?;C%*%0? ;!'-! #$1)$&'& #$1%'$' .1D@@('$!3+,#$&7' &-!'''-#33#$$&'-3#$1'$' 0!!$'1-3+,#$&$'!-3#1 $&7$&7$!!!$'1-3#$1'$'&! 3#$1'$&'%'!$'''$&-!'7'M' 33'$&;##7$&+!!$'!'$'-$&' 3+,#$&'$$''!$''''! !$'1-3+,#$&+$&&$&+$&!;# B,&&&!&'!!$'1-' ,#$&--'!3$-!$'!'$' "*&&?,&D96@(',!! 3#$1'$&'!,#&+3''!!$'1 +#(+'1$&+J!&$&+'!,& &$&+3#$1'$','$&!1!,:$'J %#!+!*&&?,&D96@(-& !''!#'3#$1,$J! +$&&$&+'-$,$#$/$&J!1+!J'1'$ &$&'3#$1&'#3#1+7-!!!6 '#$&'!$3JE!$#&'3$&+'3$-$##18

PAGE 32

!3#$1'$&'E#DDD(-&'$$# #$&+''1$&+J$&$'$,!&#+17' !!.!!':3#&!$:& #J 0!&3-3#$1,$$&'$$&#$/ 7$!!,&-!#$&&$''&$&+ *&&?,&D@(%&+!#13,1' -,$!1$!$,##$0!'& ;&$'2& ?&&,$'#1-$&:3#'-3#$1,$'$& !3'7,!3#$1'$&'! &&#+#1&%$&3!&&"*&& ?,&DD(!,'!%$&3+$' &!$&'!$#'3!$''3'1E$##$ R'&R!&"713-$&-#&!,#3& -!'$#'$&'&!'!3#$1'$&'! '-!$'$'$3#$&0!1&&!R'= '!-'$##1#,&&7#+&# "71=':&'$&-R'=&$&',#3 &'-'$$&13$''-!3#$1 '$&'#*''7##'3$-$##1$"71=' &$$&'$&!$'3%&'%( )((# "*&&?,&D(+7$! *''7##'$&+!"71J#$&&$&'&#

PAGE 33

3''-$&<$1!'&'!!&313#$1'$'J+#8( !7,J&$+!&'$#*''7##! -&-'1'$3#$1'$&3#11,$!$'$$&+ !%()(( 9(?! $3& &$'66'!'.!#'$@(*1& 8(&&8@(667$&'&#$&! 3'!-33#$'$#'!&!#''$$' *''7##7!$'+&$/1'','$&#$&+ *&DD(&+#('J!&-&!3#$1'$&'J %#!+!*''7##986(+&$/! &$$&'-!:$'$&+'$#'$&'$&'#,$&+ !&$'''!#'',!!7'&!$&-&7$&'$$&'''7!! !-&#'-&$&*''7##&,$'$& !&-#$6$'$3#$&133!'' !'3#'-7''7#!!$' ##07+3'!$73$&''!'& &$''7!'33-7'!-$'3#$1 ''*&DD&7'7!DD(*$&1 DF(#$!!3$#'-!3#$1 '$&'#$#1&$'& '3$-$##1A3&'=--',#3' 9

PAGE 34

##$&3#&$&+E#E*,$&( '!&$,&'$&!'&8'#$ !-&$&-!-$'<&$$,'$'&%$&'#$'$&9&-3&#!$#$$& --'$&!9'.&,'#1M&&SD 9(-&,$&'33$&+!$#$-'!'1'' '$'7'-$'&!'&&!'&#! ,#3&-3#$1'$' %'$'!'$&&1&,'!7,,$'$$#$1 #'!'$'3$-##'"*&&?,&D@( #! %!'$!3$&''!& &$$&$&+$&!+$'-3#$1'$' 7+$&$&+$&-#&-&#&'! '1''-$&###$&&'#' $&+& "!#&.!#'*$b(7&+ !-$''3+$&'7!!1##! $?!&'$,33!&#&-! &$'&'1'''$'33!'(##$&+$ J&+'&&7#JE$#,'1@(7&,& -!$$$/$&+!'1''3#1$&+'!!&$<' '!'3+3#&&$&++$&+'1'' 2)(B& F(&##F9(-&'$$##$$$&'$& &$''''''$#$'''7!$# 'D8($$$/'1'''$''-$' @

PAGE 35

$&'&'$$,$13#$3#$1$''' 0!''&!$!&'$,33! !$&$$##17''13#$1''&' *''7##=',$7!!3#$1'$&'<$ #$$'$3#$&13'3$,"F8D( 3!'$/!$''&&&$&+!!'$&$-$ !'$&'!$7$&
PAGE 36

$3#&$&,#$&&$&$&0!$'3'' 33!$--'$$&+#1-+#(7!< 3#$1'$'7$!3+,#$&"*&& ?,&DF(!,$&!7,!7!$# !J,#$&J$'$&$#7$!!''$& #'-3#$1'$'!&$&+'<$ $--&J0!3#$13''#''''! 3#$$#&+&$/$&#''&''-3#$1 ,#$&J!!&!J!&$<'&!',#$&J$&+*&&?,& "-$&$$&+,#$& +,#$&$'-&$''''$-$7 &$7$!&$,'#+&'7!$'& '&$�!$'$'&!'!7,' -!#$-$$&-7!3+,#$&$&#' &:#'$'3'&! &&3#$&$&+,#$&E!#1 D9(-$&!JM'J,#' J3+'$&&3+3-&''''&'3+3-&&!-'!$&-#& 3-&J#'&!!'#'-'! ,$7''&$J3#$1'&+' '--&$&'!'JB&+&&## D

PAGE 37

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

PAGE 38

$&#$&+-$&&$#$$&+$&!3+,#$& -$&$$&&-'$'-'&#,#&$&+:$&$&!7'-#$#&-$! 3+,#$&3'' %!$-$'+&&+6,#'#$'$& !-3+&$$&+!''$&;& DF(-$&'J!'1'$31 ,#$&'!':$&3+,+& #$,1J''$&;&D($&# &$$&+'M#''-,#$&?!:3' $'+7$!!$!&$$&+$',#$& !&DD(+!,#$&'&#$ &$$&+($&3&&'1'$'$''33' !$&&##''+#$/,'$+! &,$'$&1&$$&+ &3$&+7$!.!#$'1"&&27&*& .1&!&7&'$'#1:#-$&&$# $'3#$1'$'3#&&$&+&&$$&+ $,$$'-!$''!='-$&$$&-3+ ,#$&0!',#'&'-!$';$' 3'&#,#$&:3$&'1.!#$'1D9(3$& !!3!'$'&,$73$&'--$&&$#$' '$+&$-$$--&-3+,#$& '!&3$0!$'$''-$&&$#$' 8

PAGE 39

&3#$&7$!3$&-$&&$#'&' 7!$#3+,#$&'& -&$' &+&$'!-$&$$&'31&1 :3''3+,#$&'&!$&#&!-$&$$&-,#$&3#11 !$'33)&$&'3$-+#='$&'$'&& <$&+3#$1'$'&3+,#$&# 3$+$&+'!!1$--&!& #$ #$1'$'&3#&&$&+! 3'3$,7!$#3+,#$&$'! '3$,E!$#27&"1/D@(' !3#$1'$'&$!3'3$, '3$,!&D(7$!27&*& D8($&'$'!3+,#$&$'-'& '1$&+3#$3+'3#$$'#13 $$''3$,( ;!!&D(&!#1 '$&+<'$&'3+'&&$&-<&'$' $&$$&+($'&&+!-$& ,#$&'!'#-6,#$&+#'++'1 E$#,'1F969(#'$'&$&#$&! '3-!$''!&'!'!&,$'$& !-''&$&3&&:&#-#' #+$'#$,3+,#$&'0!$''!#' 8

PAGE 40

:#'!-$'&1$&'3+&#' '$&!'13$##1&1$'! :$,&!+&$' &'13+,#$&'-$&1! '!33'!-##7'''$&;&D D(7!',!,#$&'!#'1'$ +#$&3&&&'3$,3''''''$&++,&+'0!-! '!7$##-##7.!#$'1D9("&&D(!& D(&!'1:#$&+-$&&$#$'3#$1 '$'3#&&$&+&&$$&+$,$$'-$' -$&$$&-3+,#$& $'1+,#$& 0!@''7$$&'$&!'-! 3+,#$&#"*&&?,&D( '!!$'$'' !,$'33'-3#$1'$'7'#& -3#$3+''!!'$#M$,' :3''$&!#1@'#7$!&7 &--$,3+'&&1$#' ,#$&7'&'$!3#$1'$' +# 7!!$#! 3#$1 %'.1D@(',3+,#$&$'& 33#$$&-3#$1'$'&$''$ !,#3&-!3#$1'$&'&'$'0! 8 U

PAGE 41

'-,$'!#+$''1!,#$& &$1&-&$&&-$'$3#$&' 'D8(3+,#$&='$+$&' DF'&!$,&'$'&$&2$$'! '!#'?&!!!&)!&@F69( ''!!'-!-$'J'$&$-$ ,#$&'J#-&$&'!&1) 3#$!#!3$&'$&!#D'''$& ;&D(+7$!)!&'$&+! 3#$!#!'$'7&+!-$''1'$ 3+,#$&'0!1!$&# ,#$&'-#$1&3$&#$&$&+3+' #'7&3#$&!&$)'3$E# E .##DF8($'++$&+$&'! !'-J-#J3+,#$&&-&$& !2+$&+&%&$&+%!! B&#%&$&+?--$B%?(&<$-$&&$# $'--#+&$''!&$#@@ !B%?='3$1-'7'&-$&&$#$'& -$&&$#&'$&'7!$!'7!,'&'!#& ,$7'3+,#$&'.##DF8( 3$&!!B%?7'!-$'+,&&#+&1 +$&$&+'1'$3+,#$&'&# 88

PAGE 42

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

PAGE 43

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

PAGE 44

'J!&-'1'$$+'''''&'3+'3$##1-!$''&&-$' +&##1+&$/$&!@'J)$! 88D('!J!$&$$#$3'&-$&&$# '33-,#$&-!-#+,&&J #+#1$&'3&'!'$#3+''37&1! 7;&$'$&'R!&;A&&1&*1&& 2$&'R!&'&%''#3+,#$& '!'!,-'!$3$&$3#&$&'&! ;#B,&&='3+,#$&--' !&&1'+ &D@D(-&!& F,#$&3'$''1!B%?&D $&'3+&#':$,&!$'(-F8 F9#&0!'7!&''!'$''' 3+,#$&!1&'!$&#'$&'& '$'--#3+,#$&' .##DF(33'!!+&1$&+! #$&&$&+3+,#$&'!$$&.&+''7'!B&#%&$&+?--$B%?(%' $'''#$!B%?7''#$'!1!2+ &%&$&+%-,$7-#+&$' ;!B%?-'&-$&&$#,$7'&$' &$#@@7!&$+&3-&&3+$ ,$7'.!#$'1D(0!).&+''-#$/ 8@

PAGE 45

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

PAGE 46

D(+!!-##7$&+&+''$&#' ',$&'$$&#$/,'$+!$&!#+$'#$, &! V0!*+$'#$,+&$/$&%-@ <$'##'&$&+$'-.&+'' :$'J&$&'7!-#&''J,+&$' &!$M$'$$& V0!&+,&&#.3$&%-@D ##'&#+$'#$,$',$7 +&'6$&6$3+'$&7!!! 3+'$&+!$$&&33''& 7!!!&+''!#!3+' V0!*+$'#$,+&$/$&%-F <$'!.&+''$&#'!),$ :3',$##$',# #+$'#$,33'#'&3,$! $7$!#$'-#7'! :3$&#$'-'M'&3#$1' !!$$+!3-$#1/$& 3!0!%#'<$'###+$'#$, $'3!&-!.&+'' &!$,'$+!7 V0!.&+''$+&3&&.&# %-F+$,'.&+''$3, $&'$$&#&'-&##$&+!+ 1'#$'!$&+!.&+''$+?--$ +$'$&!!'&# 3'''0!%#'$'!B&# %&$&+?--$'#$'!&--$3+,$7&,#$&&& .&+''!'-,$7$&+&,#$&+ -#6-&3+' .&+''#'$&#%1#$ %$&$'$&% %(&!&'% %='-$##' #$&$&+!B,&& -&&'#' %-F0!#+$'#$&<$'3!&'$, 8D

PAGE 47

3+,#$&'-##-#3+'&3!' '$'%$$&##1.&+''!?--$0!&#+1%''''&?0%($&F&!.&+''$&# 2+?--$.2?($&F0!?--$-0!&#+1 %''''&&'$'!$&$-$J!&+#$#13'$$,&&+$,&'<&'-3#$1 #&$,'--$&+!'-!&#+1J$#' (?0%7'$&$&9.2?3,$' $#,$.&+''&!,#3&-! &$&#+"CF(7$!'!&&63$'& '$##!.2?$'-&$1:$,&! '3'3'&';!!.&+''$&#'! ),$3&7$!$&!*$1-.&+'' 3,$'$#7&<''-.&+'' "--19( $!'&8F6(''!!B%?=' --'$&$&+ +%'$'"$,$'$&$&! F'#$&+! +,#$&& !#+1"$,$'$&$&D8(71'3'$&! ,#$&-&+''$&#,#$&--' 0!---.&+''=--'$3,$' $&-$&&$#3$#$$'&'&$& +7!$&!'$/&&-&+''$&#,'$+! +&$'&'--%!9(-&&$&' 8

PAGE 48

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

PAGE 49

'3&'$$#$1-3+,#$&7!$#$&+& '$$&+-#:$,&!3+,#$& #&.!#$'1DDD(-&'$'#$&'$& -#:$,,#$&'--&'' !+!!D'+&DD( +'!J,#$&!;##,#$'$& -,$+-+'J'' !!$&'&-!$&$&-# ,#$&$,$$'$'!,#'-&-$# J+$'''-$&+$'$&6'7'#7$& '3&$&+7!&!1$&7$&--$,$& &$$&+!$'#'JBF9('! -&,#$&'7J$#,&#&+ '$&,$##7!&$'$&'7 3#$$##1$'&$3$#$&!$ &$&'J,&"&,B%? --$$#'3!!1#'!,:3$&'$& !$+''#$&+$--'-3+,#$& 3'&&##3!&$&,$7'7$!B%??--$$#'( ,&'8(&&'!!'$&:$, &!+'&3'&&#!,&$& '$&--#,#$&3$#$13&$1 #''-&$#,# &'13+,#$&#$!3#$1

PAGE 50

'$&'&3#$1'$'!'!#&+3' '!!$'1E!$#)!&@F(3#!-$' J'$&$-$,#$&'J$&!#D'7$!'! &13#$!#!--$$#'':3'+! '1'$3+,#$&+&$&!;# B,&&$&!@'&F'-# ,#$&--'!,'&#$&'!$&! :$,&#''+$&!#+$'#$, &!'%'!;#B,&&&'-' 3+'&'3&'$$#$$'-,#$&+!' 3+'!''!1-!#$&'$& -#,#$&3$#$$' )6#,# +,#$& ;#3+,#$&--'!,#$&!$!$+!#,#'$&!F'&D'&!'' !'$$&$''7!!33'$E!$#&' 7H(#$$&$''&#&3+,#$& +&1$&!#1''''!,&$& $&'!$3$#$$'&',#'''!' '!&$!$+&!,3+ ,#$&--$'7$!$&!3'-$,1'2&'& 8($&$-$7!!,$7'9#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'$&'')''#$

PAGE 51

''!''&?+&!,7#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'K0:'$',&#+7$!-3+ ,#$&+&$'%#',$7-!--$' $&$-$12&'&+'!!##1 3+,#$&--$'$&++#'1'$ 3+,#$&'$&89''$&-!--$' 2&'&$&$$##1$&$-$$!3+ ,#$&'$&-<'3$#$/,$7'+ $&-$&'1',$7'$&3+ ,#$&'(0!'13'-,#$&--$' &!$'$''$&='<$&'-&$&+ '1'$3+,#$&' &'3$-!+7!$&!'$/-'3+ ,#$&--'!&7$'!'&&'$## 33'A#&'$F(!'+,&&' !,&'#7-##7!;#B,&&='# 7$!'3,#$&A#&'$F($&!$' ,$7-2##&##+'(33'+ !#$#&!$&+7'$&+&1!''$&! @'&F'0!,$&'&&$#1'33 !$'+&'3$##1$&!$66#F' 27&&.-D@(&-$!-7 ''7&$&+,#$&'$&!@'0!1 -&-$,3#$'!'3+,#$&'3$ 8

PAGE 52

W F1FF!13!!*+$'#$, +,#$&)$&+'&$,'$1! $,83'-''27&&.D( '&!#D9(33'!&'&-! #'1!''$&'-,#$&3+' 7'!'#+$'#'$&&##1JJ 3+,#$&&,'$+!!J#$+!J$& !'$&''-#7$&+!!$'!&+ 7!&'#7'+&$/!'-#&''-3+ ,#$&$&-$&$&-$&+$##'''$&+ +&1&+&3#',$!$3#&$&&$&'&$&-#$&++' 27&&.-D($&+7$!!3$' !!''+&!$3+,#$&--' -!;#B,&&&!#''!1&& !!!'&7$'3&+#$&'!$&+! -'3+,#$&0!'!$'& ''3$&!#1'!!'''$##&J!7 J#$!&3#$'!12##( E!$#2##='3,$'$&-$'''$&&' ,#$&'-!.3!&'$,$&&0$&$&+ %$$'!#1!-$'J!7J-' 3+,#$&0!!&$'333$#1

PAGE 53

''$+&1&!$'##+'D(7$!! 3#$$&%((%*, 2) ;( 1!&&'$;! 7!&)&'3+,$7'66'3$##1$&+!F' &D?'66$&#$&!:&1-3+ ,#$&&1''!,!$'1-,#$&',#'#&+ )$&+!)+)&'*+$'#$&$&!)' &1''+&!$3+,#$&--'' --'!'-!)&'3''.)*()&'#7' J7'&'&$6$++,&&&36&'J& 3$'J!'$/&''-+,&&J $&+A&1(('! J)&'='33'7''#$'!'1'$#+$'#$, ,'$+!-:$,&!+&$'J&''' !$','$+!$&,#,3$$,#$&-,1 +&1$''$&3+1#+$'#$,'-$!$+&*+$'#$,),$'2(?&+$& !7,!$-!)&',$7'1! ''$&!F'&!;# B,&&0!-$'##-'$''&' $&(-#+&$'-E$##$"+#' ;&#$&"',#='.!$&-!)$$'& 9

PAGE 54

:!&+.$''$&A&1(%$&+2!& FF("+#''++'!-#+&$' '!##$'!J'&'J-&1' E!$#!)&'&3$+!!,$+$&! -##,#$7''$&&,$&$&3$ A&1(7$'!J7&F@&D## 9''&.&+''&'$3$&-)&'#7'J 7$!8@''##1&$&+'!#7'.&,'#1 !;#.&+''&,$3''3!&'$,)&' %,&7!&$7'&+''$$$1$&F@ &'&D(#$!''3 )&'3$$#1'-!$#7#,#'#+$'#$,3-''$&#$'&#-,'$+! !&$'' %$&+A&1(.#7'!-$' '+&$/-##1!$'&-+ ,'$+!&$&+$')&'#7$&F@A&1 ('1'!.#='#77'$&'3&' #1$&+1!$$/&='#1$&++3.&.' !)&'&3J&M1!'33-#$#' &&',$,'''!&$)'J )&'#+$'#$&!'!''''.& .'3!-FDD@83& -!+&$',$71''&$&7$7 @

PAGE 55

$&&$&*+$'#$,),$'%+&1( %#!+!)&':3$&''''$&!'' !$'!$,&7''!6#$,;DDD 83&-!+&$',$71##'' 7$!)&'#7'7$&A&1(#' !J!3$!3$&-)&'J!'& -##71J+7$&+&--$&'J7$!! .#$&$&+!-$''##!#)&'$& D&7&&-)&'!''$&D )$:''%&''$''$''$33$'7 3'!$E1$&+&$&8$!$+&(!,3# !$)&'#7')$:!''?+&&& ,!'#&)!"&.&&$(!, ##7)&'#3'$&$&$,$1$!$+& *+$'#$,),$2(E!$#.1@( 3'!!-$'1'-)&'$&0:'7 J3$,J$&#$$&$&++&$'A&199( -$&'!J+7$&+&-!''!, &&)&''-$#-J0:'$'& :3$&!$''$&$&'-&'&+)&' --$ &$'@#+$'#$,'''$&.#='B&# %''#1&-$##'!&3#! #$$&$&-)&'%#!+!!.#*+$'# F

PAGE 56

$&#$'!)&'$33'&3!$' &#&+'&'!'#$&$3,$&+.#) B,&& *+$'#$, +,#$&?--$' E!$#)&'!'&7$&--1&'!'&''''3&-2!F@K 2!&FFK*&D8($!'!&&-$$#'3$##,--''&$#1$&'3+,#$&0!&$&*+$'#$,),$' %+&1(3'!)&'7'!&'&!$&-&1'#+$'#$,3+,#$& --$'K.#$'&:3#-!$',& &$#!$6@'!.#)%$ 3!B,&!!&!B&# %''#1&@9.#,'3''' &'$$&#&&3#$&+!%$$&! #+$'#$,&!&$&+*+$'#$,%$ .$*%.(*$$'-#&3!B%? !.#=')%$='?--$$&$$##1 &-$&&$#$'0!$'!&+7$!!3''+ -.#=')&'*7$&F@.#=')&' 3,$'$&'…#$'$''$&'& +&$'$&!"3&-+#1%+&$'&$' D

PAGE 57

F#+$'#$,'''$&!.#B&#%''#1 +$&&''##7!)%$ &3-&$'3+,#$&'(-## '+&$'3+'&-&$&'$&$$& +#&&#-$&&$#$'0!#+$'#$&$&+ !3+,#$&-&$&#'&''3&'$$#$1-)&',$7'-!*+$'#$, )%$!"3&-+#1%+&$' ,'&1'&$&+$'-!B&#%''#1 0!"3&-+#1%+&$''$##$''3&'$# -,$7$&+'&$''$&'&:$'$&+)&' 3,$'$&' .#=',3#3+,#$&$&! #+$'#$,&!$'&&3&%#'## #+$'#'!,M$&$'!,'! 3+,#$&-&$&''!'''' '33'$&,'$+!$-! !.)*#'3'!B+$$'!' !'&'$6!#+$'#$,$ 3'!&$#+$'#&7'$#17$! '&$&+$'.3'$$&-$',$' !M$1$3$'&%#'$+!'' <$'-!-$'#$33$&1 !#'-!#+$'#&#'''

PAGE 58

33$&#+$'#$,#'!,#$&$ 0!)!.#$&*+$'#$,%$.&$#33$&' 3#$'.&1.)*='''$&'7$$ #'3'!$#$B+$'&3 3$#$!7'$&3&$! '&$&+$'-!#+$'# !!*+$'#$,),$'2&'& 9(',1#+$'#$,,#$&--$'?-! ',#$&--$''3&$&+!2&'& ',183'&$&+$'-!$ #+$'#'-$,3-$'#$'83 '3$#,#$&$$'&'$: 3$!!$&$#+$'#' &'$$&#$&$$$/&=' $2&'&9( 0!'-'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&$!'$3&$-$$&' $&+.)*( +,#$&--$' 3$&+'&$&+$'-!$#+$'#' 3'&&&-!'33'&$&+#' 3:$$1!#+$'#$,3''%!!& 3+,#$&--$'3$&+'3$#$ $'+;#$(3'&$&++ $&3&&-!&$&#&'$&'-! 9 W

PAGE 59

#+$'#$,3'';$'#$'3'&$# &+ .)*(3'!!!-'$&+& ,#$&-&$&,$'-''0!! $&''!,!-##7$&+,&+'& $',&+' ,#$&1'&$&+$$'#'' !#+$'#$,3''%,&+'!$'33!!' &7#+#&$&'$&! 3+&,$7"$',&+' !'-&,1 $&&1#'+&$' &3+'&$&3&& M$,''''&'?,'$+!1'3$# 3+,#$&$$!' !+'$&3&&-! #+$'#$,3''0!$'33! 3,$'!'M$,''''&+&13-&)3$#$/'--' !,!3$1&,#$& '$'7,#+$'#$,''3$#$/$'-&&-$#$ 7$!!$''',#%&! $',&+-!'3$#,#$& $33!$'!+&##1!' $'&!,!!$1 J$'J#+$'#$&0!'$'' 7!+!#+$'#$,'&$&+ $'+#+$'#$,!&+' &,#$&1-$'#$ 3'&'!$#&+&! &$&',&+'$'$ #$&7$!!+3''7, !$'#'$'7&'''$&'--' #1$+7&$&+ 3+,#$&$&'' !,17# $!$&;#$&$&&1!'''! ,#$&-&$&3$#1!'=' 9

PAGE 60

:$,#'!$3&1':$,&! +&$'$&;#$'7##'$&!''3#1 $&&#$'!'<$,#&-# $&'3'+&#(&,$7'-3+'%' '#$$&!$'!3$&&#$,$7' 3-1:$,&!,#''$! -'-!$'!'$' &$&''(-&!J#'## #+$'#''M$&$3$'&$'& #+$'#$,3+,#$&'R&'.)*DD( +!!'$'66!$'#+$'#$, $'&$&3&&-!:$,&!' 7##'!$&&3$'&&'66$3&'&' 7!1',#$&--$'!,!$+!+-''' $&+$&+#+$'#$,$'$&6''!$ '$';$&'&$&.#!*%.$'! $-!B&#%''#17!-! $&$13#$$#311','$!$ *+$'#$,'3+,#$&--$'! 'M-!$'$''$&'3$-$##1!$' !'$''$''#+$'#$,3+,#$& --$'$&$-!1!,!&1+''' !&-#3+,#$&')&',$7') ''3'$+&$-$&'''''#$&+-!$ 9 $ W

PAGE 61

3+,#$&-&$&';:3#!'$' !$!'',Q-,1##$&,'$&3+ ,#$&;!C$+$&$3$&(761 ',$&+'-!&Q$##$&'#$&+-$' 3+,#$&'&$&*+$'#$,),$'%+&1 ( &)1 &,$7'#+$'#$,3+,#$&' &-&$&%$&3+$'&!3#$1 '$&'%#!+!3+,#$&--$'!, 3$&!;#B,&&'$&!&-! &1'3+,#$&+&$'!,!! '!!$'1+$&&$&+3$$#17$!#1' )&'--'&#$$'-#3''' #+$'#$,3+,#$&!''$ %&:3$&!$'!'&!!:&'$, '!&-')&'3$'E!$#,#$& --'!-##,#!,#$&!&',#$&--$'7$!!:3$&-7H !,$&',!3'0!-'-!$' $''$&$'&'#+$'#$,3+--$' +,#$&''-$&,$-& $'&+&$'3$&#$'3+ ,$7'3#$&$'&+&--$$&1,$7' 98

PAGE 62

'&$'G'&',$7'&3-&'& &1'#+$'#$,--$'$&3&&-! :$,&!0!$'$'&'$'&7$!.)*( !-$&'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'! )1'$,$7-:$,+&$'&! 3+'!1$&$'0!$',$7$'''&$##1 7#$&+&'''''!7+&$'& 3+'!,&7$&+%$,$$'&!$' -$&$$&$-&$'3+ ,#$&'&+&,$7'3+'# ,$7'&'&',$7' %'!&:!3'!7'&!'$&!3#$1 ,#$&&&7#+$#$/$&#$'' 3$$#1&'$'&--#,#$&'!# !3+,#$&'#1$-,'1 $'$&6'$3,3+'$&-3#$1 0!$'$''$&7$##+!'!!$'1 <$-!-$&&''#-!$#$1 &-''!,-&7$!3+,#$&' 9

PAGE 63

.% 08 CE?;0*0%0%"0?0.%*;%E?A &$& 27&*&D8(&.1D@(# !3+,#$&$'&-!3$1''' '$'-3#$1'$'0!33&'''3+,#$&='$--'$&'#$&$&! 3,$'!3(&,$7-&3'3$,';$'3+,#$&!'&!$+!#1 '''-#$&,$&+-!;#B,&&&1 '&&1##+,&&'E!$#!$'3'&' &$&'$&+3'3$,!$'$''$&$&-3+ ,#$&$'&3-!$'$''$&*$7$' ##+,&&3+,#$&--'#' '$!$''! %&!3'3$,+$&+!J'''J3+,#$&!'&!'$+&$-$&+7!$& ,#$&!#+$'''&$&.1=' %-( V % -(;# #D@F(!J3&-!'$3& $#'$&3#$$&$'$&3$#$&'$& &#'J-7!$!&1!7666$'&3#$1 $ M $

PAGE 64

'$'3+,#$&&$'$' '1'$!$&$&+2+$&,#$&!#+$' &!-'! !!#-'-!$'!'$'$'&!7 3+,#$&'3-1'#+$'#$,--$' '1'#+$'#'6$&!$$'$&6$&+ '3$-$##1!-'$'&$'1 #+$'#'&!$'$&6'+,# +&1&+'($&!!1'$&$-$1 '&!#F&D9(#7$&+K+1$'$&4 $&+K&+&13#&+&&'#$& $$3#&$&-&$&'(;$'!&D ($&$-$!-##7$&+'$:'$$#J7$&7'33&$1J7!,#$&&$&-#&&+''$&# $'$&6$&+(,#3&-&7#+$'#$&( 6!$/$&+-:$'$&+#+$'#$&8(&&# 333$$&'&+1#'(,'$+!!$&+' 9(&+''$&##1&,#$&'&@( :3&'$&-!1-&7#+-$'$&' 21$'$$&+7&!! ,#$&'#'-$&$&+'&G&$&'( '1#+$'##+$'#'$&3:&'$,#1 -#+$'#$&''&+&13+ 3#'($&$-$$&!3+,#$& 9@ $

PAGE 65

)$$##1$'$&+1$'$&6$&+&' !&,#$&$!$&33##1$''1 #+$'##+$'#'$&$'''$&'$&' '&$&'+,&&+&13+ -&$&='+''#--$&$&+' &$&'&$&$&!3+,#$& ;$&##1&,#$&$'-$&'$#1'$& +&13#&+&'#$&7!&#+$'# #+$'#'+&1&+''!,#$&$& 7!#3''+&1&+&3#' 013$##1!$'$'&!+!,#+&1 $3#&$&-,#$&&$&'7$! ,'$+!1!#+$'#$,$&'! $3#&$&'&1'''''-##7633''$&+!+&13+ -!#+$'#$,,'$+!1#$ 13$##17$!$&71'($&$-!+&1 !'$&-!3#'$#$+ ''!7$&$-$$&!3+,#$& %#!+!!,$1-71'!&,#$& ,'$+!1&-##73&&$&'-! 33''-!$'!'$'!,$'13'!,& #''$-$$&7+3'0!-$'$'-$&!' #''-#-##73*''-#-##73$&#'! 9F

PAGE 66

-##7$&+,#+&$''$3$$3' 3+,#$&''3$$##1''& ,#+&$''$3'2&'&9( $&$-$!'13'--##7630!'&13-##73$'-#0!$'13--##73$&#' !-##7$&+!,#$&--$''$&+ '1'!,'$+!$,$'$'!31 !#$&+-##763!$&+7$!!,#+&1 ''''!''-&$&$3#&$&& -##763$',#$&'(&''<&-##763 !$&+'&%+$&2&'&9(#' $&$-$!'13'--##763 0!0';& -&%$$&+%''$$& -B,&&%&&'8D(&''! $3&--#-##763&$&+! 3-&$G3+,#$&--$'$,#1 &$!'#'!1!$,$&+0!0'; ''!3+,#$&--$'&$$&+ &$&$3#&$&#$#1' !$+!#,#'-$3#&$&!&--$'! #$#&&$$&+ 9D

PAGE 67

.&0!1$'"3&&?&;#)$' C$'+&'&+$&'$$# '1-'+,&&#+$'#$,3+,#$& #1!'&&&!'-' 3##$&++&33'!3+,#$& #1!'&7$#1,$7-,$'3'3$,' &7$#1$''''$&!#1F'0!$'3$& !'',#$$12##D9(-:3#-& !&$#$/$&'!'$'1!$6 F'3$&+,#'-'!-$&$&+''!##1 $#'&''<&!13!''+$&+! '-#&''#-'-#&''(,#$&' 0!$'&$&!&&,$$&+3#$&! !1+&1!'!-!F'&D' !3#'-''''&-3+,#$& #1,$##1##-!#$'!-'& -#3+,#$&'&-#:$,&! $'$&6'-,#$&'$+&$&+& &+''$&#'+-,#$&'$3 !'3+,#$&'21!$66# D'&-,#'+E!$!D9K& E$''D(!-!:3&!'3-!$ --'$&#&+''$&#'-3+ 9

PAGE 68

,#$&'E$!-7&#:3$&'+%#$& FK$!27&FK&)"27&D(' '!'!,&$&$+&'&## ,#$&--'0!$'&+#-'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&'+$&'&$''3'&' !-#$,#1&:3#7$!3&$#-!$&+!&7#+'-!7$'$&4 '66$&!$'''#+$'#'&&+',#+&$'66'3+,#$&' ?&'#-!:&'$,'!--##,# ,#$&'$'!!$''$+&$-$&1#$$'''$&+-#$'$&6'3+,#$&)$&'-!'!!' '$-#3+,#$&'!#'!,& !'$$#&#'$&'!''#$&+$&3' -!1!!$'&'3$'$&+#1! &$-E!$#!'!-$&+!&#!& ,#$&$+!J3#$$&$'$&J #$.1D99'1'!3#$ $&$'$&7'3&&$''$#+1 3'1!#+13#$$#'$&'&'$&'' $&$'$&(73$1''-!+!--$&+ $3&$&'$+!'$&,#$&'+-! 3#$1,#$&&'$#+1&7#+$#$/$&( @

PAGE 69

#$'),#$'''$'7!&&3' '3!'!&&,#$&13#$3#$1 '!'&1&7#+$#$/$&'!#';$' ''!'&'$#1-$$&&+3 #'$#1#&+$!!3#$1&7#+ ''#+'+.#E$''()&!3#$1& &7#+$#$/$&#$''!&' B#/D8(&.$'& 'F(! $+$&'-&7#+$#$/$&R'&"71 %'7'$'''#$*&&?,&D( '$$##1!$+$&'-!3#$1'$&' !'%$&3+$'';!!3#$3#$1 &&7#+$#$/$&!'33&,+$&! #F'#1D'7$!!-'$&+#''!,$#1 &!#+$'667!$!7'-'-!3#$ 3#$1#$66&&,#$&$#$/$& E!$#&7#+$&+!'$'''7!,!'& '3$&$$##1!3#$3#$1&&7#+ $#$/$&#$'$'''!$&$$&' !!1&,#$&'0!',#'&' -!$';$''.1D@6($&-' J$&$$##1!3#$133!7$''&+!-! $'$3#$&'-&$'&3#$$#'$&J7!1 #1 @

PAGE 70

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

PAGE 71

6F('$&7#+$#$/$&'!'1-! 33#$$&'-,$##&7#+!&#+11 '' $'$3&!-+$&7$!,$7'-!M&$$&'!,#$& #$!!,-!'7''!+!;'-$'''$&!''' +3$&!-##7$&+73$1' &$$&'3,$3$$#113#$ $&$'$&3#$$#'$&&&$' '!'3#$3#$1!1(& &$$&'3$$#1-'$#+$'' '3$-$##1&7#+$#$/$&'!' &7#+$#$/$&!1( 0! #$ #$1 $+ %'.1D@(',',#''!13#$3#$1'!'73$$#1 '&',$&'--#3+,#$&'!, +#1$&'!&'&$&+-'!#'+$&+ !73+,#$&'&7!,#$&-$'$& !3#$13'''$11&E$#,'1FD( &127&*&D8(?!3#$3#$1 '!''!'*$&#&.!&F(& @8

PAGE 72

*$&#@(3$&!#$$'3-''$&#$&<$1;!*&DD@( '$!73#$$'$&',#$&7!$#)& DD8@(!##&+!$!1-'$'& 3#$$'?!'!#''!'R&$&'6)$! 6(!,',!'$''!#' 3''#$'''!'$&'$&+! !&'-$'$&+',&R&$&'6 )$!&)$88(!,!J'+' !$'$J33!3#$3#$13-!1 *''7##'&%&'&&R&'!J'! 3#$13''$&-&$&##1&3##1$'$& '3'''J +#''-7!!&3'!'+' !$'$#&$$'#!!'!& &3#$3#$1&,#$&!'&!#3 :3&&7#+-!3#$3#$13''#' !'$&$-$''3$'-$&+3+ ,#$&'E!$'$3&!'!& ,!3'',#'#'!'&'13#$ 3#$1'!'$,&#! 3'#$&+!3+,#$&-$#'3$' :3$&'0!$'!$'''31*& DD88( @

PAGE 73

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

PAGE 74

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
PAGE 75

,#$&3$$&'&'!'$'-$&7! !$#3$+$+!;!!1D8@D( '!!$$&#,$7!,#$&''!# #$&6&$&$'$&'$'$, ,#$&(!'&3#1&77&''! ,#$&''!#3#13+$3,&# -$,,#$&'(0!$'7&''$'!'#-$&$&+'!&1,#$&'$&&#'$,2&'$& &;&F9( #$3#$1='3!'$'&,#$&'+&! ,#3&-&73$+!,$7'$&#$+!!3#$$#&'$&'$3'&+,&&'# $&&,+&-!+!7&3#$3#$1& &7#+$#$/$&'!' 0!A&7#+$#$/$& $+ 0!-$&$&+'$&1#1&7#+$#$/$& '!'$&#$&+.3#&F9(E$''F(E$'' &2,#'D(&!'$&$,++#1 7$!!'$,13#$3#$1'!'' #1&7#+$#$/$&'!''.& ##='FF@(-$&$$&-7!&'$ $'-3+,#$&66!!7'J'$' $'''$&-!'#'$&'3$# @F

PAGE 76

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

PAGE 77

*$'3#$3#$1'!'&1'!' -!&7#+$#$/$&&$1&#! 3+,#$&7'&''$$&$&3#$1'$3,3+'E$''F8( *,$&&+!'D9F(',!!$' 13-'$&-$&+3#$1&$3,$&+3+'(!' &J$&-$&3''$&+J1E$''FD( $!FF(##$J$&'&#'J+#'' -7!$&#+1$''!<$&-'! $#$/$&$'!!'&3#! -$&$&+'!3#$13+&'1! ',$&!!'#'!,&'$& '3$-$711$'$&6'*,$&&+!'D 9F69D( &$$&$'!-'-!$' $''$&(!!13'-$#$/$& $&+B&+&&##@8F(! -J#''$-'#&&'< $--$#J0!'$&#-$&'& 3''$,&&3#$#$/$&$&+ *,$&&+!'D9D(0!'13'-'66 3''$,&&3#66&!-'! @

PAGE 78

%3'%&3#$/$& +,#$& '&7#+$#$/$&'!' +,&E$#$&D(!,3J'J 3+,#$&0!''!'33'!! #-'-&3,$'#1$+!!'#-7! !1##.& ##=',#1&7-$&$$&J'L!3!'$/'!$&--'$&-$&&$'$&6$&+*,$&&+!'D 9F69D(3$&!'&7#+$#$/$& '!'+!$',#--' --#,#$&'7!1!&+&# !7$'$&6'',#$&'$&!71' 0!''!'#&#!$#$/$&7'& &$1$!!!$+!$--& 13'$&+(-' $!FF(-:3#''#&'$# ,$&-7!!##J&3#'J13#$14 '+!&3#':$'7!&& ,#$&$&-#&3#$16='!$&$&+& $''7$!!,$&+!$&-$&$&+3 '3$-$$&#'E$''D8( #-!$'13-''J&7#+3J 0##+FF(-&,$&-'!'$&) "3&-$&-&$&+$'$&'+$&+! F

PAGE 79

$''$&$&-$&$&&,$&'E$''FF( &'$'+$&-,-!$3&&3#'-,#$&'$&3#$3#$1$'$&' &3+' ;!*,$&&+!'D9D(&! '!'$&$-$'$##&!--'!1 $J3''$,'J-,#$&' ''$,' :$''7!&$'$&6'7&,#$&,$&$& &3&,$&!''33!$3#$$# 3'$$&'-&!$3'$$&'*,$&&+!'D( &&!$'##+' FF(7&+!-$'&#!7!$#! 7'#$#,$&-''33$&+$&'&# !$'!'!$'33&#'$&! ,#$&'&!,'$+&$-$&J&#$+!&&J'?& !!!&E$#,'1F(&*$&#&.!& F(3$&!7!$#,#$&1&' -$&-$&-3#$1'$$'&&''$#1 !'+$ &#'1 &D@(&-$#$ ,$7'!!$&+$#--'--# ,#$&'&3+'$,$$'&-&$&'7 +$, &#'3!$'$&4 '33',#$&'-< F

PAGE 80

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

PAGE 81

!--'1,$''!':3&! &$'-7!'3'!3,$#J #$&J-!!3#$3#$1&&7#+$#$/$& !$'$''$##!3+,#$&'#1'# $&$'#$-$$&'3+3#$$' *,$&&+!'D9D(3$&!!' '$+&$-$&$$&$&$&+'$'7!! ,#$&'--$'$&6$&+$&$ $$71.& ##='FF-$&$$&( %33#1$&+!$''&-#,#$&'$$''1 '7!1''!'&#$&!F'& #1D'!!7'#$#,$&-' 0!33'$3&:3$&'!' -$&$&+';:3#R&'D8F6D(+! !$&#&'$-$&='(,#$&0$#-!#&1&)&1$&%7' ':&'$,#11.&+''$&FF6FD*,$&& +!'D988(+3$&+!! ,#$&7''1.&+''$&'3&&' 3&'1$&#+$'#$&E!$#! 33!-'$&+$-$'1''3'','' $$&#+#&!'33'!,3,$ ,#$&$&-$&'-#$'$&'$' &!,&R&'D8D(,$7' F8

PAGE 82

J'3$#'JR&'D8D('$!J-7 ,#$&+&$'7$##!,!&$<+&$/$&# &+&!##7'!$&3&&& !1#$#1!,'!&1,$##-'!J !'#$$$&+!+&#$/$#$1-='#%' #&!$'D8(3$&,7!& 3+'$&+&!,#$&-&$'! -$')!$'!'7$!!!' '$&&$'& )/&&DD96@(&2DD@86@9( 3,$1&!:3#-&,#$&1! &37"&'$&'!.3$&".(! !1&&7'3$,#!3''+-!;$#1 )33%-DD)/&&DD(+! $&+$&'-".'!$+!#1'''-#''''&7 $'#&$#1-$&$&+''&&,$&$&+'! !''1&$3$#+&$/$&$&,$1-'&-'2DD(7!7-)& $1&$!$&-$&+!;$#1)33% '#$&+-!,#$&7'3$$'$$&'$&+ !3!3'!$''7!,#$&7''!#3 -3#$#73'&'J&7&7&-#3!' $&!'$#'$&3#$1$&+#$&'!$3J 7,2DD@(!!$'#'1JM' F

PAGE 83

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

PAGE 84

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

PAGE 85

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

PAGE 86

)&$&+!#$'& ,#$&'&$$&$#1-'!$&0!$' #'!'&'$:&'$,#1;:3# E$''FD(-&!&$$&&7'7 $&$'&!'&$$&'& '#''*,$&&+!'D( .&$$&''-$&!!,',#$3& '3';$'$$'$3&$&7!! ,#$&$+$&,#$&'$+$&$&+#+$'#'&7''$'&!!$+!#1,$'$# 3#$''333$'3'7 &3#3''$,''!&!'$+$&$&+#-$'-!,#$&'-!'#,')&$&+.)*($&' #+$'#$,3+,#$&!13-,'$+! $7!$!&,#$&--$&$'$' 3''#'$&'$+&$-$&,$$&'-'; :3#.)*(!''!,#$&--$' 3$&+'&$&+$'-!$#+$'#' !,+#$#$!-!,$&+#+$'#$&''&$&+$'!,!37$& #+$'#$&2&'&9('!'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'3$&+,'$+!$' 7$!!37$&#+$'#$&!,!$+! FD

PAGE 87

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

PAGE 88

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

PAGE 89

''0!$''!!7,'&'3$-$##1 :$&'#+$'#$,3+,#$&$&!3#$1 &:'++'1E$'')!&:$&$&$'1& !'3-!3'&'!)$&!3'& '!-''&:$&$&+$$#$/$&$#' '&#-&3#' 0!'!33'!'&$''7$! !#''-,$#'$&$-$13$'$' ''!'!,'!7&!!',$#'3#1 3$&&#'$&+$&+,#$&''E!$#!' ,$#'&!3$1-'-!$'$''$& !1$3&$&#$+!-!7!1--,#$& ''7'$''', $#$/$&;'%$,#$&'$+ #,& %#!+!''!'3-$&$&+#$#& &+$#,$&-$'-,#$&'! -##,#!'$##$'+#-$'+& &+'-!3$&&,#$&'!' +$&+!7'&#$+!&&3'$'$&4 '07#'!!,&7$#1$''' !$#$/$&-'#!3$&1 && 7! &'!J$J#!3$&! '1'1.#E$''&!$#$/$&-'#

PAGE 90

!,#-''&$&$-1$&+1$'$&6' +$&+!$&,#,''$&+!$<'$&'& $&+&$&'!!13#''$&+ &DD( &,$7!$'#' !'71+,#$&''E$''DD& DD(&!7,!!$$&# $#$/$&-',#$&,1 &!' &'&J$&$--&'''J ?&!!!&E$''DD('$! #&$,#'J$J,#$&'!3!'$/ '!33''-##7$$&#'&'!#+$#$+&7'$#'$& !1 &&&!!$'#'&3 ,#$&'!'1$'$&6'&!'! ,#$&''#$&#$#!&J$J :$''E$''F(+7$! &&& 3$&)!'1'!!J$$&$&'$' #',#''3'!-7$&+&#'$&'7!& !13!$'#'%'!1'$!$M$' &!'1&/!K$$'& &$&J +#''-7!$!'$&+'7$!!E$'' & &33&&7$!&!$&+66 $&'$&+!'-,#$&$&,$1D $

PAGE 91

$&'&#-$#$$,&&#$+!&&-')$! &.!$3DF(0!-$#$$,&&#$+!&& #'#+$$''-,#$&0!-'!$'!'$'!7,$''3$-$##1&$&'&# .& ##FF($&-$&3''$&+E$'' FD($&B&+&&##(' 0!-!$#$/$&6-'33!$&$'--' $&$-1'$&!$''$'(-3+ ,#$&'$'''&!'#,#0!3'& '!'$''!7,7$!!$#$/$&6 -'#='-'&''$&+1$'$&6 <'$&'&$&+&$&'''!' '3$-$<'$&'&'!$'!'$'+'! J3#$63#J,#$&'-&&1 '#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'7$!! '#$&+$$#$/$&1'$'$&4 '0!$'$''$'$'''$&$##7 )!#G'&,#,& 0!$'$&!,#$&'!&$1 +$&+!:&!'!#''!#$&,#, $&$&$-1$&+3$'&7!!!33'$,$&# $&#'++'1 &&!'$'!' 333$-'1$&+,#$&!-!'!' D8

PAGE 92

$'$'''$&$##7 ),##'!,&'++'-'1$&+ '!#$&,#,&0!$#$/$&6-'# ,1 &DD&DD(''$&$-1 1$'$&6'+!$&,#,#1&'' !$<'$&''1,$#'!17&'$& 3#-&$3#$&+&&$#1&-& &DD(+!!$'#$'!' &$,-+$&+,#$&'''$&'' !!1'!#'$&,#,$&!,#$& !+!E$''F8(!J*''&!,#&7#1$,&!'&$';$&7! $&$$!$-!,$&+&,#$&-!3+ &-7!33''J ?&!!!&BF($'+' +$&+$&'-$--&$&$&#$' B&##13#$1'&'3$-$##1<' ,#$&'$'&'-#,#$& '--'1$&7!'$'!3#$1 '&0!,#$&3'-##$& J'7J-'$'!3#$1'&' &!$'1-&+''$&#''-,#$& .$&'&)!7/D(-!-$&& '$!'!'#!33!'$''' ,1 &&B0!-$'33!.$&' D

PAGE 93

&)!7/J-$6#J,'$+!0!J-$6 #J#$&,#,''#$,&$$&+1.&+'' $++13#$&'-#+$'#'&+''$&# $'$$/&'&$&'+3'7!$&+ 3&$#3#'#+$'#'=&$&$&+ E!#'9(0!J-$6#J##' 33'#'#1'#!$#$/$&# '$1 &DD(&!3$&+3+7!$! &$#'!!,#''1,$#'!$'$&4 '7&'$&3#-&$3#$&+ E!#'8(&#!3$$&+ ,#'+!'3&$$&+J-$6#J 13-,#$&'0!3'&'!''7!! !J-$6#J#$''':&'$,#1!' #,#7!!'&##'$'''1 E!#'$''-< !'&#$' !J3#$3#J#,#$&3$'-!$' #'##1!'#-'$#1& ,#$&'+##1'!#,#$&'!&# 1#-$'('++'$&'-,#$&'-$&+E!#'(0!J3#$63#J# 33''#!#&$,#'$1 B(&!3,$'3+7!1,#$&'--' 1$&7!'$'3#$16'&&!$' D9

PAGE 94

##+$'#'#''#$#1'++'3$',#$&,$7'E!$#-#,#$&$,$$' +!''1!B%?&$&'3'+&#(' !#'!1-&''&+''$&# <'$&'$&!J-$6#J.!#$'1( )#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'#'!, '&&$&'$&!'-!J-$6#J# 7,.)*(3'!M$1-'' '$##'#3$'-,#$&!+!#+$'#$& ''#-+#,#$&'!#',#$& '--'++'$&'66!J3#$3#J# 0!J-$6#J#3'&'3#'-! 3'&'!'$&!-'!$'&$',#$&'0!$'#'$1.!#$'1(#&' $'#-'$#1$&$-1$&+7!*,$&&+!' D('$'!3''$,'-,#$&7! $'$&6'$&$-1!,#$&3$&! ,#$&!&3'3,$&'7'& &$&'&1!$'$&67!$&$$ !'1E!$#!#$''!!J-$6 #J#$'-&'$++,#$& '$'!-##,#!3'&'! :$&'!$'''3$&!'#,#$& $-!$'',$&!#'$&'#+$'#$, D@

PAGE 95

3+,#$&'0!',#'&'-!$' ;$'!$''!''-$$#$/$&3+,#$&'0!J3#$3#J#33' #$#13,$,$&-'!$#$/$& '$&!'#'-!,#$&'3'& $'$&6'-$&B='#&$,#( J;$6#J,#$&'33#$#1 '++'1#7'7!3$,!3##1 :$''&7&-!$&-$&+$&+!:& -!3#$*,$&&+!'D3''$, '(%''3,$'#13''$,'-,#$&' $'&!-'-!$'!'$' ;!"$##F(&&!7!&1 3&3!,#$&3''$&'!71!J-$6 #J#('!#'$'$&6'J1 &- &3!3''$$#$$'-!,$&+! 3''3&&$3#J1!'$'$&6' &'!#' 0!$'$'&$$$'-$!!B%?! ;#B,&&,#$&$&$'0!1 :##&M'-$&+'M$,&$&3&&' 3''$#$&3#$$'6-+!&,$&&7,$ $'$--$#$&$-1:3#'-$'7!& 3$!<'$&'&'7&-&! DF

PAGE 96

&'7'!<'$&'!'#,'!,&'++'1 3#$$#$'$&6?&!!!&.)* (3'!!$,'33&$&,#,&1 1#+$'#'&#+$'#$,#''+# -$#$!$#$/$&-,#$&''! ,#$&'#$#1''$'''$&7!$! $'$&6'!,!$+!6+-$&'&! J-$6#J#,#'7#-$&#$& !-7&M$,$1&$&+31 $'$&6'!7&'&,#$&&,$& !''33!$3#$$#3'$$&' %#!+!''''!J-$6#J#! '&33!'$1B.$&'& )!7/='J3#$3##J($'&33! '1!''$&+.)*(&&1 '''$'-&!'!-##,#$$' $&+-<&'&7#+$'#$&$&# <$&--,#$&-!&73+ 3#$1$,$1-'3$-$3$-$& !''$.#($$'&-,#$& '--$&$-13$'-,$7&& ,$7'-!'3$'!$#+$'#$,,'$+! $'2!-!'33!':3#'-! J3#$63#J#0!$''&&',#' DD

PAGE 97

!!$77$##'1$'$&6'' 3,$!7,',$&!#+$'#'' ,#$&''-#&$3&3-! #+$'#$,3''''$1 &FD(& 27&*&D8(1&$##1$3,$' J,J7!1#+$'#'&''&'$&'! !$''-&$#$1!'&&'$?'!$''+11-$#$-#+$'#'!'& #$'&!''<&,#$&' 0$!$''!3'E!#'=' -$&$$&-J-$6#J,#$&''!'$&$$ 1#+$'#'!#+$'#$,$' &'$&'1$'$'0!$'!'$'#' +&$/'!E!#'!'-&!!J-$6 #J#$'-<'!-##,# .&,'#1J3#$3#J,#$&''-$&$&! #$&'$&!3'&'!!' ,#$&'!'#-'++'$&'-,#$& '--$'''#-!#-$' &-,$71'' ;33''!J3#$3#J#33' 3,$&#,!$&$&-3$' &,$73$&'11'!#'$'$&6' 3''$,'(&!'1''$'$&! D

PAGE 98

$&$-$$&-,#$&'!1!,&'$& 3$$#1$$&'&#&&1$'$&6' .& ##FFF('$7&$$&'! '3'&-$$#$/$&;$'! ,#$&'#'''1$'$&6'$& '$'$'''$&'+$&+3#$13+ )&$&!'&-$&-$&-!,#$& $'$&6'7#!,!+!$-- %''#$ #/FD(#$,!!'& -$$#$/$&7':$&+&!' '++'!$-$$&663$$#1$&'B '$&$-1$#$/$&'!73$$#1$ $7!&&,#$&7''$&'1$'$&4 '&!,#$&'#'73$1'$&-$&'1!$'$&6'( )$!D(+'&13#$-'!#6$&!$''$ &(!&1 $'$&6'&&!$3$$3$&$&'3$-1$&+ 7!!,#$&'!##-$!J-$6 #J#('&$3,$!!<#$1 '-#&''-!,#$&0!$'$''$&3' )$!&'!3'$$&!!+'!#$&,#,&,1 &$#$/$& -'GJ-$6#J(1&'&''1-+$&+

PAGE 99

,#$&''' &!'+( ;!7!$#'F@F(&)D@( +!'!#'7&$3&#&-! ,#$&3''!1-&'!#'-$&' &'!'&'-$&'$&+!--$,&'',#$&'&!&&$&-:3 &#$&$'$&6$&+)$!&.!$$3D( E!#'(&'-!!J3##$&+J$' 3$3$$#11'3$##1#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'$'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'(!,13$-!$' $''$& 0!$&#"$'$&6$&+# 0!'&3$&$',$'7!!! 33'$,$&#$$!$'-'& '#$&'&'($'!'71++ ,#$&')&DD69('!J! 3M-$&+3#$3#$1$&#''&! 3$##'#-'&$&+#-'$1& #-3#$1$&+0!#-'&$&+$' $&#$'$&6$&+J7!1$'$&'J '!#$&'$'-7##6-$&'3'' -##7'

PAGE 100

&$-1M$,' &$-1#&$,''-$&!$,$&+M$,' 8 $&,#!3''$#&'<&' -!#&$, )#!#&$,!:$$/'! $&&-M$,'J 0!<'$&-7!!!$&#$&#$' !'333$71''''!'-,#$&' &$&'!'M-'7& 3$$&'&,#$&'!#' #& !$'D8FD(+!7!$#!$&# 3!&'$,#$'!#+$##1& $&'$$&##1$&
PAGE 101

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

PAGE 102

.$$&+A$&+&D(2#''$&++!!&+ '3#!&!$$&+2#''$&+33' #!$'A$&+&='J7$&7-33&$1J(-'3''+3#''#$&'3$$3&' &'')!+!$$&+$',1!$&+$& !$'#$&&'!$&#$'$&6$&+ #2#''$&+!!#$&+,#$&! $&'&#'&$'&-$'$&,#$&'J +&##13'-!-$'73&&'$&! ++$:66!$&$-$$&-3#'& &'#$&'J )$,&(#''$''7$!!$$&# $!!'-$'-'&$&$-1$&+ $'1$'$&6'-,#$&'#$&' +'$&'!333$#7# &-'$&+&''''$&+!,#-!,#$&! 3''#(!77##$7'3-!<#$1$''$'&!,#-$'&$&' %'',)$,&&2#''$&++! '$&+!$&#$'$&6$&+#'3+,#$&'#'$'-#72#''$&+D( !J-&!&#'$&!&'$+&$-$& !&+''#-3-&$$''&! #-$$#133&+&$/$&#!&+

PAGE 103

-##7$&+!$''&-!3J0!'7&$&+' '!#&&#$+!#1E32#''$&+='!+ !!$&##$'-#7'$-$#' &-&--'$&#$&+3#$$# 3'''!!,&'$1*&DD()& DD(&!' )$##,&7$!##-$'-#7'!$&# $=':$&+'&'-,#$&''''$&+ ,#$&$#$/$&'$3,$'$$& $$#$/$&(!&##1'& !7'$-3+,#$&$'&'$ '!,$&+&'1$'$&6'$##1' '!7!$$3,3+-&$&7''$& 3#$1'0''!3#$&$-$1 2#''$&+!-&!$'#-$$!&+ -##7$&+!$''&-,#$&3'(73 !33'$$&-;#$F($##D(& $!##D(7!&!&:&3$$'##171'($'&'1 #+$'#'&!7'!7$&7-33&$1 !$'71'$&#&+!0!$'$'''$& $#$&!3,&!+!&:&$-7$##' #-#+$'#'-,#$&'73 9

PAGE 104

$'#$&'&'-#+$'#$'-,#$& -$&$&+'&'#$&'&!7'73! $&#$-$&$&+$-&,#$&3,$ '#$&'$'$&6'!7'$& $&$-$#71'%'&1'!'!,3$& $-,#$&'&'1$'$&6'!1 -#$#&,# #&!$'D( $&$-$-$'$&#'''!,#$&' &3#1$&$'$&6$&+ (!1&'#$&$&6&$&$'$&' 3+' (!1&#$'$&'&3+ $3,&'K 8(!1&&'$&$&-$&# 3&&$&$'$&6$&+&& &''$#1!'$3&K& (!1&$&-&'$1 E33'$&$-1!7,#$&'!,&' $&3$$#1$$&'G$3,3+' #&!$'=''&#(&$&#+$'#'$&!'66#+$'#$&$3#&$&,#$&&$&'&#$&+'7$!!+ 3''0!'!'-#$$#-&$&''#,#3+,#$&$&$-$1'&!# F&D9( @

PAGE 105

;!)1' 0!!$''#$&+--#3+ ,#$&'$'&&''$#1,#$& 3#1&'7!&33#$!3$-' +,&&#+$'#$,(,#$&%')$!88D( ',' 0!!'&#$#'3&'!3##' ,!3'1'-$&'3$$#'1 -,#$&3$'$!$K3!-'$$#$1& --$,&''-#&$,#'!'& !$'K3,$'$'-!,#3&'$3$,,#$&!$'K&''''! $#$1-3'$3$,!$'!-! &3$$#M'$-$$&-,#$& !$'$'-'#-63''-7!7' )--#(+''$&+!'!33#&3#$/$&'-3+,#$&1 3!$#'3!$##1$&<+'-& JM$,$'J33!,#$&&$&7!$! ,#''!-&,#$-&'$#$$$&$&+$&7!!#'&#'$&'! %#$&('!7-' $&'&#$&+$&+,#$&!$''!&+ !$&3$&'!$#$1-3+ ,#$&'66$&':3$&$&&$&+ ,#$&'&!#$&-3'&#'!& ,#$&3$ F

PAGE 106

'!'!,+&3-$&$&+ :3#'--#$'$&6'-3+ ,#$&';:3# &DD(&' -!$'#$&#'$&'3$&+$&'! $#$/$&6-',#$&''$'''&3+'D &D-!3'&'!(!,!J$$3 &3+'&$'$&'J)!'(#' &#'!J&1$&$,$#3+,#'& &1,#$&'!,!&$3&3#$3#$1J E!$#E$''DD&DD(!'!'''-##1 &3'#$'!-##,#'#,# 3'-$$#$/$&!,&&:$& '--$$$&$-!1#'&-& )#+$'#$,3+,#$&33'& 7!!#$-#6$&(!1 $1$,+%'', ;#$A&''&E$'&'$&3,$,$&'++'$&+ !!$3+,#$&'3$&+'#' $$&+$#$/$&$3$$#1 $&'G'(7!&,$7$&'-$##' $&&$&'$3#&&+' --!+1&!#''$+$'&'3''$,*,$&&+!'(&3#$!(' &!$+'$$&-!,$&+$ D

PAGE 107

.& ##(3$$#1$&'&# #/( --'7!&$3#&$&$-'M#''#+$'#$,1#'33:$#171'(0!$' 33'&'$'&7$!'!1.!#$'1 DF(7!3'!J3+,#$&!'+&!$ $''$J&!'J#,#$&--$' !,&,#3','&:$, $&-$&&'J.!#$'1('3$-$##1 $&&'='&;#$=',#$&--' & F(33'+'$&+!J7&7!7 '-#,#$&'&$&&1'!,$# '!7$&+!,#$&'& $--&J 0!$'$''$&:$&'7!!'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&'$--&$&!! ''++'1'&!#F&D9(0!$' &-&$&63!'1-'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&$&'3$$#&7#+! 3$!'+,&&#,#%' 33@9 8D8(' 0!$'&''!7!7##! 7#$&#$/:3#$&&'$ E&,!'!,-$&&-$& %!&D9(!J;&$&##1'3$-$ #7''-$#3$$#''0!1#71'!,J

PAGE 108

E'7!!!'!-!1+$&+3+ ,#$&&',$'$&&-$--&'$& ,#$&3$'&--'',$&' +,&&''$'$&-!$-#&3' ?&-$$&-#$-$$&#$$$&$' &!-$&!3''-'1$&+' #+$'#$,3+,#$&!$''!-$&' $'$&$&'7&'&-#,#$&'7 7$##&$''''!$'$&$&'$&&1!$&+!& &:3#1&&0!#'7'&'!$';$''!$'$&$&'##1'$! 33'-!$'$''$&)&$7# ,$##1$3''$#$&$-1&3!&' $--&'!:$'7$!&1+-#$$#$1 &'!!-'!7$##&'#,# #+$'#$,3+,#$&0!M$,$'' !!1!#13#$3#$1& &7#+$#$/$&'!'$!,#$& $'&'$&3$$#1$71'1$'$&6' 0!$''!'&<'$&!&#'$&'!1 #$'!#'7!-&!,#$&'#1 '!-##,#''$&$##6 -$&3''$,&3#&&'&'!$' '!''7!!!$'&!!#'!'

PAGE 109

#,# E#1&!#$,#1$+'$&#'!# $-#$&+-,#$&'!3,$'#$&' $'#$&'''(!!,&3#11 #+$'#'$$&++-#$&&+&1 3#'#$&7,!$'!'$'#'$#$/$&3#1$&+A$&+&Y'&3-J7$&7'33&$1J$-1$&+!$'3,$-&:& $-!M''!#+$'#$,1#$ 761'(0!'!#'3'.$&'& )!7/D(13#+1&-''&!'J3#$3#J'#+$'#$,,#$&'$ ,#$&''&'1&'+#,$7' '--'++'$&'(E!$#!'#'-,#$&' $'$&+-J-$6#J,'$+!#'7$##& J3#$3#J,#$&'33#$#13,$ :3#'-$$'$&6'!&J-$6#J ,#$&'7!$!'7'$'''#$33 &$,-3''$,&3#''0!' 3$1!13!'$'7$##'7!!J3#$63#J #,#$&'!'#,#'$&$ 3$$#1$&'&#&&1$'$&6'$&! -$&+-#7'+$'$&'&$&''$&+ ,#+&13#'!+!!$3#&$&

PAGE 110

&$&'&$&$&,#$&3' &&3&#-3#'$&$-$16 E$''&2,#'D($&!$'1-.&+''$&# '-,#$&'#'!3'&'!-##7' ;#$F(&$##D(7!+-#&+$$&# '1-,#$&3'$,#'76 1$'3&-!#'-!3(0! '&-!$'$'''$'''$&$-$1E$'' &2,#'D(&E!$!D9(7!-&! '--$$&$13$##17'&-!$ 37'#'&'!!,#$&!$ '$&#+$'#$,$'$&6$&+$,$$' +#7$&+&+1#'( ;$&##1!$'!'$'''&--'! #$$&$&'--$#$/$&;''$ $&#!13-,'$+!$$'&$&+ $-!#+$'#(7!!!,'$+!1 !'!!$1$&#+$'#$&13'-##763'$-#-##763(7!!!' !'3#$$'&3'!&$3#&$&,#$&&$&'&!$+$&'-,#$&' +'1&'(

PAGE 111

.% 0 0?"?*?BH"%0%)?.)%"*0)?;)%. %'$'''#$!$'$''$&$&,'$+' '$'$&6$$&'&#($#$/$&'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'&$&+'7 3#1.& ##='FF('&66!& ,#$&''$&-&$'$&4 '&3#$3#$1 #&!$'D( #3+$3,&'66&'$3$$#1 $&'&#$&' %#!+!&1,#$&'!'+! &3#&3''$,$#$/$&'-3+ ,#$&'1$'$&6'#+$$-'''!$#$/$&$'&!-'! ''$, &&3#''&#$+!&&&-$#$$, #'(&!$''!'-!$--$#$' $&'&B&+&&#(-'! #'$&$-$$&!'-!$''!!1 7$##&-:3#&133'' 0!$'!'$'#'+'!J-$6#J13,#$&'#$#1'$&3''$, &3#&&'&!-J-$6#J 8

PAGE 112

,#$&'&!-'!0!$''!-'' &J3#$63#J13'-,#$&'$&$!1$#$/$&&&-$&$&!#$ $'$&-3#$1&$3,3+'( 2#''$&+D(&&!'$&+!$&# $$#$&+-$$&'&#--'( '''''$+&$-$&!&+-3+,#$&7' 3#$7,73#&'!$'$ ,#'#+$'#$,,#$&'0!',# '&'-!$';$'.1D@(&& !!$&##$&'3#$1'$'& !&$'3$133#$$&3+,#$& .1D@69(+! &!+$&&$&+7!&3#$1'$'7'+$&+ &71!$&&#$'$&3$&-3#$1 -#$&!#&'+N7,O0! $&&#$'':3'!'#,'+&''! '!',&13#$1'3$#$'H!/#" 7!$&'$'!$&&#!&+'$&!J'J 7#&'#,'$#3#'7!&!'7' &0!$$$'3#'!-!! $&#$'--$&$'$,-'&! $&&#$''7!-$&'$& '$$&+#$1!&!&+$&+$ 2#''$&+D(7&!!$&#$ '!#M'&#$'$-'$&+! '-#&''-3+,#$&.1D@( +!!$'#7$!$'3!'$'&'#$&' -##7$&+R'"71&*1&($'&#&$

PAGE 113

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

PAGE 114

'$&'''$&(0!$'$$&+$''#'33'-$ 7$!$&A$&+&='$'''$&-J7$&7'-33&$1J 0!-!$&#$#'!#$-$ $&#A$&+&='J7$&7-33&$1J&37!& ''''''#+$'#$,'-3+ ,#$&'+761#+3$( ;!!$''!#'3'!-$&$&+'&-'!'7!!,+!!'#$&' '++'1,#$&J-&-$#-1! 3#$$#'1'J.1D@(,& #!J3#$$'$&''$'J*& DD@(0!-!3+,#$& 3'$&!3#$$##1!+'3!+,&&+&'!!'#$&''++'1 3+,#$&'7$##'&-,$'3$'& 3'$$&'$&&&$&$&+!$7&-$&#&' E3&#-!$'$&-#&!7,-$' 1'3$&+,#$&'$&713'.$&'& )!7/D(66(!J-$6#J#&(! J3#$63#J#66&$$&+&$&! #%''#$J-$6#J13',#$&'&!-'-!3'&'! E3$&$-1:3#'-J3#$63#J #,#$&'7!''#'&&$&'!, @

PAGE 115

&'$&&1-!!71''++'1'&!# F&D9($&#+$'#$&''$&+3+ 3#$1'!$&+'$&-$&++&1+'$& &$&'!$3#&1,#+&$' '#,&+&3#'$&$-$13+ ,#$&'0!J3#$63#J#'& 3##1#$$&!$&-#&-3#$$'-' *&DD@(!'' '#$'$''+&$/66!7, #¦!!,#-!$3$' '##1+$&##1$'$,&'$&##1 3#&+#E$''='D(,$73#$1'=$#$/$&'-'$#'$&3#$1 '!'33'!$'33$&K3#$1' 13$##1#!'$#'$&'$&'J&#$+!&&J&J&7#+3J&& 3#$1&$&'$&&'7!$$$ 3# E'$##1+7$!*&'&#'$&! -#,#$&'!,&+$&##1'7!& '!,',3$$#1&#$+!&&&-$#$$, -&$&'&3#&3''$,''(7, E!(&!''++'#,#-'! '#,#!33'.& ##='#1 $$&-'66!!,#$&$#1'$& $&+3#$3#$1$'''E!$#!J3#$63#J #'&#$$&!$&-#&'3#$$#& !7$'(!-&:&,#$&!$' F

PAGE 116

#''!73$'$&&##$&+'3#$$# $&-#&'3-&+7!&!3$-! ,#$&$'$&+$&$-$(0!$'$''! 3$'-J3#$63#J,#$&'$+$&'1&'-3$''++'1,#$& '--E#'(!!&-#+$'#' $J-$6#J,#$&'(7!1!,3$'3' 3$&$&'!3+3#$1&!'3! ,#$&''$&&3#3''$, &&)$!D&B( 0!&#'!<'$&3'$'!7!!!$'&#,$&-J3#$63#J 13,#$&'!!,&'$&$71' $&-3#$1$3,3+' %'$''',!!'&&'$# '!&-#3+,#$&''#$&+$& !1!,#$&$'#1')$$#'$' !,&&3#$!'#,#&!!1 $'&'!'#,#2$#1FD88(# !J!1'77$##'!!$'-$'& 3:3#$&3$#3!&&&)&! !1''##'#$#1JE!$# !!,&-7'$'-'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&'!$'$&'$&+,$&&D

PAGE 117

#+$'#$,$#$/$&-,#$&',& $3&#/='FD(3$$#1$&'&#' -:3#''&$&=')&'% /( %( R&(2'&3#$$&1,$& -&-''!33''--$$& '-$'-3+,#$&'1 '$'$&6' ;##7$&+.!#$'1DF(7:$&!73#$1 '$&!$'''#+$'#'&! $'$&6'('3+,#$&''&!# F(!13!'$/!3+,#$&''1 '#+$'#''!13,$#,&$#1 &$#$&-$&!''$''#+$'#'$&!$ !3$&$3##+$'#$,$'0!$'!'$':3&' 3&&'''&!#='33'$$&' 0!&#'!3$'$'!,$&'#+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&' 31E!(&!'3$&#,#''!$+!!&7!$+!:30!$' &''7$!&#'$&''3'1#$3#$ 3#$1&&7#+$#$/$&'!'E$##$'& ,&'@KE!#1FE$''&2,#'D *&DD($&!$'$'--#3+ ,#$&,+!#17'%'2$#1FD89(

PAGE 118

'J!13!'$'$'&$,:3#&$&-7!$! !,$&&''1-'$&+$'#'3&$##1 ,$##21'7&$!&-$$ '$'-$&3,$7&+J 0!$'$''$&$&$$##1$&$-$' #+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'''$&+3$& +3$1&$-'$'(0!$'33 +,&+3$&-:$&$&+.)*='(&&$& !,#$&--$'3$&+'&$&+$' #$#1'#+$'#$&$&!& ,#$&--$'3$&+!13'-$' +'3$#$$'-$'#$'( '$&+$&$,$#,#$&--$''&#-' #'33'-#'$&+3$&-:$&$&+ 7!!!3$'$3#$$'&3' &$&+&$&$3#&$&&#$&+'7$! +$'($&-#&&$&$3#&$& &,#$&'+$&+$'$&6$&+'33' 1'&!#0'!'''3$&'7+&1 !13!'$/$&+!!7#&$--&'$& ,#$&$#$/$&7&,#$&--$' 3$&+'&$&+$'&$#$/$&3 1--$'3$&+!13'-$' '$&+3+,#$&--$''!&$

PAGE 119

'$'3,$''-#'$&+3$&-:$&$&+ '#+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&$' !7,'7!<$,#&-#16,-9 -!$+!#,#,$7( *,$&&+!'D(',!$'$&!$ '1-!$&#&'$-$&(& '1$&+!3+,#$&3*,$&& +!'-&!$!&'1-##+$'#' $&-$&+$--&3$'-#+$'#$& &$,$#,#$&3'!&$&' &$&$&!'3'33!-3,$ ',$&3$&-$&$&+$-!,#$& 7''1$'$&6'&$-'!7&1$'$& -$&+#+$'#$&''$&+3+&+&$''' $!+!&$&$3#&$&(&$& +$'$&6$&+%&!'&7!1,#$& 3'3,$,$73$&$'!7!$#! '#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'!' --$'3#$'!#$##1!&'-3'$&&1+$,& 1'$&+,#$&3''!3$1&$'$'+#1$&''!'$/-!'1 33#$&&$,$#,#$&3'3'& !-'-#&$-'$'-'1$&+ '#+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&%'

PAGE 120

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

PAGE 121

$&''&$$#+!!-&! 7#,-!J,#$&--$'J$&$-$12&'& ,#$&'$!$&-<+7$&%# !&&,#$&'$&!3'71'(& 3-&$'+%&''( '3$#$/,#$&'+##$&$'?--$&-$&)1'$'7!$!'$&-$& '1',#$&'(0!'--$'7:#-! 3'&'1-',#'&')'! $&-<&,#$&'&''$&;&=' D(-$&$$&-'1'$,#$&';! ''&$&+,#$&'$&-<-$#3,$ &<'-''''$&+!'-!$ '$'%$$&##1'3$#$/,#$&'$ $&-$&'1'$'(#''#$#13 -$&$&+''1$'$&6'$&'&!#='! '33'-'$&+! %-,$&+!7#,'--$'31 2&'&7$&$-$!$$&#'--$' !$!$+&&7:$(!'!#$&# $&!'!0!,#-7#,--$'3,$'#1 $&$-$12&'&&!$$&-!! --$'+!!#&-'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'$&89''0!$'+3 8

PAGE 122

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

PAGE 123

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

PAGE 124

<$-!$&,#$&$'3'& $'$&6'!$$7''$-$ !'&'1#+$'#'0!$'$-7' '++'1;#$F($##D($!##D( *,$&&+!'D(&E$''D( 0!761$-#'$''-#-'1$&+ :$,+&1$3#&$&-,#$& &$&'&;#$'$&!''$&!$ '3&'',#$&&$&'+&$'' '3$-1$3$7!&!17$##$3#& &$&'7$!7!$!!1+013$##1!$' $3$&+'-&71'-! 3#$$&-!,#$&;#$=',#$& --$+##1'&'-##763&$,# +&$'$&!''-!,#$& &$&'0!761$-'1! 3'&'!##7'-+&$'$3#& &$&'&-''<&-##763,#$&' &<$-&-##763!$&+'1!,#$& --$=','$+!1 %'7'$''',7#,'--$' 3,$'#1$&$-$12&'&7:#-! '!'!1$!$&+# '1'$,#$&'!1&'3$#$/ @ $

PAGE 125

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

PAGE 126

:$,&!$&$'''3+,#$&' )&&$!'&D('++'!'-&+& 3#'#$&&$&$3#&$&( %$&+)&&$!'&!&-3+,#$& &$&'$3#&1,#+&$'3,$' &'-''''$&+!,#-!3+ ,#$&%-'-!$'!'$'$':$& ,#+&1$3#&$&-&$&' 7,,#+&$'1!,&#$$, $!117&333#$&($&3$&+ !$+!#,#'-,#$&&$&'$3#&$& ;!,#$&--$'1#'3!$+!#,#'$3#&$�!3'&'! 3'!'#$$$&'&!0''!$' $''!',1'''3!7!1 $&$-$!#,#'-&$&$3#&$& !13.##13'-,#+&$' +$&+!$$3#&$&-&$&'7$! &-$$&1!3+,#$&--$$' 3#$0!#$'2&'&9( '++''!7,!'!''1,#$& --$'-##763&,#$&&$& $#$/$&3,$$&-$&,#$& $3#&$&#,#' D

PAGE 127

;:3#3$'!1"$##(3$&' !,#$&+&$'7$!-#!'-##7$&+3&!$&+&!''-&$& $3#&$&(#$#1!,!$+!#,#'$3#&$&!&!'7$!'!!' -#-##763!'$&$-$12&'&9( &+--##763$'7!!,#$&+&1 6'''''!+&1$&$-!&$&' 7$&-$3#&-##763!$&+'7!! 3+,#$&--$=','$+!1$&+'! ,#+&1$&3&$'3+''$& ''$&+3#'$&$-$1!,#$&3 0!3'&'!''7!!"$##='( ''3$&!-#$/-##763$3,'! -$3#&$&-,#$&&$&'?&$&'1!'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'$&+!'13$86 (9@3&89&$&'(71 -#-##763!' #,&''.)*(!,'' +#$&'!<$&(+&$'$3#& ,#$&&$&')&&$!'&D(-& !$+!-&$&$3#&$&1!;# 2-&,'$+$&'$7'& $

PAGE 128

$3#&##&$&'$$0!3'& '!'')&&$!'&='&#'$&'!'#,# 1$&$-1$&+$3#&$&'$&''7$!& 7$!&'<$$&+,#+&$'$3#& &$&' &&#$'1-+&1$3#&$&'&'#&&$&'*'&&E&D( $&$-$',&+$'-$3#&$&( &'$&M(&!$&+&8(& &'$$&('3'&9(3$##1$3#& @($3#&'3'&&F($3#& 3)#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'' '$$#+$'-&$&$3#&$& $&#$&+$3#&3$##1$3#&& $3#&&M)$&',#$&--$' '!'+$'!3'&'! <'!',#$&--$'3 $3#&$&#,#''$&+!'+$'&! ',&'1*'&&E& 0!*'&&E&'13,$''-# &!-$3#&$&'%@3&FDD&'#&&$&'7$3#&&'$'$&+ -@3&$3#&'3'&&@3& $3#&3*'&&E&D(E

PAGE 129

'$--&+$'3!,$'13''!31'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$''$''', 0!'',1#'<''$&-$&-' ,#$&--$'+$&++$'$&'!1 !,'#-&$&'-,#$&' &$&80!'-+1$'$&6$&+ 7$##-##7!33!'++'1E!() ,#$&--$'<''$!$ #$&+'7$!!+3''&+1$' &'$!7,#$&'!,&'1 #+$'#'$&+-#$&+$&' '+'(2&'&9(!'3! ,#$&--$'7$!-##$&+'$ +&$/$&##13!$(+G-$'# $'!,!$+!J'''J$&+$&+!$3' '$&+$'$&6$&+1#+$'#' 0!'$+&-!33''!+$&'1'$&+ !$&-$&$,-!',1-' #+$'#$,,#$&--$'%''#-!$' '$+&&$!$'##$&'!$3'&! $$&-&1#$&'!$3&'#$'! 7,'%!&D@(!''&-!$& 33''-'!$''$3$&!$',1& #

PAGE 130

'$&+-!10!#'!33' 333$'$&$33'''7$#1!#!1 !$'-3+,#$&'$&!' '++',1'&!#0!'!#'$' :3#1$&&'$&&33'$'3,$ -!:3#&$&-'#+$'#',#$&')$:,$#'$&$-$$&!#$ '--$&+$#$/$&:$&'$&+3$$#1 !$6'<''&$&+&1#'(2&-&$ '''-!/!36,#'$& 1!!$6'<''&$&&';$'!=' :'$'''&&$&+&1#7! :3#,#'#''!&##7#-&##!# ;'%--$&+' .&!1+$&$,3$$#1-'$' --#3+,#$&'$&$&'!,#$&' #1'7,'!1*,$&&+!' D(& &D@(3$&!$&!$&'&' 7!&,#$&''!,$'-' 3'&!33&$,#$& $#$/$&!-'$#$&''$$#$1

PAGE 131

!,#$&--$!&&$&7!$!!3$' 3'&#,&$'$&6'&'!# $&,#,& 0!$'$''$&'&33''-##1 -!'$'0!'$'!,!'M -&'3,$''$'3,$$&+''&$#1 -#$&$&+!'!$' $3&$#$/$&0!3'&'!#'7$## &'E$''='66!13!'$'+$&+3#$$# $'!$&-#&$#$/$&%+$&! #$&$&''$+&$-$&&-$&-$& $'''$&+!73#$$#-'$&-#&,#$& $#$/$&0!3'&'!3'!3$' $&$-$$&3,$''!*&DD(! 3#$$'&$&-#&'-&$&' '$' 0!3'&7$##&'333$$&-$& !33''33!!'$$ &='-$, -'&E$''=!13!'$'(&$&$&' $#$/$&-,#$&'#'7,!-'!3'&'!$'#-$$#$/$&'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'$&!!' '++'1'&!#$#7$&+(;!!$' '!:$&'&-!-'$& 8

PAGE 132

$-!'-'$&-#&$#$/$&0!'-' 7$'''$&!38$7!!' #+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'3$&+ '&$&+$'#$#1!,#+$'#$& $&''#-!$3'!&--$' 3$&+J!J13'-#+$'#$,$'( )&113!''0!E$##20' .)*(&!'!,'++'&-'!7$##:$&#'#1.)*( &2&'&9(33'!-$,,$#'$#1 --!$#$/$&-3+,#$&%' $'''#$!',$#'$&#(!13 -,'$+!$'&$&+$J!J13 -$(K(7!!!3+,#$&--$=' ,'$+!$!''&!,!$#$1 $&#+$'#$&K8(!13--##763 3'$-##''-#(3+ ,#$&--$''$&!$3#&$& ''-&$&'$!'K(7!!! 3+,#$&--$$'-##1#$&$ +&$/$&##13'!+$(! +6$&+3''K&9(7!!!,#$&

PAGE 133

--$'!'3#$$'3'&$&+! ,#+&$'$3#&&$&'-7 $&$-1$-$$&'3+'3#$$'& -&$&'''#-'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&'!&77$##$&7!--$-&1 !,$#'33'1.)*(&2&'&9( !,! ;!7#'''$:!$&3&&,$#66 .$&'&)!7/='33'$$&!!$+$&!,#$&3$$J3#$63#J($&-#&' ,#$&$#$/$&0!'',1<'! '#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'$&$-1! $+$&'-,#$&3$'!##+$'#$& '$&+!#''$-$$&'-$&1.$&'& )!7/!3'&'!!&#''$-$!3$' '$!J3#$63#JJ-$6#J13,#$&' %'$'''#$'&!#F&D9(!' 33'!'#+$'#$,3+,#$&$' '-#'#+$'#''$$'$#1'1 #+$'#'$&!,#3&-$##'''' +&1&+&3#'&3#$1$'''0!3'& '!:$&'!$+$&-3+,#$&3$' $&$-!J3#$63#J13'+!' 9

PAGE 134

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

PAGE 135

$&3&&,$#66 ?*.?B66$&$-$'7!!! ,#$&33$$'-J3#$63#J$+$& $7''$#1&'++'1,#$& '--7''#-!#-,#$&'( &0!'!!13!'$'!7$##'$' M*+$'#$&$&7$##&--1 (!13-$,'$&+! ,#$&--$(7!!!$!' !!$1$&#+$'#$&&8( 7!!!,#$&3$$'-J3#$6 3#J$+$& .)*(&2&'&9('++'!! 13-,'$+!$&7!!!$!' !!$1$&#+$'#$&#'#1#$& !J'''J-$&$,$#'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'.)*!'&#!'' 3$&+'&$&+$'-!#+$'#& $'7$!!!$1$&#+$'#$& 7$###$#1!,#+$'#$&$&' '#-3+,#$&3';! E!#'(+'!J-$6#J13 ,#$&'#$#1'1#+$'#'!& J3#$63#J,#$&'0!'33'$$&' '1!,!13!'$' -''&!#!'!13!'$/&'&-! 7$'-,#$&1'#+$'#'$'' F

PAGE 136

,#$&''-##+$'#'$&!$$## -$&+--'!&$7#3#'$#!!,$&+ $7$!!37$&#+$'#$&$+! $$#2&'&9(-&!8@--$' '3&$&+!$'',13!!$$' !,!37$&#+$'#$&7, 2&'&9(#'-&!-93+,#$& --$'3$&+!13'-,'$+!$' $&&6'&$&+$'(9'!!$ $'#'!,#+$'#$&$&$&!$1 0!'2&'&='-$&$&+$''7!&1.)* (7!$!&&'!3+,#$&--$' 3$&+J!J13'-$''!7-7 :3#'-#+$'#$&$&'!'13'$'13$##1&!,!37$' #+$'#$&7$##3''$#!-' .)*='&2&'&='&#'$&'1#$&+-:3#' -#+$'#$&$&1!7$--&13'3+,#$&,'$+!$''&$&+& !(&!&3$&+!'#'7&!' $--&13'-,'$+!$' %'&:$&!$''&!#=' 33'$$&!'#+$'#$&3+,#$&' $#$/'!13,$'#+$'#'7$! D

PAGE 137

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

PAGE 138

-+&1$3#&$&-$&$&'K8' '--,'3+''-:$,+&$'$& $3#&$&+&$&'K@33'$&+ $3#&$&''KD<$,#+&$' '$3$$''3'&$3#&$&K!, 3'''-!#+$'#$,$,$'$3 &$&'K&73#1$&+'1''-##7 3&!'-#&''-&$&'2&'&K9 8(%''#&&:$&2&'&='&#'$& !!13--##7633'''!7'J'&+ #$&'!$3!'''-!3+,#$& &$J0!3'&'!!'#''$-$!,$' -##7633$''$,12&'&$&7 +$'66(-#'-##7633'''& (#''-##'''3''';# 3'''$&#('1'$$&+'1''( 3'''7!&,'$+!$,$'$',#$& 3'<$$&+,#+&$'33-! $-##763!$&+-!$&$$#!$&+ &!,#$&'$7!$&'!,&& '',#$&&$&'&(-##763 ,#$&'$'7!,#$&'--6:$& 3$,#$&&'&3#$'!-#3& !''-&$&$3#&$&*''-# 8

PAGE 139

#'''3'''$&#(3'''7! ''!,#$&+&$'$&-##1 ,#+&13+''$&$3#&$&+&$&' &(3'''7!,#+&$'3 &$&'',$3$$3'0!3'& '!''7!!;?%*;-#3'''-##763(--'$#$/$&$&'-&'&$&'$3#& )&&$!'&='D('!33''!7! &13,$'$&'<$$&+,#+&$' $3#&&$&'#'--!''&$&$3#&$&0!'!$'!'$':$&' ''#+$'#$,3+,#$&&$&' '$-&13,$'$&'--&$& $3#&$&!'#,#?&$&3&& ,$#66%" $&1,$#(66#''$-$''' $&&-7+$'6$!'!,$&+&1 3,$'$&'& 0!'!3&&,$#66.? &$&'$3#&(66$':$&! $&$-$!-!7$&3&&,$#' '$,--&$&$#$/$&& '1!7$&3&&,$#'(7!!! '!'3,$'$&'&$&+&$& 8

PAGE 140

$3#&$&%" &&(7!!!' !'-#'3''';?%*;(--##7$&+ 3&&$&'& 0!'!'&-!'&1!13!''' !$' \0!3&-&$&'$3#& .? (7$##&--$-(! ,#$&--$''-#-##763 3'66;?%*;&(!'!' 3#$$'3'&$&+!,# +&$'$3#&&$&'66%" %'$'''#$'&!#F(#'33' !'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'$#$/ '!13,$!$'#,&#+$'#' $&!$+1$'2&'&968(-& &-#$&'!$3'7&'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'&+1'--&$' 0!#$&'!$3'2&'&'$$&#! -##7$&+ V,#$&--$'7#'#17$!+ $'--' V3'&$&'&,#$&'+ $' V!,,#$&3',$71+ $' VD--$'=+$''++',#$& 3$' V--$'=+!$3'&'',&! 8

PAGE 141

,#$&$ 0!--$'+&$/$&##13+ $' '&!#FD9(!'!13!'$/!' #+$'#'-3+,#$&$&+-#$& $'!$'&7!1,#$&' &'$'$&'+,&&2&'&9('1' !3+,#$&--$'#'#1#$&! +3'''!7J'&+#$&'!$37$!! '''J-!--$7$##3''$#!:$&$-!$'$'1$&$-1$&+'3$-$ #$&+'7&,#$&--$'&!+3'' &!&/$&+7!!&+'$-&1!,'# +$&'$&''$&+'( 0!-!',1''3+,#$& --$'3,$'3$-$$&-$&+$&+!7 3+,#$&'!,&'$&!+3'' 2+1'662")66'-$&!$'7!&$&-$& -&,#$&3$''1+$$& $'+1$'''$&'&$&$'''$&'&$'$&' $!$&''&,#+&1=' +2")66!3&&,$#66$'$&1& #''$-$',#$&3'$&&-771'( !''$&!+3''&(!'&'$& 88

PAGE 142

!+3''2'&$&-$&-! #$!3'&'!:$&'+1' $&$-$$'--1!-# +&$/$&##$&'!$3'7&+1$' &#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'0! !3$1$&3&&,$#''$!;$' 7!!!+$,$7'3'-! 3+,#$&--$66 0C0!$'$'!#' -#-!!#$&'!$3'7&+ $'&3+,#$&--$':$&! 0!'&$&1$&3&&,$#$'7!!! +$'#'3$'-!,#$&--$ '1660? )*.00!$'3'&'-# #$&'!$37&!+1$&! 3+,#$&--$0!!$,$#:$&$' 7!!!,#$&--$+&$/$&##13' !+$66?B 0#'$&1,$#( 0!$'3'&'!'-#13-#$&'!$3 7&+$'&'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$' 0!'!-$&#'&1!13!'$':$&1! 3'&'!$' 'W2")7$##&--($-! ,#$&3',$71!+1 $66 0C&($-!,#$& --$='3$'-'1'#1! 8

PAGE 143

+1$660? )*.0&&8( $-!,#$&--$+&$/$&##1 3'!+1$66?B 0 & %'$'-!" .!$6'<''':3#$&!7! 3&&,$#''$,--1! $&3&&,$#'#'$''',"2&'&=''1#&+7$!$&-$&$&-! '',1'$&!''2&-&$ 3'#''-!,#$! $&-$&-!!$6'<''%;$'!: '$''$&&'7!!:3#,#'&##-!&$&+&1##7 ),#''3$&'1$&!$''$' !,$#'$!,$#':# -!'$'(7&'$#,& 0!,$#''$&!''7' #1&&$-#1'''' 80!$&3&&,$#'7$&3&&!!.!&+'$&!$&3&& ,$#''#$&$&'&&'!&+'$&! 3&&,$# $#1-'$&#$&!$' '$';$#-$&'$+&$-$&--&$&3&&,$#3&!3&& ,$#-'1'&$&$&#'$,#1 !&--$'&3'&!$ $&$'!&''$$&#& '#$'!+$,&!'!!#+1

PAGE 144

!#+$#.&&' E!$#3#$$&1$&-$&'++'!! ,33!'7$##3'!!13!'' $&$-$,!7',#&&'! <$''$&+&'!!$&7 ,#$&#$#0!'&&'&!3#&' '#,!7'-##7' V)&&$!'&D(-&!!;2! $3#&,$##1##-!&$&' 1$'$&'3+&#E!$#!$' 3'&'&&'##1!$+!+$3#&$&$'&&''$#1-# $#$/$&-,#$&''$&!2=' --$'7&$3#&## &$&'0''!$'$''! '!!<'#&$-+&$' ,#1!--$'<$ $3#&&$&'!,+ -#:$$#$1$&$3#&$&+!'!! ,#+&1'-#0!',#+&1$3#&$&$&''! 7$!&7$!&1$3#&$& <$&'7& 8@

PAGE 145

V$!FF(E$''FD&D(& .3#&F9($&$-$!13'-'$& $$&$'&3#& 3''$,'%&&!'7'7!! #+$'#$&'#$&+-,#$&'7'' -!,#$&$-!,#$&7' $1$'$&6+3$'$&6'3-$&$&+'!7# !&'33#+$'#$&$,1! $'$&6'(0''!$'$''! 3'&'!='',1-'',#$& --$'<'&!73$',#$&$&$-$&!+$&3&&,#$&--$'!,-'! $&-#&'%&37'$&$-1! '<&-,&'$&!$&$-$$&,#$&3$'3#$$&&3'&$&!,#$&3&'#&#+$'#$& ?-!'3+,#$&--$''3&$&+ !2&'&',198(93! #+$'#''$-!$$' 3$$3&&-!$$&$&$-1$&+3$',#$&'KF--$''$!'$#+$'#' 3$$3'-!$7'-!$& 8F

PAGE 146

$+!##-!$;--$'$&'3& !$'<'$&&-$,--$''$!$7'& 33#$#E3&#-!$&-#&'$''$#+$'#'&&7''$' $&$&+3$'#$&+3'!3,$ 3''$,,$&'33$&+!='3'$$& 0!$'7'&1$&$-1$&+&!&-'$&+&J3#$6 3#J13,#$&'$!''#$&+'1&''--'++'$&'&!+# 1#-$'( %!$&&,#,&+$'$&' '#$&+-,#$&'%#!+!E!( $&$-$',#:3#'-!7,#$&'-+$'$&'$&':$'&'! !',$&+'3!,0!$'$''7' ''1<'$&+&$&-!'' +$&+,#$&$#$/$&$&+$'$&4 $&+;:3#!0:')%$='?--$ '&',$&+''#$&+-$'&$&' 7,0:''$!'+&$' !7#',!&Q9$##$&$&1$-!1 $3#&!)%$='&$&' '$''!'!'-!0:')%$=' ?--$'3#$,&7''!6 8D

PAGE 147

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

PAGE 148

# #+$'#$,--$'37'+&#$/ -$&$&+'!,#$&#,#'+$!! -####,#'( 0!!'$&&#,#$$177$' 2$#1FD9D('!!'!''''' $&&#,#$$11'1$&+!&3'' &!&$&$&+$&!$'!'M+&7!! !3#'<#1'''$&+!$'! !-##7$&+3&$#3#'33&*,$& &+!'D98(7&!J3#'-! &$&$#$/$&'$'0!'3#'$' '-13'-'!'+$'&''11 !'M'-#73$$1+$,& &$&-$#$/$&&'$'&3$&'$#$/$&$'#-J%'*,$&& +!'&'$#$/$&'!#$'$!& !''1!&3#$1''&'$& $&,$7'&',1'0!1! 0!''$''&+'$&!$$#$1 3#'$#1#$&,#$&-$&$&+'&,$&'0!$7&''#$'$&!#-+&#$1 &&-&$&+-'$$&#-' )$&!'!!'$#$/$&!+!',1' -',#$&--$'$'!'!'&+!'& 7&'''$&$-$1*,$&&+!'0!1D

PAGE 149

988($-M3#'7!$!!$'!'$'#' ''3& 0!-$'$'!$--$#1$&&$&+! $#$/$&!' #/FD$&&E!$ F9&$!F'$$&*,$&&+!' D(!,-&!!1''&$#$ #3'.&.3##='$&(7&! ,#$&&$'$#$/$&&-'$''' ,;#$F(E!$!D9(&!' 3$&!$'$'-#+$'#$,',#$&'!#'761$3$7' <$E!$#!$'3'&''3#''7' $''',&1-!''',1!!, -##7633'$&$-&$&'!, &$3#&1!,#+&1!$ #+$'#)2&'&9(E!$#!$''& &$#1'#,!3#'$&$-$1*,$&& +!'$$$+'!&+$,$3'-!$ #1''$&#&+$-$'<$*&+!&$&+ !$-3'&'&!3#!7,)$& 71''!$--!$& ,#$&7'3#$'!!$'&'!'3&&' !$'$''$&='',1'3$&$-1 $#$/$&'#$&+-,#$&'3#$'!$&8 $

PAGE 150

&$$&!''66!$!$+&&'66 +&$&+,#$&'$&8&!#$$ $&-$&!$#$/$&-!$,#$&' ;!',#$&--$'7$!,$# -##7633$'1&&'7!$'<'$&#$#1 %'&3#$1*,$&&+!'D( #!-$'$'!''!'$&!$' !,:3$&$--$#$'$&&'$&+!&+' '#'$&31!,#$&'E!$#!$' $''$&#'7'7!&$&+'!'& $--$#'-!'!'!33! &!3'''!$'3#13#1$&+ 7!2$#1FD@(##&',#$$&! '&+',#$$&3(%$&+2$#1 &',#$$&<$'!#'7'' -&'3'&'33'$$&%#& '&!#FD9(33'!,#$&'' 1'#+$'#'$&!1'66#7$&++ $'$&6$&+&+&13#&+&0!$' !'$'''!-$-!'!''3'& '&!###1'!$'+&$&!#1 D'$&&&3#$'!''1--$,'' -&,$&##7$&+!$&#&$,#1! '#+$'#'$',#$&'$&!'!! $

PAGE 151

33'E''&!#='&&$&1+!$&+ -'#+$'#$,,#$&--$'E!$# '3+,#$&--$'!,,1$&++'-##763&&$&3$'&1--$' !$+!#1'3!$'$$&!$$#$$' ,#$&$#$/$&$&!!'$&$-$1 '&!#;:3#;#$=')%$='?--$ !'7##6,#3!#+$'&$&' $3#&#+$'#$&$&&+',$&+' %'$'''$&!38.!#$'1!'&! ;#$='&$&&'='--'$&!'' %!$3#$&$-$1*,$&&+!' D($'!''-3$&+$#$/$& ,1#7&!7'!$&< $&$-$#$/$&-3$#,#$&$' !$+!#70!$'3#$'-'3$#$3&7$! +!'&1!13!''$&$-$,0!$' 3#$'3!3'!'$--$#3#-! -$&$-$1*,$&&+!')$&! -7$-&1''-3$'&-'$'-#,#$&'! $'&'!& !'3$&+7&&&+''E 3#7$!!$'$''1',1$&+## ',#$&--$'!'#$$&$&+! 8

PAGE 152

$--$#$'-+&#$/$&+-$&$&+'&&6',1 ''0!#-3$#$1#$$'&+$&! $#$1-!$'$''$&+&#$/!-# ###,#')$&!''$!'3!$'!'$'!$'$'&3# 0!-!3#$&$-$1*,$&&+!' D($&,#,'7!&'$'&#$&'&'7!,$&!&$&'&$#$/$&'7!&&,#$&$'('$! $&3&$#1$&!-$&+-#+$'#$&( '$&$'''$&&$'$&6$&++$&+! ,#+&1='+&8($''$3#&(1 &,#+&1'',#$&3 &$&'2,&7$!!'#$&$&'!$' $''7!&'$''($&'3#$%' *,$&&+!'D988(!,'!7&&,#$& &'-&1'3&&'&!'$$' $'#$&+#$!$'''$&+#'-! ,#$&)$&& $!'&$&$-$ !$'$''$&3'!$'#$$$&&$' !$/$&'-' %-$&#&&!$'!!'$&!$' '!='''$''#-63,# +&$'13!$+!#,#'-$3#&$&#,#'

PAGE 153

-&$&'333#$&!&!1 ##1;!,#$&+&$'13 !$+!#,#'-$#$/$&33J'''-#J !&!1##10!$''!3'!' #$$$&'0''!'$'''-''1 7&$&3!''$'-$&$,$#' ,#$&--$',$-13'#' 9

PAGE 154

.% 09 )*0)%"").))? $113!'$' 0!3'&'!'$''$'$&6' $$'1#+$'#'(-#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&3'$&-$&+#+$'#$&&'$& +1$'$&6$&+&,#+&1 $3#&$&-,#$&&$&' 0!3$1&##(!13!'$':$&!$' $ +,#$&'&1' #+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'7$##'!7 &$--&7$!!33$+ :3''$&!3#$3#$1&&7#+ $#$/$&#$'!'! ,#$&'#'#1$#$/$& $3$$#1$&'&#&&0! 3'&'!''$&$-' #+$'#$,3+,#$&'!,&' $#1$&!'5#7$&+&+& 3#'#$&$,#+&1 $3#&$&-&$&'(& +1$'$&6$&+ .&,'#1$-$&$$&'-!''!#! '-!'!13#-3&-! -##7$&+#&$,!13!'$' 0!7$##'$+&$-$&$,+&7& 3!$'-3+,#$&'& !#--'-',#$&'7!& @

PAGE 155

'#''$&'-!$ $3',#$&3'!,!&' $'$&6$&+5#+$'#$&$3#&$&,#$&&$&'&+$'$&4 $&+ 0!$''!+$&'13'&$&+31 ',#$&--$'0!'33'!7' $'$&6'-3+,#$&'$&##!!!''&!#F&D9(!'33' 7,!!$'$5'-,#$&'$& +1$'$&6$&+5,#'7!#$$ $&-$&'#,''$'$&4 $#$/$&-,#$&'$&+1$'$&' .!$6'<''&!''$2&-&$ 3'(3,$#7'3-!$' '!=':$&$&-$'!'&1!13!'' :$&$&+!'! 3#$& %'$'''#$!3'&'!$&$-$ 3+,#$&--$'$&89''0!'--$' .)*='(-$&$$&-#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'5!1&+# '1'$76#$&+''''&'-:$, +&$'3+'&-&$&';!!'--$' F

PAGE 156

&$,$$'.)*(&'$'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&'53-&$'3+ ,#$&'&+&,$7'3+'#',$7' &'&'$')#+$'#$,--$'! &-$&&$#&'13#$&$' '3$#$/$'+&+&$&-$&'1' ,$7'(3-$&-<&3-&,#$&' :#-!3'&'! )''!,!&&#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$0:'!'-?+&)! .#$&&''!''!,7!070:' --$'&!)!.#$&+&$''3&! ',1'&'3-!$''! 07''5&&&E$'&'$&536'! ',1$&'&$&)3@$!'! $--$#$'$&3#$&+!',1E$'&'$& --$$#'33'!<'$&$+!$-$ ##7,#$&--$'3!+&1& #+$'#$,$3#&$&-&$&'?',&16&&$&'1E$'&'$&3+ ,#$&'$&8'$:16$+!7+&$'& !7!#+$'#E$'&'$&=''++'$&7' $&3&!'3+,#$&$' D

PAGE 157

7$&-!!1'!#$&#&$&' !$B&#%''#$''3-!$ '3&''<'$&$+!0!!''7$$ E'!$&+&&E1$&+(3$&+'$$#13'&$&'!$#+$'#'$&3+ ,#$&'3#$'!$&87,-!'$' '3-!$''!,#!'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'13$##1&! $3#&$&''-#+$'#$,&$&' *+$'#$,&$&'7$&#!!-$&-$&33'' 07&16$+!3+,#$&--$'3#& &!$',1'1!-$&##'-R&1 F%#$'-!''!&',1'$' $&%33&$:2(0!D''3'&!&!#-!''$&&F3&-!''7$! 3+,#$&--$' ?-!D',1'&!M$1''( &$&$&-$&+$&+#+$'#$&$'@D 3&(''#-3+,#$&'& &$&'$3#&''33:$#1F 3&(?''3,$$&-$&&!' -,#$&'$&+1$'$&6$&+6 $

PAGE 158

$+!'#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$' &<'$&&$'!7$&3#0!$+! 7$&#$&!'$'#7'!$ '3&''&$&'-#'3$-$##1! $#$$'-!$'3$,,'$+!$' $'#+$'#$&!$3#$$'&3'+$&+ &1+&1$3#&$&-&$&'& #$&+'7$!+3'''0!'&'+$,&1! $'-!$+!''-&$&#$&+ $&-$&&&$&'$3#&#+$'#$& $''#$&+$&!3$##13#',1'7 '-##7' ),&'#+$'#$,3+,#$& $'3!!1& &$&'$3#&#+$'#$&$' ''#-!$,#$&'--'& ,#+&1+'0!$'$&-$&7' '7!&:3'##',&--$' !3,$'#132&'&9(! !13#1,$'!'--##7$&+63 &&$&'1&&-!''' #$&$-1#&$&' $3#& 9

PAGE 159

0!"$-)!.#$&='*+$'#$, %$.&$#3!!$'--$'& ='!$&-$&''&--$ $&!'5!)+&$/$& .$''$&5##'!$'$&-$&0! '&--$5!)!.#$&+&$/$& .$''$&5'3&!',13,$$&+ $&-$&&!!'<'1! ',1 .!$'$'-)?--$' 0!D3+,#$&--$''3&$&+! ',17-@''F]-!89'' &$&+'1'$3+,#$&'(073+ ,#$&--$'-0:'&7-)!.#$& '3&!',10!70:'--$''3&$&+ 7!0:')&'%,$'1.$''$&&!0:' *+$'#$,2+20!D'3+--$' --!-##7$&++&#!$'$' 013-,'$+!$ '&$&+$'-#+$'#6F --$'9]( J!L$'6F9](?-! 9

PAGE 160

,#$&--$'3$&+J!L $'3'3$#G$ $'&F3&$ -$'#$' ;!33''-!$''!'3+ ,#$&--$''$!'&$&+ )0%".?(JJ!JJ'.)*='''3$&' !--$'3$&+'&$&+$' #$#1'#+$'#$&'#-!$,#$& 3'!&''3$&+J!J13'$' ?--$'7$!$'!&$' #+$'#$& --$'7$!'1!$16F9]( --$'7$!'1!$16F9]( ?--$''$!!,$&+!!$1 $'#+$'#$&)0%0%0(JJ&LJ 8*+$'#$&$'$&+$#$11$13 '&$&+$'6##F&$' #+$'#$& J!J$'7$!&F7$! 0!'3$''-##7' '3$#G$$67$!&8 7$!##!'-$'#&$'( 87$!7$! )'&$&+$3#&$&&$&' '3+,#$&--$'3$&+ '&$&+$'!,$&+'! &'6 ''3+,#$&--$'3$&+ J!J$'!,$&+'!&'6 -('' 9

PAGE 161

)''$!!,$&+!$1 &&$&$3#&$&%" (JL &JJ 9013'--##763'&$& '' ''+&13+''6@1' & 3'$3#&$&61'D& & ,#+&$''3681' & $,$'$'3'61'@& $3$&+'1''61'9& --##763$'&61'8& )''$!!,$&+-#-##763 3''';?%*;(JJLJ$-&;?%*;$&#' -##763$'J-J,($3$&+JJ,( &$6,$'$'3'JJ,( @ +,#$&--$'7$!#$&'+ 3'' --$'7$!'13-#$&6@ --$'7$!#$&6 F013'-#$&'+3'' +^,#$&'--361' & 3'&$&'+$69H' 8 98 $

PAGE 162

+$,$7',#$&'6 H' +$'++''3$'6H'D +$'',&,'$+! $6H'@ -3+,#$&--$'--3 +$68H'9 2&'&9(-&!!-!, $'5(!+$'-! $,$7,#$&3'JJ,(( +$'',&!,#$&--$=' ,'$+!$JJ,(&'#3$'$JJ,(&8(!3+,#$&'-+&$/$&##13J-L,(!+ $51-'!$&-#&$'$&6 $#$/$&-3+,#$&'$&+$'$&4 $&+!-!!$'$&3&& ,$#'$'!'$&1,$#;:3# '''JJ$-!1+&$/$&##13 ?B 0(!+$&'JJ$-!1 & %##D3+,#$&--$'3,$ !+&#!$'$'-!$3+'$&!$ ',1'3&''?-!'&$&&''@D]( 3,$+$&+#+$'#$&$'''#,#$&3'K7&1''F](3,$ +$&+!&-&$&'$3#&K& 7#,''8](3,$$&-$&+$&+!7 !$,#$&3'!,&'1$'$&6' $&+1$'$&6$&+ 9

PAGE 163

)3+,#$&--$'#'7' 3,$$&-$&+$&+!-##7$&+ !#&-,#$&'3#R&18!+!"880! D''3,$$&-$&&#$, #-,#$&3'07&1'' 3,$$#$&-$&&!$#$/$& -!$,#$&3'0!7&1'' 3#$'!D93'0!D93' 3'&DD3&-!#3' 3#$'!$&+!3$,$7 !#&-&$&' +&$'-!$3$&!&&$&'$3#&3$##1 $3#&&$3#&&M )3+,#$&--$'' !'#''$-$$&'(%$$&##17 3+,#$&--$'3!! ''-&-!$&$&'7' &&7&0!$'+1&&7&(7' !'$'0!''3,$$&+ $#$&-$&!$3+ ,#$&'3!1# 99 $

PAGE 164

&$&'$&+!'13$ 8!#&-$##'#+$'#$&( '#$&+-3+,#$&'&.#&H80!&$&&'' 3,$$&+$#$&-$&+$&+ #+$'#$&$&$-$F#+$'#$,$##' 3#1$&1!$#+$'#'' '#-D9,#$&3'),&& ''3,$$&-$&'$$&+! $+$&-!,#$&3$'!# #+$'#$&"73,$&!$+$& -!3$'-,#$&'#$&+ #+$'#$&&$##''#$&+-@D ,#$&3' !&-,#$&''1+$&+ $'&!7!'7'+ $&'',#+&1+'( -!$3$$&$-$,0! 7#,''!3,$$#$&-$& +$&++1'-,#$&'3 !-3+,#$&3'!1 3#$'!$&+!'13$7'$& +1$'$&6$&+ 9@ M $

PAGE 165

%3#'7$!!$3$'3$-$,$7.#&H8(0!+&#''#$'$& !''5!$!$+&&'5 !$/!$3+,#$&--$'+$& 3$&'0!'!''$&!,!!8<'1!',1%##!'' 7#&$,#1'3,$-.#&H '3,$$&-$&+$&+ &$&'$3#&!&$!$+&& !$'$&-$&'#''#+$'#$& $&!7'3#1&$#1!'#3+,#$&'!7'#$&$-1! #+$'#$&!&$&'Y'#-$' ,#$&''&$&7!! 3$'-!,#$&'$+$&$!$+&'& +##1#+$'#$&$'7!3$' $+$& 3)*+$'#$,'+,#$&'$& $'$&+*+$'#$& ;$'!&D('$'''$&!38 $&$-$'$:J7$&7'-33&$1J7!!#$ ,#$&$&-#&#+$'#$,$'$&6$&+0! 9F

PAGE 166

$&$$#-'-!3'&'!$'&;$'!&=' -$'77$&7'5,#3&-&7#+$'#$&&4 !$/$&+-:$'$&+#+$'#$&'' 3+$3#' 0!3'&'!:$&''#+$'#',#$&'$&!,#3&-#+$'#$&'$&+ '$3$,'$'$'%'%!&D('J" '$'$&'$#'$&&'$''#'&$#1'$3$&)$#'$&$''#71'&++$& $&-'$3$&,&7!&!$33'$'$', ''+&#!$#'&JE!$#! #7&'3$-1'&--#$&'!$3' !$&$7!33''$+&$-$&'3+,#$&'1#+$'#'$&$##6$'$&+ #+$'#$&($,$$' 0#93'&'$&-$&-'3+ ,#$&--$'+$&+#+$'#$&$& '#$&+-,#$&3'%'0#9'!7' -D'''3&$&+!',13#+$'#$& $'$&3&$#1''#-!$3+ ,#$&3'0!&-$##'$&&+ -&$&A&1(7&16',&-!0:' *+$'#$,2+2(%#-F$##'7 9D

PAGE 167

$&''#-D93+,#$&3' 3#$'!1!&$&&',#$&--$' 9

PAGE 168

0%2*9*B)*%0?2H)0%0%"0? .?B ?B .0) )0%00H *B))?.?*.)?0 ?*; .?0? .??0 .??0 D Y Y A A ;*%)0% D @ F9 9 %?0 @ 8 )0% Y Y AA **?0 7 9 9 A%)0% 4 # A0 ?0 *%?0 9F9 ??0 ?0)0%8 2 ?0 8 ).%? ?0 8 @@88 0 )0% 8 8 0I )0% 9 9 0I ?0 F F E%) ?0 99 E))0% 9 8 D EH? 0?0%*) .0) ?0 F ] 8 8] = ] @9 @] ] 9 9 03$?$+$&') `,#$&'--K ?. `,'$+! $K ?*. `!#+$'#'G$'K )` '1G#K ? `&'$&G&7''1 J ?*.6 %0?*L `03$'-,#$&'--'1#-$' J;6%*%L` 3$'-,'$+!$!#+$'#' &'$&'&7''$' ?&3$-,'$+!$#'-&# 1#-$'?-&$##'$&$-$ :')&'%,$'1.$(F &$&'-#7!&+'9&0:' *+$'#$,2+2(F&$&'-#7 !&+'##&?-F$##'$& 7,$##&3$$+$&-$##' @

PAGE 169

0!$&0#9,#!-##7$&+ !$'$'!''!3,$& #+$'#$&$' 013-,'$+!$ ''@8](7$!#+$'#$&3 J!J$' F''8@D](7$!#+$'#$&3 '&$&+$'-!$#+$'#' *+$'#$&113-,'$+!$ ?-!##+$'#$&$&$&! ''F$##'(FF#+$'#$,$##' @9D](-3+,#$& --$'3$&+J!J$' ?-!##+$'#$&$&-1 $##'8](-3+,#$& --$'3$&+'&$&+#+$'#$, $' 8?!$3&!$'$'-! 07''.&&$&!3 $+!$##'&7$##'$& '3$,#1E!$#!''= ,#$&--$'3!#+$'#$& 7'$&&$!'# $&$-17!!3$'-! ,#$&'$+$& *$'$&3!&$##'7 $&''#-$',#$&' *$'$&='3+,#$&--$# $&$-17!!,#$&3$' $+$&---!& ,#$&'!'#$&#+$'#$& $&+$& A&''3!-$##'7 @

PAGE 170

$&''#-$'3+ ,#$&'##-3$' &-&!&3$!&'++' 1&!#+$'#$,$&#' 7''$#1& %''#-!$'''$'$&3$&! ,!$''!7'#+!$&-$&&! $+$&-,#$&3$'--!F$##' !!3+,#$&--$''7 '#-3+,#$&&$&'0! !'&'-!$--&$&#$##'F(& $##'(7!''3,$$&-$&+$&+ !$+$&-!3$-!,#$&07'' .&&$&!(&!$+$&,#$&3$'0!'7!$#!'7''3 !$+!#+$'#$,$##'.&&$(&7$##' !(7$&''#-!$3+ ,#$&'!'''7,$ $&-$&+$&+!$+$&-!3$'-! ,#$&')$$##1*$'$&3!& #+$'#$,$##'7$&''#-$' ,#$&'7'#3,$&!$+$&!3$&--!&,#$&3' ;$&##1A&''3!&,#$&7''7#+$'#$,$##' @ $

PAGE 171

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

PAGE 172

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

PAGE 173

&&'*$'$&!3$& $+$&-3$'-!--$=' ,'$+!$!#+$'#' !#+$'#$,$' &!''##$&$'E'!$&+&& E1$&+(3$'7,'3#$7& !''++'1'--'1 &!#93&( &3$''++'1!--$=' ,'$+!$!#+$'#' !#+$'#$,$' 2'&$&-$&3,$1!F''! !$+$&'-,#$&3$'F@3&!3$'3#1#$&+#+$'#$&$! -'--'++'$&'-'$#1& #$'J3#$63#J$'(.&,'#1 -!'3+,#$&--$''!7! 3&-!3$'3#1#$&+#+$'#$& $!-!3+,#$&--$=','$+! $!#+$'#'!#+$'#$, $'$&&'&7''1J-$6#J $'( "-7'3+,#$&--$'! -0:'('7!'$&+!!'7--$' &--!@93$'!$+$&'1&'!#-$'J3#$6 3#J$'(&-!F''!! @9 $ W

PAGE 174

U$+$&-!,#$&3$'3#1#$&+ #+$'#$&$33'!#'!#--! 3$'$+$&-'--'++'$&''1 &'!#-$'J3#$63#J ,#$&'(.&,'#1'$:''3!! 3$'#$&+#+$'#$&$+$&&$#1!$,'$+!$'#+$'#'! #+$'#$,$'J-$6#J,#$&'( ?-!F',#$&--$'3,$$&+$# $&-$&,#$&'3#1#$&+ #+$'#$&&!$+$&-!,#$&3$' #,&3J!J$'&'$:'&$&+ $' .)*(!'3!''3$&+ '&$&+$'#$#1!,#+$'#$& $&''#-!$,#$&'' '&$&+$'!,!!$1$' #+$'#$&,#$&--$'$&''3$&+ J!J13'-$'+'3$#$ $'(#''#$#1!,#+$'#$&'# -!$,#$&''!'$'& !,#+$'#$&$'$&+!$1$&+.)* (0!3'&'!'&33'33 U@@ $

PAGE 175

.)*='#$7$!+',#$&--$' 3$&+J!J13'-$'&!7' '3+,#$&--$'3$&+J!J 13'-$'33'#$#1!,#+$'#$& $&''#-!$3+,#$&'' '--$'3$&+'&$&+$'0! 3'&'!:$&'.)*''$&'7##'! ,$#'!3#1$&-#&$#$/$&$& $##7$&$'$'''$&-!-$'-! '&1!13!'' ,#%+&13#&$&-&$&' &D@3-(!'7$&!!&# $''-,#$&3$&!1$'3 ,#$&'!&'-#' )&&$!'&='7D9($&$!&',#$&$#$/$&$'7!!,#+&$' $3#&!3='&$&'&''< J,$'$#!&+'$&!3+J &='& )&&$!'&='',$&'&'$'&7$!'&!# F&D9(7!33'!&'&7!1' #+$'#$,3+,#$&!'&'''-#$'! @F

PAGE 176

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

PAGE 177

!-&:3$& )$:&'''3&$&+!',13! !1!,'1'$3'''-,#3$&+ &$&'7$&+7$!,#+&$'$& $3#&$&&!&-##7$&+63&&$& ''+#$&,#';!'''3&$&+ !',1##$&-$&&,#+&1 $#$/$&-,#$&3'&!, '1'$3'''--##7$&+3&3'&! ''7$!'1'$3'''--##7$&+3 ,#+&$'+$,&-3'-!1 !,&#'!,#$&--$='#+$'#$, ,'$+!$-,$70!,#$&--$ !&7'7$!,#+&$'-$$&$' $&-$&!3='&&#$-1&$3, &$&'!7$##&$&$&!-$&# 3?&&&!'&!&!'' #'!:&3''$#(-$$' 30!-$&$&'!,#$& -$&$&+'&&$&''7##'!,# +&1=''3&''!&$&'&&$&'7!!$'+&3$# +&17!&!+&1+'$3#& @ $ $ $

PAGE 178

N !!&+'-!+&1'&+7$!M' !&$&!$'#'$'&%-$$' !&,#3&$'3'&!3+,#$& --$=','$+!$'##13#$!$&+ 0!$'3''##7'#+$'#'$&! :&-+&1+&7$!!,#$&=' &$&'&'7!&+3&!&+'7$## 3#0!3''-!3,$'#+$'#' 7$!!&$'--##763&&$&' &'!!$3#&$&'!,&$& ''7!$'&'!,!&+7!&7'3'1 &''3+#$''' %'$''',7&1'''$:&7$! 3'''--##763&-7$!'!3'''( 3,$$#+$&++&1$3#&$&3+,#$&'0#9$'3#1'!3 1!'7&1''%&+!$3& !$'$'31!'' &1$3#&$&-&$&' )$:''.&&$;#$A&1 0&&''0:'E'!$&+&(!, 3,$'$&'&$&+%" (! U,#+&$'$3#& &$&' ;&''&!,'! F

PAGE 179

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

PAGE 180

Z &$&''$'&0!$',$#5 -##7635$'$&1,$#!$''$! JJ$-;?%*;$''JJ$-& 8&$&'$3#& 0!&-&$&'1! ,#$&--$'&+-7$& E1$&+8$&,7!$!3& $'7611#86( %+&1$3#&$&-&$&' &+-883&$&E'!$&+&7!$! -$-&&$&':$, &!+&$'(3&$&##$&$' 7$!&$&'( +,#$&--$'7$!'1 3#&'<$$&+! ,#+&$'$3#& &$&'!$3#&$&' &+$&+-883&$&E'!$&+&F 3&$&;#$&3&' 31!0:')&'%,$'1 .$''$&0:'6( +,#$&--$'7$! '13#&'<$$&+ &$&$3#&$&! $3#&$&'-3&' 31!0:'*+$'#$,2+ 20:'(3&$&##$&$' E'!$&+&3!7'$3#&$&7$!ݛ&-$' &$&'$3#&3$##1 $3#& 0!''3,$$&+$#$&-$&+$&+ !$,#$&3'3!!1 &$&',#+&$'$&+!'1 3$?-!'F](73#1$3#& F

PAGE 181

1,#+&$'0!3'&'! &',$,33!$&#''$-1$&+&$&'' $3#&?&$&'-##1$3#&7 #''$-$'.? 'JJ1!$''!( $##1$3#&&$&'7'JL #&+7$!&$&'!7M& $3#&!7!!''7'&&7&0! '&-!$'$'3$:3$&1!3'&! !''!7&!!7$$'3&$'&+ ,#+&$'&,#$&--$'7!&!13 !&$&!'&J3$##1$3#&J %'$'''#$!''-89&$&' 9@]-!#(7,$-$1-#-##763 !'E!$#!$''&&'!!''!'&$&'$$3#&&($' -#-##763!'3,$!$+!#,# -1!&#''-#!' E:3#!$'&$&'$3#&( #7$&!$'''$&-!'&-!'&1 !13!'':$&1!$'!'$' F8

PAGE 182

$ 0%2*952)?;.?"%0?)%" *0%0? )0%0)%"0H )?;;?**?E6 )" )0%00H 0?0%* )0%0) ] ;6 .? RAG ?0 .?8 F @ @ D9] 9] .?( F 99 ;*%( D9@ F 8D F F B% & 8D@ 8 D / 9 @8F 9 D ** A%= D9F8 D@ A0(D *%9 8 @8 ? & 99 ?0 8D 9 F@8 2 9@ 8 8 F C 8 D F8 F ).% D@ 9 F D F9 F9 0( F F D99 0I 9 @ D 9 0I( 99 E%)( 99F8 88 @F E) & @D+9 8 D EH? & ?0)( `)&'$3#&$& ;##763013' `''K`--$'K `,#+&$'3K`,'$+!$ ,$'$'K`$&+'1'K-`-##763$' 3#&$&)' `$3#&K `3$#K `&$3#&KR`MKA`&&7& .#8-9&$&'B+$ 99&$&'+&$'<$ $3#&$&7$$9&$&' +&$'&#+$'#',8&$&'$&86E'!$&+&9&$&'+&$'&@ #+$'#+E$'&'$&F&$&'@D :$,&!+&$'&8#+$'# F

PAGE 183

) +,#$&*$&+'7$!2+1 ''' %!$7!'&!#F&D9(+ !#+$'#$,3+,#$&'7'1' $'$&6'7'$&+1$'$&6$&+;$'!& D(#'&&!!+3''3,$ J7$&7-33&$1J7!,#$&&$&-#& &+''$&#$'$&6$&+E!8D9(-& ,$&'33$&+'&!#P'+&!,#$&' '$&'+13'''$$&+7H #+$'#$,$''$&,$7!7''& +&1='$&$&+-&'-Q$##$&QF$##$& %#!+!E!-&,$&-#'-3+ ,#$&'$&+$&+!3'&'!-& !'$$#-!''$''7!#$$ 0!$'$'''''&+1 $'$&''#$&+-3+,#$&3' %-7''$--&33!&3M !'$+&$-$&',$&+'7$##'#$-'+&$' $3#&3+,#$&&$&'; :3#!0:')%$='?--$7!$!$& '3&!'!',1( M&6 1',$&+'-Q9$##$&-68&-$,61 F9

PAGE 184

',$&+'-Q8$##$&$-'+&$'7 3##1$3#&!3+,#$& &$&'$&0:'=$3'&$' 3!B&#%''#1!C$+$&$3+ ,#$&--$7!$!#'$&'3&! 3'&'!('$!!'#', #'Q$##$&$-&$&'&$&$&$' 3+,#$&'7$3#&&$&*+$'#$, ),$'%+&19( '$&-$&$&!$'$'!&-&#)''#33## M'$-1!$#$'-3&$#+1 ',$&+'%&:3$&&!$'!0:')&' %,$'1.$''$&!3,$&,$&&',$&+'-QF$##$&$&;$'#H 3#1'#$&+-$',#$&' 0!',1<'!'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'3!-##7$&+(!13'--$$##$&+'!--$!'7$!+1'--& $'(7!!,#$&3'!,&' $&+1$'$&6$&+&8(!7!'3' !,&'$$&''+'( 0#98$'3#1'!'3&''-!7#,'' F@

PAGE 185

!3'-!$,#$&'$&!+1 3''0!!$'$'-!7#,''! 3'-!$,#$&3'$&+1 $'$&6$&+'-##7' 013'-+1#$&+' #,&-!7#,''3$&+ $#$&-$&&'$&+1 $'$&6$&+3!& +$'#'',&! 3+,#$&,'$+!$ 0!$'$'$'3#1'#$&+13JJ$& 0#98 $&''3!!$'+ $'3$$3$&'#$&+ ,#$&3$'0!$'$'$'3#1' #$&+13JJ$&0#98 $+!''3!!1 3'&$&'-!$,#$&3' +$'0!$'$'$'3#1' #$&+13LJ$&0#98 ),&''3!!+ $&,#$&'--7#'#1 +!0!$'$'$'3#1'#$&+13 JJ$&0#98 2&'&9(''!-#$/ #$&+'#$#1'#$&$#$/$&,#$&3'0!'!3'&'!-''& !!-##$&+'5(7!'3+ ,#$&--$3',$71+ $' 0C((7!!3$',$71! '3+,#$&--$'#1!+ $0? )*(&8(7!!3+,#$& --$+&$/$&##13'!+$ ?B 0(!-!'!,$#'$'$&1 ,$#;:3#?B 0$''JJ$-! 3+,#$&--$+&$/$&##13'! FF

PAGE 186

+$&JJ$-& 013'-+1$&'&''#,#$& 0!'''3&$&+!!$ ,#$&'!&'$&!+1 3''3$&'&$ $&''+'( %-$&$&+!7'!$&!'' 7!,#$&'7'$&+1 $'$&6$&+$&F''83&!#''3(,#$&'7 '3,$3$&'-&+$&+! 3++&13,$$&-$& +'3,$--! &$$&+-!+&1,#$&'7 ''+&1+'$&7#, ''83&-!#'' 3(&$&'+&1+' $&#,&'' %+$&!3'&'!3,$'-!'$' -+$#$/$&'$&+!$6'<''#7$& !$'''$&-!!$-!'&1!13!'' :$&1!3'&'! FD

PAGE 187

0%2*98)0%0 ?B%C%*%0?*A%B)E02"B0%H ".)?6%AB )0%0 0H ?;*A%B0H ?;)) Q)%CB ". ?0 ;*% 8 8 QF A% 8 A0 GG.--# *% ?0 ? 2 G G ).%? 0I 9Q E%) 8 E) + EH? ?0) *$&+'`+&,#$&'--7 +!K`,#$&3'3'&+ $'K`,#$&3',$71+ $K`+$''#3$'K` +$'&,'$+!$K -`,#$&'--3+$ 0H )?;)). `,#$&',$&'+&1 +K ". `,#$&','+&1+K & ?0 `!''?!'' ?0( $&#$& ;#$,#$&3'7'3,$$$ -'7$-&$&+$'-!$+!$&& '(&$&,#3$&+''$'7''(K$& A&1$&-$&-&,#$&37'' --'&$&'$&&+&1='+K$&*$'$& ,#$&'7'-$&-$!''K$& &&&,#$&3,$$$&#$&-$& +1$'$&6'K$&'7,#$&' 3,$$$&#$&-$&-$'$&6' &$3+'K-$&0:'&,#$&7'' 3,$$$&#$&-$&$'$&6'K+$& E$'&'$&-7,#$&'7' '+&1+' F

PAGE 188

)1-"'$3$,)$'$' &'1!'$3$,'$'$'$''' ,33$&$!-##7$&+ *,$&&+!'D('!& 3#$&'1$&+!'-3+ ,#$&'$'!!''-3$&+ $#$/$&,1#7*,$&&+!' $&$-$!7,&$&'&!!1 #$3'&''$+&$-$&'-& ,#$&5!,#$&5!$'$&4 ''$&-$&+'3#+$'#$, $##'R&'D8D($&''!! ,#$&7'J'3$#'J!7, !'3,$$&+-!,$&!! !$&$&'$#$/$&$'&'3$# #'!-##,#0!3'& '!$&$-$F''$##'(''7!#+$'#'3#1'3+ ,#$&'$&-$&+#+$'#$&0!$'#,# -$#$/$&33'&-#$7$!! &!!'$'#'! '#,# D

PAGE 189

0!#'$'&+3&'& '-3$&+$#$/$&'$ 33#$'&$&$3#&$& 7,*'&&E&D(3 !@3&-!FDD&'#& &$&'!1'$7$3#& *'&&E&=''13,$''$&+ 3$&!--''''$&+&$& #,#'0!'#'-!3'&'! ,#!F3&-! &$&'1'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'73#1-##1 $3#&0!$'#,#=-$#$/$&#' 33'&-#$7$!!&!! '$'+$&#''33#$' #,#3+,#$&' 80!+$&+'#,#$'$&6 $#$/$&-3+,#$&'$&+1 $'$&6$&+#'3$&#,#-' !&-#$'7$!!!!!#'! '$'0!!#$$'$& ''+1'7, !'''3,$$&-$&+$&+ D $

PAGE 190

+1'&&6'($&883&(,#$&3'!1$''$&+! '13$ 0!$&-!'',1$' <'$&'+$&+!'-#&''-!!1! !#'!$#$/$&$'#'7$!+ !'#,#&!-##7$&+'$&-!$' !3!3'&'!:3#'!'&$, &#'$&'-!'$&+!$6'<&!$ 2&-&$('' )&113!'' &$-1$&+$'$&6$#$/$&-' #+$'#$,3+,#$&'$''$+&$-$&'3$& !3'&'!='--'$&$-! #$--&'7&!3$+!,#$&' #1'(&!'31!'' &$-1$&+'!$#$/$&$'!7,-$' '3'&-<'$&'$'?&'! <'$&''E!1!'!$--&'7& ,#$&''-&1&-'!'! -##,#&!'#'3'&!'$/$&+ D

PAGE 191

'#,#'X%&!<'$&!$''$'E!! !,$#'$'&$&+$($&$-$1 ,$'+&$/$&'+.)*('#$&! $--&'$&$#$/$&7&''&-# ,#$&'X0!'$''':$'3!$'''$&+$&+!$''!=''&1 !13!''0!!13!''5&''!-! !'33'1'&!#5:$& 0!#$3,$'&--'!3' '!'!,:$&33'--! :$&$&!3#1$&-#&$#$/$&; :3#.)*('''!!13-,'$+! $'&$&+,''##J!J13'$'(7!$!&,#$&--$3' '$+&$-$--'&,#$&--$='$#$1 !,#+$'#$&$'''#-$'3#$'! 3'.)*&&'!,#$&--$'3$&+ '&$&+$'!,!&-!,$&+ #+$'#$&3'''$&'&$&+$' #$#1!,'1!$1$& #+$'#$& =2&'&9868(3'!' #+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'3$&+ D8

PAGE 192

$'7$!'1!$1$& #+$'#$&$#1#'!,!$+!J'''J'!& --$'!3$&+$'7$!'! !$12&'&9(',#$&--$' !$33$&'-!J'''J-!$--$ !&3!3'''6'7$!! ,#$&--$'=,'$+!$='$#$1 $&#+$'#$&$#12'&!$''$''--$-<&1$'$$&'&!$6'< ''2&'&98(&#!J'''J7' #'1!$1$&#+$'#$& E!#'(&&'!!!'! !-##,#'!7'!J-$6#J13,#$&' ,#$&'7!'3$'-#+$'#' &'$&'(#$#1'1&+''$&# #+$'#'!&J3#$3#J13',#$&' '#$&+-!#-,#$&'!' '++'1,#$&'--'$#1& ,#$&'( ;!"$##('1'!''J$&'$$&#$/!&$'J-#$/-##763($' &$&+,$'$$#$1&,#$&!' 3,$$&++3''$$#$1!!,#$&=' D $

PAGE 193

&$&'67$##$3#&2&'&9 @(3'!#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$' !3#1'1'$-##7633'!, !$+!J'''J!&--$'!&3#1'! 3'0!$'$'&'$'&7$!"$##(7! ''!,#+&$'7#$#1 $3#&&$&'7!&!,#$&--$! -##7633#$$'&3'2&'&9F( 3'!'&-<&1$'$$&'&!$6 '<''!'''-#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&--$'$'#!$!$-&' --##7633' )&&$!'&=''!D(#'!''!7&! +&$'!,$&+3#$'3'&$&+ &$&$3#&$&!,!$+!#,#',#+&13#$&7$!&$&'!& ,#$&+&$'7$!'!3#$$'3' ;!2&'&33''!!$--&13' ---$$##$&+'7&,#$&--$'& #+$'#$,+$'--&,#$& --$='$#$1!,$'3''$&+1 $'$&6$&+0!3'&'!:$&'!' -'$&!'&1!13!'''$#7 D9

PAGE 194

0!-$'-!!'&1!13!'':$&' !3&&,$#5#+$'#$&$& *B)0?(''#-,#$&3'0!&$ -'$'$'$&$,$#,#$&3'%#D9,#$&3'''(7$&#$&! 33#$&,$7-!-$'7!$6'<''6 *B)0?&)0%".?&*B)0?&)0%0%0 0!$&3&&,$#'$!'33'1.)* W 2&'&&E!#'(7:$&$&$!'$&3&&,$#'--!3&+#+$'#$&$&0!-$'$&3&&,$# :$&$'!13-$)''3&$&+ !3'&'!3#'-$--& 13'-J$'J('&$&+('3$#$ 8(-$'#&(!$&#$&+&$.)* ($&$&'!7,!',#$&--$' 3$&+'&$&+$'#$#1' #+$'#$&$&&&''#-!$ ,#$&'!&--$'3$&+##!13' -#+$'#$,$'%''#!-$' '&1!13!'$'8('$&1,$# +$/,#$&--$'(!'3$&+ '&$&+$')0%".?'JJ(&(## D@ $

PAGE 195

J!J$'G'JJ7!$!$&#'!' 3$&+'3$#$$'&$& K!'3$&+-$'#$'0!'& $&3&&,$##'$&1,$#('$&8 &'$'7!!!,#$&--$3' $7$!!!$1$&#+$'#$& )0%0%0(&?--$'3$&+,'$+!$' 7$!)0%0%07'JJ!?--$'$&'' 7$!,'$+!$'&!,$&+)0%0%0$& #+$'#$&7'JJ;$&##1$&8! 3'&'!''7!!!3$P'$+$&$ J3#$3#L(--'#+$'#$&$&) 3+,#$&--$'7$!3$'$'$&+J3#$3#J$+$&'7'JJ ?*.?B -3$'7=-J-$#J$+$&'!'3$'7 'JJ)$&&##''3,$$&-$& +$&+!$+$&-!$3+,#$&3$' !!$!$6'<'$'#7''@D,#$& 3'7$!#+$'#$,$##'7!!$+$&!,#$&3$7'$&$-$('$'&$,' !!&!D9'-!-$'7!$6'< '' 0!'!-$''&1&##(!13!'$':$& DF

PAGE 196

$' = *+$'#$&$&*B)0?(7$##& --1!(13-$)0%".?(JJ !JJ(,'$&+!,#$&--$( 7!!!$!'!)0%0%0JJ$-1' JJ$-&(&8(7!!!,#$&3$$' ?*.?B$+$&JJ$-1'LJ$-&( 0!!$6'<''7':$&!$' !13!'$'0!'#'-!''''!7&$& #'999&9@0#9'!7'!'#'!'$'-!#$&'!$3'7&*B)0?& )0%".?0#99'!7'!'#'-!'$'!#$&'!$3'7&*B)0?&)0%0%00# 9@'!7'!'#'-!'$'-!#$&'!$3' 7&*B)0?& ?*.?B= DD

PAGE 197

0%2*96 .6)S%%%*H))?;*B)0?%")0%".? .?*)`*B)0??E)`)0%".???0 *B)0? 0?0%* ) 0 % 9DD 98 8D 8 FF 9DD 9 88D 0?0%*F @DD9 .6)S%`@ a 89Fa@D9 aF` 88K 3`K -` 0#9 :$&' 7!!!$' #$&'!$3 7&*B)0?&!13-,'$+!$ 7!$!!'#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$ 3')0%".?J?0J(0!7!13!'' :$&! *B)0?&$13)0%".? J?0J($&3&& : *B)0?&$13)0%".? &J?0J(3&& 0!36,#($&$'!*B)0?& D

PAGE 198

$133&&!$'#$&'!$3 7&!13-,'$+!$&*B)0?( 0$&7!$!#$&'!$3)0%".?J?0J($' #$#1'#$&#+$'#$&$&+$&! 3'&'!,$77:3''$&'-!!$6 '< G*B)0?`#G)0%".?`(`FFG`D] G*B)0?`#G)0%".?`(`G8`8] 0!'#'33'!7!,#$&--$' 3$&+J!J&&6'&$&+$'( #$#1!,#+$'#$&$&''#!$,#$&3'!&--$'3$&+ '&$&+$'0!$'33'+7$!#$ '!12&'&9(7!-&!9-9 3+,#$&--$'3$&+J!J$&!$' ''3$#$($'#'!,!!$1 $&#+$'#$&

PAGE 199

0%2*99 .6)S%?; *B)0?%" )0%0%0 .?*)`*B)0? ?E)`)0%0%0 *B)0? ? 0?0%* ) 0 9 @ %898@@ 0 % 0?9 8 @@ 8 0?0%*F @D D9 .6)S%`a a9a D`@K 3` D88K-` 0#99:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&#+$'#$&$&*B)0?(&' 3+,#$&--$'3$&+#+$'#$, ,'$+!$'!,$&+!$1$&#+$'#$& )0%0%0(0!7!13!'':$& *B)0?&)0%0%0$&3&& $*B)0?&)0%0%03&&

PAGE 200

0!36,#$'D88'7-$#M!&## !13!'$'*B)0?&)0%0%033 $&3&&0!-##7$&+:3''$&'-!!$6 '<'$',3,$-!$&-$& +$&+*B)0?&)0%0%0 G*B)0?`G)0%0%0`(`G@`@8] G*B)0?`G)0%0%0`(`9G8`@] 0!'#'33'!7!!$'#$# $--&$&#+$'#$&$&''#3'$''1,#$&--$'3$&+ ,'$+!$'7$!7$!!!$1 $&#+$'#$&

PAGE 201

0%2*9@ .6)S%?;*B)0?%"0? .?;C%*%0? .?*)`*B)0??E)` ?*.?B *B)0? 0?0%* 3 FF 8 F *@@ ? 9 8@@ 8F 8@ B 0?0%* @@@D .6)S%` 8a8@a@9a8`9@8 3`F -` 0#9@:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&*B)0?&!$+$&-!3$-! ,#$& ?*.?B(0!7!13!'':$& *B)0?& ?*.?B$&3&& :*B)0?& ?*.?B3&& 0!36,#F($&$'!*B)0?& 8

PAGE 202

?*.?B3&&!$'#$&'!$37& *B)0?&!$+$&-,#$&3$'(0 $&7!$!#$&'!$3 ?*.?B!$ ;($'#$#1'#$&#+$'#$&7:$& !-##7$&+:3''$&'-!!$6'<'$' G*B)0?`G ?*.?B`(`FFGF`F] G*B)0?`G?0G;`(`9G@`] 0!'#'33'!7!3$'$+$&$&+ -,#$&'--!#$' '1& ?*.?B(#$#1'# $&#+$'#$&!&3$'$+$&$&+#+$'#'&'$&'&7''$'$ ?0G;( %-!'&&:$&! #$&'!$3'7&!3&&,$#5 *B)0?5&!!$&3&&,$#'5 )0%".?)0%0%0& ?*.?B0!$''$'! 2&-&$30!2&-&$3$'$# -'$&+!-$,36,#'$&+"R$ A!#3-''$&!&$,'$1-.# "&,='"3&-!$'&)$'$'0! 2&-&$3''$&!#$#$! !!!'&&$&&-!36,#' $ $

PAGE 203

'&!&-''3-'$&+!9 M&-$&#,#&!''5(*B)0?& )0%".?(*B)0?&)0%0%0&8( *B)0?& ?*.?B5!2&-&$3& ''$-!$'&1$&$,$#$&! !''0!'!2&-&$3<$& !$'9G8!&-$&#,#-9,! #&-''3-58(`@F&! 7'$-&1-!36,#'$'b!&@F!&! #$&'!$3$'&'$+&$-$&%,$7-!! 36,#','!7'!*B)0?&)0%".?3` (&*B)0?& ?*.?B3`F('$## '$'$##1'$+&$-$&,&7$!!2&-&$ 3&!7'!73,#'c!& @F0!!$#$&'!$35*B)0?&)0%0%0 3`D8($'&'$&!36,#!$''$##b !&@F 0!'&-!3'&'!='!'&1 !13!''(:$&'&$&'$3#& $&$-'"$##&2&'&33'$--& 13'--##763--!#,#'-&$& $3#&$&0!$''&1!13!'$'#':$&' )&&$!'&='33'$$&!&1$3#&$& 9 $ $

PAGE 204

3#$$'&3'--!&&$&'$3#& 0!'!'&(-!'&1!13!'' !'7$&3&&,$#'0!-$'$&3&& ,$#$&$'% $&1,$#!3' $&7!!',#$&--$='!,$&+ 3#$$'3'&$&+!,#+&$' $3#&&$&'--'!&$& $3#&$&#,#'$&!'0!$'!13!'$' #':$&'$--$&+13'--##763$& $-;?%*;#'$&1,$#(!' #$#1'#$&!$+!#,#'-&$& $3#&$&0!'!!13!'$'(:$&$' &$&$3#&$&.? ( 7$##&--$-!,#$& --$'';?%*;3'' JJ(&'JJ(&$-! '!'3#$$'3'&$&+ %" (!,#+&$'$3#& &$&''JL($-! ''&!,'!3#$$'' JJ( .? !3&&,$#$'$&1 #''$-$'##&$&''$3#&' JJ&$3#&'JJ0!3'& '!#''$-$'&$&''&$3#&$!13$##1$3#&M!$ @ W

PAGE 205

$3#&$&''$'&&7& 07!$6'<'''!' 13!'$'0!'#'-!''''!7& $&#'9F&9D0#9F'!7'!'#'!'$'-!#$&'!$3'7&.? & %" 0#9D'!7'!#$&'!$3'7& .? &;?%*; 0%2*9F .6)S%%%*H))?;.? %"%" .?*)`.? ?E)`%" .? 0?0%* % 0?0%*@ .6)S%`8@@aVFDaD8aF@F` D@88K3`K-` @D9FF 9@9 F@99D9 D98D9 0#9F:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&.? &%" 7!!'='!,$&+ 3#$$'&3'&$&+$3#&$&--' F

PAGE 206

&$&''(0!7!13!'':$& .? &%" $&3&& $.? &%" 3&& 0!36,#($&$'!.? & %" 3&&0$&7!$!#$&'!$3 %" ?0($'#$#1'#$& &$&'$&+$3#&7:$&!7 -##7$&+:3''$&'-!!$6'<'$' G.? `G%" `(`@GFF`DD] G.? `G%" `(`F@GD9`9] 0!'#'33'!7!,#$& --$'$&''7$!3#$$'&3'&$&+ &$&'#$+!#1#$#1!,!$+! $3#&$&'!&--$'$&''7$! '!3' D

PAGE 207

0%2*9D .6)S%%%*H))?;.? %";?%*; .?*)`.? ?E)`;?%*; .? 0?0%* ; ? FF 8@D 9 FF@988D9 % @99DF ; @99 F9 0?0%*@ .6)S%` 99a89a@9a8 `D98 `D8K` 0#9D:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&.? &;?%*;0!!13!'':$& .? &;?%*;$&3&& : .? &;?%*;3&& 0!36,#D8($&$'!!&## !13!'$'&&M.? &;?%*; 33$&3&&;!'$'-!7 :3''$&'-!!$6'<'!7'!-##7$&+

PAGE 208

G.? `G;?%*$;`(`FFG9`@F] G.? `G;?%*;`(`@99GDF`F8] 0!'#'33'!7!,#$& --$'7$!;?%*;&#$#1!,!$+! #,#'-&$&$3#&$&!&--$' !&3#1'!3$' 0!!$!13!'$':$&1!3'&'! #'$'$&6$#$/$&-3+,#$& 3'$&+$'$&6$&+&!$&3&& ,$#'!3#1$&-#&$#$/$& 0!&$-'$'!$'&+$&$&$,$# 3+,#$&3'0!''!3,$ $&-$&+$&+!$#$/$&-3+ ,#$&3'$&+1$'$&6$&+3#$'! 3'$&+!'13$?-!' 3'883&(73#1'1$'$&4 '0!'3+,#$&--$'3 !,#$&'7'$&+1$'$&6$&+ $&!71'(3,$-!$&-$& $'$&6'F3''((''33'$&+&,#+&1='+''(& 8(''33-$&'$&+&,#+&1=' +''( $ $ $

PAGE 209

0!#$2&'&9(''!! -#!#$&+'7&!3+,#$& --$&!-$'#+$! #$#1$$'!!3+,#$&7$##'$& +1$'$&6$&+2&'&9($&$-$ !-##$&+'0!-$'$'7!!+ $3$$##1,$7',#$&3' 0C('3-$'3''-'$&++' 0!'&$'7!!+$$'' ',&!,#$&$&3$$3$&! 3''-'#$&+3$'-,#$&,$7 0? )*.0(0!!$&'-##$&+$' 7!!,#$&'--+&$/$&##13! +-$'#$?B 0(0!3'& '!!'#''$-$!-!'!$&3&& ,$#''$&1;:3#$-!+ $,$7'3'-!,#$&--$' 3-!+3''!3'&'! !$''JL-!+$'&,$7 3'!&$$''JJ 0!!$9('&1!13!'$':$&!$' 92+'2")(7$##&--$(!,#$&3',$71 !+$ 0C`JL$

PAGE 210

$ $ ,$7LJ$-&((!+ $$'''#3$',#$&,$7'0? )*.0`LL$'#JJ$-&(&8($-! ,#$&--$+&$/$&##13' !+$?B 0`JJ$!--$3'!+$ JJ$-&( 0!!$6'<'''!:$& 13!'$'90!'#'-!'''!7&$& #'99&90#9'!7'! #$&'!$3'7&2")& 0C0#9 '!7'!#$&'!$3'7&2")&0? )*.0 0#9'!7'!#$&'!$3'7&2")& ?B 0

PAGE 211

0%2*9 .6)S%%%*H))?;2")%" 0C .?*)`2")?E)` 0C 2") #8 9 0 D C9 0?0%*D .6)S%`88a89@8aDaF8D`D@8K3` 88K-` 0?0%* 8F9 9 8F 89 0#9:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&2")& 0C0!7!13!'':$& 2")& 0C$&3&& $2")& 0C3&& 0!36,#-!!$6'<'$'88( $&$'!!$'#$&'!$37&2")& 0C;!'$'-!7:3''$&'-! !$6'<'!7!-##7$&+ G2")`G 0C`(`8GF9`8] G2")`G 0C`(`DGF`F] 8

PAGE 212

0!'#'33'!7!7!&+ $',$7,#$&3'!!3' #$#1'$&!+$'$&6$&+ 3'' .?*) 0%2*9 .6)S%%%*H))?;2")%"0? )*.0 `2")?E)`0? )*.0 2") 0?0%* 0 ? @ D ) @898FF 0 8FF D8 0?0%* D .6)S%`D aDDaFa8F9 `@89K3` 9 K-` 0#9:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&2")&0? )*.00!7!13!''' 2")&0? )*.0$&3&& $

PAGE 213

$2")&0? )*.03&& 0!36,#-!!$6'<9($&$' !!#$&'!$37&2")&0? )*.0$'& '$+&$-$&!3&&-$&#,#0! #$&'!$3$''$+&$-$&!9#,#!7, ;!'$'-!7:3''$&'-!!$6 '<'!7'!-##7$&+ G2")`G0? )*.0`(`GD`9] G2")`G0? )*.0`(`G`D] 0!'#'33'!7!7!&!+ $$''3$$3$&!'#$&3$'-3+,#$&'!!$''& &''$#1$&'!#$#$!!!,#$& 7$##'$&!+$'$&6$&+3'' 9

PAGE 214

0%2*9 .6)S%%%*H))?;2")%"?B 0 .?*)`2")?E)`?B 0 2") 0?0%* ? D @ 98D D B 0 8 8F8D D F@@ 0?0%* D .6)S%`8aFFa98FF`8FF`F99K3 K-` 0#9:$&'7!!!$'#$&'!$3 7&2")&?B 00!7!13!'':$& 2")&?B 0$&3&& $2")&?B 03&& 0!36,#-!!$6'<($&$'! !$'#$&'!$37&2")&?B 0 ;!'$'-!7:3''$&'-!!$6 '<'!7'!-##7$&+ @

PAGE 215

G2"B)`G?B 0`(`DGD`] G2")`G?B 0`(`8GD`8] 0!'#'33'!7!7!&!3+ ,#$&--$+&$/$&##13'!+ $!$$'#$#1!,!,#$& 3''$&+$'$&6$&+ ),#$$&#''&&:$&! #$&'!$3'7&!3&&,$#52")5& !!$&3&&,$#'5 0C0? )*.0& ?B 0$##$& ''!-$&'$'7$!'##'3#'$/'!$' 21 8( "(# &!&## !13!'$'!&$$&#$'$$&-!# &$'+$,&!-+$&##$' !13+$$ Uaaa aZ`##P( (W ( `a(Wa(Wa(Wa(W WWW#W %&6$#3,#$'$&1'$&+! 3$#$$'-!#<#& :!&!',7$!!'+$&# #' )$&!&$&+&1#7$!2")&?B 0 !'&##7$!,#!$'#''!&:3! F

PAGE 216

;$'!:'&'$&&7M'(3 ,#$&+"A!#E$! `D` `8 &`D!<$&$' D(K D(8( (6 W 8W 7!$!3,$'&M'3,#0!'!#$&'!$37&2")&?B 0 '$##$''$'$##1'$+&$-$&!3& #,# %'&'!&&-##! #$&'!$3'$'!2&-&$3E$!!9 &-$&#,#!2&-&$''&!''5( 2")& 0C(2")&0? )*.0&8( 2")&?B 5!2&-&$3$&$' 9G8!&-$&#,#-9,!&''3-(`@F&!7'$-&1-!36 ,#'$'b!&@F!&!#$&'!$3$'& '$+&$-$&%,$7-!!36,#','!7' !2")& 0C3`88(&2")& ?B 07$!;$'!:0'36,#UD W

PAGE 217

('$##'$'$##1'$+&$-$,&7$! !2&-&$$&0!!$#$&'!$352") &0? )*.03`9(7!$#&'$'$##1 '$+&$-$&!3&#,#$''$+&$-$&! 93&&-$&#,# "$'''$& 0!'#'-!$''!33#$#$#1 !D'#+$'#$,3+,#$& --$''3&$&+!$''$&='',1-8 !+!9 0!7&16$+!3+,#$&--$'7!@''F]-!89''7$!'!--$'( !'3&!',1%##-!'''& +#'1'$3+,#$&'0!$&$$# '$3$,'$'$',#!',&-!''' 3'&$&+$'-!$#+$'#'& !7&16&3J!J13'-#+$'#$, $'-&'3$#$$'& ',&-$'#$'&$57$$( ?-!D'''3&$&+!',1'$! !$,'$+!$'!,!!$1$'

PAGE 218

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

PAGE 219

$$+$&-3$''++'1,#$& # '--7'&1''''#!#-$'( .!$6'<''33$&$! ,#$&--$'3$&+'&$&+$' #''#$#1!,#+$'#$&$&''#!$3'!&--$'3$&+J!J13' -$';!$33'!J3#$3#J ,#$&'#$#1'#$&#+$'#$&$&+ $&!&J-$#L,#$&' 07&1'''$:7$!&1$3#&$& <$&'&-&7$!(3,$$# $&-$&+$&+,#+&1$3#&$&&$&'0!-&''!&!, ''3'&$&+!,#+&$' $3#&,#$&3&$&'3! ,#+&$'$3#&,#$&3 &$&''&+$&+-3&! 0:'2+2(3&$&##$&$'0!'$: ''7$!'13#&'<$$&+ !,#+&$'$3#&,#$&3 &$&'3$3#&$&'&+$&+K883&$&E'!$&+&F3&$&;#$& $ d $

PAGE 220

3&-!0:')&'%,$'1.$''$& 0!',#'&'7!1''7$!3,$'$&' &$&+$3#&$&&!,3& 3#$&;$'&'&#'! '3$&-37'$'',#$&--$'&!$ ,'$+!$'$&!''3#+$'#$, $',#+&$'13$##1-! :$,&!0!',#+&$'1G' $3#&&$&',&!+!!'' 3#&'!<$!&$&' $3#&%'&'&$'!!,#$& 3&$&'-&'M+$&$&+& 3$'!$'13$#$&#+$'#$,!$&+'; :3#!)-E'!$&+&&'!## &$&'!!,'$+!$'$+&'' $3&$3#&0!$'&$'-& '$+&$-$#''!!#&&$&'&$&$&!,#$&3 $&+E'!$&+&--$$#'ݛ&-! ,#$&&$&'1!,#$&--$ $&87$3#&( 0!7&1''3$&+&$& $#$/$&',$1-!'-##763& $

PAGE 221

&$!''-(,#+&1$3#&$&&$&' 0!7!$6'<'':$&$&+.? & %" &.? &;?%*;'!7!''7$! 3#$$'&3'&$&+!,#+&$' $3#&&$&'#$#1!, &$&'$3#&!&''7$!'! 3'7,;?%*;!'&33 '&!!$6'<'$'($&' $#$/$& %#!+!@'3+,#$&--$'3 !!1!,--$$##$&+'7$!#+$'#$,+ 3'''''3,$='3$-$$#' !7,#$&''$&+1$'$&6$&+ '''&33##+$&+ ,#$&'$&+1$'$&6$&+0!'' $&-$&$'&#&-+&0!7#, ''3$&+#''7!,#$&'7' $&+1$'$&6$&+$&$-$$&'& &83&-!''F(,#$&' 3,$-!$&-$&!3+& ,$7&!!'',#$&'7' '+&1+'$&!#-!''& 8

PAGE 222

$&'+'$&!!!#)'<&!$6'<''-2")&! $&3&&,$#',#!7!&+$' ,$7,#$&3'&7!&,#$&--$' +&$/$&##13+$'! #$#$!-,#$&3'$&+'$&+ $'$&6$&+$'$&'0!!$6'<'$'2")&0? )*.033'$&$!9 3&&-$&#,#!!,$&++$ '3$$3$&!'#$&-,#$&3$' '&&''$#1--,#$&3' $#$/$&7,,#$&--$'! +&$/$&##13+$'1:3 '$#$/$&-!$3'$&+1$'$&4 $&+--1!#'+&$/$&##$&'!$3

PAGE 223

.% 0@ .?.*)?) %'$'-;$&$&+' 0!!1!#!&,$7! '3$-$'!3+,#$&#''3,$'#1 '!-##,#($'#1'E$''& 2,#'D(7,'$&.##DF(-& !'#+$'#$,3+,#$&!&& '$$&63!7:$&'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&$&$-!!1#'!#'! '6#,# '&!#F&D9(#$!3+ ,#$&7'!'$&+#'$3&'&-! '''-!'#+$'#$,$3,&,&$& !F''3+,#$&3,$'$&-$& !'#+$'#'&-#-$##!$!1 $'5#7$&++&13+(3#&+& &+$'$&6$&+;$'!&D($&$-$ '$$#'!!-$&''J7$&7'9 $ $

PAGE 224

33&$1J7!,#$&'$$##1&$&-#& &+''$&#$'$&6$&+,&'('! !$&-$&3,$13+,#$&','' !3#$6'=''+-!3$,'=' 3-$6&6#'''& 0!3$1!13!'$'-!$'$''$&:$&' '#+$'#$,3+,#$&-!! 3'3$,''++'1'&!#0!33!' $'$&$-!#$&'!$3'13!'$'6 $(7&'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'& $3#&3#$17!&'$&'-$ 3$$#1$&'&#--'$&++1 $'$&6$&+&&+&3#'#$& &$&$3#&$&( !&DD(+!!'71$&' 3+,#$&$#$/$&7'#$&$' &'&3#$1$'&'0!$''!'' 7!!'&!#='33'$$&$'!' #+$'#$,3+,#$&$'''$3,$' $&-$&#'#1#$&'#+$'#&' 0!'#'3'˝#1$#1 !D'#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$' '3&$&+!$''$&='',10!D' @

PAGE 225

3+,#$&--$'7-@''F 3&-!89''!&+#'1'$ 3+,#$&'?-!''3&$&+!',1 @D](3!#+$'#$&!&$&' '#-3+,#$&3'&$&' F](3,$$#$&-$&+$&+! &'-,#$&&$&'$3#&& 8](3'-,#$&'$&+1$'$&4 $&+ 0!$&$$#'$3$,'$'$'K!' !1&$3#$&'&!#''!1 3,$'-#$&-$&-7!%!&D@(' !$',1&'$&+-!15!3$13$!$'!'$' '#'&.3$'&' 0!'!'#''++'&-!'1 7&;$'!31'3+ ,#$&--$'33,#$&'&'&3#&3''$,$J-$6#J'(' 3$1$!FF(&*,$&&+!' D($3!333,$ ,$&-'$'$&6$3$$#1 F

PAGE 226

$&'&#' #/FD(-,#$&'!3$!$'!'$')3$-$##131' #+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'33,# $$'$&6$#$/$&$&##!' 33'1'&!#FD9((-$&+#+$'#$&(+&13#'#$&''$& '-&$&'$3#&(&8(+ $'$&6$&+0!&+1$'$&6$&+ !7,'7!#$$!''$$&+! &#'$&'!17&%#!+!!& ,#$&'$&+1$'$&6$&+(!,! ,$'#$$$&''$,!1$''' #7'!$'7'&-&'$#$&' !3'&'! )#+$'#'-,#$&$&-$&+ #+$'#$&$'!-$'-!!13'-$#$/$& :$&%'$'''#$;$'!&D( #$!7'7!,#$&&$&-#& #+$'#$,$'$&6$&+!+!!,#3&&7#+$'#$&&!6!$/$&+-:$'$&+ '' 0!3'&'!-&!'#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'3F$##'7 D

PAGE 227

$&1'#+$'#'#+$'#$,$' ''#1''#-3+,#$&3' &$&'0!&-$##'$&&+ -&$&A&1(7&16',&-!0:' )&'.$''$&--$( 0!-!F''!!$+$&' -!3$'#$&+,#$&'$&$!F@ 3&-!3$'#$&+#+$'#$&$! -'--'++'$&'-'$#1&!#$'!'J3#$63#J ,#$&'("-7'3+,#$& --$'!-0:'(!,$#1'7!'$& +!!'7--$'&--@93$' $+$&$&+-'1&'!#$'&!#''#,&-!',&&''! !$+$&-!,#$&3$'#$&+ #+$'#$&3!#'!#--! ,#$&3$'$+$&-'--'++'$&' '1&'!#-$'7! .$&'&)!7/D(J3#$63#J ,'$+!.&,'#1'$:''3!! 3$'#$&+#+$'#$&$+$&&$#1!$,'$+!$'!#+$'#'!

PAGE 228

#+$'#$,$'7!.$&'&)!7/ D(J-$6#J,'$+! E!$#!$&$$#'$3$,$&&& &3,$,$&-'#$1!1$3& -7'&';$''3$1E$''& 2,#'D(!33''$+&$-$& 3''$,'-'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'$& #7$&+',$&1!'$:''3$&+$##' $&''#-3$'$+$&$&+&$#1#+$'#'&#+$'#$,$'&!7' #+$'#'&#+$'#$,$'33!, $!$,#$&--$',$7'3$-$ 3+'3#$$'-&$&'7$!!&'#$&+ !!,#$&3'&$&'7' -#+$'#$&''$&+3,$'#13$, 3#'.&,'#1#,&'3+,#$& --$'3$##'$&''#-J3#$6 3#J,'$+!3!3'$&$$&+'$+&$-$&$ '-,#$&'1#+$'#'0!$'33'--$ !-$&$&+'-BF9(E$&#&2'F(& 27&D(7!#$!,#$&''7!& !13,$$&-$&&1$'$&6' 0!3'&'!:$&!$&3&&

PAGE 229

$ ,$#'!!#$&&'--#+$'#$& $&!3&&,$#($&13!'$'8 '$&+!$6'<''0!!$&3&& ,$#''7$13)0%".? J!J(G7!!&--$=','$+!1!! !$1$&#+$'#$&)0%0%0(&& 7!!J3#$63#JJ-$6#J3$'7 #$#1'1#+$'#'$&-$&+$##'0! 33$&$!J3#$63#J,#$&' #$#1'#$&#+$'#$&$&+$& !&J-$6#J,#$&'0!$'&''7$! E!#'7!33'!!-##,# J-$6#J,#$&'7#$#1$#$/ 1#+$'#' %'&'&7!1!'#'-!$''! $3&$'!!13,$$&'$+!'$&' 3+,#$&--$'!3$--$&+13' -,'$+!$'?-!',&&'' 3$&+$#$&-$&+$&+#+$'#$& $&#,&3J!J$' '3$#$$'&-$'#&$( 7!$#'$:3'&$&+#+$'#$,$' .)*&&'!,#$&--$'3$&+ $ $ $

PAGE 230

'&$&+$'#$#1'#+$'#$& $&''#-!$,#$&'!& --$'3$&+J!J13'-$'0!' !3'&'!'7+$'5'&$&+& !5'.)*='33'$$&0!!$6'< '$'33',#!33'$5!,#$& --$'3$&+'&$&+$'#''#$#1 '#+$'#$&$&''#-!$ 3'!&,#$&--$'3$&+J!J 13'-$' 0!3'&'!#''!'-!#$+!& '&33'1'&!#5$#$/$&-3+ ,#$&'''+&1&+&3#'!+! &$&$3#&$&)&&$!'&D(+ !&$&$-,#$&$#$/$&$'7!! ,#+&$'$3#&,#$&3 &$&'&J,$'$#!&+'$&!3+J #&!$'D(+!&:3#$'+7'7!&&,#$&-$,(# 3+$3,&'?&713+'&$3,$' !+!!$3#&$&-&$&'$&+ )&&$!'& &'1-+&1$3#&$&'M $ $

PAGE 231

&'#&&$&'*'&&E&D( $&$-$7!!1&'$',&+$'$3#&$&$'''$&!3!(E!$#!$' '!'&+7$!!+$'31 *'&&E&!$'1'3,$'-# &!-3$&+&$&$3#&$& '%#'7&16'$:3&-FDD&'#& &$&''$1*'&&E&7 $3#&&'$'$&+-@3&$3#&' 3'&&@3&$3#&3*'& &E&D(0!$'&''7$!!-$&$&+' !$&7!$!-7&1'3+,#$& --$'$&$!F3&(#&$&'7$3#&'$3#&$&&+-883&$&E'!$&+& 3&$&##$&$'&1!0:')&'.$''$& %&&:3-$&$&+!7'!$+!-7&16 $+!'3+,#$&--$'3!!1 &!,3#$$'3'''--##7$&+3&! $3#&$&''-&$&'0!'$+! --$'!'3&#$2&'&='9('1 !!1!'!3#$$'3''';##763##' !''''3-!3'&'!-& 8

PAGE 232

!!'$+!''3-&$& $3#&$&31,#+&$'& !,'1'$3'''3#$$'--##763; :3#%$/&=')%$3!!$'' $&&'$3#&'!3'''!'&1& %&!-$&$&+$&!$'$'!'$:-! 7&1,#$&--$'3,$$&+& &$&'$3#&!,3''1 3,$'$&'&$&+!+&$'$3#& &$&'#)&&$!'&=''1-!;2$& D(%''<&!$6'<'$'-! ,#'!')&&$!'&!-&#$&1 $3#&$&<$&'33$&'$#$/$& #,#'.&12&'&&"$##!7, !$6'<'$'$&'!7#$&'!$37& $!-#$&-#-##7633'& &$&$3#&$&0!'&'-!$' $--&!'!-! '!3'''1&'$3&'!13!'$/1 !2&'&&"$## %!$:3#1!$''!7'7!! ''&!#!3$3+,#$&''

PAGE 233

$&+1$'$&6$&+0!$'#'3'&' &!-;$'!&='D(J7$&7'-33&$1J 07&16'$:-7&16$+!3+,#$&--$' '3&$&+!',13!!1!'13 ---$$##$&+7$!#+$'#$,+$' 0!'&#$&+7&16'$:''(7'!, +$#+$'#'#'',&!3+ ,#$&--$=','$+!$,!#''!7&16'$:3+,#$&--$'3$&+' 13---$$##$&+7$!!$+$' #,&#+$'#'-,#$&'$& !+3''0!7#,''3'' ,#$&3'(7!3+,#$&'7' $&!3$171'('&$$&#'$&-$&3''$,'($&3&-! ''('&+&1='+$&8 3&-!''&8($&'&+&1=' +$&3&-!''0!'7!$# 3+,#$&'33!,&''3$ 1 &D@(-$##&7#++3'#$,#1 '##&-''&$',#$&'$&+1$'$&6$&+E!$#' !''+0:'&C$+$&$(3'$+&$-$& 9

PAGE 234

J3&$#L',$&+'$-,#+&$'7 $3#&,#$&&$&'G!$'$&-$&$' &#'$&$&'''!'''&!, &$&'33!$#$')'<&!$6 '<''-!3,$1!'',1 33,#!7!&+$',$7 ,#$&3'&7!&,#$&'-+&$/$&##13!'$'!!$' $&'#$#$!!,#$&3'7$## $#$/$&+1$'$&6$&+.&1 &$$&!$'$'''$&-$#$/$&6-' ,#$&'(&!'!7,$33'-! 3'&'!!!,$&++$'$&6''# 3$'-,#$&''&$&'!3$#$1 !!,#$&37$##$#$/ %&$,&#'$&!1!$'! !33'''&$#,$&-'3 1!''$&!!'33'1'&!# 0!'!33+!-$&&'1 &!#''3$&'+$&+! $#$/$&-'#+$'#$,3+,#$& @

PAGE 235

&)1 %#!+!R&'D8(0##+FF(& B#&+D8(&2($&$-$''7! 3+,#$&'!&'''3#$1 3#'!-##,#!''!1$&$-$ 7J'3$#''&#$#13JR&' D8D(&!'?&!!!&! 3'&'!,#'!'3+,#$& --$'3,$##'$'''#3+,#$&3'),&&-!''' #'3,$$#$&-$&+$&+!$+$& -!3$&7!!!#+$'#$&3#1 $'''#-!,#$ ,7&1''3!F3&!$&$&'7$3#&1,# +&$'%#!+!!$'&+3& $-$&$&+7!&'$'#,#'$#$/$&*,$&&+!'D(!3'& '!33''!7#,#'-'!& 0!'!3'&'!&','!$'$' '$&+3$&--!'$'!3' $&7!1$#$/$&$--&'33:$' 7&!-#&'#,#' F

PAGE 236

.% 0F *.%0?);? 2*. ?*.H0?H ,$'3+,#$&'!'E$##$'& ,&'@KE!#1FK*&DDKE$''D( -'!$'$'&!',#3&#'$&' '&-##,#3+,#$&'#1 ,#$&'!'&#!-#$'$&4 $#$/$&-,#$&&+-J&$#J "$!&F@8(J&++'JE$''& 2,#'D(&-#$$&$##1'' .3#&&2&F@F(3$$#1&3# $!FF(&3''$,*,$&&+!' D('' E$''&2,#'D(',!7!$# !$33#$$&-'!$'$$&#,# :3''$&!'$#+$##$$'! -##7$&+&'!+&##1&'&# ''-!$'13#$,#1'!1 <$&&'#&&$&-$'&' %&+!<$'$&$$&'33'! $#1#,&&$''3-$'$& D

PAGE 237

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

PAGE 238

-,#$&'$&#$&+!'&1'& ##+,&&'"*&&?,&D( '$'$!'!&$1=' 3!+$&+,#$& ,#$&3,<'$&#$,$1 7!,#$&''##$&$-1! ''-3+$'!$&+'!17 #1#'3&'$,!3#$1=' &'-$&-$& 0!'&!$&!3#$3#$1#$ $'!,#$&'$&+#1##,#$&(#1$,3,$'$&-$&'1$'$&6'$& 3$$#1$71'2#''$&+D(&&! '!'!,$''$'#3'&!'-#&'' -3+,#$&'!1!,3 ',#$&--$,&'''$&+!$&# $'$&6$&+$$#$&+-$ $&'&#'!$'$$( !3'!3# $&!$'3$#'$'&'!!'-! $&#$'$&6$&+'&!#$&-$&%$/&7!2#''$&+$'!"31) %$('&#+$'#$&$& &$&'$3#&+1$'$&! ''#-$'3+,#$&'$&+! %$/&)%$#3!&$&,$77$!2$## 8

PAGE 239

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

PAGE 240

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

PAGE 241

$'$&6'&&!!'$'!&3 -J'7-$&-$&J'1$'$&6' *,$&&+!'D('3$&+--##,# ,#$&+!$&$-1$&+''-$ 3$$#1$&'&#$#$/$&!'&$--$#!'&';$'$!'&!&! '!')&$!'&!$&$-1 #!&+'$&+''#-,#$&' 0!$!$'&+3&'$&$-'$'$&$&+!-$#$/$& 0!$''!$&$'!$&&-'' '!'1!,;!!'#'! #'33,#&#>#$'#-63( !&+''#$&+-,#$&'0!13-' $&$-$33''$$#!13$#$/$&!E$''D(!'&&7' J#$,#1$&-<&J E+7$!E$''!,#$&$#$/$&' 33',$7&&$&$7$! ,1$&+#,#'-'(2'&!$&-$&3,$ -',#$&--$'$$'!+! $$#$/$&!'#,#$'''7! !'&-&!-##,#;!!'#' 88 $ $

PAGE 242

!<'$&7!!&,#$&3$+' 3$$#1&-#,#$&'$'$'$& '$$&+'#+$'#$,3+,#$& $#$/$&0!'!$'$''$&+'!! !$'$-$&$&+#$#&$$#$/$&,#$&'1<$-$&&''7!33 $--&'7&'&-#3+ ,#$&$#$/$& 0!$'!'$'3'#$'!-$&$&+' +$&+!#-$#$/$&--#3+ ,#$&,!#''!'#'$&! $&,#,$&+'#+$'#$,3+,#$&'$&$ !'$#$/$&1&$!&3$$#1 &3#3''$,$&&E!,-& $&$$&'$&!'5$##$'$&+,#+&1 $3#&$&-&$&'&+$'$&4 $&+5!$'$&6$#$/$&-'3+ ,#$&3'$'&&$#&$&-<& $&&''3F$##'$&$&!$ '3$,'#+$'#''-&$&5$!$& 3&$#15-3+,#$&' .#3,$'&$##'$,:3#-!7 3+,#$&''1#+$'#'$&-$&+ 8

PAGE 243

$##'&%+'8!.#)%$=' ?--$3'&$'/'E'"$'3'#;$#$1 3-&$!*+$'#$,%$.$ *%.(0!,#$&7'<$1'' &$&+3$$,$7'-!-$#$10! ''<&3$&$-$&-3+$ '!$&+'&&$&'!+&1 '3&'$#-!3+5!.#"3&#$#!&&,$&&0!3#' &!!"3&=',$7'3,$ ''&!!'$7'&,'#1--$&+!& !#!&!&,$&&&?8*%.' +1#+$'#$&!#$#1)& 2$##68&7''$+&$GB,&1 0!#+$'#$&'3$-$!$&'3$&'-! -$#$1&,1!1'7$!+#-&'$&+ !!-$#$17'&&+$,#1--$&+! &,$&& &$$&'&$&-$&3,$1!F ''!!$+$&'-,#$&3$'F@ 3&-!3$'#$&+#+$'#$&$! -'--'++'$&''1&'!&# 1#!+#1#-$'(.$&'& 89 #

PAGE 244

)!7/D(!'J3#$3#J$'& !1333,$:3#'7!$'$&6'!, $'-!'#'!,1#'-## $& #/='FD(+1-$&+J3$$#1 $&'&#J,#$&'%!$6'<'$'#' 33''33!',$&!J3#$63#J ,#$&'#$#1'#$&#+$'#$&!& J-$6#J,#$&'0!$''-J3#$3#L ,#$&'+'7$!E#'8(7! &#!J-$6#J$'$#+$'#$,#1 &'$&$&$$,#$&'('-&1 -#$'$&6'&!'!,#''!# '3&$$&+!'13-,#$&'E!#'$'$&!''''&!J-$6#J ,#$&'-&'1-#$'$&4 '!&!',$&!''33' J3#$63#J,#$&'3'&'&!'$+&$-$& $--&7&!;#B,&&&!'' 0!''#'3,$',#!$3& $&'$+!'+$&+$'$&6$#$/$&-' #+$'#$,3+,#$&';$''#+$'#$, 3+,#$&--$'333,$$#1 $&-$&!$,'$+!$'#+$'#' 8@

PAGE 245

2&'&9(','!'',#$& --$'$,#$&',$##$&$ '-#$&#+$'#$,$'$&6$&+&&$''$ 7$!$&&66761'-!'-!,#$&( 0!3'&'#'&7$!2&'&0!$''33' ;#&&R+='F@(&B='F9(#$ -$&$&+'!$#$&''$'&$3&-$&+$&+ ,#$&'' .&$!$''!3$##='D( +&!761$-7'<$ $&$-1#+$'#$,'-,#$&'$&$##-$&+ $##D$!##D&E!$!D9( 33'!!$'$6-$''-#&!'1$&+'#+$'#$,3+,#$& %'&7!!$''!-&$#$/$&' !333$$#1$&'&#$'7$!+ ,#+&1$3#&$&-&$&' 07&1'3+,#$&--$'3!!1 ',$1-!'-$&+!''&$&'&+$&+--##763$'+&1 $3#&$&3'?&,+,#+&$' $3#&F3&-!&$&'$& ,#$&3'$&+3,$17&1 8F

PAGE 246

'3+,#$&--$'0!$'3'7##7$! *'&&E&D(7!3!& $&--!&'#&='&$&'!1'$ !&$3#&%'$'''#$!$'!'$' '$##!'&&'+$&+!#,#'-&$& $3#&$&31!''0!7 $'''!;$',#+&$'13!$+! #,#'-$3#&$&333#$&7$! ,#$&,'$+!$')&,#$&+&$' 13!$+!#,#'-&$&$3#&$& 33J'''-#J0!'$'''$& 3#$7,!$''!#'-&!! ''-9@3&-!&$&'31 !''!,&,$7'$&+-#-##763 !'$-##763$'(E!$#!'3' &+&!!#,#'-$3#&$& $&+#13-#-##763!' 3,$,$7-#$3#&$& #,#'0!$'$'''!!'13$##1<$ !,#+&$'+!$&--##763 !$&+'-!,#$&--$=','$+! $)!3'''3,$+''&' !-!$3#&$&#,#''$& 8D

PAGE 247

!''-&$&$3#&$&$',$7 K-!#+$'#$,,'$+!$ 0!3'&'!33''33)&&$!'&=' #$7!-&!&1$3#&$& 3,$'$&'$&'$#$/$&)&&$!'&D(-& !$+!'-$3#&$&$&!$''1-!;2=' $3#&$&-$'$&'3+&#&$&' !;2--$'7&##&$&' )$:''$&!3'&'!!'$$#&' %!$6'<'$'$&$'!!$3#&$& '-''7$!&13,$'$&''!! !1'!7'$+&$-$&$--&'-$3#&$& '31-&''7$!'!3,$'$&' ,$&+3,$'$&'&$&+&$&$3#&$& '$--& .&1"$##&2&'&!7,! 3'&'!$&-$&!-#-##763 3'''7'$+&$-$#!$+!#,#'&$&$3#&$&0!'&'-!' -$&$&+'&#&<$-!'1 0!!$'5,#$&$#$/$&$& +1$'$&6$&+57''7!#''&#'$, E!$#&-''$0:'C$+$&$& 8

PAGE 248

$&&'(3!$+!3&$###',$&+'$,#$&3&$&'7$3#& -D'''3&$&+!',13 #$3'&+1$'$&6$&+$! &1'&!#='''$&'3+ ,#$&'&'$&+1$'$&6$&+ '--$'M'&'3&!$$&+'! --'?&#&$7#'!+1',$&+' 7#&$3&-$&''''$&+!'-#&'' -'3+,#$&''7&# '!#$&$$''$$&'$'''''!$ --'! &!''7!#73' 3+,#$&'33''-& 3,$$$&#$&-$&+'% '7!&&$$3-$&$&+!7'!$&!'' 7!,#$&'7'-'!$&+!& '$+!-7$&-$&!#--!,#$& 3''$&+1$'$&6$&+7' $&'+&1+'7!$#!!!#-7' '+'0!-$&$&+7'&:3'3' :3$&'1!3'&!'!7!'' +&1$'&&!,#$&'-&

PAGE 249

$ &+$,$&!$'-&&$&+-7'-$ &##'!!&$&''0!3'&'! 7!$##$$'&33'33!$''$&$& !#--!''$,#$&3 &$&'##-$&''$&'--&##' ,#+&$' '&'-!%33&"$--&'$&;#&) $#$/$&*,#' %3$,#<'$&!$'''&!3'& '!'#'$'E!1'3+,#$& --$'33'!7!$+!'-$&'&# $#$/$&!&!,&$&$-$13,$''! '$'--#3+,#$&'X0!3'& '!'&3,$#&'7!$'<'$& .)*(!'33'!'3+,#$& --$'3$&+'&$&+$'7# #$#1!,#+$'#$&$'!&7#--$'$& ''3$&+'3$#$!13'$'0!'#'!&33'33 !$'33'$$&33'!',#$& --$'3$&+J!J13'-$'+ '3$#$$'('#$#1!, $ $ $

PAGE 250

#+$'#$&$&''#-!$,#$& 3''--$'3$&+'&$&+$' .)*(&2&'&9(#'+! '3+,#$&--$'7$!,'$+!$' !,$&+!37$'#+$'#$&7$##'!7!$+! '-$##'$&0!3'&'!#'' &33'33.)*='&2&'&='#$' 0!''3+,#$&--$3$&+& ,'$+!$!,$&+!37$'#+$'#$& '&:3#$&!$--&'7&'#'$& !-#&'#,#' 2&'&9(#'$&$&'!!$''!7 !!#,#'-&$&'$3#&& +1$3'$#1#!13-##763'&#$&+''+3''' "$##(&&'!-##763$'1+$&+ &$&'$3#&E!$#-##763&#$&+' !+3''33$3&3&&'!3+,#$&3''!'#'!& 33'332&'&='+&!-#-##76 33'''#$&!J'''J-!3+ ,#$&--$%$/&'& &$&'#+$'#$&+$3'

PAGE 251

3'!,$&+!$+!+-$$#$17$!$' #+$'#$&+2$##0!'&%$/& *+$'#$,)%$'3&'2&'&='9 ',1( -!,-'&&-! $--&'$&$#$/$&7&-#&' 3+,#$&'7!!-'$+!X27& *&D89( &FDD(&.!#$'1 (+!,#$&'3,$$&-$&! '#'$&'!$-$&+-3#$$#37! #+$'#&!'#+$'#'!,$&'! &'-,#$&'!1!,&E!$#!$'1 &$3&'&7!1'#+$'#',#$&' $'&&$#1''!<'$&-7!1!' ,#$&'7$#1'!&!17#!, 3$0!'!-!-' .&+'''3&'+#-&1''''$&+ -#3+'&-&$&#'<$&3$$,#$&'$&&7#+$'#$&7,' '#$3''!'!,&##' &$,'##1!-#3+,#$&'#1 !3''*,$&&+!'D(!,+ &$&+$#$/$&!-##,#$' 8 $

PAGE 252

$--$#!&$$'!'#,#?3!3'' 7''#$3+,#$&#$3$,$$/$& !###,#1M'7$&!'' )$&!3'&'!$&,$7-# ,#$&'7&'3#'7!1! '!'$&+#1#+$--&'$&!#,#'$#$/$&37&-#&'#,#' %&-'!'+*,$&&+!' D(+!!#,&&,#$&$'! #$#1$$'+''!'+! #,&1$'3-73$1$'$' '&'*1&&FDK&$#'&F9(&$ '$#1;#&&R+F@K&BF9( $!##('!'!'+!& DD(!,'!!,$'71!-$&'$&+$#$/$&$'#$&,#$&#'#1 '&'&3#$1$'&''&!#D9( &&!!$'$'$&-!'&7!1' 3+,#$&$'7$#1$#$/'&!##' 33'!'6#,#,#$&$'#'#1 #$&7$!'#+$'#'=&'&$'&' '$3,$'$#1$&-$&!#+$'#' '1!$3$1-&$&'$'$&+ $ $ $

PAGE 253

#+$'#$&''$&++&1&+&3#'& +1$'$&6$&+ 0!'#'!33'33!+&! '#+$'#$,3+,#$&$'#,&& $#10!'#$&+'33,$&$&!& -$##'$'7$!$&71'-3#$$&-! ,#$&&&$&'$3#&1,# +&$' 0!$''$##'&&#'$,#1&'7!<'$& -7!1!'!$--&'',7&' &-#3+,#$&$#$/$&'*,$& &+!'D(#'$&$-$$$#$1'& $3&,$##$'$&6',#$&'.)*='&1!10#3!&$&,$77$! 2&'&8('!$$#$11!'$&+# '$3&-#$&+!'''#+$'#$,3+,#$&--$'&3'&$& !!*+$'#&#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&.)*='$!R&'3!'$/! $$#$1<$'!!7&1,#$& '--'M$,&'3&'& $#!&$<''$&+!$6'<##$&' 2&'&9D6(3#1-&!3+ 9 $ $ $

PAGE 254

e,#$&--$'7$!!$+!'#-63$$#$1 7$!!$'3$,#+$'#'!,'''$& +$&+!$3''!&--$'7$!#7 $$#$17,%$/&3!$+!$$#$1 $&+1'7!,'&'& &$&'$3#&+1$3' #+$'#$&$'''#-$'3+,#$&' 0!'7!$#$$#$11$3&$'& 33!''$+&$-$&-$&+$&+ ,#$&'''',#$&--$'#! $#-.&+''$+?--$! ''-B&#%&$&+?--$!1'$## 333,$!$''-#' #+$'#'0!$'$'3!3'!'3//#$&+-$&$&+ -!3'&'! )1 &'13''$'--#3+ ,#$&!,:3$&$--$#$'$&'$&+ #$#$/$&-,#$&-$&$&+'*,$&& +!'D()$'--#$'$&6'3+,#$&'13$##1!,$,'$$# &#'$&'5!$,#$&$#$/$&$' @

PAGE 255

$&-<&''#$&+$&&! &+,#$&'!'!3+,#$&$' #1'$&!;#B,&&0!&#&##( !13!'$''!,#$3&#,#'-$ $#$/$&!'#,#!##1$,+!'#'-&!-##,# E+!-!!!# ''3$&!,#$&'#1$#$/(1 #'',#$!'6#,#&1&-$& $&&!$--&'',$&&1 ''E!$#!$''&!&+!-$&$&+'$& !-#6#,#'!-$&&!''$+&$-$& 3#$3#$1!1&3$%' &FD (', -$#$/$&$'$&'$$+! !#3-#1-$&-73'$$,:3#'! ,$-!&-&&$#$/$&E# !&'1!':3#'-:##&#&!7 $&'$#$/$& 0!3'&'!$&$'!! 3'$$,:3#'!,$-!-##1 $&-#&&-&&6$#$/$&0!'&'-! $--&'7&-#&'#,#'$#$/$&&#&-!$''!$'' '&1<'$&''$&'7'.$#D(!' F

PAGE 256

'JE!1'!#7$&'$&!'3!&&& $&'!'$'!$&,#,'$&+$#$/$&XJ $'3#1!$'!$#<'$&$''$##3$+&& ,7&16-$,1'# ?&&'7$'!'$1$&'$&+#1'' #$&+-#'!&,#$&-!#3 $&3$&+!'#+6'#3+'J&#J $&!'&'-&'$&+!!1$&& &3-$&+$&&7$!+#'& :3$&' %'!;#B,&&'!$-'3+'! ''!,#$&-&$&1,& $3&''#+$'#'3#7$!! 3#:$$'-$&'$#7#-&! 3+'!3,$'#17&+!-# #,#0!)&',$7-#$&&,$&$&& 7'$&-'3$&3' #+$'#$,3+,#$&--')&'!'& 7$&--1&1'!''-$#$&!' ''0:'$'&$3&:3$&(0!3'& '!33'!,$&$-$,$&-' #+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&#,#'! $'!3!,#$&1','-#33' !&)&'.$'3$1$&-$& +!$&+,!$#-'#+$'#'3+ ,#$&33''M7!1-&$&& D $ $

PAGE 257

--!'$'0!'#'!3,$'$&+ 3$&-'!'$''%33&$:%-$''' 7&$&+-!'!(

PAGE 258

$ $ % "I% )));?;0)%. 0!$''!&''!$$&#'1$' &&'&-##1!-'!$&-#& fd '#+$'#$,3+,#$&$#$/$&0! 33!&!!'&$,$&& %#!+!!3#$$&1!$&$!'' 33'3+,#$&'#,#+!& !&1'$'--#,#$&'& $&$,''17#33!'#+$# &:'37-!,$-1$&+!'#'$&1 !$'!'$'0!-##7$&+&'#,<'$&'7# 337!1--!$&3!'! E!1'#+$'#$,3+,#$& 33!,$#$/$&'!$+!!& !'$&$-$$&-##,#'$'X E!11'3#$1'#+$'#'(' ,#$&'!!:&$&$$& !$'$''$&X E!1'''3!$+!#,#'$$#$17$!!$#+$'#$,,'$+! $',&!+!!1!,#$#& 9

PAGE 259

+$&+,#$&'$&!!' 33'1'&!#X%!!<##1 $3&&'1&$&$-$-'! $&-#&'#+$'#$,3+,#$& $$#$1X 7'-#',#+&$'-$& 3+,#$&'&!7,#$! &$&$3#&$&#,#'31 '#+$'#$,,#$&--$'X E!+$3,&'!, '#-'#+$'#$,3+ ,#$&'X -"!'$/-'--'3$&+#+$'#$, $'$&6'$--&X;:3# '!-!'#+$'#''##1 !,'##'--'&!'#+$'#' 3&'!'#-,#$&' '$&!1#$$!&!$-# &3'$&!&-!1$,X 9

PAGE 260

% "I2 )0%0).?".0BB*%)H)0%0. ?B%C%*%0?) ? 8 9 @ F D 8 )0%0 %#' %$/ .#$.# .&& ;# B+$ 7$$ & A& A& ?;;. 0")CH "$,$'$&*+$'#$,%$H) ?--$-!%$B&#? 2-)%$'? )%$='?--$H) ?--$+,$7H) ^&,'$+$&' ?--$+ #$1H) %'$'^B,%&$#$1 "3&-%$'H) ?--$-*+$'#$,%$H) ?--$-&H) ,#$&' ?--$-%$B&#H) ?--$-;$'#^&+&H) %'$' *+$'#$, '%$H) ?--$+,$7H) ^&,'$+$&*+$'#$, '!.$''$& *% 91 ?--$-*+$'#$,%$ ?--$-*+$'#$,%$' H) H) 9

PAGE 261

@'' F'' D 8 9 @ F D 8 8 8 88 8 $! $&& $'' ? & 7: ?+& ?+& && ). ). 0&& 0:' 0:' 0:' )& '%$^?,'$+! 2 '%$^?,'$+! 2 ?--$-%$B&# ?--$-*+$'#$,%$ *+$'#$, .$ R$&.$&*+$'#$, '! ?--$-*+$'#$,%$ *+$'#$,'!"$,$'$& *+$'#$,%$ *+$'#$,;$&&.$ *+$'#$,;$'#?--$ ?+&%$'"$,$'$& *+$'#$,2+^;$&& .$ *+$'#$,%$.&$# )+&$/$&.$''$& "$,$'$&-)%$ )%$='?--$ .3###$%&' -&,$7"$,$'$& *+$'#$,2+,$72 98

PAGE 262

89 8@ 8F 8D 8 0:')&'%,$'1.$''$&H) !?--$-*+$'#$,%$? C$R$&*+$'#$,%$^,$7? .$''$& E'!*+$'#$,2+.$H) E$'*+$'#$,%$2H) EC$R$&.$&B,&&? ^;$&& E1$&+*+$'#$,),$?--$H) 9

PAGE 263

#**)58A/ 043)B%7+)0#)0 %50)1)/)8*4%24#)3#1#%5/+#4#/)40/0 /%58/)8 B4% )4)+#88%/C 8%/%4#1800)4#%5DDDDDDD53%7/%1%24#8#)0/+%%1%7* 1/#77#40 &7""" "=" "' 8#)6&8==B4'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDE:(,F 5#)%7*)40%5/%*1)52043)BDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD>% 1)6DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 0#)?+)4))3#1#%5%77/)1%/#)86DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEGF 5#)%7)3#1#%5%77/)DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD#884)00DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEGHF )1)*+%5)5 )4DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDE:HF >? :8"" I"J B5DDDDDDE:F 8""( "" J GKL

PAGE 264

M#" "J BDDDDDDDDD5DDDDDDE:F L8"!"" J B5DDDDDE:F K NNL" !/! NN L, KDDDDD!(EKF KDDDDD!EKF KDDDDD!!EKF KDDDDD%EKF /6EHF ,"$! J/! ,""!E,F ,*" &'E,F GKK

PAGE 265

$ ,)""&'E,F ,&'"E,F ,%&'"" E,F ,"$ &'E,F ,%*E,F 5= @>9>A? &7"" "" "' ;*" ">::..M8 M::..M <%" >::..M 8M::..M6 <"JE
PAGE 266

::..M 8M::..M*" "*:H :,"EHF :H?" :..M"J B)05%DDDDE:F NN:H:: :GNN:H :G ::" 6 #8"&=B4'E::F 8&2"'&=B4'EF GK; E
PAGE 267

M :G?" "I""J B)05%E:F NN:G:M :LNN:M :L :M"" "6 #8E:MF 8&2"'&=B4'E:MF :L+"J56* :LDDDDDDDDDDDDE:LF :LDDDDE:LF :LDDDD" E:LF :LDDD" "E:LF :LDDDDE:LF :LDDDD" E:LF :L%*ELF GK<

PAGE 268

5= :K?"" J B)05%DDDDDE:F :,+" J :,DDDDIE:,F :,DDDDIE:,F :,DDDD%*E:,F 5= EDAD:?>AD :57'4$$1;"$7$F51& ?3566157$3&0!!5*("46&0$&96&$ )!0! G ,)++,0!+!4 GK.

PAGE 269

;.) %!R#"( >(,! %(? E'!$&+&".0! 2$&+'&'$$& %&&1RFD( %(%! )(<%( E'!$&+&".0! 2$&+'&'$$& %!&.!$'3!D( <0 71 .%)+ %#$&.K $##AK&E!$ F( 0 3, 3(@ 71 .%)+ %#$&.(J,#$&0!1",#3&J $&E*+!#$&&". !$##$3''( ,(A? 336.!$+ &$,'$1-.!$+ '' %&'&R'F( %-(%( $ 7H#$&!&E$&'& %''$$&-B,&&#%&&'D8( 2(%*( E'!$&+&". 2$#1A&&!"FD( )(( 7H$##& 2!+&.F@()$'-$#'''# %()(( F( 2##B#*&2##R'2'(D( 23( %3#$$& -!%$&,#$&%''$$&)3$&+()& ;&$'R''162'' 2$(JE!&!E$!"'%+J B%(* (? 33@86@9 @

PAGE 270

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

PAGE 271

21%)D8( )&, $&7 "$$&'+,#$&)&;&$'.% R''162'' .3##"�&)R.@@( ,"*A&,"*32(# )$&##1 .3##"�(J'3$,& '3$,& +3%''''&J %(( 98(336D .3#&!&K$'&%&K&)+!''## RF9( !0)()((>%( 3(; # &$,'$1-$!$+&%&&%.&;'!& $#$/$&-)$&$-$A&7#+&'$-)$# '! .3#&&2&F@( )(<(7:56 )% <*0D-2,"( %&& %&$,'$1-$!$+&&'$-)$# '! .;&$'BF( ( ''##)+ .!#$'1#&D(J$&+,#$&#,& .&+''$&#'J F336F .!#$'1#&D9( %*, % 3( %$&)$1#$ %$&$'' .!#$'1#&D9(J.3$&+&.&'$&+ %$$&+&,#$&)'&0!$ #$&'!$3J ()+ .!#$'1#&DF(JE!!,7#& !3#$$'-3+,#$&XJ ,( %( 8(3368 .!#$'1#&D(J;#,#$&0! &#')7&+0;J ( .!#$'1#&(J:3&$&+B%?='.3$#$$' +,#$&J B E$&6)3$&+ 338F6 @

PAGE 272

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

PAGE 273

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

PAGE 274

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

PAGE 275

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

PAGE 276

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

PAGE 277

A&1$!(J)&'%),1&%'$' -!):3$&J %-(* R&1G;13369F A$&+&R!&D( %-( %( 2'&*$#27& A#&'$R!&)(2,$7-%&&2& 2##( )(%*) ;(; !B!%, 3%C( $& %(( 88(33F6D A!&0!'@( !)()(( .!$+&$,'$1-.!$+ '' *'&R$!A&E& #"D(J'$&+ $#$/$&-&##! +.&'#$&J$& 0D, ?(*!(+ 33FF6@2,#1$##'.%)+ *''7###"9(J0! #$1?$&$&J$& "&$#*&#"*''7##'( !%( )(( )&-.%)&-&$,'$1 '' *&&$&@(0#3!&$&,$77$! E$'&'$&*+$'#$,%$2 *,$&%&E$##$'% F( ,( )&&$&.3$& *,$&)%( 2)( %*0(<*( E'!$&+&".B+ E'!$&+&&$,'$1.&-)$# #$1)$' *,$&*%&+!';D(J'!?&0! $#$/$&?-,#$&%,$7&)1&!'$'J 9(339969D)+ *$+!$!R('$1;)$!$& J '&&;%''''&'-!;$#,#$&J %(( ;)$!( 98(?(338 *$&#.!#'( <+?! !-*0))( / ?! H#&$,'$1 '' *$&#.&.!&"AF( 0>)()(()(%-*) 7 @D

PAGE 278

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

PAGE 279

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

PAGE 280

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

PAGE 281

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

PAGE 282

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

PAGE 283

)!'*('$1;)$!$&J '&;%''''&'-!;$#,#$& ., %(( ;)$!(98( ?(338 )!$'!E.0"&*,$&*.( 2%*, # 71 .%)+ )$&$A&&!%&?'R&&$( J,#$&'.$$#&<$1)!#3,&' .'$& $&J$& )(B(< %-(,( 9()3$&+(338F69R''16 2'' )$!;(J '&;%''''&!;$#-,#$&J)3$#&,$$&#C#1 ;)$!( %(( 98(?( )$!$*&.!$3),$D(J0!E$''6 &"##$&$&-!;&&#.&&'J %(( (;133968 )$!$*8(J3,$&+,#$&0!1 0!+!0!3$$#)1-,#$& $J %(( 8(338F6 )&&$!'&$!.D(J $&+,#$&' 0!&3J$& <* *%*( ))%-(( %* R'3!E!#1&A!1&7'( )&;&$'.%R''162'' #$'!' )F9( ,( ( .#'?$## )FD(J0!.')1!-)$# &<$1J ,(( F96D )1$!&T!'$!FD(% %* %( &7H )&"!%DD( %(%"%( 73'!$3.##$&' )--#"&$#*;#1ERB3!ERB B&*$&& ,' F( ,(, 3(* '** F

PAGE 284

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

PAGE 285

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

PAGE 286

E$''.&2,#'$!#D( )()(( (3(&* H.#$ &$,'$1 '' E$''.&E$''R%D(J)$#'$&$'' & #$1'#!'-#&''-&##! '!J *(%( 8@D(33D8F6DF E!7(J0!%$,$'%$%7 #1$&)&*# #$$'J %-(* )3G?99(338D968 E!$!",$D9(J--$$&+!3&)+$'J >?3 0D @8(3386 E!#1R'3!)K)&#&R!&EK"--1+!BK ;R')K&C+*&F( 2 %(D,(%-( %* E'!$&+&".0!&&'$ E!#1R'3!)D9(J.&+''$&#',#$&;$&$&+'J !( (33868 E!#1R'3!)7A!1&&%''$' D( <* *%*(, )2)%-((%* )&;&$'.%R''162'' E$#,'1%&@(J'$&+ #$1%'$'; 2)J %-(* 7H$##$& E$#,'1%&F(J0!)#-6,#$&+ ?+&$/$&J %-(* 89()36 ?(33969 E$#,'1%&F( )!%# 2'&*$#27& E$#,'1%&F( !%( %( 8$$&2'&*$#27& E$##$'E#&,&'R!&E@(J0! #$$' -,#$&0!.'-)J *((*%()()(( 8D9 )3(33D68 E$##$'E#F( )(%(( FF

PAGE 287

!,"(