Citation
The politics of federal personnel management

Material Information

Title:
The politics of federal personnel management
Creator:
Hanson, James L
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 270 leaves : forms ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Civil service -- Personnel management -- United States ( lcsh )
Civil service reform -- United States ( lcsh )
Civil service -- Personnel management ( fast )
Civil service reform ( fast )
Employees ( fast )
Officials and employees -- United States ( lcsh )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 253-259).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the dgree, Doctor of Public Administration, Graduate School of Public Affairs.
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by James L. Hanson.

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:
22974065 ( OCLC )
ocm22974065
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1990d .H36 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE POLITICS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
by
James L. Hanson
B.S., South Dakota State University, 1956
M.P.A., University of Minnesota, 1959
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Public Administration
Graduate School of Public Affairs
1990


This thesis for the Doctor of Public Administration
degree by
James L. Hanson
has been approved for the
Graduate School
of Public Affairs
by
Steven A. Rockwell


1990 by James L. Hanson
All Rights Reserved


Hanson, James L. (D.P.A., Public Administration)
The Politics of Federal Personnel Management
Thesis directed by Professor Mark Emmert
Political patronage has always been a source of concern for
those who advocate a merit system. However, little attention has
been devoted to the potentially more pervasive problems of the
impact of organization politics on the day-to-day vitality and
integrity of the merit system.
This research study defines and explores merit system
abuse in the day-to-day operation of the Federal personnel
system. The study analyzes specific, sensitive aspects of the
personnel management system in attempting to arrive at a
composite study of the subject of merit abuse. Areas of inquiry
include the organization politics involved in the agency's use (or
abuse) of the classification system, the system for recruiting, the
system used in reduction in force as well as other aspects of
personnel management. In attempting to define the environment
for the merit system, the study also analyzes the perceptions and
attitudes of the personnel officers in regard to the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978. Additionally, an important part of the study
is the analysis of the dynamics of the working relationship
between the personnel officer and the agency management. These
dynamics are explored from a number of different perspectives,
i.e., the degree of support for the personnel officer, the acceptance


V
(or rejection) of the personnel officer as part of the power
structure of the agency, his/her ability to make counter proposals
on sensitive personnel management decisions and the
organizational role that agency management has assigned to the
personnel officer.
The instrument used was a 48 item questionnaire, with
ample room for narrative comments, distributed to 340 Federal
personnel officers. The questionnaire was distributed to four
localities which were analyzed separately. They are Denver, CO;
Atlanta, GA; Los Angeles, CA; and Washington, DC.
The analysis of the data shows that there is abuse of the
merit system on a rather broad base. The extent varies according
to which aspect of Federal personnel management we are
discussing. For example, "fudging" the position classification (job
grading) system is perhaps the most pervasive abuse.
The sharpest indictment by the personnel officers is
directed toward the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Not only is
there criticism of the rationale used to "sell" the Act at the time of
its passage, there is widespread criticism of many of its basic
features.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its
>ublication.

Faculty member in charge of thesis.
Date


DEDICATION
To members of my family for always encouraging me and
believing in me.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION......................................................1
Purpose of the Study...........................................2
Key Constructs.................................................3
Organization Politics.......................................3
Merit Principles............................................8
Merit Abuse.............................................. 10
Fudging the Merit System...................................12
Scope of the Study............................................15
Data Acquisition..............................................17
Arrangement of the Dissertation...............................17
Literature Search..........................................18
Methodology................................................20
Research Findings.............................................20
Summary....................................................20
Conclusions...................................................21
Notes,
.22


viii
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE SEARCH...........................................24
Similar Studies..........................................25
Hypotheses...............................................28
Flexibility...........................................29
Delegation of Authority and Evaluation................39
Office of Personnel Management's Leadership
Role in Recruiting....................................43
Influence of the Private Sector Standard..............48
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978......................51
Dynamics of Personnel OfficerAgency
Management Relations.............................54
Notes.......................................................58
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY............................................... 63
Targeted Universe........................................64
Sample...................................................65
Sample Demographics...................................66
Research Design..........................................67
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS....................................................69
Job vs. Merit.......................................... 72


ix
The Classification Fudge........................................75
Political Patronage.............................................96
Merit and Recruitment...........................................98
Who Are the Gatekeepers of Merit?.............................110
Favored Occupations and Merit..................................121
Agency Mission and Merit Integrity.............................127
The Organization Apologist.....................................133
Evaluation-Merit Watchdog or
Paper Tiger?.............................................. 138
Reduction in Force-Who Goes
and Who Stays?..............................................152
Civil Service Reform-Whose Reform
and Is It Working?..........................................156
Personnel Officer and the Manager-
Partner or Order Taker?.....................................187
Management's Regard for Personnel-Support or
Lip Service?................................................194
Casualties of Organization Politics............................201
Interview or Not...............................................202
Personnel Officer as a Career-Pleased or
Second Thoughts?............................................204
Analysis of Responses Between Washington, DC
and the Field...............................................204
Classification..............................................206
Merit and Recruitment,
,207


X
Organization Politics..................................208
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.......................209
Evaluation.............................................210
Where Do Abuses Occur Most Often?.........................212
Organization Dynamics of Merit Treatment..................219
Agency Leadership Climate.................................224
Notes.....................................................229
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS..................................................230
Hypotheses................................................230
Merit and Workforce 2000................................. 241
Implications for Merit....................................244
Summary...................................................249
Notes.....................................................252
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................253
APPENDICES......................................................260
A. Cover Letter.............................................261
B. Follow up Letter.........................................262
C. Questionnaire............................................263


TABLES
Table
1. Table of Returns....
2. Table 2 Question 13.
3. Table 3 Question 14.
4. Table 4 Question 15.
5. Table 5 Question 19.
6. Table 6 Question 20.
7. Table 7 Question 16.
8. Table 8 Question 22.
9. Table 9 Question 23.
10. Table 10 Question 21
11. Table 11 Question 24
12. Table 12 Question 25,
13. Tabie 13 Question 26,
14. Table 14 Question 27,
...65
...75
...77
...84
...88
..94
..97
.112
.119
124
130
136
142
145
15. t able 15 Question 28
148


Xll
16. Table 16 Question 29....................................... 151
17. Table 17 Question 30...........................................154
18. Table 18 Question 31...........................................156
19. Table 19 Question 32...........................................159
20 Table 20 Question 33............................................164
21. Table 21 Question 34...........................................170
22. Table 22 Question 35...........................................176
23. Table 23 Question 36...........................................181
24. Table 24 Question 37...........................................187
25. Table 25. Question 39..........................................189
26. Table 26 Question 40...........................................192
27. Table 27 Question 41......................................... 194
28. Table 28 Question 42...........................................197
29. Table 29. Question 43..........................................199
30. Table 30 Question 44...........................................201
31. Table 31 Willingness to Interview..............................203


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The basic thrust of this dissertation is an empirical inquiry
to test the attitudes and perceptions of Federal personnel officers
concerning the existence and extent of abuse of the merit system
in Federal personnel management. To do this, the plan of this
study is to focus on a relatively small number of merit related
items. The major ones, i. e., the systems for recruiting and the
systems for fair and equal pay are the ones that traditionally
come to mind when one thinks about the merit system. A broader,
more comprehensive study of all of the aspects of the merit
system will have to await another study.
There is a great deal of recent literature on the matter of
Federal personnel management (and the merit system) which
indicates a general concern for the long term vitality of the merit
system. There appears to be a growing sense of cynicism among
Federal managers and personnel officers alike. Many managers
and personnel practitioners seem to be willing to abandon crucial
attributes of the system based on certain patented rationalizations
such as "the system is not compatible with what we are doing" or
"we need to get the job done."


2
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this dissertation is not to attempt to fix
blame for any shortcomings in the integrity of merit system
treatment. Neither is there an intent to assign value judgements to
the findings. The purpose is to discover what the situation is in
the matter of "fudging" the merit system.
This study will not deal with the litany of remedies for
merit abuse which have been promoted in the past. The proposals
and counter proposals are legion. The issue to be drawn as a result
of this study is whether in the opinion of those who utilize the
system day-to-day, we have a tolerable marriage of merit and
mission accomplishment or a system that is simply unsuited to
"getting the job done." Finally, does that conflict result in the
prostitution of a system by both personnel officers and managers
who see no particular reason for adhering to the letter and spirit
of the merit system as it is currently framed?
This inquiry will also probe the work dynamics of the
personnel officer and the manager and explore the way in which
they relate to each other on the matter of the personnel system
based on merit. It may appear at times that the role of the
personnel officer in all of this is being diminished, particularly in
the matter of culpability for merit system abuse. That is not ihe
intent. It is obvious that the total array of the personnel
management influences must include the personnel officer.
However, it must be said at the outset that in those instances in


3
which management, for whatever reason, views the merit system
as a hindrance, or at the very least, something to be manipulated
(in the most negative sense), the personnel officer has a very
limited array of actions to take. In those cases where extreme
measures are called for by the personnel officer, these measures
are often career or job threatening.
In the course of the inquiry we will probe the
"netherworld" in which merit system abuse occurs. Of particular
concern will be the dynamics of the interaction of the personnel
officer and the manager in regard to the whole notion of how (or
how not) the concept of merit is implemented in the day-to-day
business of the Federal establishment.
There are a number of terms and concept used in this
study which are defined below.
Kev Constructs
Organization Politics
The politics of Federal personnel management is a complex
dynamic involving an array of players who impact on personnel in
a number of different ways, i. e., either by wielding a direct,
hands on influence on personnel, or by influencing it to some
degree through rules and regulations, by an intrusive evaluation
mission, or, more subtly by prescribing the management
environment within which personnel management is to be
pursued by the agency.


4
The organization politics which is discussed in this
dissertation is not the partisan politics which is involved in the
political clearances usually invoked in making partisan political
appointments. Organization politics in the context of this study
involves those matters which the administrator feels must be
controlled in order to maintain himself in his position of influence,
These matters run the gamut of administrative decision making
but for the purposes of this study, the subject is the precise point
when these control decisions confront the merit system.
Organization politics is that portion of the total
administrator's management milieu which has to do with, on the
human resource side, the complex of loyalties, interests, tenure,
skills and competencies, and production requirements which
prompt him to make what he considers the most tactical choices to
maintain himself. Heclo portrayed some of the internal
complexities which help define organizational politics for the
purposes of this study:
The new subordinates can multiply all the
difficulties of the executive's inexperience by bringing
with them their own problems of self-help, short
tenure, mistrust, needs for orientation, and so on. Not
only do their personal loyalties fail to substitute for
the institutional services the executive needs, but their
intermediation can further separate the executive
from bureaucratic services and vitiate opportunities
for building support through communication access,
and consultation. Moreover, the proliferation and
general bureaucratization of political appointees
readily generate a false sense of security, a feeling
that enduring change in the behavior of government


5
officials, and thus policies, are somehow being created
just because more appointees are talking to each
other. 1
Thus, the sense of organization politics as used in this
study is the way in which the administrator wields the power
which he has been granted by the political system. But the
wielding of that power becomes less a matter of bipartisan politics
and more a matter of internal, bureaucratic strategy.
Hyneman, is his work on the conflict of bureaucracy and
democracy described the dynamics. He said that once a political
manager is appointed he begins to effect the character and quality
of his administrative machinery by insisting that "his judgement
be followed in selecting men and women for important posts and
in fixing the relationships between officials and employees which
shape a group of men and women into an effective organization."
Chester Barnard, in his seminal work The Functions of the
Executive discussed the informal organization. It is reasonable
that from an organization politics perspective, cultivating the
informal organization is very important to the administrator's
maintaining himself in a position of power. The obvious way to do
that is to position those who would seem to be most supportive in
key positions and cultivate their alliance through promotions,
favorable assignments, etc. However, too often this aspect of the
relationship with the informal organization results in personnel
moves which have the potential to clash with the merit system. As
Barnard stated, there may be some adverse backlash from this
tactic, particularly where "the code of the organization as a whole


6
is completely dominant and there is a very high sense of
responsibilities, such that the dominant end justifies the means,
a
that is, the violation of all other codes.
Gordon Tullock asserts that the administrator must be very
concerned about organization maintenance matters. It is his
contention that subordinates have a great deal to do with the top
administrator's relationship with peers as well as his superior. He
believes that the administrator will discover that:
. . this group can affect his own relationships
with peers and sovereigns. The politician will find that
men in lower ranks may want to attach themselves to
his train to give him particular personal loyalty
provided only that his star appears to rise in the
hierarchy...This suggests that the politician, once in
charge, must devote some of his efforts toward
insuring the continued allegiance of the followers in
his organization. He must, paradoxically, devote some
of his time to pleasing them, and he can so do by using
his own power in assisting them to achieve their
objectives.4
Frederick Mosher typified the machinations and
positioning within the bureaucracy as something which is quite
divorced from partisan politics. He declared that much of what the
public administrator does "is of a different order of politics from
that represented by political parties, elections, and votes in the
Congress. It is controversy, competition, and negotiation among
different factions within the bureaucracy itself."5
Here we see the recurring theme on the organization
politics construct; 1) it has to do with wielding power in a way


7
that reinforces the administrators position and 2) it is internal to
the bureaucracy itself-almost isolated from external bipartisan
political considerations.
Mosher came more to the point of the concern for
organizational politics (which he refers to as "internal
administrative democracy") when tactical moves by the
administrator confront certain "principles and objectives." He
makes the point that administrators gain their power and
authority from "outside of themselves" therefore, to what extent
should these "insiders" be enabled to "modify their purposes, their
organizational arrangements, and their means of support?" He
states further:
It is entirely possible that internal
administrative democracy might run counter to
the principles and objectives of political
democracy in which the organization of
government are viewed as instruments of public
purpose.^
In his definition of an organization, Schein depicts an
organization as a dynamic interrelation of subsystems. He states:
. . the organization consists of many
subsystems which are in dynamic interaction with
one another. Instead of analyzing organizational
phenomena in terms of individual behavior, it is
becoming increasingly important to analyze the
behavior of such subsystems, whether they be
conceived in terms of groups, roles or some other
concepts.7
It is the manager's attempts to maintain himself as the
administrator and maintain an equilibrium within an organization


8
that we frame the notion of the political (organization political)
uses of the Federal merit system. Certainly personnel or human
resources is only one of the dimensions of the administrators total
array of power "tools" which he uses in accomplishing this but it is
this aspect which is the focus of this study.
In summary, the construct of organization politics for the
purpose of this study is the totality of the relationships of the
various loci of power within an organization. An organization is
not merely the organization chart and the mission. It is the
dynamic of the forces within an organization. As Dwight Waldo
stated in his work What Is Public Administration?:
People do not come into administrative
organizations as pieces of putty, as units of abstract
energy, nor as mere tools sharpened to some technical
or professional purpose. . Each is genetically unique,
and all are members of institutions-families, churches,
clubs, unions, and so forth. . and.they form into
natural or adaptive groups of various kinds-
friendships, cliques, car pools, and so forth. . .8
Merit Principles
The construct of merit principles for the purposes of this
dissertation has to do as much with a philosophical imperative as
it does a legalistic definition. Violation of merit intent in the
Federal establishment holds no great legalistic or punitive
sanctions for the manager. Furthermore, an outright breach of the
regulations governing personnel actions has not consistently
resulted in the kinds of sanctions which traditionally result from


9
misappropriation of funds or the fraudulent expenditure of
Federal dollars.
From an overall perspective of merit principles, Frederick
Mosher asserts that the integrity and quality of our
administrators has a lot to do with the general effectiveness of the
implementation of our laws. He states:
The American government is, it is said, and
hoped, a government of laws. It is also a government
by people. The effectiveness of the laws depends in
large part upon the capabilities, judgement, and
integrity of those people upon whom have been
placed the responsibilities of carrying out the laws.
And the quality of government hinges upon the
systems and consideration whereby these people
have been selected, assigned, and advanced.^
For specific merit principles we can look to the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 which enunciates nine merit system
principles. These are:
Recruitment from all segments of society,
and selection and advancement on the basis of
ability, knowledge, and skills, under fair and open
competition.
Fair and equitable treatment in all
personnel management matters, without regard to
politics, race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and
with proper regard for individual privacy and
constitutional rights.
Equal pay for work of equal value,
considering both national and local rates paid by
private employers, with incentives and recognition
for excellent performance.
High standards of integrity, conduct, and
concern for the public interest.


10
Efficient and effective use of the Federal
work force.
Retention of employees who perform well,
correcting the performance of those who work is
inadequate, and separation of those who cannot or
will not meet required standards.
Improved performance through effective
education and training.
Protection of employees from arbitrary
action, personal favoritism, or political coercion.
Protection of employees against reprisal
for lawful disclosures of information.
Merit Abuse
The essence of this study is an inquiry into the day-to-day
operations of the Federal personnel management system to
discover whether merit abuse exists and, if if it exists, to explore
the extent of that abuse.
For the purposes of this study, merit abuse is any action
taken by either the personnel officer or the agency management
which tends to negate or detract from the effective
implementation of the principles laid out above.
Merit system abuse in the context of this study is more
than a clerical oversight in failing io note a record properly or
failing to note the code for a regulation on an official form. The
essence of merit system abuse is that somehow a deliberate
exercise of discretionary power resulted in an unfair outcome for
an employee or a group of employees.
Reference to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 yields a
solid regulatory, legalistic base for this matter of merit system
abuse. The Act recites nine actions which those who are


11
responsible for taking personnel actions are prohibited from. It
states in part:
Discriminating against any employee or
applicant.
Soliciting or considering any
recommendation on a person who requests or is
being considered for a personnel action unless the
material is an evaluation of the person's work
performance, ability, aptitude, or general
qualifications or character, loyalty, and suitability.
Using official authority to coerce political
actions, to require political contributions, or to
retaliate for refusal to do these things.
Willfully deceiving or obstructing an
individual as to his or her right to compete for
Federal employment.
Influencing anyone to withdraw from
competition, whether to improve or worsen the
prospects of any applicant.
Granting any special preferential
treatment or advantage not authorized by law to a
job applicant or employee.
Appointing, employing, promoting, or
advancing relatives in their agencies.
Taking or failing to take a personnel action
as a reprisal against employees who exercise their
appeal rights; refuse to engage in political activity
or lawfully disclose violations of law, rule, or
regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of
funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety.
Taking or failing to take any other
personnel action violating a law, rule, or regulation
1 1
directly related to merit system principles.
In the period of time following the Nixon era abuses,
Congress conducted long and tedious investigations into many
aspects of the merit system. Some of that material will be


reviewed later. On the point of merit system abuse, Congress had
asked for testimony from the talented and outspoken Bernard
Rosen who had been the Executive Director of the U. S. Civil
Service Commission. In testimony before Congress in 1975, Mr.
Rosen listed six items which he believed were actions abusive of
the merit system. These points show significant overlap with
those which were published three years later as part of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. These points were:
Tailoring a job description and job
requirements to a particular candidate's
experience.
Soliciting declinations in order to reach a
favored candidate.
Writing an overblown job description to
raise a grade.
Establishing duties in a job descriptions
that will justify excepting the position from the
competitive service even though the designated
duties will not be performed.
Making temporary appointments to
continuing positions so the appointees can acquire
additional qualifying experience in hopes of
achieving preferred status for permanent
appointments.
Using inadequate evaluation methods
which may result in selections being made
inadvertently from those not best qualified, or
intentionally facilitating the selection of favored
1 ?
candidates.
Fudging the Merit System.
The term "fudging" is frequently used in the course of this
study. Shafritz used the term in his 1975 book. His definition


1 3
typifies certain aspects of merit abuse as fudging, but more than
that, he talks about the use of fudging where the Federal manager
encounters a system which does not contain the flexibility which
will enable him to get the job done. Shafritz stated in pan:
Almost hidden from the public policy
analyst is a public personnel netherworld deeply
reflective of the turbulence and conflicts of the
greater society. It is a worked largely inhabited by
well meaning and sincere individuals-the whole
gamut of personnel operatives-who are forced by
the circumstances of their lives to engage in
prostitution, illegal patronage, and perversion.
Prostitution in this context refers to acts that are
sometimes illegal as well as being morally and
ethically repugnant-and doing so for the sake of
money-that is, to keep ones job. . .Managers all
too frequently find it impossible to fulfill their
mandates by fully abiding by the structural
constraints of the civil service system. However,
since the public manager is in a position to
command and/or influence inappropriate fudging
of the system, the fudge is made by his personnel
functionaries.* 3
When one follows the events of Federal personnel
administration over the long run it is easy to assume that merit
system abuse is episodic in nature. Indeed, it is very easy for the
casual observer to feel that the episode of system abuse during
the Nixon era was not only sufficiently purged but was effectively
precluded from re-occurring by the passage of the Civil Service
Reform Act. In the same way it could be assumed that the degree
of merit abuse is directly affected by the ethical and professional
resolve of the practitioners in the field. This is a simplistic view of


1 4
the situation on two counts, it ignores the internal politics of the
relationships in organizations and it does not recognize the
influence of the organization climate, greatly influenced by
managements perceived degree of ownership of merit system
integrity. This last point represents the Achilles heal of the
vitality of the merit system and this study will explore that
particular portion of the working formulae of dynamics within
organizations.
The concern for the topic of this study is rooted in the
events of the last fifteen years. The Nixon era abuses focused our
attention on gross, politically motivated abuses. But once we went
through the self purging exercise including exhaustive
Congressional hearings, culminating in the Civil Service Reform
Act, we slipped into a mood of complacency. The matter of merit
abuses triggered by organizational politics is potentially more
ubiquitous than are the abuses spawned by bipartisan politics.
The potential for these abuses is serious even though they have
never generated the sensationalism of abuses associated with
partisan politics. The abuses we are exploring are those which
may result from institutionalized "fudging" of the merit system.
Jay Shafritz has commented for years on both the "system fudge"
and the obscurity of it in its institutional form. His thesis on this
topic will be discussed in Chapter II.


Scope of the Study
15
The sensational abuses of the Nixon era are well chronicled
therefore, this study will only deal with that bit of history in a
very peripheral manner. The focus of this inquiry is the agency
organizational politics which is greatly influenced by the
manager's need to maintain himself in an organization. These
considerations deal primarily with the way in which he wields
power, i. e., favoritism, actions to enhance the relative power of
"his people", validating his power (in such things as obtaining the
highest graded subordinate staff possible), and out and out
favoritism toward those occupation(s) which represent the power
base within the organization.
Because of the importance of political patronage to the
history of the merit system, we will devote some time to the
Nixon era abuses and some of the changes which evolved from
that turbulent time. Furthermore, although we are not
preoccupied with political patronage per se, we note that many of
the techniques of abuse are used in common whether we are
discussing partisan politics or organization politics.
This study will also explore the matter of the relative
vitality of the controls on merit abuse. Certainly, the strength and
persistence of outside oversight is a major force in the matter of
merit system integrity, even though, at times, the control and
impact on agency personnel management may be more apparent
than real. The effect of all of this in keeping the agency "honest"


16
so far as the merit system is concerned will be addressed in the
study.
Of particular importance to the matter of the environment
for merit system operation is the dynamics between the personnel
officer and the manager. The personnel manager is perceived as
having a unique role in the matter of personnel management
within the agency. This perception varies over a wide spectrum.
To the Office of Personnel Management he is regarded somewhat
as their on-site "gatekeeper," while to agency management he
may be regarded as anything from the "organization lackey" to a
full partner in human resource decision making. These matters
are all part of the formula which describes the environment
within which the personnel officer operates. The analysis of this
relationship will provide clues to the relative vitality of the merit
system.
This study will also analyze the perceptions of the Federal
personnel officers so far as the impact of the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978 is concerned. The question here is whether or not the
CSRA contributed to a more responsive personnel management
system. Theoretically, by putting in place a system which is more
responsive and more in tune with what is needed by managers to
fulfill the agency mission, the less managers would have to turn to
the "system fudge" to accomplish their human resource goals.


Data Acquisition
1 7
The matter of the data acquisition will be dealt with in
detail in the chapter on Methodology, however, some explanation
will be helpful at this point. There is little published information
which directly applies to the scope of this inquiry. This study is
built around information gathered from a questionnaire which is
designed to capture the perceptions and attitudes of personnel
officers in the Federal sector. The data is unique because it speaks
to the perceptions of the personnel officers on the matter of
dynamics of the work relationships with managers in Federal
agencies. There is a good amount of data which deals peripherally
with this matter but it never comes to grips with the matter of
organization inner play. For example, OPM may have gross data on
studies showing that jobs are overgraded in the Federal
government by 30% but little information is available as to how
agencies get to 30% overgraded positions. The OPM will make the
obvious observation that the agency "overgraded" the positions
but this does little to examine the dynamics which caused it. This
study attempts to gather the data which will demonstrate the
systemic and dynamic forces which have the potential to
breakdown in the system.
Arrangement of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized in the following scheme:


1 8
Literature Search
This chapter will present a discussion of the pertinent
literature on this topic. It will feature a variety of references,
most of which are only tangentially pertinent to the topic at hand.
The historical references to "fudging" the system are either an
outgrowth of peripheral concerns of the Nixon era or relate to
Shafritz's earliest pronouncements on the subject. The literature is
almost devoid of material which deals with the subject of fudging
and the dynamics of the personnel officer and the Federal
manager in the day-to-day implementation of the merit system.
A great deal of material came out of the investigations of
the House Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service from
about 1970 to 1975, but the main concern of that group was the
political swirl surrounding the abuses grounded in partisan
politics. The Congressman involved in those hearings had little
time or interest in admonishing the entire civil service to guard
against the possibility of ubiquitous and persistent "fudging" of
the merit system based on internal, organization politics.
The main thrust of the contemporary literature has to do
with critiquing the various sub-systems for personnel
management, primarily those which have come out of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. These pieces tended to deal with a
series of isolated issues in personnel management, i.e., the failure
of the Senior Executive Service to live up to expectations, the


19
problems with Merit Pay, and the initial underfunding of the
Merit Systems Protection Board.
As indicated above, the subject of this study is not
bipartisan political patronage. The type of institutionalized
political patronage which was overwhelming the system in the
early 1970's is not a direct threat at this time. However, we will
show that the attitude toward political intervention and control at
the highest levels of the Reagan administration had an impact on
the total environment affecting the "rules of the game" of merit.
In short, the philosophy and practices of the controlling
administration give clear signals to the entire personnel and
management community on the the matter of the overall
approach to merit as a concept.
This study will explore the impact of the dramatic changes
which have occurred since 1978 in the visibility and leadership of
the Office of Personnel Management. It will explore the question
of whether or not the changes in the recruitment process, the
decrease in accessibility, and the changes in the evaluation system
have affected the general approach toward merit system
abuses/integrity throughout the Federal government. A portion of
this analysis will be devoted to the influence of the preoccupation
with "business practices" on the way in which the merit system is
viewed. Too often contemporary commentators tend to confuse a
compelling (and often burdensome) national policy with
inefficiency and that has some translation into the bureaucratic
safeguards of the merit system. This administration has attempted


20
to institutionalize the findings of at least one (Grace Commission)
corporation oriented evaluation effort. The results of this and
similar efforts are hard to assess but at the very least, they effect
the overall environment within which the merit system operates.
Methodology
The methodology to be used in this empirical study is the
field survey. The field survey is one of the few effective means of
researching this topic. The study is a qualitative inquiry featuring
the use of a questionnaire which contains both Likert type
responses and open ended responses. The subject of the study will
be the Personnel Officers in the Federal government. This
universe includes personnel officers at grades GS-12, GM-13, 14,
and 15, and Senior Executive Service levels.
Research Findings
Chapter four deals with the research findings. The analysis
of the questionnaire as well as the open-ended questions will be
discussed and a narrative analysis will complete the work of this
chapter.
Summary
The questionnaire provided three summary questions
which solicited comments on the three major issues, 1) a summary
of the context within which merit abuse occurred, 2) the dynamics
involved in the merit system treatment within their respective


21
agencies and 3) the leadership climate within the agency toward
the personnel officer and personnel as a function.
Conclusions
Chapter five deals with the the general assertions and
indications of the overall study. This will indicate what the
research has revealed about the integrity of the merit system,
whether or not fudging exists, and, if so, to what extent. It will
also include some conclusions about the dynamics of the
relationship between the managers and the personnel officer in
Federal agencies. The conclusions will be formatted to address the
various hypotheses proposed in Chapter II.


22
Notes
^Hugh Heclo, A Government of Strangers (Washington,
DC.: The Brookings Institution, 1977), p. 214.
^Charles Shang Hyneman, Bureaucracy in a Democracy
(New York: AMS Press, 1978), p. 423.
3Chester Barnard, Functions of the Executive (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University. Press, 19381968), p. 277.
^Gordon Tullock, The Politics of Bureaucracy (Washington,
DC: Public Affairs Press, 1965) p. 118
^Frederick C. Mosher, Democracy and Public Service (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 15.
6Ibid, p. 23.
^Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 8.
^Dwight Waldo, "What Is Public Administration?" in
Classics of Public Administration, ed. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C.
Hyde (Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Co., Inc., 1978), p. 181.
^Frederick Mosher, "The Public Service." in The Politics of
the Federal Bureaucracy. 2nd ed., ed. Alan Altshuler and Norman
C. Thomas (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), p. 148.
l^U. S. Civil Service Commission, Introducing the Civil
Service Reform Act (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1978), p. 2.
Hlbid.
^Congress, House, House Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service, The Merit System in the United States Civil Service, a


23
monograph prepared bv Mr.Bernard Rosen. 94th Cong., 1st sess.,
1975, p. 25.
13Jay Shafritz, Public Personnel Management: The Heritage
of Civil Service Reform (New York: Praeger Press, 1975), p. 107.


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE SEARCH
A search of the literature shows that there is a good deal of
literature which addresses the general subject of this study in a
peripheral manner. In addition there are a number of studies
which have been done in the general area of merit related
interest. These will be discussed later in this chapter.
Much of the literature is devoted to the problems of
processes as they relate to the implementation of the Civil Service
Reform Act on 1978. In addition, there is a wealth of literature
which was produced by the House of Representatives
investigations of the abuses of the Nixon administration. The
period of time of these hearings was from approximately 1972 to
1976. These hearings became the harbinger of the final drive for
reform which culminated in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
The chronicle of partisan abuse which these hearings reported
added a great deal to the groundswell of concern which led to the
Act. While the hearings themselves dealt primarily with political
abuse, they nonetheless dealt with abuses which are common to
both partisan politics as well as organization politics. The tools of
merit system abuse are similarly available regardless of the


25
motivation. It is primarily for this reason that this paper will
devote some attention to those hearing prints.
There is one aspect of the testimony during this period
which is particularly important to this study even though the
great preoccupation of the moment was with the matter of
politically motivated merit abuse: the hearings are rich with
statements of concern for the long term, non-political problems
with merit system integrity. There were voiced concerns about
the problems of additional delegation of authority without
commensurate provisions for effective evaluation as a means of
assuring compliance, there were concerns about organization
politics, merit a? it relates to the systems of recruiting, and the
leadership position of the Civil Service Commission.
Similar Studies
There are four studies which were reported and which
touch on some aspect of this inquiry. One study has to do with the
perceptions of employees in regard to merit and the other has to
do with the dynamics of operations between the managers and
the personnel operatives in a large organization. The later study is
important because the basic issue in the "politics of personnel
management" is "who gets what without regard to the merit
system." Robert H. Elliott reported in a 1985 issue of the Review of
Public Personnel Administration a study which he conducted
among state employees of the State of Alabama concerning their


26
impressions of the viability of the merit system. The study dealt
with global questions having to do with their attitudes concerning
the value of the merit system. The results of the study overall
were positive, showing that employees generally viewed the merit
system as a positive force. Elliott stated in part:
Although there are some negative
perceptions on the part of both groups of employees,
the overall impression is one of support, tempered
with a healthy pragmatism. Both groups seem to
recognize the existence of two merit systems-one for
entry level jobs and one for high level, high salaried,
merit system positions. The former system was
perceived as quite effective at "keeping the rascals
out"; the latter was perceived as more often
manipulated for political purposes. This latter
perception can be viewed alternately as cynicism or
the pragmatic recognition of political reality. Yet, the
perception is also present that til is manipulation
would be much more widespread if the merit system
was not present.^
It remains for this study to show whether or not the
findings will be similar for the Federal system. The second study
that has some application to the immediate inquiry had to do with
the control of the personnel practitioner in the matter of day-to-
day administration. In 1972 Rothman published a report of an
audit and evaluation completed by the State of Michigan on its
Department of Civil Service. The findings are of interest in terms
of the dynamics which prevailed in regard to the power and
control on personnel issues. On the matter of the degree of
independence of action by the personnelists, Rothman found the
following:


27
Personnel responsibilities which
department heads chose not to delegate describe clear
limits to the personnel directors independence in
decision making. In rank order of total responses,
undelegated personnel responsibilities were: final
decisions on major personnel issues or policies, labor
relations decisions, organization structure and design,
miscellaneous personnel budget or cost changes, and
wage and salary decisions 2
Another study was conducted by Francis L. Harmon of the
Personnel Research Staff of the United States Department of
Agriculture. The main intent of this study was to discover "What
kind of a man is the typical personnel officer?" The study utilized
a list of ten trait names to conduct the study, the list of traits was
divided into those traits which were identified with those who are
"Inner-directed" and those who were "Other-directed." Harmon
concluded that the personnel officer sees himself through the eyes
of his colleagues as being:
... a "nice guy"--likable, friendly, easy to
get along with. As a good organization man, he strives
to please by conforming to the wishes and
expectations of his associates, and to the demands of
the organization. He does as he is told. He keeps
busy.3
The final study is contained in a report published by the
Personnel Measurement Research and Development Center of the
U. S. Civil Service Commission. This study included a survey of all
of the various job categories of the personnel occupation, including
the general personnel management category, the personnel
staffing series, the position classification series, the salary and


28
wage group, the labor relations series, and the employee
development category. The study was rather ambitious, including
nearly 2,000 in the sample. It did not, however, cut across all
agency lines, being restricted to thirteen agencies. The purpose of
this report was to gather information on a host of demographic
and other information about the personnel profession in general.
The areas of inquiry covered a wide range of matters including
levels of eduction, job choice influences, levels of difficulty of the
work and the types of experience which were deemed important.
The responses stand on their own rather well and the Civil Service
Commission offered very little evaluative narrative for the
report.4
This dissertation is based on a set of hypotheses dealing
with the overall matter of merit abuse.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis number one. The Federal administrator's
balance of the merit system against the need to "get the job done"
puts certain elements of the merit system at risk.
The potential for the confrontation between the manager's
drive to "getting the job done" and merit system restrictions is not
a new one and in a sense it is a comment on the work ethic of the
Federal manager. More than that, it is, in a sense, the legacy of
Frederick Taylor's scientific management and the entire notion of
high production by finding the "best way" to do a job.5


29
Flexibility
Perhaps the most widely embraced rationale for by-
passing certain elements of the merit system by Federal
administrators is that the system does not afford the "flexibility
needed to fulfill the mission of the agency. Indeed the matter of
flexibility is often used as the one overriding element of
evaluation of the effectiveness of the system by the users of the
system as well as those who write about it. The argument is not a
new one. It has been so strong in the past that the Civil Service
Commission felt pressured enough on the issue to print a
publication which argued that the system had sufficient flexibility
to accommodate the needs of the Federal managers. So compelling
has the argument been in the past that the Atomic Energy
Commission was set up as an agency exempt from the competitive
service. At times Federal personnel officers are judged on the
degree to which they can "find" the flexibilities in the system.
During the period of the Congressional hearings following
the era of the Nixon abuses, Milton Sharon, a Regional Director for
the U. S. Civil Service Commission, was picked to head a study
team to investigate the merit system abuses which were
identified primarily with the Nixon era political abuses. Sharon,
however, was very conscious of the vulnerability of the merit
system due to this matter of the perceived need for "flexibility."
During testimony before the House Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service, he stated in part:


30
Personnel officials of other Federal
agencies are faced with the problem of preserving the
same sort of balance between attempting to satisfy
the expressed needs of their respective managements
and giving advice on and taking personnel actions in
accordance with statutory, regulatory, and policy
requirement.^
In trying to characterize the dilemma that the Federal
manager often finds himself in, Lindblom, in his The Science of
Muddling Through stated:
. . the administrator often feels that the
outside expert or academic problem solver is
sometimes not helpful and why they in turn often
urge more theory on him. And it explains why an
administrator often feels more confident when "flying
by the seat of his pants" than when following the
advice of theorists. Theorists often ask the
administrator to go the long way around to the
solution of his problems. . J
While Lindblom was discussing specifically the matter of
implementation of policy, the notion of the dilemma of the Federal
manager is clear.
Simon and March, in their discussion about satisfactory
alternatives, also seem to describe the conflict that confronts the
Federal managers in the matter of "getting the job done" versus
the matter of merit integrity. In their discussion about decision
making they stated:
Most human decision making, whether
individual or organization, is concerned with the
discovery and selection of satisfactory alternatives;


3 1
only in exceptional cases is it concerned with the
discovery and selection of optimal alternatives.8
More recently, the Merit Systems Protection Board has
entered this arena and has apparently taken a posture of benign
avoidance on the question of flexibility versus outright abuse. In a
1986 report the MSPB stated:
As the central personnel agency of the
executive branch, OPM must balance Federal
managers needs for personnel management authority
and flexibility with the equally compelling need for
Federal personnel management to conform to a
common set of laws, rules and regulations. There is no
definitive answer, however, to the question of
precisely where the balance point is in reconciling
these often conflicting needs. 9
Although these references are helpful in describing the
broader concerns being voiced by some about merit system
abuses which transcend the Nixon era politicizing of the personnel
system, they are not revealing as far as what was actually
happening from a day-to-day operational perspective.
A threshold question concerning whether or not a merit
system can survive in the organizations of the future is posed by
Warren Bennis. In a sense the question asks whether the
"economic man" of the future will be able to preserve the notion
of merit as we know it. Can a merit system as we know it survive
in a world such as the one Warren Bennis describes in which the
lines between industry and government become blurred? One in
which, as he said: "Partnerships between government and


32
business will be typical. It will be a truly mixed economy."
Furthermore, he calls for:
Adaptive, problem-solving, temporary
systems of diverse specialists, linked together by
coordinating and task evaluating specialists, in an
organic flux-this is the organizational form that will
gradually replace bureaucracy as we know it. 10
Mosher sees a conflict in more global terms. He would see
the matter of efficiency as a potential matter of conflict with our
basic notions of representative democracy. He develops this
democracy versus bureaucracy in this way:
Finally, it may be noted that
representative bureaucracy, in theory at least,
introduced a quite new dimension to personnel
administration, at least for some positions. If
individual officers are to be chosen to represent
certain interests and points of view, clearly a merit
system premised on efficiency and mastery of
knowledges and skills appropriate to specific jobs is
not adequate. In fact, it is pretty hard to
accommodate the concept of representativeness
within the hard core of classification and
examinations. 11
As indicated above, the Civil Service Commission felt
compelled to attempt to deal with the problem of the flexibility of
the merit system. In a sense, the question of flexibility, whether
contrived or real, goes to the heart of the question of survival of
the merit system. Non-flexibility in the sense of the day-to-day
application of the merit system says that it does not lend itself to
the needs of managers; i. e., it is an obstacle in the day-to-day
operations of the Federal personnel systems.
I


33
The matter of efficiency is also a concern which has
evolved from the growing concern for the use of "business"
practices. This concern is pitted against the matter of policy and is
more a concern for the total environment within which
personnelists and managers alike attempt to implement the merit
system rules and regulations and as such it will be discussed in a
later section.
In summary, the issue is well drawn and it has a number
of facets. This study attempts to explore the aspect of the
perceptions of the personnel officers not only as to whether they
see the conflict in the first place but further, how the flexibility
issue influences the application of the merit system.
Hypothesis number two. The Federal personnel
management system for division of authority and responsibility
tends to caste the personnel officer in an untenable role as the
merit system "gatekeeper."
This question has a number of dimensions. For example:
what is the power of the personnel officer to enforce adherence to
merit principles within an agency, what is the nature and extent
of the personnel officer's role in terms of delegation of authority
on decision matters based on regulatory standards (such as job
classification determinations) and what is the extent and effect of
management intervention?
An incident in 1986 displays the classic scenario of the
merit system "fudge" and, at the same time, describes graphically
the degree of subordination of the personnel officer within an


34
organization. A twenty year personnel veteran with a spotless
record was suspended without pay for forty-five days for twice
rigging a promotion action. Because the installation Director
wanted the action taken, the administrative law judge
recommended that the sentence be mitigated. This is a case in
which organization politics shaped the strategy and outcome of
the action. According to the report:
. . .[the Director] told the personnel office
to develop a job description for the site manager job
and tailor it to [the subjects] qualifications. The grade
level, [the Director] said, should be whatever [the
subject] could qualify for.* 2
These orders were followed and the resulting position
description became the basis for a request for eligibles from the
Office of Personnel Management. Ultimately the scheme fell
through, but in the end, the personnel office took the blame.
Notice the similarity to the tactics advocated by the "Malek
Manual" during the Nixon scandal even though those instructions
were beamed toward the political patronage scene.
On Tuesday, March 4, 1975, Chairman Henderson of the
House Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service began a
series of hearings which were to review violations and abuses of
merit principles in Federal employment. Congress, however, was
also iooking into the kinds of corrective actions which should be
effected in the future to strengthen the merit system and
minimize possible future violations and abuses. This latter topic


35
had been the subject of earlier hearings as well (See Prints 93-22,
93-23, and 93-25).
The chairman of the Civil Service Commission at that time
was the personable and knowledgeable Robert Hampton. During
this period of time he had many appearances before Congress and
was making a gallant effort to salvage the integrity of the Civil
Service Commission and the Federal personnel system. The
discussions centered on the institutional role of the Civil Service
Commission in such matters as compliance review and specifically
the role of evaluations. Congress at that time was very interested
in a stronger evaluation role by the Civil Service Commission and
cool toward the notion of expanding the role of the agencies in
doing their own evaluations. (This is interesting in the fact that in
just a little over 6 years the Office of Personnel Management
began the process of dismantling the evaluation program as it was
constituted in 1975). During this particular hearing, Commissioner
Hampton was making the point that the integrity of the merit
system had to be maintained, in part, by managers and personnel
officers who have a desire to preserve the intent and practice of
integrity, not simply the absence of violations of the law which
are so gross that they can be detected by a compliance review. He
said:
Mechanics alone, however, cannot assure
integrity . . Government executives, managers,
supervisors, and personnel officials must recognize
that they each have a responsibility for lawful
personnel management. . Steps taken to assure


36
integrity must promote greater understanding,
acceptance, and fulfillment of that responsibility.* 3
The matter of merit integrity was not viewed as such a
collegial effort by the administrator of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in 1975. The SBA had been under sharp
criticism for their personnel management practices. In attempting
to take some of the heat off, SBA came up v/ith a set of Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs). SOP 32 was somewhat different in
its emphasis on responsibility from the quote stated above. In this
case, SBA stated in the SOP titled Responsibility for Compliance:
Managers, supervisors, and, particularly,
personnel staffs, [underline added] are individually
responsible for strict compliance with the laws,
Executive Orders, rules, regulations and SBA Standard
Operating Procedures relating to personnel
management.* 4
One of the specific aspects of the personnel officer's job
which is controversial and which lends itself to management
intrusion and manipulation is the function of classification of
positions.
Surprisingly, the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost
Control (the Grace Commission Report), Report on Personnel
Management commented knowledgeably on the organization
dynamics of the problem. The report recognized and pinpointed a
systemic problem as:
The system's inability to insulate
department or agency classifiers from pressure from
their leadership to comply with their wishes or
perceived needs to overgrade a position.* 5


37
In a 1983 article written by Zodun, she discussed the
potential for merit compromise which classifiers experience in
attempting to apply the grading standards while working for the
requesting manager. She saw the organization implications of the
problem when she stated:
OPM should recognize that under the
present delegation of authority classifiers work for
their agencies not OPM. Should OPM decide to define
the role of classifiers as being that of "policing", then
classification should be made a separate agency and
classifiers should report to managers other than those
of the agencies they serve. 1 6
It is not the purpose of this paper to advocate this type of
sweeping organizational reform; this quotation is presented to
indicate a basic problem with the perception that the classifier
operates as a solo performer engaged in objectively applying
standards to the job grading function.
In summary, this dissertation is to explore these matters
of responsibility and delegations of authority and attempt to
analyze what the effect is on the personnel employees charged
with the responsibility for merit system integrity. The question is,
are these statements and assumptions about the position and role
of the personnel officer and his employees shared by the
personnel officers or not?
There is one final position which should be mentioned in
regard to the entire question of the personnel officer's
subordination to authority. Specifically what does the personnel


38
officer do when orders run counter to an individuals own value
system in terms of merit integrity?
Stahl attempted to draw a fine line on the need for
delivering on the demands of management and doing the "right
thing." His recipe for what the individual should do if his
conscience comes into direct conflict with agency orders is usually
an extreme form of relief. Although his statement can be
interpreted as applying in a very generic sense to many
situations, it applies very well to the position of the personnel
practitioner who is asked to deliver the outcome which the
manager wants. According to Stahl, the ideal civil servant:
. . gives his full measure of service and
devotion whatever he may think of his political
superior, but also has the courage to state his case
emphatically when he thinks his boss violate(s) law or
principle. Only when he is so certain of his case that
he is convinced that most reasonable people are
bound to see it his way can he dare risk
insubordination. Otherwise, to avoid compromising
either his conscience or his superiors, his only
recourse is to resign. 1 7
Ethically and morally the advise is sound, the problem is
that in the day-to-day administration of the personnel system,
personnel officers do not deal with momentous, episodic merit
issues. Issues are more in the nature of individual case actions
which collectively portray a particular posture toward merit in
general. Thus, the essence of the personnel officers problems in
day-to-day personnel administration do not lend themselves to
repeated, daily decisions on whether to take an action or resign. Of


39
course, over the long term, the posture of management toward
merit principles generally may (as it often has) result in
resignation or transfer of the personnel officer.
Hypothesis Number three. The environment with which
the Federal agencies attempt to operate the merit system does not
reinforce merit integrity, and, in some respects is hostile to it.
Delegation of Authority and Evaluation
These two elements are linked for this discussion because,
in the matter of Federal personnel management their effect must
be ultimately analyzed as a single concept. In the context of
Federal personnel management it has long been recognized that
delegation of additional power to the agencies must be balanced
with a program (evaluations) which oversees compliance with
merit considerations. Additional delegations are linked to that
entire matter of flexibility of the system. However, the flexibility
is not unlimited and the counterpoint is that the maintenance of
the merit system requires some degree of vigilance in the form of
the oversight function.
In attempting to analyze those elements which most
influence the contemporary environment for the merit system,
two occurrences are preeminent. They were, OPM's decision to
discontinue the regulatory compliance reviews and the increased
delegations to the agencies. The matter of increased delegations is
a consideration which lends itself to hot debate on both sides. Of
course the concept leads immediately to the older argument that


40
the agencies need more flexibility to get the job done. Somehow
additional delegations are viewed as granting more flexibility
even though agency approvals ostensibly must be based on the
identical criteria as used by the OPM on similar case approvals. In
any case, the bundle of delegations, are viewed by the agencies as
a move to greater flexibility. At times OPM has given signals to
these agencies that there is a very uncaring national attitude
toward certain merit principles. When these increased delegations
are joined with a dismantling of the compliance evaluation, the
environment for merit integrity is viewed as somewhat
compromised.
The matter of the prudence of additional delegations
under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 with a commensurate
withdrawal of compliance evaluations has been a concern for
years. In an article in the Bureaucrat in 1982, Bernard Rosen
voiced his concern. This was rather early in the period of the new
CSRA (4 years) but long enough for OPM to begin to reveal its plan
for evaluations. Rosen stated:
OPM has not established a credible
presence as a firm and effective monitor of the
adherence of agencies to the merit mandates in their
personnel management activities.* 8
The Merit Systems Protection Board in it's report for
1984-1985 raised the question "Should Federal Agencies have
more or less authority for personnel management and personnel
administration?." The real question, however, is "Have OPM's


41
actions enhanced or detracted from the Federal Government's
ability to adhere to the merit system principles?"1 9
In 1983, the Office of Personnel Management moved to a
system of evaluation which consisted of 2-3 day agency visits,
primarily to collect statistical information on such matters as
average grade, numbers of promotion actions, numbers of
downgrades, etc. During their time with the agency the evaluators
would typically talk to managers and personnel specialists about
various program systems. The report would then compare the
agencys statistics and program information with national
indicators or national statistical goals.
Bernard Rosen, writing in the Public Administration
Review in 1986 declared that this new system is "far less effective
for determining agency compliance with civil service laws and
related requirements." Furthermore, a survey in 1984 by the
Merit Systems Protection Board substantiated that 81% of the
agencies surveyed shared that opinion. MSPB recommended that
OPM take steps to "relieve agencies' concern about the deemphasis
on regulatory compliance and to protect merit in the civil service
system."20
The Merit Systems Protection Board, in its 1986 report, not
only noted that OPM was no longer carrying on the traditional
evaluation but had, in fact, shed itself of the competence to even
carry on the activity. The MSPB charged that:
The real consequence [of the weaknesses in
the program] is that OPM evaluators, in MSPBs opinion,


42
are no longer able to conduct regulatory compliance
reviews with the degree of certainty that was possible
under the traditional, more in depth agency visits.2 1
In this same report, MSPB voiced concern about the extent
of OPMs abdication of its role. MSPB stated that while agencies
certainly have a responsibility to properly execute the laws, they
declared that "OPM has gone too far in its expectations for
agencies to self-police their use of personnel authority." 22
In summary, the withdrawal of OPM from a leadership role
in the matter of evaluations has been an important factor in the
shaping of the total environment for personnel management in
the Federal agencies.
As early as 1972, a time when the sensational political
patronage abuses of the Nixon administration had not yet been
fully revealed, there were discussions about the Commissions
decentralization of the evaluation program. It is important to put
this in perspective; the plan at that time was to make the agencies
partners in the evaluation, not to abandon compliance evaluations
as essentially happened ultimately in the early 1980's.
Nevertheless, even this amount of sharing brought criticism from
many sides. Robert Vaughn, the Assistant Professor of Law at the
Washington College of Law, American University, in testimony
before the House Subcommittee on Investigations had this to say
about the shared responsibility for evaluation:
However, the new Commission approach in
inspections assumes that the interests of the
management of Federal agencies and the interest of the
Civil Service are identical. Even on very narrow issues,


43
such as classification and promotion over which the
Commission has regulatory responsibilities, there may be
a significant departure of interest. The enforcement of
regulations and management efficiency as perceived by
the agency may not be identical at all. 23
Office of Personnel Management's
Leadership Role in Recruiting
Recruiting has been the facet of personnel almost
constantly embroiled in controversy because the essence of
favoritism and abuse of political power has been the conferring of
a job. Merit in hiring is the first canon of a merit system. Even
though merit hiring has been dissected and maligned, at times it
has been applauded as the means of avoiding the ravages of the
spoils system and at times it has been looked upon as an
impediment to achieving representative bureaucracy. While other
merit principles such as equal pay for equal worth, fair
competition for promotion opportunity, and equality of
opportunity are important, the right of the citizen to open
competition has been the center piece of the American system
since 1883.
Since 1980 we have seen a gradual degeneration of merit
recruiting. This has happened in two ways, 1) the gradual
withdrawal of the presence of the Office of Personnel Management
from the citizens on a broad front and 2) OPMs failure to produce
a viable testing instrument for the great majority of professional
and administrative positions which had been previously filled by
competitive examination.


44
The dismantling of the mechanism which facilitated public
access to the Civil Service began very early in the Reagan
administration and it came under the guise of needed budget cuts.
On the matter of withdrawal of OPM from access to the
citizenry, it has been so dramatic in some instances that it can be
characterized as OPM having gone "underground." Plans to effect
this withdrawal were laid out very early in the Reagan
administration and were well underway by 1981. The Denver
experience is a case in point. The Job Information Center and the
total examination staff were located in the downtown area. This
location featured easy access, an open, well directed self-help area
and, of course, the availability of good public transportation to and
from the offices. The change which has occurred is dramatic.
Currently both the Regional Office and the Job Information Center
are located in a suburban setting on the extreme western part of
the metropolitan area. The hours are very restricted and a good
deal of the business is conducted by phone answering machines.
Individuals who do business with the Job Information Center
become very frustrated. The actual offices are located in a bank
building with no evidence of concern for the general populations
difficulty in locating and visiting the office. In 1983, before this
transition was even complete, the General Accounting Office
reviewed the OPM situation and reported that:
In the regions, OPM closed some area offices
and some job information centers and reduced hours
of operation at the remaining centers. . OPM central
office staffing officials acknowledged that closing or


45
curtailing service at Federal job information centers
may have adversely affected individual applicants,
but they claimed that it had not hampered the
Governments recruitment efforts.2 4
The point of this is that while the government may be able
to fill its vacancies, what is the state of the merit system as it
relates to open, universal competition?
The second problem, that of failure to provide for an
acceptable instrument for competitive examinations seems
equally damaging to the merit concept because the process which
has been offered to fill the void is a sham.
At the very end of the Carter administration, OPM entered
into a consent decree which triggered the abolishment of the PACE
examination. The PACE examination (Professional Administrative
Career Examination) was abolished in 1982 and an interim
procedure was established. This interim procedure provided for
an excepted (as opposed to a competitive, career) appointment
and is still in effect. This excepted appointment authority was
delegated to the agencies and has, effectively set aside open
competition for these jobs. Most of the jobs are lead-in jobs to
career ladders with potential to the mid range of grades, i. e., GS-
11 to GM-13. Part of the problem was the failure of Dr. Devine to
provide money and personnel to the staff responsible for the
development of a suitable alternative.
Under the current hiring procedure called "Schedule B" an
agency appoints a person without examination to a position. This
appointment is for two years after which, competition must be


46
held with other interested, available applicants. Aside from the
obvious problems involved in trying to attract first rate applicants
to a government position which is officially designated as
excepted, there are serious merit implications concerning a
competitive procedure which is invoked at the end of two years.
The problem is that with almost no exceptions, the individual who
was initially appointed without regard to a competitive
examination is ultimately appointed permanently to the career
position within the agency.
The Merit Systems Protection Board, in typical fashion did
not take this issue on but rather pointed out the statistical
findings of their review. Their findings on the question of true
competition vs. agency "fudging" deserved more than the
statement included in a 1986 report as follows:
.... however, as of March 31, 1985,
agencies had attempted to competitively select for GS-9
positions 835 employees who had been previously
noncompetitively selected for a lower graded position
under the Schedule B authority. They successfully
reached (appointed) 834 of the 835 employees. .
.What is basically at risk is the first merit principle,
which calls for free and open competition for career
jobs in the civil service. 25
In June, 1988, the Office of Personnel Management
announced a new recruiting program to recruit for GS-5 and GS-7
entry level positions. This program hands the agencies virtually
the same kind of power and authority as they had under the
Schedule B method. It is packaged in a wrapping of respectability


47
because of the "testing" which is part of the new system. However,
as in the Schedule B system, it allows the agencies to perform a
very narrow, restricted recruiting effort to fill vacancies. It calls
for written tests but it does not speak to universal competition for
these written tests. It also allows for appointment of college
graduates with high grade point averages with no examination.
Finally, the new program also calls for the use of a written test
which will "measure. . personal characteristics," a blatantly non-
merit factor.
Rosen voiced his concern regarding an additional
delegation to the agencies again in a 1986 article. In speaking of
the increased delegations to agencies to make temporary
appointments up through grade GS-12 without regard to
competition, coupled with the deemphasis on compliance
evaluations, Rosen observed that:
. . this new authority opened a wide door
for ignoring qualifications in making appointments. It
leaves agency officials largely defenseless to pressure
for the temporary appointment of political and
personal favorites and reduces substantially the
likelihood that appointees will be from among the most
able to perform the work as intended by law. 26
In summary, the new program does not move civil service
any further forward toward open and universal competition. It
appears to be elitist in character and totally vulnerable to
personal, non-competitive manipulation.27
Thus the environment for fudging the system in the crucial
matter of fair and open competition has been one of institutional


48
accommodation to restricted, personalized and non-competitive
recruiting, and a large component of the notion of a merit system
has been thereby handed over to the politics of the organization.
Influence of the Private Sector Standard
The contemporary environment which has an impact on
the day-to-day merit system integrity is very much influenced by
the current preoccupation with making government more like
business. One of the effects of this has been that managers are
more impatient with bureaucratic regulations and constraints and
have become very much attuned to the flexibilities of the business
world in such matters as pay (position classification), hiring, and
other personnel practices.
There are a number of forces working on managers in this
regard. Many agency managers are very biased toward training
programs sponsored by business associations. Aside from their
acknowledged prestige, and the usual first class setting of these
training programs, Federal managers feel that somehow, these
training sessions will come forward with the answers on how to
deal with their personnel (and other management) problems.
When they attend these training conferences, Federal managers
are impressed with the business world anecdotes depicting great
flexibility and use of authority to make sweeping personnel and
management decisions. This contributes to the attitude of
disenchantment with Federal rules and regulations.


49
Another important force is the conventional wisdom's
emphasis on business practices as being the guiding principles for
the Federal government. Since 1981 there has been a great deal of
effort made in attempting to institutionalize the imposition of
certain business standards on various aspects of Federal
administration. Witness the Presidents Private Sector Survey on
Cost Control. Report on Personnel Management, also known as the
Grace Commission report, which was submitted to the President
on November 23, 1983. This highly touted study group made up
of corporate officers spent several million dollars and a great deal
of time studying various aspects of Federal management,
including personnel management. The point is that many of the
recommendations were fashioned from a distinctively business
point of view.
Implementation of some of these recommendations
became the responsibility of the management side of the Office of
Management and Budget. What we had then was an institutional
mechanism for imposing these recommendations on the Federal
managers. Even process and staffing matters began to be
translated into budgetary issues with OMB as the enforcing
institution.
Of course, the debate concerning the distinctive nature of
government versus business practices rages almost continuously.
Richard A. Loverd, from the University of Pittsburgh, writing in
the Policy Studies Journal said this about the government
personnel function:


50
.... personnel actions are shaped by a
variety of participants in a host of organizational
locations. Indeed, as with most government activities,
authority is more diffuse than concentrated, reflecting
pluralistic structures at work. For example, in addition
to personnel staffing specialists, one needs to consider
the roles of political and merit line managers, labor
unions, budget agencies, political parties, legislatures,
the courts, the chief executive, interest groups (such as
minorities and women, the handicapped and veterans
organizations), and contractors and consultants. ... 28
Despite compelling arguments to the contrary, many
Federal managers are strongly attracted to the flexibility and
unity of command which are perceived as the managerial
benchmarks of personnel management in the business sector.
However, what is often forgotten is the fact that Federal personnel
policy was not created with an eye for efficiency, thus what is at
conflict is not a process which is inefficient but a policy which
may create an inefficient process. Thus announcing a vacancy
government wide for three weeks to assure fair and open
competition is certainly not efficient but until the Federal
government abandons the policy of free and open competition,
those vacancy announcements will require that "inefficient three
week" application window. As Rosenbloom stated in a 1982
article:
The political environment in the public
sector is likely to overwhelm attempts to formulate
public personnel policy from private sector
perspectives. The "businesslike" values of efficiency,
economy, and effectiveness are frequently
overshadowed by concerns that are more salient to
government. ... 29


51
Terry W. Hartle, in a 1985 Public Administration Review
article in which he was reviewing his recent book, discussed the
same theme. He said:
Making policy changes to eliminate
inefficiencies. . has little to do with management. It
has everything to do with the special-interest state.
Elected politicians can make the changes if they choose
to, but it is a question of political calculus, not of
management efficiency.30
The contemporary environment for merit system abuse is
very much affected by the conventional wisdom which asserts
that efficiency is to be achieved even when the issue cannot be
drawn as a process issue.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
The final aspect of Federal personnel management to be
explored in regard to the matter of environment is the question of
the impact of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The question
being, does the CSRA describe, through its legal pronouncements,
an environment which nurtures and enhances the merit system?
It will remain primarily a matter of the analysis of the
questionnaire to truly assess the impact of CSRA. However, the
literature contains a number of articles which address this
question in a peripheral manner.
Plant and Gortner in a 1981 article discussed the issue of
ethics in Federal personnel management, the difficulty in the
process and how the process can now be facilitated by the


52
creation of the Merit System Protection Board and the Office of
Government Ethics.31.
A 1983 Personnel Journal article by Silverman reports the
process failures in the system for merit pay which were mandated
in the Civil Service Reform Act. The author lists reasons why the
new performance based system of pay was not working well.3 2 a
1982 article by Munchus lauds first year Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) decisions and predicts that they will be precedent
setting in the future. Also there is a sweeping assertion that
Federal employees now have greater protection then they did
before.3 3
By way of declaring that the merit system has changed,
Jasper lays out a number of steps which should be taken to
monitor merit system abuse, including such things as; adding an
additional investigative capability to the MSPB, and reorganizing
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to assure that that
organization has sufficient resources to effect a viable compliance
function.3 4
A 1984 report of a study conducted by Miceli and Near
focuses on the process and dynamics involved in the reporting of
merit abuses (whistleblowing). The article analyzed the
differences between those who report abuses and those who do
not.^5 The titles of all of these articles appear to be relevant to
the subject at hand but close scrutiny shows that they are only
marginally useful.


53
Hypothesis number four. Matters of organization politics
which involve merit related considerations often run counter to
merit system principles.
The concern here is that the dynamics of organization
politics in Federal agencies are very often involved in issues
which are not enhancing to the merit system. These are matters
which do not involve strictly partisan political activities. These
matters are more likely to be issues which surface in the day-to-
day operation of the agency.
In his book published in 1975, Shafritz discussed the
matter of institutional fudging. He stated, in part:
Almost hidden from the public policy
analyst is a public personnel netherworld deeply
reflective of the turbulence and conflicts of the greater
society. It is a world largely inhabited by well meaning
and sincere individuals-the whole gamut of personnel
operatives-who are forced by the circumstances of
their lives to engage in prostitution, illegal patronage,
and perversion. Prostitution in this context refers to
acts that are sometimes illegal as well as being morally
and ethically repugnant-and doing so for the sake of
money-that is, to keep ones job. . Managers all too
frequently find it impossible to fulfill their mandates
by fully abiding by the structural constraints of the
civil service system. However, since the public manager
is in a position to command and/or influence
inappropriate fudging of the system, the fudge is made
by his personnel functionaries. 3 6
In a 1984 report published by the Merit Systems
Protection Board, MSPB discussed the types of violations of the
merit system which had been revealed through the whistleblower


54
route. While there were some allegations of political patronage,
the type of political wrongdoing which is the subject of this study
is exemplified by the following excerpt:
There have been serious violations of
Federal law and/or regulation; primarily as regards the
personnel management policy and practices. For
instance, how does an employee go from a GS-14, 6
months in grade, to a temporary GM-15, back to GM-
14, then to GM-15, finally to Assistant Director in a
period of less than 24 months? All of this entailed
various actions, creation of deputy positions, temporary
promotions, details, etc. At the same time, this
employee was allowed to arbitrarily assign, reassign,
detail, promote, and terminate employees at will. 3 7
The important point here is that these abuses are not
identified as motivated by partisan politics, they are the types of
abuses which are identified with organization politics.
Dynamics of the Personnel OfficerAgency
Management Relationship
Within the broader context of organization politics, there is
the concern of the position of the personnel officer in the
dynamics of the decision process within the agency. On the level
of political patronage, the position and decision choices of the
personnel officer are rather easy to assess because, when he/she
becomes involved in that level of concern, the power exerted is
typically overwhelming and the boundaries of choice are
extremely narrow. However, not so clear is the matter of
organization politics and its impact on the decision choices of the
personnel officer. When analyzing his impact on matters of


55
cronyism, occupational favoritism, empire building, etc., the
analysis is less clear. Ritzer and Trice did some meaningful work
in the role conflict area and it has strong application to the
dynamics of the personnel officer-agency management equation.
The conclusion seems clear that the personnel officer's action
choices are greatly influenced by the position (on the issue) taken
by the loci of power within the organization. This is not
particularly different from any subordinate management reaction
to the power within an organization but it takes on a new
dimension when the issue becomes a merit related issue.3 8
Perhaps the greatest amount of literature on a single
aspect of merit system abuse over the last fifteen years is the
prints of the House committee hearings following the Nixon
scandals in the early to mid-1970s. Some of the prophetic
statements by Congressmen regarding the day-to-day integrity of
the merit system and the importance of the leadership of a central
personnel organization in such matters as oversight and
compliance type evaluations are particularly pertinent to this
study. In 1975, Henderson, who was then the Chairman of the
House Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service voiced
concern for a broader consideration than the immediate topic of
the Nixon era abuses. He stated:
let us be reminded that this inquiry is not
concerned solely with violations of merit principle
resulting from partisan political influence or pressure.
We are concerned with all violations and abuses of
merit principles, be they external or internal from
within the system itself. Our subcommittee receives


56
hundreds of letters each year alleging what some
might carelessly call small abusesnon merit factors
used in selection for promotion, reassignments, career
development, granting of leave, and so forth. Many of
these may fall into the category of administrative
actions taken by career or noncareer officials to
accomplish what they believe to be desirable
objectives but accomplished by bending the merit
principles in order to beat the system. Much more
could be said about the cost of merit system abuses-in
terms of quality of personnel, dollar costs, and agency
morale.3 9
The discussions of merit system abuse have repeatedly
centered around the manager's need for flexibility in order to get
his job done. It is as though they were saying that a more cleverly
contrived system would preclude managers and personnel officers
from being forced to prostitute the system. Without offering value
judgements on this theme, it seems illogical to propose that a new
merit system could be conceived which (in a truly flexible
manner) would accommodate cronyism and favoritism and would
thereby legitimate favoritism but would, at the same time, be a
true merit system under a revised definition of the term.
On this matter, Mr. James C. Curry, former Director of
Personnel for the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, in
testimony given to the House Subcommittee on Manpower and
Civil Service made the point that we can define merit abuse
narrowly in terms of political patronage, or we can:
.... define the problem broadly-that is, in
addition to the above issue, what are the systemic
problems which cause legitimate frustrations to
executive branch appointees to rationalize that getting


57
their mission accomplished is more important than
Civil Service Commission rules and regulations.40
Hypothesis number five. There are no differences in
attitudes and perception toward the merit system between the
Washington, DC personnel officers and the "field" personnel
officers.
Shafritz, in his 1975 book declared that attitudes toward
personnel operations were influenced by the political culture of
the area. He stated, in part that:
The determinant of any communitys
attitudes toward the quality and vigor of the
jurisdiction's personnel operations is the political
culture of the geographic area concerned.41
It is not for this study to analyze the correlation between
local political attitudes and the vigor of the personnel operations.
However, this study will explore the presence (or absence) of
quantifiable differences in the perceptions of the personnel
officers toward the state of merit integrity between the
Washington, DC personnel officers and those in the field.
Finally, the study will include a series of tables which will
show the differences in average age and average years of
personnel experience between the negative and positive
responses of the questionnaire.


58
Notes
1 Robert H. Elliott, "Personnel Professional and State
Employee Perceptions of Merit System Procedures: What Is Level
of Support?" Review of Public Personnel Administration 5
(Summer 1985): 41.
2Mary K. Rothman, Role of the Personnel Director in
Michigan State Government. (Office of Program and Performance
Evaluation and Audit of the Michigan Department of Civil Service,
June 1972), 42.
^Francis L. Harmon, The Personnel Officer: A Self Image. (A
Report by the Personnel Research Staff, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Acquired by the U. S. Civil Service Commission
October 14 1965).
4u. S. Civil Service Commission, The Federal Personnel
Man. (First Report of a Series by The U. S. Civil Service
Commission, Washington, DC, September 1966)
5 Frederick Taylor, "Scientific Management." in Classics of
Public Administration, ed. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde (Oak
Park, IL: Moore Publishing Co. Inc., 1978), 17-20.
6 Congress, House, Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, A Self Inquiry Into Merit Staffing. A Report of the Merit
Staffing Review Team United States Civil Service Commission, by
Milton Sharon. 94th Cong., 2d sess.,1976, Committee Print 14, p.
94.
7Charles E. Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through,"
in The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy. 2nd ed., ed. Alan
Altshuler and Norman C. Thomas (New York: Harper and Row,
1977), 148.
Sjames G. March and Herbert A. Simon, "Cognitive Limits
on Rationality," in The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy. 2nd ed.,
ed. Alan Altshuler and Norman C. Thomas (New York: Harper and
Row, 1977), 117.


59
9Merit Systems Protection Board, Report on the Significant
Actions of the Office of Personnel Management During 1984-1985
A Report of the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board Office of
Merit Systems Review and Studies. (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, May, 1986), p. 1
10'Warren Bennis, "Organizations of the Future," in Classics
of Organization Behavior, ed. Walter E. Natemeyer (Oak Park: IL:
Moore Publishing Co. Inc., 1978), 286.
11 Frederick C. Mosher, Democracy and Public Service. 2nd
ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 101.
12"Merit Board Urged to Discipline Longtime VA Personnel
Officer," Government Employee Relations Report 24 (August
1986): 1107.
^Congress, House, Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil
Serivice, Violations and Abuses of Merit Principles in Federal
Employment. 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975, Committee Print 19, p.
25.
l^Congress, House, Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil
Service, Documents Relating to Political Influence in Personnel
Actions At The Small Business Administration. 94th Cong., 1st
sess., 1975, Committee Print 4, p. 65.
^President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, Report
on Personnel Management Submitted to the President on
November 23, 1983. (Washington, DC,: Government Printing Office,
1983), 87.
*6jane N. Zodun, "Historical Background-Classification and
Compensation Society Position on Classification Issues," Classifier's
Column. 14 (July/August, 1983): 15.
Glenn Stahl, Public Personnel Administration. 8th ed.,
(New York: Harper and Row, 1983), p. 65.


!
60
18Bernard Rosen, "A Disaster for Merit," Bureaucrat 11
(Winter 1982-1983): 14.
19 Merit Systems Protection Board, Report on the
Significant Actions of the Office of Personnel Management During
1984-1985 A Report of the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies. (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, May, 1986),10.
^Bernard Rosen, "Crises in the U. S. Civil Service," Public
Administration Review. 46 (May/June 1986): 212.
21U.S., Merit Systems Protection Board, Report on the
Significant Actions of the Office of Personnel Management During
1984-1985 A Report of the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies. (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, May, 1986), 11.
22ibid, 11
23 Congress, House, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
Legislative Oversight Review of the Civil Service Commission.
92nd Cong., 2nd sess, 1972, Committee Print 54, p. 23,
24Government Accounting Office, Retrenchment and
Reduction at the Office of Personnel Management. August, 1983, p.
30
25 Merit Systems Protection Board, Report on the
Significant Actions of the Office of Personnel Management During
1984-1985 A Report of the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies. (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, May, 1986), 6
26Bemard Rosen, "Crises in the U. S. Civil Service," Public
Administration Review. 46 (May/June 1986): 210.
27 Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Director,
New Program to Fill GS-5 and GS-7 Entrv-Level Jobs. June, 1988.


61
28Richard A. Loverd, "Adding More of a Management
Thrust to Public Personnel Perspective," Policy Studies Journal 11
(December 1982): 273.
29pavid H. Rosenbloom, "Emphasizing the Public in Public
Personnel Management," Policy Studies Journal 11 (December
1982): 253.
30xerry W. Hartle, "Sisyphus Revisited: Running the
Government Like a Business," Public Administration Review 45
(March 1985): 350.
31 Jeremy F. Plant and Harold F. Gortner, "Ethics, Personnel
Management, and Civil Service Reform," Public Personnel
Management 10 (1981): 3-10.
32r. R. S. Silverman, "Why the Merit Pay System Failed in
the Federal Government," Personnel Journal 62 (1983) 294-297.
33George Munchus III, "Some Significant First-Year
Decisions Issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board," Journal
of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector. 1 (1982): 47-50.
34Herbert N. Jasper, "The Merit System: She Ain't What
She Used to Be," Bureaucrat (1979-1980): 25-33
35Marcia Parmelee Miceli and P. Janet Near, "The
Relationships Among Beliefs, Organizational Position, and Whistle
Blowing Status: A Discriminant Analysis," Academy of
Management Journal 27 (December 1984): 687-705.
3 6Jay Shafritz, Public Personnel Management: The Heritage
of Civil Service Reform. (New York: Praeger Press, 1975), 106.
32Merit System Pio ection Board, Blowing the Whistle in
the Federal Government: A Comparative Analysis of 1980 and
1983 Survey Findings. (Washington, DC, Government Printing
Office, October, 1984), 21.


62
38 George Ritzer and Harrison M. Trice, An Occupation in
Conflict: A Study of the Personnel Manager. (New York: W. F.
Humphrey Press Inc., 1969), 127.
39congress, House, Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. Violations and Abuses of Merit Principles in Federal
Employment Part 1) Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
Manpower and Civil Service. 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975,
Committee Print 19, p. 2.
40congress, House, Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. Violations and Abuses of Merit Principles in Federal
Employment Part II. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
Manpower and Civil Service. 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975,
Committee Print 20, p. 179.
41 Jay Shafritz, Public Personnel Management: The Heritage
of Civil Service Reform. (New York: Praeger Press, 1975), 126


CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this empirical study is the
exploratory field survey (see Appendix C for a copy of the
Questionnaire). We felt that the field survey was the only means
of adequately researching this study. This is true primarily
because the study is based on the stated perceptions and reports
from individual personnel officers concerning the dynamics of the
working relationships in their respective agencies. The field
survey was conducted with the use of a questionnaire featuring
both Likert type responses and the opportunity for open ended
statements on selected topics.
The questionnaire itself was drafted by first deciding on
the broad categories of topics which were to be studied. Of help in
this regard was the testimony of Bernard Rosen and others in the
previous Civil Service Commission who testified before Congress
and wrote articles on the types of abuses which they felt were of
particular note. Also, because of the high expectations of the Civil
Service Reform Act, questions were included to discover whether
or not, it terms of enhancing the merit system, the CSRA made a
difference. Several drafts of the questionnaire were developed
and reviewed by members of the dissertation committee and by


64
selected Federal personnel specialists. Comments and suggestions
were solicited and appropriate changes were made. Finally, the
questionnaire and the covering memorandum were field tested.
The final questionnaire included comments and feedback which
came out of the field test. One of the unusual aspects of this study
is the fact that the transmittal memorandum was signed by the
chairman of the dissertation committee. Because of the nature of
the questionnaire and the potential for adverse findings toward
OPM as well as Federal personnel officers and mangers generally,
it was decided that it would be prudent not to show the authors
name (see Appendix A). At the time the study was launched, the
author was the personnel officer for a small Federal agency.
Targeted Universe
The subject of this study is Federal personnel officers in
grades GS-12, GM-13, 14, and 15 as well as Senior Executive
Service Directors of Personnel at the cabinet agency level or
equivalent.
In conformance with the plan for this dissertation, the
sample was structured so that we could analyze whether or not
locality differences in merit system treatment are present. With
this in mind, the questionnaire was distributed to all of the
personnel officers in Washington, DC and the surrounding
Maryland and Virginia suburbs as well as to the personnel officers
in Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; and Los Angeles, CA., with a control
feature so they could be analyzed according to these cities.


j
65
Sample
The mailing list for the personnel officers in Washington,
DC was accumulated and cross checked from a number of different
sources. The three main sources for Washington DC were, a
commercially published directory of Federal managers, Federal
phone books published by the agencies in Washington and a
mailing list used by a Washington consulting firm.
The mailing lists for the other three localities were all
developed from the respective Federal Personnel Councils mailing
lists. The total sample is 345 including 232 for Washington, DC,
Atlanta, 35, Denver, 33, and Los Angeles, 45. The overall
percentage return is 32%. The breakdown for each locality is as
follows:
Table 1
Percentage Returns on Sample
LOCALITY SAMPLE NUMBER PERCENT
NUMBER RETURNED RETURNED
V/ashington, DC 232 72 31%
Atlanta, GA 35 12 34%
Denver, CO 33 16 48%
Los Angeles, CA 45 12 27%
Totals 345 112 32%
It is interesting that, with the exception of the returns
from Denver, there is a good deal of similarity in the percentage of
returns, i. e., 3% points separated three of the localities' responses.
The first mailing yielded about 90% of the total returns received.
The returns at that point were not as high as hoped for so we sent
i


66
a second mailing. The second mailing was a short reminder (see
Appendix B) only, with the statement that if the individual had
misplaced the original questionnaire to call the University of
Colorado at Denver and another copy would be sent. The totals
shown above represent the total returns from both the original
mailing and the follow-up.
Sample Demographics
Of the total respondents, 15 had been in personnel work
for 10 years or less, while the remaining 97 had in excess of 10
years, with the mean being 17.9 years. Age 44 was the median
age of the group with 56 being 44 or less and 56 being 45 or
older. The mean age of the group was 45.2.
Responding to the questionnaire were eighteen members
of the Senior Executive Service, thirty GM/GS-15s, thirty-nine
GM/GS-14s, twenty GS/GM-13s and four GS-12s. All of the SESs
were from Washington, DC but none of the GS-12s were from
Washington, DC.
The sample included twenty-three responses from
Department of Defense personnel officers.
The group is well educated, with 47% holding graduate
degrees. The four localities are rather evenly represented so far as
education is concerned; 38% of the Denver personnel officers have
graduate degrees, Atlanta has 42% as does Los Angeles and the
Washington group is highest with 43%.


67
Of the total group, there are eight respondents who have
no baccalaureate degree. Interestingly, one half of the non-
degreed are in the most senior two levels of personnel. There are
three GM-15s and an SES in this group.
Research Design
The research design for this study utilized a field survey.
The questionnaire is a forty-eight item instrument which has
ample opportunity for open-ended responses. The design focuses
on the analysis of five discrete areas as follows: 1) an overall
assessment of the extent and regularity of merit system abuse
among the Federal agencies, 2) an assessment of the nature of the
internal politics and dynamics involved in the system "fudge," 3)
an attempt to define with some precision the areas of Federal
personnel management in which the abuse occurs most
frequently, i. e., deliberate misclassification of positions,
favoritism in appointments, artificially inflating positions to gain
higher grades, and others, 4) an analysis of the dynamics of
influence in the confrontation between merit system integrity and
the managers needs to utilize the "flexibilities" of the system in
getting the job done and 5) whether or not the analysis of the
i iCwaid any v aiiauuiid uwiwvv/ii mv nviu auu uiv
Washington, DC personnel officers.
The research design also calls for selective analysis of
variations in response between the SES levels and the Grades GS-


68
12 to GM-14 as a group. Furthermore, the analysis will include
certain specific comparisons of responses between Washington DC
versus the field, Department of Defense versus all other agencies,
comparisons between years in the current position and the degree
of negativism in the responses, and an analysis of the total sample
response. The open-ended responses will be analyzed separately
but they are designed, much as an interview would be, to add to
the knowledge gained from the questionnaire responses.


CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The findings of the study make no claim to statistical
generalization because the sample was not randomized.
Furthermore, although the questionnaire was distributed to 100%
of the personnel officer in the 4 localities, (although the mailing
list for Washington DC, was checked against a number of sources,
it is possible that there were a few who were missed) the
statistical sample is not significantly large enough to make
assertions concerning generalization. Although in the aggregate it
is a sizable representation, the detailed analysis by localities are
based on a rather small representation.
As in all studies of this type there is the possibility of
questionnaire bias, but it should be pointed out that the
questionnaire was distributed to those personnel officers with
considerable experience so that the concepts and terms should be
well understood. The respondents are not novices in the field of
personnel, consequently, misinterpretation of the meaning of the
questions is judged to be minimal. Finally, the analysis of the
narrative responses to the questions indicated that indeed, there
was a high level of understanding of the questions and the issues.


70
The findings discussed below are organized around a
number of basic groupings of concerns, three summary
discussions and one question having to do with the personnel
officer's career choice. Each of these groupings contains the
analysis of the question or questions which are relevant to that
particular area of concern as well as a discussion of the narrative
comments which were made in response to those questions. The
summary discussions are composed of narrative comments
offered by the respondents in answer to summary-type questions.
One of the most pertinent aspects of the findings is the
degree of variance of the responses from rather negative to
essentially positive on the matter of the merit system.
Another point of interest is the intensity of emotion that
was expressed by some of the personnel officers, not only over
the questionnaire in general but also over certain questions which
were feels to be unfair or slanted. Note that this is not a matter of
misinterpretation rather it had to do with the subject itself or, in
some cases, the way in which the question was couched. The
problem with that reaction is that the questionnaire was designed
to allow for either a very positive or very negative response to
any particular question, therefore, dismissing it out of hand seems
to be an inappropriate response. Personnel officers are somewhat
conditioned to defend their actions, as well as those of their
managers against questioning from outside sources. This is
particularly true of those personnel officers who have been in
personnel long enough to have experienced OPM (or the previous


71
Civil Service Commission) evaluations when that organization was
doing true compliance evaluations. Challenging the objectivity of a
study is a handy way to destroy the credibility of the inquiry and
in this way deny any legitimate obligation to respond. However,
the answer to the question of why certain personnel officers did
not fill out the questionnaire probably lies somewhere between
the learned reaction of being the "apologist" and "defender" of the
agencies merit stance and a certain amount of anxiety about
answering truthfully. The later problem is demonstrated by a
response from a Director of Personnel for a Bureau who said (in
response to the follow up) that she had responded to the initial
mailing "even though its a little scary to be so honest."
There were two questionnaires returned which were
thrown out because they were from organizations which were
made up primarily of employees in the excepted service. One
personnel officer returned his questionnaire incomplete saying
that he found it "leading and unfair." Two others returned the
questionnaire with notes saying that the questionnaire was
misleading. Two of the questionnaires were thrown out because
they were answered by grade GS-lls which are below the
targeted grade levels.
We recognize that trying to separate the personnel
officers into two groups, Washington, DC or "headquarters" and the
field is an imperfect exercise. There are a number of personnel
officers in the Washington area who answer one definition of
"field" in that they are operating personnel officers at some


72
echelon below an agency or bureau office. These offices are not
strictly "Washington" or "headquarters" in the usual sense. The
same general comment is true about personnel offices which are
grouped under one of the "field" localities, i.e., it is entirely
possible that a headquarters office is located in one of the three
localities outside of Washington, DC. However, our interest in
locality and environmental groupings transcends a strict
organizational definition. A portion of this study is more to the
point of the communality of local perceptions and influences then
precise organizational placement. Thus we have grouped each
office under the city in which it is located.
Job vs. Merit
One of the classic issues which pits merit considerations
against actions which tend to put merit at risk is the matter of
"getting the job done." The need to get the job done provides a
mantle of rationale which is embraced almost universally in
Federal personnel management as a legitimate reason for
"fudging" the system.
Question thirteen which deals with this issue was written
in such a way as to solicit from the personnel officer the
philosophical positioning of the individual's agency so far as job
vs. merit is concerned. In a sense it is an unfair contest because
the drive to produce, i. e., "get the job done" is very strong. It is
also most often a very concrete and real issue. When getting the


73
job done becomes the top priority of the manager we have
everything from "staging" phony competition to non-merit actions
designed to recruit the "only person who could do the job," to
forcing a higher grade in order to retain a certain person. All of
these measures are couched in terms of the criticality of those
persons to a particular program; either to get the person or to
retain him/her in order to provide the needed continuity and
program success.
At times personnel officers simply dismiss the problem of
this confrontation by stating that the system is not designed to
allow management to be effective in pursuing the agency's
mission. It therefore follows that, since the merit process is an
obstacle to the pursuit of the government's business, it need not
be adhered to. The merit system was typified as being a "joke" in
some of the questionnaire responses. On this point, it is possible to
view the merit system on a continuum from a system which is a
mild aggravation in terms of the timeliness of recruitment, for
example, to a system which is so hostile to getting the job done
that it can be legitimately disregarded for a higher good, i.e,
"getting the job done."
The results of the questionnaire show that there is a
profound feeling of impatience and disenchantment with the
system. More alarming than that is the strong undercurrent of
cynicism which has been expressed. There are a disturbing
number of personnel officers who portray their agency as being
positioned on the negative end of the continuum.


74
The analysis of all of the responses to the question "In my
organization, if 'getting the job done' must be balanced against a
merit principle, 'getting the job done' takes precedent." shows that
27% of the respondents feel that "getting the job done" will take
precedent always or usually. In addition, 29% of the total group
states that this would be the case at times.
An interesting dimension of this questionnaire is the
question which invites the respondent to indicate availability for
an interview. Of the 27% who had indicated always or usually,
53% gave no answer to the question on interview availability.
Those who responded at times were only slightly less open to an
interview with 48% giving no answer.
A very small number of respondents answered never to
this question (8%). Surprisingly, this group is even less open to an
interview then those who have given a more negative response
because 66% of that number refuse to give information on a
possible interview.
Of those responding to this question, the respondents from
the Washington DC area declare their agencies to be the most pre-
occupied with getting the job done since 32% of those respondents
indicate that the job comes first always or usually. The personnel
officers from the Los Angeles area occupy a moderate position in
this analysis since 25% answer that "getting the job done" would
take precedent over merit considerations always or usually. Only
one personnel officer in Atlanta feels this would be the case and
19% of the Denver personnel officers gave this response.


75
When the analysis shifts to the at times choice, the
response percentages becomes higher and they tend to cluster
around 30-33% except for the Atlanta respondents. Thus
Washington personnel officers respond at the 31% level, while Los
Angeles is at 33% and Denver at 31%. The Atlanta personnel
officers see their agencies much more likely to choose "the job" at
times then always or usually, since they respond at the 50% level
to this choice.
The analysis of this question shows little variation in
average age of respondents from the most positive response never
to the negative grouping of always or usually. However, the more
negative responses show an average of at least one more years
experience over the most positive responses.
Table 2
Question 13
Average Age and Average Years in Personnel
Criteria Response Avg. Age Avg.Years in Pers.
Never 8% 46.8 17.7
At Times 33% 45.3 18.8
Always or Usually 27% 45.8 18.7
The Classification Fudge
There are a number of questions in the questionnaire
which deal with the matter of violations of the Classification
standards for grading positions. In the Federal system, the
classification grade of a position constitutes the pay decision for


76
the employee since Congress and the President have pre-
determined the pay for each grade in the pay schedule through
the current pay setting policy. This of course applies only to the so
called classified positions and does not include other positions
which encompass an array of pay setting schemes, including those
set by labor negotiations.
The first question (fourteen) dealing with the classification
"fudge" is "In processing classification cases of high interest to
management, pressure is applied (or an outright order is given) to
make the grade come out at a certain level."
Of the total universe, 18% of the respondents chose either
always or usually. Without making value judgements as to
whether that is a "good" number or a "bad" number, it is certainly
a number which describes a good deal of confrontation and stress
between the personnel officers and the management of these
agencies. This is true because the question is implicit on the point
that these are instances in which the grade would probably not be
granted without pressure. For this question, the Washington, DC
personnel officers seem to be more subject to this pressure than
their counter parts in the other localities, they respond with 32%
in these two categories. Los Angeles shows the next highest
percentage responding to this grouping with 25% while the Denver
responses show 19%. Atlanta personnel officers do not perceive a
pervasive problem, showing only one response to always and
usually.


77
On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are only 12% of
the respondents who indicate that they never encounter that type
of pressure. The Atlanta personnel officers would not say they
never encounter that pressure but the Los Angeles personnel
officers show a 25% response for this choice. The Washington
personnel officers chose never 11% of the time and Denver is only
marginally stronger than that at 13%.
The analysis of the responses of the personnel officers
who are in the Senior Executive Service shows that 28% of those
responding to the questionnaire feel that they receive pressure
always or usually. Conversely, only one of the Senior Executives
responds that the kind of pressure described never occurs.
An analysis of the average age and the average years in
personnel shows a progression in years from the most positive
response never to the most negative grouping always and usually.
The following table shows this progression,
Table 3
Question 14
Average Age and Average Years in Personnel
Criteria Response Avg. Age Avg. Years in Pers.
Always or
Usually 18% 43.6 19.3
Never 12% 39.4 16.5
It seems obvious that there is a certain "cynic factor"
which manifests itself as personnel officers move forward in their
careers and correspondingly add up the years in the personnel
business. As in the previous question, it is interesting to note how


78
many of the respondents to these two questions are not open to
an interview. Of those who give the negative answers always and
usually, 65% are grouped as giving no response to the question on
interviews. Those who answer never are only slightly more
willing to come forward with the information on a possible
interview. In this case, 54% are grouped as refusing to respond to
the question on a possible interview.
The written comments from the personnel officers cover a
wide spectrum of attitudes. Some comments indicate a certain
amount of resistance to attempts to fudge the classification
system. Some indicate that the direction is subtle, but definite and
well understood, (but not overt and direct). Some of the responses
defend management, proposing a rationale for the fudging.
Those who characterize the dynamic as one of subtle,
somewhat oblique pressure make the following comments.
"Pressure is not so clear as 'do it or else,' it is more like 'if we
dont get what we want it shows lack of responsiveness to
management's need and the consequences from that." Another
GM-14 personnel officer from Denver indicates subtle pressure
based at least partly on management's negative view of the
classification process when he states that "Direct order has never
been given. However, management sees the classification process
as one which interferes with the accomplishment of the mission."
A GM-13 from the Denver area draws the line of confrontation
between the merit system and fudging a little more directly when
he writes "Balancing merit principles and pressure for grades are


79
not usually overt, but subtle although in the latter situations, it is
not uncommon for pressure to be much more overt." The link of
subtle pressure and the declaration of reasonableness is offered
by a GM-14 from the Atlanta area when he declares, "Pressure at
times-never ordered outright; the usual reason given by
management is an inability to recruit applicants at the lower
grade." A respondent who is in the Senior Executive ranks
indicates that the pressure is subtle but certain when he states
that "It is understood by us that if at all possible we are to 'make
it happen.'"
Evidence of more direct pressure to fudge the
classification system is displayed by the comment of a GS-12
personnel officer in the Denver area when he/she states that
"Management tells you the grade level they want the position to
be classified at prior to the classification." A senior personnel
officer (GM-15) from the Washington, DC area reveals a note of
despair when he states that "This has occurred from May, 1986 to
present, at which time a new director was appointed. Some
classifiers have refused to classify some positions at the dictated
grade level resulting in higher level management taking the
action." Another senior personnel officer who was the Director of
Personnel (GM-15) for a major Federal bureau (and has been
replaced over the issue of adherence to the merit system)
indicates his frustration with the situation in his agency when he
states "This is so true. Grade based on 'worth of the job' (using
OPM standards as a guide) is a joke in this agency. Strictly


80
politics." Another senior personnel officer (GM-15) admits to
pressure but qualifies it and offers a management rationale for it.
He asserts that pressure is applied, "Usually in reorganizations in
order to avoid a downgrade of an existing employee most often
opted when employee is within 2 years of
retirement/resignation."
It is of particular note that the respondents who are in the
Senior Executive Service are very forthcoming in this matter of
management pressure. This is significant because of the
identification of the SES with higher level management, including
the matter of assisting management in the writing of agency
personnel policies. Examples of their statements include, "When
grade level cannot be achieved through the classification process,
administrative classifications are assigned by higher authorities."
Another statement indicates that the dynamics of the personnel
office and management has broken down completely on the
matter of classifying positions which have high interest to
management. An SES indicates that "High interest jobs are now
classified at a higher level by nonpersonnel people." Another
member of the SES is very blunt about the matter of compliance
with the Classification Act. He states simply, "We don't comply,
political level has the choice to classify positions with their
signature."
A senior personnel officer (GM-14) from Atlanta views the
management pressure as progressive depending on the level of
interest of management in the particular case. This respondent


81
explains it with the comment that, "There will always be more
pressure in direct relationship to how close the position is to the
manager, but in general, there is much less pressure as managers
get more experience in the system." Some of the personnel officers
describe the dynamics of relationship with management as one of
resistance on their part with the added inference that they were
able to successfully confront management on the issue. Thus a
senior personnel officer (GM-14) from the Denver group states
that "Pressure may be applied at times, but not necessarily
successfully." In the same way a GM-13 from the Denver area
indicates that he is successful in standing off management
pressure. He states that "Pressure is applied, but does not affect
the outcome of actions." Another GM-13 is not so certain about the
results of management pressure. He indicates that "Pressure
applied does not guarantee (the) outcome." One GM-14 from the
Washington DC area declares that he has worked to maintain
integrity in the classification system but he has paid a price in the
way in which management regards his performance because of it.
He states "I have been able to maintain what I believe to be the
integrity of the system. My performance appraisal has suffered
because of this I believe."
Some of the personnel officers offer a rationale for
management control of classification issues. One cannot say if this
represents the strong drive to act as the "apologist" for
management action or if the personnel officer simply endorses the
management position. A rationale (justification) which is built


82
around a pay gap or salary consideration is probably the most
frequent reason offered. In this vein, a GM-14 in the Washington
area states that "This usually occurs when we are hiring at the top
levels and we are trying to match salary." A GM-15 acknowledges
the problem of pressure for inflating grades in that certain job
categories such as "Senior/technical analytical positions--in order
to retain individuals of significant expertise and experience who
would otherwise go to the private sector. Most usually for non-
supervisory GS/GM-14s." A GM-14 at the Washington DC level
states simply "This situation does occur when pay gaps exist."
A comment from one of the SES personnel officers reveals
a very interesting rationale which has to do with the system and
how management's actions result in pressure to classify jobs at a
higher grade. He states that "Not infrequently management has
precommitted to the individual without benefit of any staff
advice. The staff is then expected to make the commitment come
true." We note that this also says a great deal about the dynamics
of the relationship between the manager and the personnel
officer. It speaks to the question; is the personnel officer part of
the inner power circle?
A GM-15 personnel officer describes the pressure
dynamics as normative when he states that "It is a norma!
reaction for management to try to influence grades." Finally, an
SES personnel officer offers the ultimate excuse for not adhering
to the classification standards when he states "Job classification in
government is really a barrier to efficient management. I'd do


83
away with it in its present form, greatly simplify it and control
total payroll."
The next question (fifteen) is actually a sub-set of the
previous one. It states, "In processing classification cases of high
interest to management, I or my classification staff is asked to
write the position description to a certain grade." An answer to
this question reveals information about the dynamics of the
relationship between management and the Personnel Office. If the
answer to this indicates it is being done, a number of things are
happening. Obviously, the classifiers have been told what grade to
work toward when they write the job, seldom does the classifier
work in a vacuum. In this way, then, the grade has been
predetermined and the classifier fabricates the position so that
the particular grouping of tasks comes up to the desired grade.
The downside is that too often management has not taken the
time to articulate what management's expectations are (aside
from the target grade) and the result is a position description that
may be somewhat fictitious in terms of what the employee will
actually be doing. This question has the same common
denominator as the last question, i.e., management control of the
classification system. However, in this case, management has
enlisted the help of the classifier to "make it happen" up front.
The study shows a relatively small number of affirmative
responses to this question and the narrative responses cast some
light on the dynamics between the personnel office and
management which helps to explain this low number. Only 14% of


84
all of the responses answer either always or usually to this
question. The bulk of that number are in the Washington, DC area
with 26% of those respondents choosing one of these two
categories. Denver is second highest with 19%. None of the
personnel officers in Los Angeles respond in those two categories.
We note that 30% of the respondents chose at times in answer to
this question. Combined with the numbers for the stronger
responses, this shows 45% of the personnel officers who have
done this with some degree of frequency.
Of the total number, 16% claim that they never do this.
The greatest percentage of those saying they never do this is the
Washington, DC group. Of this group, 19% respond that they have
never written a position description to a certain grade level.
Further analysis of the responses shows a disparity in
average age and in average years in personnel between those who
tend to present a "purist" response and those who state that they
do write positions to a certain grade. The disparity in those two
items is shown in the following table. Note that the most negative
responses show a higher average age as well as a higher average
number of years in personnel.
Table 4
Question 15
Average Age and Average Years in Fersonnei
Criteria Response Avg. Age Avg. Years in Pers.
Always or
Usually 14% 46.1 19.8
Never 16% 44.7 17.3


85
Comments concerning this question are wide ranging.
They deal with the dynamics of the relationship between
managers and personnel officers. They display frustration with
both managers and the system. The respondents admit to writing
position descriptions but they either qualify the activity or
provide a rationale for doing it. Finally, some admit to out and out
fudging of the system.
A grade GM-15 from Washington DC states it is "Mostly in
creating new organizations and then they are subject to audit
within a year." A GM-13, also from the Washington, DC area
indicates that while his office did it he made the point that he did
not thereby surrender control over the integrity of the system
with the statement, "Sometimes yes, but management desires are
not the only consideration. The grade must stand on its own
merits." Along the same vein is the comment from the Denver GM-
13 who describes the process in this way, "My office assists
managers in reworking assignments, given the higher grade work
exists, to redescribe positions-that is far different from 'writing a
P. D. to a certain grade' with no basis for classifying higher grade
work." One of the Denver personnel officers responds with a note
of humor when he/she states "Personnel doesn't do P. D.'s or
windows, but we do provide assistance and advice. We try to
impress on managers and supervisors the value of integrity in
certifying accuracy of P. D.'s."
Some of the personnel officers, as in the previous
question, offer a defense for doing it. A SES from Washington, DC,


86
states, "My answer assumes you mean the very senior political
management levels. Neither they nor their immediate support
staff have sufficient knowledge and they must rely on the
personnel office for support." A GM-14 offers this rationale for
the necessity of doing this, "Grade equates to salary. Sometimes it
is necessary to classify positions at certain grades in order to
attract competent people. The Federal government is falling
behind both private industry and Universities in their ability to
pay for certain skills especially at the higher levels." A grade GM-
15 personnel officer feels that this is totally justified. He/she
responds with, "So what? A first rate personnel office should offer
that service. Top management has more important things to do
than learn classification and write position descriptions."
Some of the comments exhibit frustration with both the
system and with the dynamics of working with management. One
GM-15 from the Washington area states "The classification system
in its present form encourages the perpetuation of superstition
and ignorance--the use of witchcraft and magic phrases against
unrealistic and antiquated standards still work. Lying to a naive
classifier is no more than lying to one's mother-in-law." A GM-14
from the Denver area directs frustration more toward
management than the system with this response, "Whiie writing a
position description is a supervisor responsibility, many play
stupid and ask you to write it for them."
Whenever a classifier is asked to write a position
description there is either an implicit understanding of what that


87
grade should be or there is a direct order. It is unreasonable to
assume that a manager will approach a classifier and ask for a
position to be developed without a discussion of what the grade
will be. In the first place, the grade is always of interest to
management. In the second place, if the grade is not implicit from,
say, its organization placement, the classifier, if he/she is going to
write the position description, has to know what grade to make it.
This activity, which often results in an out and out fudge
of the system, is described by two personnel officers from the
Washington, DC area. The first one states that it is "Not so much
writing position descriptions to a certain grade, but just putting a
grade on them regardless of what was written." The second
describes a more deliberate and far reaching fudge than just
grading the job at hand. In this case, a GM-15 charges that
"management frequently fragments work and overlaps
assignments to get as many high grades as desired. It is easy to
'write' a job for any grade level, validating it is another issue."
In the further development of the dynamics involved in
this topic of the fudging of the classification system,
management's motivation for "forcing" the standards (requesting
higher grades for positions than can be justified) we asked the
following question (nineteen), "In cases of 'forcing' the standards
on classification action, managers claim that the higher grade is
required for mission accomplishment."
Personnel officers reacted strongly to this question. The
responses do indeed show that management frequently justifies


i
88
the demand for higher grades than the standards call for because
of mission needs. Of all the responses, those who chose always or
usually amount to 38% of the respondents. That is the precise
percentage of choices for the Denver respondents (38%). However,
the Los Angeles personnel officers respond at the 42% level. The
Atlanta personnel officers see this as much less a problem in
terms of the classification dynamics. Only 17% of those personnel
officers feel that their managers use mission relatedness as a
reason for fudging on classification grades. On the other hand,
Washington area personnel officers chose these responses 40% of
the time. Thus, whether it was viewed as a problem of retention
or recruitment, these personnel officers feel that their managers
use the need for mission accomplishment as a reason to "force" the
classification of positions. Additionally, if we analyze the number
who chose at times we see that that represents another 46% of all
the respondents.
On the other end of the spectrum we see that only 4% of
the total number of respondents chose never as their response.
Neither the Denver personnel officers nor the Atlanta personnel
officers would respond never to the question but 5% of the
Washington group chose that response.
It is interesting to note that 35% of the personnel officers
from the Department of Defense chose always or usually as their
response. That number is very much within a range of
comparability with the total for all agencies (38%). However, when
we compare the Department of Defense responses to the choice of
i


Full Text

PAGE 1

/.@3A@.@C ?@#/ (##%A)! !%:2=0 #.##%! !"!%:2=2 !! "C ".!""! !"3 !""! '! " A ".!!! C ".!""! :226

PAGE 2

!!" A ".!!! ?@#/ C ".!""! )# # #)& A

PAGE 3

B:226?@#/

PAGE 4

/%?@#+A#.##%.!!! !, .!!" !! ) .!! & " & !#/& %!! ! !" !*!!!--!! !" !# "!$ !-!" #*!"!%!!" !! !"D" !# "!'! !*!!!!!E+ ,"!"!!%" !!% !!" & #!"!! !%* !" ""! 3!! ":2<9#!!%! !!"!"& )! !! & ""! # $ "!"" !% !##% " ""! %

PAGE 5

+ D!," ""! "& "%!; !!) !! !! !*! ""! # &89!'!! %&! !%! !586 ""! #'!! &! !" !!&!& # A %3F %CF@%3FG!%A3# !"& !" #$ ! &!" & !!# $%1"!1!!!"!!+D !,! !# !! ""! ! & 3!! !" ":2<9#! !!!" !11!" !% !&! !!!""!! # "! # ! "!# A

PAGE 6

AA3 ""!" & !!!# !

PAGE 7

3 3/. A3#################################################################################################: "#######################################################################################> H3 #################################################################################################5 !*!.!!################################################################################5 !. !!#########################################################################################9 !####################################:6 !#####################################################################:> "########################################################################################:= A'!!!############################################################################################:< "A! !###############################################################:< @! #####################################################################################:9 ############################################################################################>6 !!########################################################################################>6 ##################################################################################################>6 3!####################################################################################################>: ##############################################################################################################>>

PAGE 8

3/. @3/####################################################################################>8 !! !##############################################################################################>= /#####################################################################################################>9 $!!!##################################################################################################>2 A!" !!#########################################52 ""!". E@ ! !!####################################################################################85 "". #######################################89 3!! !" ":2<9######################################################=: A!". ""! I !##############################################################=8 #####################################################################################################################=9 J3/. /A@CK##################################################################################05 #########################################################################################08 ############################################################################################################0= A !############################################################################00 A!############################################################################################0< 3/.L AC###########################################################################################################02 ?# !############################################################################################<>

PAGE 9

M 3!"!!#############################################################################<= .!!. ########################################################################################20 !################################################################################29 G C) !N#####################################################::6 !##############################################################:>: !! !####################################################:>< !*!!#####################################################################:55 !!G N#################################:59 !! -GC GN#####################################################################################:=> 3!! !" -G" G )!N###############################################################################:=0 ""! ) N######################################################################:9< E @! !N###########################################################################################:28 3!" !*!.!!########################################################>6: !& ##########################################################################################>6> ""! 3 -. N#################################################################################>68 !"(&G!%A3 !###########################################################################################>68 3!"!!##########################################################################################>60 !########################################################################>6<

PAGE 10

!*!.!!############################################################################>69 3!! !" ":2<9####################################################>62 !##############################################################################################>:6 G A "N##################################################>:> !*!A!" #######################################>:2 @ !3!#####################################################################>>8 ############################################################################################################>>2 3/.L 33@###############################################################################################>56 /###################################################################################################>56 !G )" >666####################################>8: !!" !################################################################################>88 ######################################################################################################>82 ############################################################################################################>=> @3A((@C./K##############################################################################>=5 ..A3#########################################################################################################>06 #3 @ #################################################################################################>0: (#&@ ###########################################################################################>0> 3#O!! ################################################################################################>05

PAGE 11

(@ :#" ###############################################################################################0= >#>O!:5########################################################################################<= 5#5O!:8#########################################################################################<< 8#8O!:=#########################################################################################98 =#=O!:2#########################################################################################99 0#0O!>6#########################################################################################28 <#NO!:0####################################################-######################2< 9#9O!>>########################################################################################::> 2#2O!>5########################################################################################::2 :6#:6O!>:################################################################################:>8 ::#::O!>8################################################################################:56 :>#:>O!>=################################################################################:50 :5#!:5O!>0################################################################################:8> :8#:8O!><################################################################################:8= :=#:=O!>9###############################################################################:89

PAGE 12

:0#:0O!>2########################:<#:########################>6>6O!55#########################>:#>:O!58########################>>#>>O!5=########################>5#>5O!50########################>8#>8O!5<########################>=#>=#O!52#######################>0#>0O!86########################><#>9#>9O!8>########################>2#>2#O!85#######################56#56O!88#########################5:#5:G!! !&

PAGE 13

! 3/. A3 "!! !!! !!'! !" ""! !$!$"" ! #!%"! !" !#D %!##%" !! "! !! !&!) !# % !""" &!&! # " + !,&! !! !!" # &!"!! ""! !)# !! &!! !" !!*! 1!!&!&& !1 1&D#1

PAGE 14

. "!! !!"!$ !!! !" #! !!D "!!# !! &!!!! "1"!1 !# !&!&!!" !" !&! !# !#! & "!!& !!!"&!!* --%& !" !!! !!! 1!D#1!%"! !!" ""! & ! !!! N !!'! &! & )!" ""! $ &!&! !# ""! !"!!!!!!% ! "!!" !#!! !#!! !"! ""! # /& %!!!!!

PAGE 15

&!%" & %!& ! % %!! +!!,% ""! !! "!)#& $ ""! % D !# "!'! &&! 1 & 1!&! #" &!!"! !" ""! &!"&+ &," !!!!-!" !# !! &! "!&# H3 !*!.!! !!" !$ !!! &! "!"" &%!##%! &!!! % !" % !"!! !%! !! !!% % !! &!!&! #

PAGE 16

!*!!!&!!!!! !! !!!&!!!! !! !)!)! !!! !# !*!!!!$"! &!!! !!!" "!! !!!)! "!%D! !! & !!" !# !*!!!! !" !! E!!&!&!% !%$"!%! % % )!!% '! &! !)&! !! !!!"#/ "! $!!&!"! !*!!!" "!P & !! !""!!"$!E!$ !! &!! & ""-% %! %" !!%# !"!!" !!! !$!%! !!" $! !!! !! !! !!% !# % !" !*!"!!! "" !%"! !!!

PAGE 17

= ""!!%!!% &! D )! #: %" !*!!!!! !&!&!!! &!& &! !!#( &!!"& "! !!! "! % # /%!!& )"!" !!#/!!! !!!"" '! "!!! !! !!!1!D "&!!&" !"!$! !!&""!!&! "&!""! !*!# 3 ( %!!!& )!" $!!!" !*!#! !*!!! !%!! !" !*!! !! E !!!!"!!!"& #!& !!!&& !! )!!!! !% !%#/& %"!" !!&!!" !*! &!!&! !# ( % )" !% & 1" !*!&

PAGE 18

0 !! !" !!!!%!D!"!% !%!!" # C ) !! !*!! #!! ! &! !! E !!&! &! #/ !!! &!! P ###! ""!& !! &! !#!!!&!"! !& )& !!! !! !! ###!!!!%! %"!"" & !!!""& ! !*!#/% $!% "!!!%! !&& !!!!! D!#8 !) !"!!! !!!&!! !&!!'! !!!#/ "& !!! 1!"!"" "!!" !! !%!%! 3 #! %!!%!! !"" "!&!! !"#1= / & !*! !! F:,!&!&!!& !&

PAGE 19

!" !! !!>,!!! !"-!" $ ! !!! !# !" !*!!!+&! 1! !! 1,&! !! !1 !!D!#1/ )!!! !! & !" 1!"1 %&$ 1!! 11!"! %! !*! %! N1/ P !! !! !! ! !!D!"!! !&! !*!" !&! "! #0 !"!!!" !*!%!! !*!!! !"#/P ### !*!!" &! !!! !&! #"*! !*! "!!!! %!! !! !! "%& !! % #< E!!!" !! !!'!! !&!! !*!

PAGE 20

9 &" !"!!+ !*!!!, !#3 !"!!"!! Q "& 11&!!!!!!! !&!!""!# % !*!!!" "!!!" !!" !!"& &!! !*!# !*!! !*! !!#! !"" &!! !*!#A&!G !!& )G.!!! !NP .!!! !*!!"%!" % "! ####!!!'% "!!!-"!!% % %!%" ####" ! !)!" !!%!'% %" ####9 !. !! !!" "! !&!!!! !!!"!!!#L!!" !!! !! !! !" # % ! !! !)!"!&! !!

PAGE 21

2 !!"" $! # !" !!% !) !'!" !! &! ""!" !!" &#/P !%!!!% % "&#! #""!"&! !!!%D% !"& !!!!" !&# '!" ! !& %!%#R !"! !!&)3!! !" ":2<9&!!! !!# P S !" "!% !!" !!%)&%)!% "! !!# S! '! %&! !!% % % !!%! !!%$% !%% !!!!% &! !!! !! !# S'" & )"'% !! ! %&!!! !! $ # S/! "! !%% !! #

PAGE 22

:6 S""!!""!" & )" # S!"& &% "&& )! !'% !"& &! '! # S ""! !!# S. !"" !% !!% !! !# S. !"! &"! "!" !#RT "!!!'! !-!" & !$!%!"!"!$!%$ $"# "!% !!! )! ""! &! ""! !!" !!!# !!$"!! !!"!!! "!!" !""!!" # !!&! $ !"! & !"! "# 3!! !" ":2<9! %!!" # !!!&!&

PAGE 23

:: !" )! !!" # P SA! !!!! !# !!! ! & !! !!!" E& ) %!!%!% '!"!! %%!!!# S!""!! !! !% '! !! !!% !" "!# SG!"!! !!!! !" # S"!&! &" !!%& & "!# SC !! !*& D! # S!!%!% !% !!! !# S)! "!!) !!&$ !! !F "!!!!! &"!!!"&% % !% !% &" "%" !% !"! "# S)! "!!) !!!&% % ! !!#:: !"!"&!!$ % 3 !!!!! !#" !&!

PAGE 24

!& #!" !%3 )" !" )( &$!A! "##3!! !3!!#!" 3 !:2<=% # !!$!&!!& !!" !#!&!!"! &! &!& "3!! !" ":2<9#!& P S! !D !!D '! !E $ !# S!!!!!! !# SG !! &D !! # S!!!!D !! &!D!"$!!!" !! !! !&! # S)! !!!!!'! !!'!"!$ !!" !! " !# S!!'! &! !!! '!"!% !!"!!!!"" :N !# !# 1"!1!" '! "! #" !* !!:2<=)#/!"!!!

PAGE 25

!"! !" !"!% %)""!& &!!"$!!!&! &!!D#" !*! P !" !! !! & U "!" "!" !#!& ) !! &!! !!!-& !-& "! !! !!%! % !# !!!!$ !!&! -!" )" -!%)D#### '"!!!!""!! "!! !"!! !#/& % !! !!!! ; !"! !"! "%"!! "! !#V5 G"&" !! !! !!!! #%!! "!" !$ &""!! &""! !"3!! #&! !!! ""! "! !! !"!#!!!!!!&"

PAGE 26

!!&%!! !!" !!! !*!! !* !"" !*!!% !" Q "& !" ! !#!! !" !!" !!&!$ !"& )!" "!&!! !*!# !"!! ""!" #!$ %!!!#(&& !$ !!!$! 3 !%!!!3!! !" %&!!"# ! !*!!!!! !'! &! !!!# !" ! !!"!&! !!!#& $ &! !!!!*1"!1" !# ?" !*" 1"1 !"!!!!!!" #/!!! !&!!!3 #

PAGE 27

:= !"!$ & %!&!&!!"! ! #""!!'! !*!!!&!! !" E!!!"! !*!# ! !&!&!&!&! & %!##%" !!%! !& 1!1%!!!& +!!!! !""!,% !!& !+,&! & &!! !*!# ("! "!! !%&&!! !$ "&!" !# %& !&!!! %&" !'" !& & !! !!! !*!!!# !&!$ !!" !#3 !% !"! !!D " !! !%%!% #""""!!)!11

PAGE 28

:0 !! &! # ! "! !!!& ""! # ! !!' &!!#! ! &! # ""!". & -!1) %1&! !" 1 !*!)1 !!)!# "" &! !! &!!&! ""! #!"! !!&! !!!" # !&!* !" ""! !"3!! !" ":2<9! #'! !& 3 ! # !%!!&!! !&!&! ""!!!% & 1"1!! #

PAGE 29

A'!!! "'!!!&!&!! !! %& %$! &!"!!# !!!!" &!! !"!!'! #!! !" '!! &!! !!" ""! #!!'!) !" ""! !"& ) !!&! !# !"&! &!! !&! !*!! # $%. !&!D 56W!!" !!!& !56W !!#.&!) !1 1!! !!$!!&!!#! &!&! !!" &!! )&!# "A! !! !! !*!"&!P

PAGE 30

@! &! !!" ! !!#&!" !" % "&! !!# ! 1"!1 &" "!$ !*E D#! !" !&!&!D""! !" ""! !--!!" !# !"!!!" /!.""!3!! !" :2<6:2<=%! & !!&! ! !!#3 !! !! ! !!!! !! !!!!"!'! !1"!1" !! % !*!!!# &! !!'! !-" % !&!"3!! !" ":2<9#!&! !"!!! %!##%"! "! $! !!$!%

PAGE 31

:2 &! !.%!!! "!" !. !( # !!%D"!! !!! #"!!!!* !! &!& &!! :2<6E!! !!#/& %&&! &!& !!! !"!! !! ""!1 "1" !# %! !" !! !! !! !# !&!$ !" &! !:2<9!!!!! !" ""!". #&!$ '! "& ! % !!!!%!! "" & ;! # !" !!&!!"" &!1! !1&!&! !! !&#" !+" ,!!&! !""!! !! " !#!!!

PAGE 32

>6 !!!!*"!!"+C 3!!, !!"" # "! !! "" %"" &!!&! # !!! !! "! #"! !""&""!" !!!#!'!!!'! "'!! &!!@!) #D"&! ""! #! ! ""! C-:>%C-:5%:8% :=%! $! !# !! 3 &! "!!#! "'!! &-'!&! !!&!& )"! # '!! '! &!!! D !%:, "$&!!&! %>,! !! &!!!

PAGE 33

>: !5, !!&!!& ""! "!# 3! 3 "!&! !!!" #!&!!!& !" !% & "!$!%%!"%&$#&! !!!" !!& ""! !#!&!" !3 #

PAGE 34

>> R//%C +G!% A3#P( )!!!%:2<<,%#>:8# R3 /%( !A +&K )P. %:2<9,%#8>5# 53 ( %!"$!+3 !% P/ !#. %:259I:209,%#><<# RC )%.!!"( +G!% A3P.!""! %:20=,#::9 R !)3# %A .! !+& K )P$" !. %:29>,%#:=# 0!%#>5# R /#!% !*!.+& 3!""%?P. !/%#%:20=,%#9# RA&!G%1G.!!! !N1! 3!".!!! !%#?#" !* 3# /+). )%@P .!!3#%#%:2<9,%#:9:# R !) %1.! !#1!.!!" ( #>#%# 3#+&K )P/ &%:2<<,%#:89# #3!! !3!!% !3!! !" +G!%A3P##C !! ""!%:2<9,%#># ::!# R3 %/%/3!.""! 3!! !% !!!3!! !%

PAGE 35

>5 #( #283#%:#% :2<=%#>=# :5?" !*%.!. P/ "3!! !" +&K )P. %:2<=,%#:6<#

PAGE 36

3/. @3/ "! & !" &! D"!! J #!! "! J&!! ! #&!! !! # "! !!"3!! D :2<9#!!% !&"! D &!& /" J!!!""!$!! !# !"!" !&" $!:2<> :2<0# ! ""! !" &!!!3!! !" ":2<9# !" !&! &" &! #G! ! !&!!! %&!&! !!!& !*!!!#" !!

PAGE 37

>= !!#! !" ! &! ! !# !"! !! &!! ! !"&&! !!! !P !&! " %-!! &! !! !# & "!!!" !&! !!" ""!!" !!% & !*! !!% !N! !!% !!!"3!! !3!!# !! !&!& &! "!!'! #&! !"! &!!" !& !! !*!# ! !!!1!!" 1!1&&&! #1 /#! !:29=!"!&" .!. !! !&! "" !!

PAGE 38

>0 !"!!!" !# &!'!!&!! ! !# & !!%&! !& !!" #!! P ! "% !!" % &! !#( !*$!"& !-" D" !%! !% !!!#" & !'!""!1)! 1F & !" !! #! !!& !! !!"!! !#K% !! !!! & &! !" & #R !" !&& "!!&!!! # !!!!!'! &! !! "-!! !#:2<>! !!"!!! A "3!! !#"!! "! "!&! !! & !# " !"! !%" "&!P

PAGE 39

>< !!!!&! !! Q!! !!)!# ) % !!!!& P"! !!D !!% !!!% !*! !% % & !!> & !@#/ """!A #!!"!&! 1G )!"!! ""! N1!!* !" !%!" !& !!! !&!& !!"!&!& 1 -! 1&& 1 -! #1/ ""! !" "!!P ###1!1--!)%" !% &!# !*!% !&! $!"!!%" !*!#/!#/) #5 "!!!! A3 ##3!! !3!!#!! " !D !" !%!! % ""! !%!!!"!! !%

PAGE 40

>9 & % !% #& !!%!! >%666!#!%& % !%! !! !# & !" !" !" "!! # "!'! &! !! "!%D!!"%"!""!" & )"$ !&!& # & &3!! 3!!"" !! !" #8 !! !!"! &! !# / /! # !! E !!1D1 !" !)# !" !& E !1!D1 !!! &!!!& )!" # %!!%!%" !) E!!"!! !" !"!!1&1D#=

PAGE 41

>2 $!!! &! !" X !" !! !"" 1"$!!!Y ""!!!"# "$!!!!" !!" !"""!" &&& !!# &# !3!! 3!!" ! !!&! ""!!"$!!! #! !! 3!!&$" !! !#! ""! D &!1"!1"$!!!!!# A !"3 !"&! "!$%! %!A! ##3!! !3!!%&!) !! !&!& !!"! !&!!$ !!# % & %& !" !!" ! !" 1"$!!!#1 A !!" /3!.""! 3!! !%! P

PAGE 42

56 ""!!" "&! "&!!" $ "! !!!)! !! &! % %! '! #R !*! ""!!"!%@!%!!!" P ###!! "" !$ ! !"&! !#!$!& !! "" "!&1"! "!1&"&! !" !# !") !! & !"! ### G!@!&!!!"! !!"!%!"!" # %!! !!!" !% !"!" "1!D1 !! !#! !!!! )!P !!)!%& !!! !*!%! &! !"!" !F

PAGE 43

5 : !$!!! &! !"! !#9 % !. !( ) "! !'!""$!!! !# :290 .(P $! %. Q" "$!!!&!'!" "&% !# "!!!& %& %'!" !& !!! !! ""!!#2 "! !! !! &! !$ !!!*!" % !" && !" -! !# '! !& !! !*!"" G (!#'!)& 1!1"" &! !&)&!#3 !&)&! !& G (! !!&! !&! N! &!%!P1. !&

PAGE 44

5> !&!!#&! !$#1 %" P !% -!% "! !!%!) !!)!!!%! !"$-!! !*!" &! &)&!#:6 "!! #/& """!!! ""!&! !!" #/! !!&P !%! %! % '!&!! !! !%" !!#" !!!""! !! !"!&% !""!! )&)! !!"!D! '#"%!! &!! "!"!! $!!#R: !!%3!! !3!!" &! ""$!!!" !#%'!""$!!!%& % "'!" !" !#-"$!!!!"-!!" !!!" F!##%!!!-!" #

PAGE 45

55 """!!! &! &! "1!1 !#! !!! "!! &!!&! !)! !!&!!! !# %!!& &! ""#!$ !" ""! & "!!"! %&"$!!! !!"!!" !# /! &# !!!" !!! ""! !1) #1 !'! "!!# $P &!& ""! !!&!!%&! $ ""! E "!" !! +D !"!! !!,&!$""" !N !!!:290!! !" !1"1%!% ! !!" ""! &!!

PAGE 46

58 !*!#& &! &&!" -"!" &! !! !!#(!!A! &!)%!! !&D !!#!!! &! !*!!! !# P ####ZA! [ ""! D !!" D !ZDQ['!"!!# %ZA! [!%& Z D['!"" #V> & "& !!! !!!" '" !!" ""!". #!" %!% ""!)# !!! !!1) 1 !!$! & & !! # % 8%:2<=%3! / /!& 3!! !" !&!& !&!!" !!! #3 %& %& !)!!)!" !!&! ""!" !!!*!" !!#!

PAGE 47

5= D" !&+. !25->>% 25->5%25->=,# "3!! !3!!! & )& /#A ! !"! 3 &)!"" !"3!! !3!! # !! !!! "3!! 3!!! !&!"! "!#3 !& ! 3!! !3!! & !"$! "!! !! &!#+!!! !!"! D! 0 ""!". "!!! !& !!:2<=,#A !! !%3!! /&)!!! !" !!%! % ""! &! !" !%!"!!"&&! !&#/ !P !%& % !###C $!% % % ""!! !* !!!" &" ####)

PAGE 48

50 ! !% %""!" !!!#:5 !! !&!& !"" !! "(! !! !+(,!:2<=#( !!!" !#! )"""%(&!" !. +.,#.5>&&!"" !! !!!" '#! %(!.!!!!" 3!P % %% % ""%Z ![ !!! !" !!&!&% $! % % !( !. #:R "!"!" ""! ED &!! !&!!" !!!!"!"!"!!" !!# !!%. !E. 3 3 +C 3!! ,% )& !*! !" # !*!! P E!!!! !"! " !&!! &! !! =

PAGE 49

5< :295 !& !7%! !" !&!!"! $ !! ! &!& )!" '! #& !*!!!!" &P !* !" !!"! & )" !.#.!"! "!"! !"1!!1% !"!! !"! "! "! !" &! !*! F!'!! !!! &! !!"! !D!! D !"!# %!! !!$ !!!!" *&""! &! !!!" !! !#'!!% !!! ""! ""! N !"!!!&!!! '!" ""! E !! !#!"!&

PAGE 50

59 ""! & !!!& !! !N &"!!" !"!1 !#1/! !" &!!!!"! !!! "!&! $ " !"#! !! !!%!! &!!" !! &!)! &! &# !%!!! P ###!!" !& !)"!!! % !&!)!!+,& !!#&! !"! !! !!& !) !!# &!%! !! !! ! %! !#:< !!% !--!! !" % ""! &!%!! !# "!!!! &!! & !! #%" ""! -!! %!!!& )! !#"

PAGE 51

% % "& !! +!", !! " ""! # /! #! &!&! ! !" !! !%%! !!!# A!" !! & !)" !!!% "" !*!#$" !* !"!!& &! +!,&! !&! !! !#!!! !) ""$!!!"#/& %"$!!! !!! !!!" '! "!!!" !"!# !*&! !" !% & !#& %.E!! !! !&! !!# "! !! !&!!"!#" !!

PAGE 52

86 "$!!!D#& !!! !& "$!!! !! !.!! # %"!% !&! "$!!!#!.!! ! !!! & ! !!#G! D!&!!!"!!% !! !!!&& !# "!!! 3!! !" ":2<9&! &! &"!! # !!( !:29>%( !! #!& !"& 3+8 ," .! !#P .! "! ""!! "! !!! !!!#V9 !. !( !!E :298-:29= !'!1 !" !! !N#1 '!%& %!1/.E

PAGE 53

! C E !! !!N1U2 :295%""!". "!&!!">-5!!% !!!!" % !!% & %#A !! !&! &!) !! # & Q!! !" !&!! !! !!!# ( %& !!!.!!! !&!:290 !&!1" ""! !!!&!!! !& '! #1 % !:298 !. !( !9:W" !!#.( .)1 !!E ! !!!! #1>6 !. !( %!!:290 % .& !! !%!"%!"" !!#.( P 'Z"&)! [!. %!.(Q!!%

PAGE 54

8> !&&! !&! !!% !!!#>: %.(! $ ".Q!!"! #.(&!! !!! $&% 1." !!$!" !"-!! !#1>> %&! &"." ! "!! !"! !# :2<>%!&!!! "!$!! % & !!3!!Q !*!"! #!! !! !F!&)! !!%!! !!! :296E# %!" !!!" !# L%!. "@& G!3"@&% !! !%!! /!!!! !!!" !P /& %&3!! !!! " !! 3!! !!# &!%

PAGE 55

85 !"!! &! 3!! !!!!% !!"! "! #" !""!! !!#>5 ""!". E @ !! !! !!"" !! " !!"!!& !" D# !!! !!"! !# !! !!!%!! "!! !!!) !!!! #G! !!'" '& %"! !!" !%'!" ! % !"!!* !! !" !:995# !:296& !" !!#!!&&%:, &! &" """!". !!* >,.Q"! !!! D !" "! !! !!!&! !"! !!$!!#

PAGE 56

88 !!"!&!"!!! 3!! ! !! !! !"# "&! &"." !!* %! !!!! !*.!1 #1."" !&! && ! !! !& & &:29:#A $ !!!!#?" !3 $!!""& !&& #! !" %%&! "%" %!!!"! ""!#&! !# 3 !""!?" !3 !$ & # "!!& !!# !!&!&!?" !3 #""! !) !!&!!" !Q !""!!!!!!""!#:295%" !!&%C !""! !&.!! P !%. ""! D!" !! ###. ""!""!""!!)&!

PAGE 57

8= !! D!" ""!!!!% !! C !"" #>8 !"!!&! "!!!%&!" !! %! !!N %""! !" !!$!! '! &! "" "!!!# "3 !! !%. &! !".3 J$!!#.3$!!+. "!!! 3 $!!,&!!:29>! &!#!! !" $+!!% ,! !!!""#!$! !& !%""!! !!" D#"D -!D &!!! %!##%C::C-:5#. &"! "A #A! "" !" "! !# ! 1(1 &!$!!!!#! !!" & &!%!!

PAGE 58

80 &! %!!#!" !! "! !!&!!""!!! $% !!!! !! &!!!)"& # !&!$!%!!!& &!!!!&! !! $!!!!! !!&!!# !. !( %!!"!! )!! !!! "!!"! !&#! "!!'!" !!#1"!1 !!:290 "&P #### & %" 5:%:29=% !!!" C-2 !!95=& !!" & !! ( !#" +!,958"95=### #G!! !)!"! !!% &!" !!" D!!! !#>= ?%:299%""!". & !! !" C-=C-< !!#! !! )!"& (#!)!& !" !!

PAGE 59

"1!1&!! "&#/& % !(%!&! &% !!"" "!!# & !!)! !!" & !#&" !" &!! &!$!!# !%& "& &!&!1 ### !!%1X !" # !! !!! !!!!:290 !#)!" !!) C-:>&! !!%&!!! !% P ###!& !&! !'!"!!!)!!# ""!! " !"!! ! !)!!&!" & )!&#>0 %& !! " & & !!# !!! %-!! !" "!! ""! !!"!!!

PAGE 60

! !% !*-!! !!% "!" !!" !*!# "". ! &!! -!! !! !" !&!)! !) !#""""! !!&! ! "$!!!!"! & +!!!"!!,%! !% !# "" & )! !! # !& !! !!!#!" )& !%"! !" !! % "&% !!!&!" & &!& & &!! + # G !!" % &!!& !! "$!!!" !)&! !!#! !!" !&! !#

PAGE 61

82 !!&!E !! !!!! !!" #!:29: "" !!!!!!*!!!" !! !" !! !#G!. !Q. 33 # %)& C 3!! %&!&!. >5%:295#!! ""! !! "!! !" % !! #!!" !& "!" !!!! !"!&# !"" !!!"!"""!" (#G&&!!! !" !! # ""! !&!(" !!!# % !!!! ! !# #@ %" !".! %& !!! .!!? !! "!P

PAGE 62

=6 #### !" !!!" !*! !#%&! !!!% !! !"" % "! !! & )# $%!!! ""!!!%! "!! !! % !%!%!! !%! % %!"$!%! + !!&%! !*!,% ####>9 A!! % "$!!! !"&! ! )" !! # /& %&!"" !" !& &!" ""!!%&! "!! &!!!""!!!&! !""!! #! &!" &) "! !!! !""!!! !"" !!% &! '! 1!""!! &)1!!&!&#!:29> !P !!! !! !!) &" !" !#1!!)1"""!!% %""! & ####>2 #

PAGE 63

=: G#/ %!:29=.!!! !!& !!&!& !&!! )%! #/!P )!!!! !""!!!###!&!# !&!!-! # !!!)!" %!!'!"!!%" ""!!#56 !! ""!&!&! ""!!!!&! & !# 3!! !" ":2<9 "!" $ "! !'!" !"3!! !" ":2<9#'! !%3 !% % &! !N &! ! "!" '!! !"3#/& % ! !&! '!! # .C !:29: !!!" !! %!""!! & &"!!

PAGE 64

=> !" !. !( ""!" C !#5:# :295. ? !! "! !" !&!& !3!! !" # & & "&& )!> :29> !"! !. ( +.(,!! !&! !!" # !&! & !! #55 (&" !% ? "&!) !%!!!F! !!!!!!!.(% !*! ""!". +., !*!""!! ""!! "!#58 :298 "!! !!! !" !+&!&!,# !* !"" && & =!"" D !& !"#

PAGE 65

=5 /! # !*!!! &!! ! !" !!# !!" !*! !!! "!!! &! !# &!! !!!!!!# !)!&! "!-!"# !)!!:2<=%" !*! "!!!"!#/%! P !" !! !! & "!" "!" !#!& !!&! !!!-&" !-& " !! !!%! % !#. !!!!$ !!&! -!" )" -!%)D#### '"!!!!""!! "!! !" !! !#/& %!! !!!!; !" !"!"%"! "! !#50 :298 ! !( %.(!"!!" !&! &!&

PAGE 66

=8 #G! & !"!! % "!!& !&!!D"! !$!"!"&!$ P !!!" &; !F ! !# !%&" C-:8%0 % C-:=%)C:8%C-:=%"!!A! !">8N"!! !!% !"!!% !%!%#!%! && !!% !% !% % !&!#5< ! !!"!! !!!% &! !!"!&! !*!!!# A!". ""! I !! G!! $" !*!!!% "!!" ""! !"!! &!!# "!! %!!!!!" ""! %&; !!" %& $ ! &! !"! $ &#/& % !*!!!!!!!!" ""! #G*!!!

PAGE 67

== !%!" !!%! !!%#% !! #!* !!!"& ) "! !! !" ""! -'!# ""! E! !"!!+!,) !"& &!! !*!#!! !"" ! & &!! !*!!)& !!&! !#59 "! "!" !"/! !"&!!$ !-:2<6Q#" 3 !--! !" !! !" !*!! !! !! #:2<=%/ %&&3! /!& 3!! !! !!!!" !$ #/P !!!'! &!!!" !! !" !!!!" # G &!!!" !!%$ &!!!"# ! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 68

=0 !& I !" !!" !% !% % !"%" #" "! "!! !) ""!! !&!! D!!! !!! # !" !-! "'!" % % #52 !!" E" "$!!!! !D#!& !& ""! !" !#G!"" D!%!!! & !!&!+! "$! ,& !" !!& !!" !!&%!% !"!!!" # % #?3#3 %" A! " A "/! ""! %! !!/!& 3!! !!&"! &! "!! % &P #### "! -!%! !!!%& &!!!" $! !!*!

PAGE 69

=< !!!! 3!! !3!! !#86 /! "!# !"" ! !& !& G!%A3 ""! 1"!1 ""! # !*%!!:2<=) !& !& !"!! #/%! P !"!Q !& '!! D !!!E !!!! #8: !" !* !& !!!! !# /& %!&!$ + ," '!"!!"" !" ""! & !! !& G!%A3 ""! !"!# !%&!! !"&!&! &!"" $ !&!!! "'!! #

PAGE 70

=9 : /#!%1. "! !" !. PG@ N1!&".!. !! != + :29=,P8:# > H#%". A! !!C #+""!". !!"!!A "3!! !% ?:2<>,%8># R !@#/ %. ""! P"#+ ""%##A %'! ##3!! !3!! :8:20=,# R##3!! !3!!% # +! !##3!! 3!!%G!%A3% :200, = !) %1!!"!#1!3!" .!!! !%#?#" !* 3#/+) )%@P .!!3##%:2<9,%:<->6# 03 %/%3!.""!3!! !%"'! !""!# ""!!&!3!! !3!!% #283#%>#%:2<0%3!. !:8%# 28# <3 #@!%1!"! %1 !.!!" ( #>#%# 3#+&K )P/ &% :2<<,%:89# DC# / #!%13!!@!! !!%1!.!!" ( #>#% # 3#+&K )P/ &%:2<<,%::<#

PAGE 71

=2 2 !. !( % !!"! !"""!". A !:298-:29= "## !. !( ""!" !!&!#+G!%A3PC !!""!%%:290,%#: :6EG (!%1 !*!" %1!3! !*!(! %#G # +). )P@P .!!3##%:2<9,%>90# :: !)3# %A .! !#> #%+&K )P$" !. %:29>,%#:6:# :>1 !( A!!!@!L. ""! %1C >8+ :290,P::6<# R3 %/%!& 3!! !!%L!!" !. !!! #283#%:#%:2<=%3!. !:2%# >=# R3 %/%!& !%A!.!!"!. !(!!! !#283#%: #%:2<=%3!. !8%#0=# R. !E. 33 % !. >5%:295#+G!%A3%PC !!""!% :295,%9<# V0D#7%1/! !() -3!"!! 3!!.!!3!"!!%13!"! E 3#:8+?;%:295,P:=# C%.!. !! !#9#% +&K )P/ &%:295,%#0=#

PAGE 72

:9( %1A! !%1( :: +G! :29>-:295,P:8# :2 !. !( % !!"!!"""!". A :298-:29= "## !. !( ""!" !!&!#+G!%A3P C !!""!%%:290,%:6# R( %13 !!##3!! !%1.! !! !!P+;?:290,P>:># >:##% !. !( % !!"!!"""!". A :298-:29= "## !. !( ""!" !!&!#+G!%A3P C !!""!%%:290,%::# >>!!%:: >53 %/%/ !(" !!"3!.""!3!! !% @!! !!&"3!! !3!!# 2>3#%>%:2<>%3!. !=8%#>5% >8C !""!% !""!". #%:295%# 56 >= !. !( % !!"!!"""!". A :298-:29= "## !. !( ""!" !!&!#+G!%A3P C !!""!%%:290,%0 >0( %13 !!##3!! !%1.! !! !!P+;?:290,P>:6# ><""!". %""!"A! % &. !C-=C-< -@?#?%:299#

PAGE 73

0: >9! #@ %1! .!. !%1.!!? :: +A :29>,P><5# >2!/#%1!*!.!!.! %1.!!? ::+A :29>,P>=5# 56 G#/ %1!!!P! C @!)(!%1.!!! !!&8= + :29=,P5=6# 5:? #./ #C %1!%. %3!! !" %1.!. :6+:29:,P5-:6# ##! %1G !.!! C %1. ? 0>+:295,>28->2<# 55C %1!!"!! -K A!! !. !( %1? "3!!!!.! #:+:29>,P8<-=6# 58/ #? %1 !P!EG (%1( +:2<2-:296,P>=-55 5= !. !!.#? %1 !!(!"% !*!.!!%G! (&!PA! !!!%1" ? ><+A :298,P09<-<6=# 50?" !*%.!. P/ "3!! !" #+&K )P. %:2<=,%:60# 5< !. !( %(&!G!! C P3 !!":296 :295 !!#+G!%A3%C !! ""!% %:298,%>:#

PAGE 74

0> 59C !* / !# !%!! 3"!P". #+&K )PG## / #%:202,%:><# 52 %/%3!.""!3!! !#L!!" !. !!! %!&! / !(" & 3!! !#283#%:#%:2<=% 3!. !:2%#># 86 %/%3!.""!3!! !#L!!" !. !!! #/ !(" & 3!! !#283#%:#%:2<=% 3!. !>6%#:<2# 8:?" !*%.!. P/ "3!! !" #+&K )P. %:2<=,%:>0

PAGE 75

3/. /A@CK !!! !! $ "! +!$3" O!! ,#G""! & "' !!#!! ! ! !!! ""! !!" & )! !!!! !!#"! &&!"'!! @!) !" !# '!! !"& ""! !! !"!&!& !#"! &!"( !3!! !3!!&!"!" 3 & !"&!"& #%"!$!"3!! !" %'!& !! & %! "! !%3 !"" # ""'!! & !& "! !!

PAGE 76

08 !!#3! & !! !& #!% '!! & "!# "!'!! !")&! ""!#""! !" &! "! !!#(" '!! !" "!!& .& ""! % !&!!& & Q +!$,#!&% & ""! # D"!! ""! C-:>%C-:5%:8%:=&! $! !A! ". '!# &!" !! !% & &*& !!"" ! #G! !!!%'!! &! !" ""! !G!%A3 L! !! & ""! !%CFA %3F@%3#%&! !!!#

PAGE 77

0= !!!" ""! !G!% A3& )" "!"" # G!A3& % !!! % )!!!G! !!!G!!"! # !!!" !!& 3!Q!! !#!58=!!>5>" G!%A3% %5=%A %55%@%8=# !5>W# )&" !! "&P : @3@K.@ ( .3 ( A A L;!% A3>5> <>5:W %C 5= :> 58W A %355 :0 89W @% 38= :>> 5>W !! !%&!$!" A % !"!! !! %!##%5W! "!!E # "! !!!26W" !# !& !" &

PAGE 78

!!#!!& + !$(,%&!!"!!! !!'!! !" 3 A &# & !! !!"&-# A %:=! & ) :6 %&! !!2# !'!! & "! $! !%! C;C-:=%! -! C;C-:8%&C;C-:5" C-:>#" & G!%A3"C-:>& G!%A3# !&" A "A" ""! # !&%&!8W@ G! !!&!85W#

PAGE 79

0< % & # !%""X !! &" # C-:=!! # A! !" !!!*"! # '!! !" -!!! &! !" #!" !""!! "&P:, "$ !" !%>," !!!!!1"%15, "!&! !! !&! '%!##%! !!"!!"!!% !!!!% !"!!!"!!!! % %8,!"!" !"!" !& !! Q!!*1"$!!!!1"! !D=,& !" !!&"! G!%A3 ""! # !" !!" !!! &C C

PAGE 80

09 :>C-:8 # %!&!! !!"! !" &G!A3 "!%A "A" !% !& !! "!!! %!" #&!* !%! !&&% )&!" '!! #

PAGE 81

3/.L AC "!!")!!! !*!& !*# %'!! &! !:66W ""! !8!!%+!! !" G!A3%&)! % !!! & "&&& !, !!!!!"! ) ! !*!#! !!* !%!!!! !# !!"! !!!!" '!! !%!! '!! &! ""! &! $ & # !!"!" %'%!! !"!" '!!D!!#!%!" '!!!!% &!" !"'!!#

PAGE 82

<6 "!!!& !* "! !" % !!'!!&! ""! E !#" !! !"'! '!&! &!!" &!& '!# !! "" !& -'!# !""!!! !" !!! !# !"! !!!"! &$ ""! % '!! !'!&! & ""! #!! !! !&!D!" %! %&!&!'!&# &! !!'!! &! &" !! ! '!% %!!!!" ! #. ""! & !!"! !%&"! !'!!" #!! ""! &! $ !.+

PAGE 83

<: 3!! !3!!,!& !*!& !!#3!D!!" !& !!!"!'! !!&!!!! #/& % & '!"& ""! "!'!! !& & !"!1!11" 1" ! !"$! & "# A! ". ( &!+! "&, !!! !!1!! #1 & &'!! &!& && !*!&!& !"!$ !# ""! !'!! !! "!1!"! #1& '!! &!!'!! & !!#&"'!! & & & & C&! & # G !* ""! !& %G!%A3 1' 1 "!!! "$ !# ""! !G! && "!!!" 1"!1! ""!

PAGE 84

<> & ""!#""! !1G!1 1' 1!# ""!&! "1"!1!!%!##%!!! !' ""!!!" !!!"G!%A3#/& % ! !! ! !*!"!!!# !"!! !"!" !!" !*!#& ""! !!&!!!# ?# "!!&!! !! !!&! !)! 1!D#1D !&!! ! !! 1"!1# O!! &!&!!!&& !&!!" ""! !!!!!"!!!E" D # !! #!!"! %!##%1D1! #! !#G!

PAGE 85

<5 D !" & !" 1!1!!!! !1 &D%1 !! ! #" !!!" F! !!; !!! # ""! !!! !" !!!! &""!! !E !!# "&%! ! !" E!%! # !&!"!!1D)1! "'!! #!!%!!! !& !!" &!! !! "!!" !%" $%&!!!!D !!!! %!#% 1!D#1 "'!! & ""!"!!!&! # !! !!&!$ # ! ""! & ! !!!"!#

PAGE 86

<8 !"" '!1 !*!%!"E!DE! !!%E!DE) #1& >2W" !&!# !!!"!'!! '!&!!! !!!!!" !&#">W" !!D"! & # ""! @ !!! !!!>=W& 1!D1& ) !! !& # ""! !"!& :2W"A ""! #

PAGE 87

<= G!!"!!% 56-55W$" # G! ""! 5:W%&!@ !55WA 5:W# ""! ! !)1D1 !& %! =6W !!# !"!'!&! !!! " !! !"& #/& % & $ !! # > O!:5 K !. 3 !##K !. # 80#9:<#< 8=#5:9#9 9W !55W & >
PAGE 88

<0 !3 X !" !!#!" !"!!!! !! &! "!%!! !!# "! '!+" ,!&!!"!! 1"1!1 !!"!!"!! % !!+ !!, ) !#1 "! %:9W" & #G!)!D & !11 11 %!! &! !"" & ""! !#!! '!!!!!! !!&! & &! # !'!%G!%A3 ""! D! ! !!% &!5>W !& !#@&$! !! !&!>=W&!A &:2W# ""! ! %&! & #

PAGE 89

<< !" % :>W" &!! # ""! & @ ""! &>=W !!#G! ""! ::W"!A ! :5W# !" ""! & !! $! !&>9W" !'!! & #3 %"! $! )!" # !" & !! !! !&# "&!&! !% 5 O!:8 K !. 3 !##K !. # & :9W85#0:2#5 :>W52#8:0#= ! !1!" 1 &!!"!" ""! & !! ! !#! !'!%!!! !&

PAGE 90

" &'! !&#"&!!& & %0=W !! '! !&#&& &!!" & &!!" !! !&#!%=8W "! '!!! !&# & !" ""! &! "!#!! !"!"!! #!!! !!%"!! & %+ ,#" "% !" "!# & !*!"% &!' )"&!# 1. E! %E!! !)E!"& Q&&&!&)" EQ'" #1 C-:8 ""! A !! Q!!&" !"!! &1A! !#/& %!"!! &!! &!!"!!#1 C-:5" A &!"" & !"!! & & !1(! !!

PAGE 91

<2 %! !!%!! #1!)" !" !"" C-:8" & %1. !!F !!!! !!& #1 &!!! $! ) !! !& 1! !"!& E) !#E1 !" !"!!!!"C-:> ""! !A &; 1 &!! !"! !"!!#1! ""! +C-:=," G!%A3 &1! %:290 %&!!&! &!# !"! "!"!!! !!! )! !#1 ""! &&A! +C-:=," D + !" !, !!!" !&!!!!!& 1!! #C E& "DE+! !,!D)!!#

PAGE 92

: 96 !!#1 ""! +C-:=,! '!"!!"" !" !# / !!%1! !*!! !& "$!!" &!&!!> ; !!#1 !" & ! $! !!! #!!!!"!" !!"!!"&!! %!! "!!!& !!" !!#$"! !%1G !"!! % !! !!"!! !! !!#1 !!!" ""! )& "!"!!!&!!! #!!1/!! D & !"!! #1 "! "! &!3!"!!#/!%1GE% !!!!"!!&!! #1 ""! +C-:8," !& !!" "! #!

PAGE 93

9: $!!&!%1 &!& !! !!&!!! %! % $ !!#1" ""! !!" !!&!" !! &!!" & "" !# ""! +C-:8," A 1. !!% "#1&C-:5" A !!!"!!"" #/1. !!%"" "!#1 C-:5! #/!!1. +,#1C-:8" G!A3 & )!! !!!"!!! !! &!&! "!# /1!!&! !"# !"" "!!#1 ""! "" !" "!"!!!#!"! !1!1" !" ""! !!# !+D!"!!,&!!!

PAGE 94

9> !! "" #!!%C-:8!G! 1! && ! & #1C-:=)& " !"! !D !1! ;!!!!I! !!!!"!!"!$ !$ !& & &! #" C;C-:8#1C-:8G!A3 !1!!! &$!#1 " ""! ! !&!&! &E! !"D #/1!" !!!!&!"!""" !#""!$)! #1G! !!& ""! #)'!F! ""! & N C-:= ""! ! !&1! U !" !" #1!% ""! "" !$" !"!! &1?!"!!! ! ""!!#E

PAGE 95

95 &&!!!! % !!"! #1 $'!+"!",!-" !#%1 !!"!!"! % !"!!""!) & !!! !! #1& !'! !" !!" !!&. ""!#" & !!!!!!% "! !#!%!"! & & )& && !D%!"! & )!#!&%% !!"! !!! !")! # &!!") !&E$! +! !!! !! &"!!!! "&&! !#!'! '!%!##% !"!!#/& %!!% !"!"! 1)!1" # & """! !'! !!& ""! &!$!!& #:8W"

PAGE 96

98 & & '!#)" !G!%A3 &!>0W" !"& !#A !!&!:2W#" ""! !@ !& !# G56W" !!& !'!#3!&! %!&8=W" ""! & !&! "" '# %:0W! !# "! !! G!%A3 #"! %:2W & !!! !! # !" &! !! ! && 1 !1 & & !!! #! !!& !!&!"&!#! &! &! # 8 O!:= K !. 3 !##K !. # & :8W80#::2#9 :0W88#<:<#5

PAGE 97

9= 3 !!'! &! !# &!!" !!& ""! #!" !&! # !& !! !! !!! '!"!! !" !!#!%! "!"# C-:=" G!A3!!1! !& !*! D! &!! #1C-:5%" G!%A3 !!&!!""!!!!! !" &!%1!%! !# !& !#1!!" A C:5& !!&%1""!! & )!!%!! & ) $!% !!!-!" !"" E& !! .#A# E&!!" !"!! & )#1"A ""! &! &;1. E.#A#E &!&%& !!!#G ! "! !! !"! ".#A#E#1 ""! %! '!%"" "" !!#" G!%A3%

PAGE 98

90 %1& !! #! !! """"!!)& ""!" #1C-:8"" !" !"!!%1C #!! !"!! ! # !"! !! !!!! !! !)!!! #1 C:= ""! "!!D!"!#/; &!%1&N"! ""!"" !# ! !"!!& !!! !!#1 "$!!" !&! &!!"& )!&!# C-:=" G! 1!"!! !!Q !" !! I"&! "! !!!' !& )#@!! !"! !E -!-C-:8 A & &!! %1G!!& !! !! !!! !!!% !)& !!" #1 G !"! !)& !!! !! !! !!! !"&

PAGE 99

9< !! #! &! !"! )" !!&!!!"& &!#"! % !&"! #%!" !!!!" % %! !*!%!"! %!";!! & !!! !!%)&& )!# !!!%&!" !" "%! !& ""! G!%A3 #"! !!1 & !!!! !! %D! "&&& !#1 ! !"D !D#!%C-:= 1" '" & ) !! #! E& !ED" %!!!! !#1 "!!! !!""!"!"!!% E!!" 1" !1 + '! !!D!"!,&) "&!'!+!,%1"E" !E !"!!!% !! '! !!!#1 ""! !'!# !&" 'D!"!

PAGE 100

99 " "!!#" %&& 59W" #! "!" A +59W,#/& % @ ""! 8>W# ""! ! U D "!"!!!#:
PAGE 101

!& "!" D ""! +0:W, U +8:W,#! !% J" J & !" !! U % %!! !"!% : U&# J := O!:2 K !. J3 !##K !. # J& \59W88#5:<#0 J 8W5<#>:6#9 U !!! "$ !! D! )!!!&" U!!! !" !"!! # D!% ""! & J D "$ ! & "!! J !"!! J !!!"! &!& !'!%!" & & J !" ! """!"!!#!! ! % !!!" U !"! !! !!% !!&!!# "!

PAGE 102

26 $! ""! )!! "&!%1/! !&! !#1 !! 1" !!!+!## ,! !!#1 ""! "1 "&! &!!" &!"" # !!!! !#/ "! "!!!*"!!! !""#1! "!!&!%1 & !#1 G! !"! " !"&!&! # ""! 1!1 !!#C-:= ""! G!%A3 1!!#!"!!! # %"!"%& #& %DF.Q#1C-:8%" !!!!"! &! %1! !!!" !!*!!#A!! .!! !!F&E & &!!"!!#1

PAGE 103

2: C-:8 ""! @ &!!!)!!!&! !!!'!#/; 1"!! !! '!"!!% !& )&#G!E"!'! !&%!!&!! #!!!E" E #1 ""! @ !&! '!"!!&!"&! %1D !" !! & & &!!!! !!"!! !#1 !" ! !! !#C-:= G!A3 !D% 1. !"!!!!"!!!!"&" #!"!! -!!U1C-:8! !1&!)!! &! !#1C-:= !"" ! !!!*E)"!!!"!!& )&! #/;1 !"!!" )%) !#! !!! !!'!"!!%!## !#1

PAGE 104

2> A! ". !!" !! !!!%1!&! E % ! !&E J"& # !! J" !#1 ""!" !!! !) J&! !!!!!! &!1 ! [ D !)!" !!!+& J &!&!,I!!!! !! !!#1 ""! %C-:8" @ ########J!!"" #! D!@!1! ! !#!! J&& !! #1 "C-:8 ""! A !!!" #/; J1&! J %!##%& !;!& #1 !! & G!%A3 JA #" G!%A3 +1$!!#1 !!" !! !!-:=

PAGE 105

25 !1! #YC-:5" A 1 !!%\] !!"!!% & %D!""!"!! #1 !'! "!!"!!!&!)" !"!!!!" !#'! +&,!%1"Q" !E !"!! &!! "" #1 & !'!!! !!" D# !! %& !! &" # %!$!& !!!!" !"! "!!!!"!!#=W" & '!#/& % >8W!!! !# !! && !C-:8! !& "! $! !# & ""! #

PAGE 106

28 !!!"! & !'!#" %>:W # !" !"! !! !# "& !C-:8%>2W"&!& & C-:8#!!%" %>=W $ !! # %">8W &!%:2W" ! # !!% ! !! &! !! "" !#"&! # 0 O!>6 K !. 3 !##K !. # & =W8=#< !>8W8=#< >:W88#: :0#9 :=#9 !'! "& "!! '!!#! '!!! !!" !#&! $! ""! G!%A3 &&!"" %!

PAGE 107

2= 1E #1&!)& !!!*!!!&#! !1!%!! !Z![#1C:=" !"!!#!%1) &" )-)I"& $ !#1 C-:=!! 1 $!!$!#1 "! $! ""! "!" !"!!"!! "!!!!! !#" G!A#3 %1 % "& % #1+ #, !!1&! !#1 &! &! %1K& #E & #! #1 A ""! C-:8!& &;%1 D!%!!" @C-:8 ""! !"" !) Q#!%1 !F!"!!! & #1

PAGE 108

.!!. 20 !! %!! " !! #!$ & !!!# "! &"!!! ")!" !#.!! ! !+&!$!, !1!!1 %!##%!)! !!!" # !& !!! !"! !!# "&!!+ "! ""D,&! "!1" 1 !!# !'!! % +5W,!!& '!+!$,F 1.!! !! !*!#1!'!& !! !!#/& % !!!!! '!&& &! !% !% !!" %#!!# "&! !&! "!!!!# !:=W#!)":9W" &!! !! #

PAGE 109

2< "" +=:W, !'!# < O!:0 K !. 3 !##K !. # & 5W 8>#<:0#6 !:=W 80#0:2#: =:W 8=#> :9#: <& !" $ !" !! &!! &!#!!!! !'!! &!!! !% ! ""! # '! !&! 3!!# !)!!!! !!! !! "! !!! !& #! $! ""! G!%A3 %1.!! !!!!#1 1D !"!! $ !#1 !"& !!! %" ! #C-:= ""! "! !!!1 !! #1

PAGE 110

29 !! !" $! ""! G!%A3&" 1"" !*!% !!!*!! !*!#1 !%&" C-:= ""! G!%A3 & !#"! !!! !" 13Q1 1" !"!!!#1GE)&!" 1" !1& !3!! & & !!!!!"! !! !#"" !!)! &!! !)!!!# !! &!%1.& &$!! !!'!"! '!"!" !! !"#1 ! % !&!!! !" "!!*!! & "! !#&" %&!!!%!! "!" !"!! !# !! !& ( !!%!!"" !!#( !! !"

PAGE 111

22 !!!$ D& "!" !! !$!#U !" !"!!!"!!*% & !!:2<6E ! !!*"!" ! !!%!!!$!" !! #! !) !:206Q&" !*!%3!! 3!! !*!%&!! !!" !!& !!*)& & %&& #3!! !!&!! !!" !!# 3!!&"!!!! $"!!%$!!" !! !"&! !&&! !) $!+)& !!!" I.,# .!!!" !!*" !" $!! &! !" !!! !L !% $!!!!!!%&!!!! %!" !!% % !*!!

PAGE 112

:66 $!!!" !""!! !! !# &&! !" !)!!!" !" !"" # %. !& !! "&! # %& %!&" &!! !! &! U! !# !! $!&!! !!$!!# &'!&! ""!!!!#& '! !"'! &!!!" !"!"!!! !#!! !!!! !'&! !!!! ! & # "! '!+,!%1 !! &!!! %&! !! &'!"!! '! Q!!E '!. !"!#1!"" & :6W& & !'!#" ""!

PAGE 113

:6: @"& !!" #/& % ""! UA G!%A3"!&!! J!$!!# # G&)!"!& J # 5:W&*! # !!%A ""! & J86W &!@ ," 55W#G!%A3 !! >9W#&" J!""!! %A "A" : U ""! & "& D J!"!! !!"AA ""! &!& !!!! !!# &>5W!" !# G& "!&"! J!!"! ""! &!! J!!" !!+>>W"" ,#@ ""! J!%=6W! #G! UA3 ""! !) F:8W !!#A ""! :2W"! ""! 55W#

PAGE 114

:6> !!'!!! !!! !"! !!#! % "D#" "" &!""!". D!"!!" !! !# !" !!!1!D1 !" $! ""! G!%A3 &"1 "! '! !D#1!" !!!"C-:8#!!!! 1!! 1 !&! !%1!3 ! #G &! #G&!! '!"!!!!#1 C-:8 !!&!'!"!!%1!!& !!)!#1C-:= &!!%1!. !"!EE '#" #1C-:8"!! '! "&!&! &1G!!! & !! #1&D!"! !"$ !#1!

PAGE 115

:65 J !I&&)&"&'!"!!!!& &&! #1!%C-:=%!! 1&!!; '!"!! !%!!#1 ! !"&! !"!#!!& !!! !1! &1 !! '" !!!! !"!D !!#/1&!! !#!I& &!& ! !"!!N1 !+ -!,!!! C-:5 ""! A # !1! !"E '!: !" .!% '! "!! !%!! D! !"!& !#1 !"! ""! %!!&!" !# !!" !! !!!!" !!!" ^&! !! ! J :%!##%& !$!!% !# "! & 1 1 !#!!!!"!"!!#

PAGE 116

:68 ""! !)%&""!!". & ! &!#& %!"% " "!! &!&" ! !!# !" !'!&! !! !% !! &! "" !!!#G! $ !!!! ""! ) !D!"!!1 D#1C-:=!!! !!& ;%1!%&N !!$!! #GE& !D% & ). #1 C-:=%" G!A3 ) !! !!&; !!! &! !!#!1!! & !! # !!!. !!D) !E!!#1!!& G!%C-:8 ""! @ 1G !#1!) %C-:8" !!1!"!!!! '! !$

PAGE 117

:6= )!--'!"!! ".+ ,:6 ! "!" !#1 G!!)% ""! @ &! " 1! 1 &! %1G "&!& &! !!! & !"!#.#A#Z&[ '!"!!& %!!! &'!"#1+ !#, !!" !" .!! "$!!!! !"!" !!# & ! "! !!&!. !"!#C-:= G!A3""!1 !! &E. !"!" D "#1! $! ""! !! '!&!%1")!" !#1C-:8" @ &!%1E. !"! $" !! )#1 G!3!! !3!! ""!". !! 1 '#1!! !&! .&! '" !!! !"!"!! '"!

PAGE 118

U :60 !!# !&!!D!!!!* "! !!!# !&& '! &" !!*$ '! !! '!"!!+! ,# $'!!! "!'! &!&! !"!! &!! &!! !# "! &!)&!" 1"!1" !! !" !"!" # $% !!D!!!" !! !E) '!"!!&! !; !"!D" &!;!! #/& %!%& ! ""!) !!! &!! D!! !! ! "!!%!1"#1 '!+!,!&!! 1 )!! !" !"!& !!'!&!! %!!!D!!

PAGE 119

:6< !!% !!!! !" !!%#1 & &! ""! !! !#" %9W &!&#""! !!%& !!"!! +:=W&!A :5W @&!&9W#G! ""! :
PAGE 120

:69 ""! &!! !&! !! 1!!1 "!. !#!% !!! !&! !!"! !#C-:8 ""! G!%A3 !!1G D! !!! !!#1C-:= 1!!!" !!%D!"!! &!)%!##%!!!"" !'!"!!% #1A! ". !1/!D'! '!"!!!! !E E!&!! +" !,#1C-:5" A 1L! D! D. "#1 C-:5" !!"" !" % 1! %!!" %!!!""! #1 ""! @ %C-:8 +&& '!,%1Z!![ &!&D#1 / &!&!)! $!! ""!" #C-:=" G!%A3 !1! X $!-!!!!!*! !#1! $! ""! !!!*!!&%1( ?

PAGE 121

:62 .!!#E& !ED!E !D! #1 !!&!"! '!"!! !"!"!!# C-:=" G!%A31! !!'!"!!" D#1 C-:=!!!& !1 !!") #1 "!%1G&! EE!'!"!!#G !!  "! ""! !! )!"! "!!'! '&& )#C-:=" G!A3! 1 %Z [ 'Z![ )#1 ""! !!!1 %&&&&  I ! C-:8" &!%1G &!% !! +D,! !&# %" %!""!! &E!E""!!#1

PAGE 122

::6 G C) !N !$'!& ""! &!%:,! !" !!!"& !% >,! "!" !!& !# O!"! !'! "D!!&! #/& %'! !D&!!%!## !D %&!!" !!! !!% !!$"! # '!+&-&,!%1 !!%& !! !'! & !!!" &!! ""N1 :=W" A %! ""! @ #G!%A3 ""! !):8W:6W" !% !# 88W""! !!

PAGE 123

::: #G!%A3 ""! !!"! =6W#G 55W"@ ""! !:6->6W"!&!! !!" !!&!! !# A ""! ! '5:W# ""! &>6-86W "!&!&!!!!" !&! ""!! !+>:W,# !!%+8>W,@ +55W,& #A !$!+:2W,&!G!%A3 :=W"!# ""! 86-=6W#
PAGE 124

::> % ""! +:> K !. 3 !# #K !. # :6W 88W 8=#::9#= >6-86W >:W85#2 :=#5 86-=6W6#9 =6-06W 8W82#6:2#6 06-96W5#0W8:,5:0#= 96-:66W5#0W82#6 >>#9

PAGE 125

::5 8=#2" ""! && !'! 80#:86-=6W 82#6" &96-:66W#!! &":<#6 >6#9!-!" +86-=6W, >>#996-:66W #!" ""!"&86-:66W& =8W" 8= "#! & # ! '!!& ! !!" !& ""! # !!"!! !# $% !" !! !%!!! " %" % 1#1%! $! ""! G! 1! "! 1+! 96-:66W,#! ""! +C-:8,1L "& # &!"&!E "! !!!!%" &! # D%#1

PAGE 126

!" ! !!)" &!" #& !)!" !) "! 1 !*!!Y&! ""! ! !$ !#! !!! !#" C-:8" G!A3 !!%1 "$!! !#G !% !)&& '!)"!!!#!!&! !#/& %!&""!!#1 C-:8 & !!!; &! & 1!F #1C-:=& '!%! ""&!! !% 1" -!)#1 C-:= %1&)&"" !!#@!!&!" !!#1A ""! &$ !! !!!&1 !!% !) )"! '! #1 ""! !&!" !! ! !!!#

PAGE 127

::= !! !!!" !& ""! #C-:=" G!%A31 !! &!&!&%&!%)!#1 $! ""! "1!! !"! !!!" !" % !3!!!" &!#1+%! 96-:66W,# & !%1! ! #1C-:=" G!!!&! !%1 !!" !! "!! ! !! !#1C-:5 ""! 1!!&+:6->6W, "!!" 'E ! '!E&! #1 ""! !& !!#C-:8" G!%A3 $! 1!!"!!! !!!%!## !E -!#E1 !%C-:=" %1!) !" !;)" !!#1C-:8!!!! !!1!" !""!!#1

PAGE 128

D ::0 ""! @ !!!!! !"&!!!#C-:8 !%1.! F! F !"!!!& )!"&! !"! !!!!# !!&! % !! !#1 !C-:> 1 ! '!"!)!"!! !!#1! C-:5;1L "& E! !E E #E1 $'! !" !! & ""! !'!#!" !'!!!! !" & ""! ! &!! !!#!'!+&, 1 '!%! "!& ""! &! !&! !! !#1@!% !&!!! !! '!&" "" !& ""! "# '!% !" ""! "&!" !# (!!!!'!! !"& )! !!&

PAGE 129

" ""! %! "!# & " &!! &"!&"&!" !&! !#/& %&"& !!!! !!#GE)&" '"!& !&!! ! !!%!& '# G&)!"&"! '"!#!%::W)!!# / & ""! & !"! !" &!) &! !&! #! !!"! &G!%A3 "!&A G!&! !"!% &!:5W::W !# !" !%& "!! !86W" #! )&!&A ""! )!!59W"!% ""! <=W"!%@ 55W" !G! 50W"!#G! !"!!!!!"" !!%! !! !"! !&!

PAGE 130

!! ""!Q !& ""! # G& "& &%!&"! "+=8W," ""! "!! !&!$& !) &! !&! !" !# !!!%:2W" ""! !"! !"! &!) &! ""! & !&! !#A ""! '+>=W,&! @ :
PAGE 131

::2 2 O!>5 K_ 3 !# K !. #K !. &5#0W=6#6 ::W80#> !86W85#9 >:W8<#8 >=#5 :2#: :0#8 :9#5 !'! !! "!" #" !! !"!" !!#C-:=" G!%A3 1 !*! Z![" & !!"!!I !#1C-:=" G! %1D !" #1! $! ""! " !!"" & "!%1"! %! !!%!!" !!#1 1L "&) &!! #1C-:8" !" &! !! &;%1G % !!" )&! !)#1C-:8" @ !1 1! )! %

PAGE 132

:>6 1 !* !!! " !! !"!" !! ""! # "! ! !!"! ""! ! #C-:=" G!%A3"1!!! 1 !1!%%D #1C-:8" 1 )!" #1C-:8" A "1 & ""! !)&%! &!)'!D#1C-:>! !! 1!%11% !*& &!" ! I )!I !! !)!!#1 !"& ! !'!% !#"" C-:=& !! E !! !F%;1 !"" & ! !! !I E #1C-:=" 1 ""! &!&!";

PAGE 133

:>: )" !! !#1! $! ""! !" & !!"1. ""! !F! !! !!#1C-:8 ""! @ "!"! !1) !! !+,&!U1 ! !*!! !&!!!&!!!" !*! !*!#!! $ "! !)! !!" # % !!&!! !*! !#% ( "!""! !!& !*!!&!!! !!!# &%! !! !*! !&! 11" !*!# !!!!"!!!! ! ! &!!

PAGE 134

:>> !*!#"! !!!!* ""!". # $% !" ! !!! #!-!'! !! &! ""!". !!!C-< C-2!"! '! !#" !&D!"! 1 !! !1! !#! !" !! !!"! # &!!! 1A3 1#!!!% "!!&! ( 3!"&! !! !!!!# /& %!!!!)! !! !!! ! """ !!! !!# ( 3!"%& %! !!! &!&!)&!!&! !" !!! !!# % !"!" )-!--!"!! !!!!# )-!--!! !"!!" +&!! ]

PAGE 135

:>5 !!" !!!!% !"!!!,# '!+&-,&!&!! !% 1! !*! !!!&!! "& # "!! !!!"!!% ! #1 %:9W!! % !! !" & D#"!%A ""! J 5:W"!%!" '"" #@ ""! J !:=W"!&! J ""! !:0W"!# D JG!A3 ""! "! !!" !!! :=W"!# "& !! % %!58W#@ ""! %&!8>W! #A !!

PAGE 136

:>8 :2W# %>=W"!!! !! !!#G! 59W"!# :6&!!" & !&% !!% #% ! !! !#/& %! "!$ !! % !!!!% &!!! !&!!! # :6 O!>: K !. 3 ! # #K !. # & :9W 88#9 :2#5 !:2W 8=#> :<#8 58W88#2 :<#9 !!" #G! ""! "" !!"!!! !"!#"! :9WG! ""! !59W"!# !" & "!!&! !" !# !!!! !!!

PAGE 137

:>= !!" !#/& %$ )" !!"! %" !! !!! !&!" !# $! ""! G!%A3 !!"!!!1 !!#.!!!%'!"!!%#% &!#G E#1C-:=" !" " D !! !!!!!*%1& EE" E" +, +D !" C;C-:8 :=#1C-:=" !!1! #1/;1! 86W""")!!+ %8"=!!! +,$! A! ",#!!#"! ! !!!#1 C-:= !1! 1& C-:= !"!!!#% 1!! !!#11! !! !!!#1 C-:= !+ !!# /1@& & !!! &!&!#1 C-:8" A !*!

PAGE 138

:>0 !*!!!" ! 1" !*!F & ""! @ ""! "!!+, "" !" !&!!%1!!4A ! !!! #1 ""! )" "! #/1 !"! "! !#G ! !#1 ""! G!%A3 !*" !! !" # !C-:=1 !! !!# !" ! !" !!#! & &!#1 &!! !"" !!'!"!!# C-:=1 !% E EE& )# "! "!!%-!!!" # & !! #1 !%C-:5" !!"" !&"! !'!#/; 1" !! !I !&!

PAGE 139

:>< E& V&!@ ! &! #1C-:8" !%" !"" %1&!!!!! !% E!E !!#1 !!&!! !" !#! !!! !*!! %"! "!) % % !! #% & !! !" D !D" & "! !! 1!! !1 D# !"! !! ! '!"!# !! ! &! !"&! !!&! !!*! !1!D#1 !" !&$!!" !& !" !% #G)&" !!"!& & & %!!& !1"

PAGE 140

:>9 1& !" !! &!& !!!&& !#G)&!! &!!! !! !!!"$!%& )%1D)1 !&!" !#$'!! ""! E! !"!! "E !# (""!". 3!! !3!!" ! &!%!" !&! & !! "!! & )"#!'!+&-" ,) ""! '!!!#) 1 !! !!! !!!#"&! !!" !! !!'!% $&! & #1 !" & !! !!"!&! %+! !, % !! %&# "%5=W !#"! %A

PAGE 141

:>2 ""! &!5:W8>W !#G!%A3 ""! 52W"!&!@ 9W"!#"! "58W%" !!&! !! !"!! !#"!!"! %&=8W" !!& '!)!& &!!" "!!! !&# %59W" !! &%#A ""! !!! & !! !!!! !! !+05W, !$8>W# !! G!%A3 ""! &!5>W 55W"@ ""! # *!A "A" ""! &85W"!! # ::&! ! ! # !!!! && $ #" !:#9 #" !#9 #

PAGE 142

:56 :: O!>8 K !. 3 !##K !. # & 59W88#<:9#6 58W88#6:<#= A "A". ""! & 85W8>#2:<#9 !!! !!! !! % !!!#! $! ""! G!%A3 ! !!"&!%1 !! "! ! !!! !' !& )U1C-:8" 1 !! !% !%#% !!&E!:# &!!"!!!!% ! !"E&E'!)#1 ""! +C-:=," !" %1 !!%! & %! "$ !! !!#1 C-:="1 )& !!F & ""#1C-:8 ""! !!

PAGE 143

E!&! 1&Z[ !!!!#1! $! ""! !E !!&"!!&!&1 !! & ! % #1 &! !!&& !! #/;"1 !!! !&% !% !!% !" &! !! !& ) %" #1 &"! '!%!" 1!D1! " !'!# C-:= !" &! !!!# !! !1 !" &!!ED#E1 "! ""! !) !&! !&!1!!11! D#1C-:5 ""! & !""! !&! !%1 !! "!Q! &!E!! #E1!) %C-:8"

PAGE 144

:5> 1 !!&! !!!#1 C-:8" @ !!!&" "!& !1!D1!! %1E!)" !*! )&" !!#"! &!EME'!"!!! "! !&& &EME % !U1 C-:5" ! !!&!%1C !! !H!!!!!&! & ! #1 "!! !& !'!#! $! !"!! !!; #/; 1 & !#G !! !#1 "! ""! "" !" &!!! !#C-:>"1 !! !% !&!& )!#1 C-:=" "!"$! &! #/;"1 !)"[ !!"$! "E" !!!# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 145

C D!";! !#1 !*!! @ !!! !&&!* ! "!#! &&! $!!& ""! " ""! !#!! ! !! "&! "# %.%" 3!! 3!! !&!! & !! D% %" & $&! !*! !!! !# $%.3!! 3!!" !!" 1!!1 !" &-"! #.!!! !" &!!)")! !*! 1Y!%!##%!!! !!"&! D!%) "! +& ,!!%"! !!& %$!

PAGE 146

!!"!! !!+ & !,#! !!! "! !!! !# & !"!! !*! !!!&!&!! !&"& !! "!!# ! !!"!!& !&! D" !#&&&! !" ""! &!!# '!+&-"!,!&!! !%1 !!%&$. ""! ""! "E !*!!EE"!$ E! &! '!!N+ 3 !!!*!!! & & !! %!##%C%(%A .,N1 !" ""! &!!& !*!!#"%:8W &!'!#A ""! ""!!!! 1"!$ 1%>=W"& &#( " @

PAGE 147

:5= :W# "!! !!!"! >6W"#G!%A3 ""! D ">:W %55W#A !! " ! ""! "!!& #@ :
PAGE 148

:50 G"! !"& ""! &" 1"!$ 1"! # # :>& !" &! !" # U! %% ( J ""! #/& % D!"&)&$ %&# %& J !!! "! D&! ""! `! # J:> JO!>= J K !. 3 !# # & :8W88#9 :9#= 55W8=#::9#5 !>6W 85#5:=#2 0W88#2 :0#2 !& U U!<:W88#8:<#< J !"! !% J&!)& ""! 1"!$ 1 1!%1)&"!!&! J ""!! !&!! "& !! !#

PAGE 149

:5< C-:=" G!%A3 &! )&! %$!! !"!!" &!%1A!" !! !!!"'!;'! ""! !" #1 ""! !!!!; !!%1. !!!%! !"!$ & !#1C-:8" !!!"" !! &! !%1!!! % !*!)!%. ""! '! #1@C-:8!!"!!)! "&!!; !! %1. -!!! !#1 C-:8" %1G "!$ #1 ""! &!!)&!! #C-:8" G! 1/& % !! ! !" !!!#E!EE"!$ E & #E?!"! E! "#1C-:=" "" !D!"!!%1 '! !! ! !" !#1

PAGE 150

:59 $! ""! G! !"! !!&! #/;"1G)! !!" !! #G "!! -"!" #1 C-:=" !!" !!!! &1E!)!)& "E$ E !&!!"! !#1 !G N !&-"! #!! :206E. !+.,& $! !"3!! !3!!#& !!!!.& 1!1%!)!!& !" !#3!!"!!&!3!! !&% !#&! $!".%:, &! !!! &!>,! :206E &!"&" ! ".!&!1 1 !""!!"!!!!! "#@!%!& '!& &! "&

PAGE 151

! &!& !&! 3!! !$!!% !!% !"!!%# !!%!"!"D & % &!& E"!"!!&!! D !#"&)1 !& 1 #!!3!! !3!!! !! &!) !" !! !"!!D # !!%3 !! "!$ !"! !!!#!!" 3 !! #G! !! "!% &!! !& !A # A!A! ".%!! !!$!#@ %!:295% .!&!!! !" !1!! #1&!" !& "&&)&! "! +!!*" !,"" !! "! && )#& &

PAGE 152

:86 !" !*!""!# && % !! !!! %!##% % !% "!"!!)! + ")!&! !& % % #,% !! !!!" !#! & !"!" !&!A! !!" !!!! #%!%!%" !"'!!&!!" # "! '!+&-!$,!&!!!! 1 !& !!" !#1 &!""! !! "#G&* !!"!" & 05W" # "! )&&"! ""! G!%A3 ""! !"! !#!! &!"" !! !!!! ".% "!!" &# G!!!&"!-)! :

PAGE 153

& !%! "!!!!") !&! !!#&$ !!!& ! ""! ""! # & %!! ""!" !1' 1 G!%A3#A ""! !!" 02W"!&! !" 00W"!#@ "!!! !!&! <=W!"& #G!A3 % 06W"!# !&"06W!"G! %!! !! $! ""! "!0:W#&" "! !A "A"%=6W" ""! &!" !'!# G&* %!##%! & ! ""! & &!!! $&!#" %56W! "& #A ""! !!5:W"!&!

PAGE 154

:8> !>=W#@ !:0 K 3 ! ## 05W 8=#>:<#= ""! 0:W89#: >6#< AA. ""! =6W =:#> >5#> ""! A! A! 56W 8=#: :9#9

PAGE 155

:85 &!!!" !'!% ""! !#"C:=E" G!%A3 "" &! !%1 E E& $ )& ) !U !"!%"-)!!! !& &) &! !)#YC-:5" !!&%1!!EI !Z[ !!I!"&!EE%!&! #1C-:8" @ %1 "& % !E )&!!#1 C-:8" %1!"& "! "!!!!) !!" ! /!$ !" ""! """!%!*!* !" !%& '! E#&&& !'".E !# !!+'!&-,! !!%1>-5!! !&&!. !&! '""!" !! #1 :

PAGE 156

:88 "% =8W # !'! " !!&"! ""! G!A3 &!& !"'!#!%G!A3 ""! !! &+=8W,#A ""! "! !'" .=6W&! 55W"@ !!'# ""! %& <=W"!#!% ""! A "A"! !!" 80W"!# !" "! $! ""! %:#6,#

PAGE 157

:8= !"A "A" ""! & &! 89#<#@ !! 88#98=#6 !#!""! & $ !& $ !!! !!" # "& !& "& !! # :8 O!>< K !. 3 !##K !. # =8W88#<:<#= A ""! =6W8>#6:=#9 ""! <=W88#9:=#9 @. ""! 8>W8=#6:0#9 AA. ""! 80#689#<>:#= ""! A! 8W80#6:9#8 '!&! ""! !%! '!&-!!!!!. #

PAGE 158

:80 O!&-!%1% !&!!' ! !#1! %%! "! !&! "!""!#!! ""! "!G! & !""!! #*! "" ""! % &>=-5:W$" @ +:9W"!%A 5:W% >=W# @ !" A "A"!!#!%&& *AA ""! %&! +:
PAGE 159

:8< !! !" $! ""! #!%!! &!%"! !!!!%! &" !" !!#&$& !! !! # %! & 52W!" % !'!# !!% &! ""! "!""! !!#" %<6W" ""! ! '!&-!# :=& ! !" ""! '! &-!#" %!!& $ !% !" !"" #& &! D! # !!! $ !! #&! !! '!! % !"& #

PAGE 160

:89 := O!>9 K !. 3 !##K !. # >9W8=#9:2#: $! !. ""! 52W8=#2>6#: ""! A! A! <6W8=#5:<#< "! $! ""! G!A3 ""! "" !#/ 1G %'!! !&!& )U1C-:8" "'!1 ! !#! & Z"[& !!" !& )#. !& &E!#1C-:= !&! &!%1>-5.!! "!! "! #1 !" "!!" !!& ""! &)&!&! & "!!

PAGE 161

:82 #G !!! &! !! '!!% % !!! #!!!&"!"&" !!" D&! !"!! # '!% %!%&!"! "! N %&! ""! E N'!+&-!,!!%1$ &! !& % ""! !! !!!" ! &!!! !" !Q #1 !'! & ""! !!! !! !#! " !) ""!!!" !*!!! !!! %" !! # & "& + ,%!!%"" !!!" ""! #

PAGE 162

:=6 !'! &&! !" '!&-"!# !"!'!&86W" % & #! ) )" %!##% %G!A3 %"! ""! !!! +86W,# ! !!"!D !!!%A & 05W%:>W # G&* "$ !" !" %& !!#"! %>8W ""! &!:6 "$ !%&! !! <0W ""! &! :6 "$ !# !"!'!& $ ""! &! 'D! "! #" &! %>5W %C;C-:>:5% &!<W#!!%:0& ""! &! #! !"& % % !!" &"!G!A3

PAGE 163

:=: !! !! #!%G!A3 &=6W!&!"!&==W# :0 O!>2 K !. 3 !##K !. # 86W85#=:<#< A! A! =>W80#5:9#> '!&-!"! & !%:,&! !!! !!!* >,&! !! !" # C-:=" G!A3 !! '!!1G !!!$ #1 C-:=" %1G!& !"%& !!%!##%!% % !# !!#1C-:8 1G !. !%! ""!! !*!#1 "! $! !1G! ""!" '! !" %

PAGE 164

:=> &! F %!!!"! !!&!"!!!&! #1 !!" "! ""! #A ""! +C-:8,"!! !&!-!!#/1 !!!!'!#/& %! !&!!%-!!#1C-:8 ""! @ 1Z![ '! !!! "! !*#1 !%C-:5!%1 !& #1 !! GCGN !!! !" !" !$ !# ! !! )% &!"! '! !"& !# A!! !% !!&!+" !!",&!!" "#!! ! +!!!!!,!

PAGE 165

:=5 ""#O!! % 1$ !&!%&! !!" Q!Q%" !% !!!#1 !" '!& "" !! !"!!!! !% # !"!"&& :5W" #"! % &#A G!A3 ""! '>=W :5W#@ ""! !!" '"!" 9W# "!G!A3 ""! !! !! !'!:=W:5W !#G& ""! %!##%&%%!&" !"5:W#A G!A3!! "!59W5=W !#!" !%A "A" ""! &>5W !# "!&! ""! '!! !! #:5W" ""! !!! !"

PAGE 166

:=8 !# ""! !!!>=W" #A ""! !%0W&!@G!A3 ""! :
PAGE 167

:== O!! -!! &! '" "! !! #'!!1" & ) &!& &"& !"" !#1 !"&% %& ""! !!# /& %!2W!!"! !! % !"& &" !&&!!" !! !# A ""! G!A3 ""! +:5W ::W !,#"&!"! !% =W" ""! &" &! !&!!! !#) !:8W" ""! & !&!" '+! ',# & 56W" ""! & !!& '!# !" " #A &5:W"!F &55W@

PAGE 168

:=0 G!A3 ""! >2W" !#! ) !! !!! " +:9,##= !&! !!# /& % !!! "$ !! "#& :#9 $ !& !!&%# :9 O!5: K !. 3 !##K !. # & 2W8=#>:9#0 !=W8=#=:<#< >2W8=#6:0#9 !! !!" !!"!! &! !!""! '! # % "! ""! !! %!" !!# 3!! !" G" G )!N "! D !"!! !!!! !!.&!:2<9! "! !!! #

PAGE 169

"" !*" !# &" "!$ % !!" !! #!!" '!&"!&! "! !"1&1& !" !& ) & !!1) 1 !"! !"#&% !!" &! # &"?!3 %!) !!" !! !!! !#. !3 3! "3!! !3!!3! !& " # "!!*! !"&%! &! !& !& )& )I"! ""! # G!'!" !% $%! &!!&! ""! # !%&)'!&! !" & 3!! !" +3,%! !# %&!3! !!%! &% $ " !" !"! #

PAGE 170

!&" "!! !! !"3%! "3 !! !*!! !" "!! &""!! !) !!!! # "! '!+! -&,! !" & "& 3!"" #'! %1"3% #1 ""! &!!! !!#" ""! !%<>W"! ! #G!%A3 ""! & !! &!+<>W,# "! ""! %A !# 28W"!# @ !! =9W# %:5W& !! % % #G! ""! &! :6W"!#"! ""! &! ) A ""! 0W"! &! &55W@ >=W#

PAGE 171

:=2 :2 ""! %! !! $ !! "3 !#!% !!!& !! D! ""! 3! ! !# :2 O!5> K !. 3 !##K !. :5W8>#9:=#: A! A! <>W80#>:9#2 '!! -&% ! "!"" !%D!# !!!"!!! !!" !"! &!&&#" %!#C-:8" G!%A3 !%1!!#1! $! ""! %13& #1 1@!"3&!! !#.(!!!% !% !%#-! #1C-:=! """ !"" !#! ""! 31"!!!" ) #1 C-:=%!

PAGE 172

:06 3!1!! -!;! % !#1C-:8" 31& "!-#1"! ""! !!"3#A C-:5 ""! 1. ""! && !!#3 &"! #& !#1 ""! !"! &!3 !#C-:8" G!A3 %1 !" !D)%&! !"& & !#"&& ##1" G! "13 !! !% "! !3!! 3!!&!!A! !) C !! !#1 ""! "" !" & 3#C-:8" G!A3 !!!%1.!! F!&& % !%#1 C-:8"1 $! !!!& )! 3#1C-:= &! !&! !%13-! #1 A ""! )

PAGE 173

:0: !#C-:8%1Q !! !!"!!" #1 C-:8!1!! C-:8! !%1! !"" !&! :2<9#1 C-:5"1 $"!& U1C-:5 ""! 1! !""& #1C-:8" @ "! !"" $1 ! !!! C-:8" ""&1 !&) !! !#1!% C-:8 1 ! 3& '& "EE&!! $!&!""!!&!&! #1 !!!" "!!!*!" #C-:=" G!A3 13 .! !! ) # " 3!! !3!!#1C-:8 1E!!!*!E".&! #.(%! %!3 ""!#1 "! $! 1 !!!" #E.!!E! "#1

PAGE 174

:0> "&!!3#C:8" G!%A31." %&! !""!!! %! )#1C-:8 "!!"3# /;1.(!! # !!!!$%! "! "# +!"& !!*!!"!!""!!#1 !" & !! 3!! !3!!&%!'%! %3& !! #$'!&!& "3&"!!! &!'& % !"!!#!'!+! ,13! !%$% 3!! !3!!#1 !"'!! & &! &!!#! ""! "! $ 3!! 3!!#! !!!" ""! E !!"$!!!

PAGE 175

:05 )" "!!""" " !# :9W" ""! !'!# !& !!& &! !!!#A ""! !! !+0W,&!@ )!!+8>W,# !! !>=W G! :=W"!# " ""! !%<8W % ! !'!# A ""! D! 3& !28W# "! # &=9W%&!@ &!!=6W"!# G! ""! 82W# >6& !!" "$ !! && !" #& ""! & D!! !3 $ !& &!!!3#!& "$ !" !:2 !! #

PAGE 176

:08 !! '!! -&& "8>#9%" '!! !!8>#9# '!! -&& "80#>%" '!! %80#5# !" !! !" !! "$ !#'!! -&& :9#2 "$ !'!! &:9#0# >6 O!55 K !. 3 !##K !. # :9W8>#9:0#0 A! A! <8W80#5:9#0 !"" !! "! !! !! '!#" "! !!!!!" "!" # D!&!! )& "!!"3#C-:8" G! !1E!" D!#1C-:= 1K)!!N3& -!!!!"" "!)! 3!! !#!!

PAGE 177

:0= !# "% !! #1C-:8!!1!! $%Z[ !#1C-:= !!; !!! 1!!!" &# !! !D%! !%#1C-:=!!! 1@& "#1! $! ""! !! D!"3% 1!$#! !! !#1 C-:= 13 !"" ""!""!!" #1 !!& ""! & %1E! U.!&% !% "+"!!!,% # !& "% A!!& ""&!%!" %!!!#1 "! ""! "!!!! !!!"3#C-:8" A 1!! #.!!! '! !! !!! ""!!#3 !!" ! # ! !+! ," D!"!! !#1 C-:5" A !1 & )& #YC-:5" "1

PAGE 178

:00 "& % %! #1C-:8! 1C !! $#1 C-:8" @ ! %1G !" !!!$! :>6&!. 3 '! #1 C-:8" 3!1 $ !""!!! #1 ""! !"! !"3&! # G!A3 "1& % %! !%D)!" #1C-:8 1!& !""! ) !& -3#1C:= 1 !! #$!.!Z[. ! C-:=1 $!# !! & )!! $" #. #1 C-:=!31! % !!! &!! !! !!!!! #1

PAGE 179

:0< "! ""! !"!% "3#C-:8" A 1 !" $!! !#1C-:8" @ ! !!&!!%1? "3! $%&!% !!-!##%& !" & )% ! & "& " !" ; !! !F!3!)-! F !%.%! !'"&" !" !!" !!!F !" %#%#%#1 ""! !'!"! "3% D! #! $! ""! G!A3 1Z [#H#)".3 "".! +!,! #1C-:8" )& "! ;"$!%1! ! 3#/& & )""!

PAGE 180

:09 & !" #/! %"! % !#!!! !" !#! !# !!!". % (%!%#1C-:= )!! 1 #3 !! !!%$!!%!"!!# !& )3 D!!&! #(3! !.%. !%! $! !%@ !%#1 ""!! 1$" "! $! !! !!#1 & "3!& ! # ""! 1!! EA !. DE 3!!"! !!)! #1 !!%"!&!! "3& !3 + ,!! &" &!& !! !"1&1# !$'!!! !" ""! !!#'!+! -" 1. !3 3!! 3& !! !3

PAGE 181

:02 3&! & )" )!!! !"Q&E! !!"& )" #1 !" !'!& >2W" ! #G!A3 ""! E! %>9W#"! ""! &! !!#A ""! !) % &!:2W# % =6W"!&!@ !! !!55W# "%02W! % !#!!%G! ""! $ +02W,#!" !!!%"! !!# =6W"!@ &0:&& "$ !! &&$ #!!! !!&" '!! 3#

PAGE 182

:<6 >: O!58 K !. 3 !##K !. # >2W88#0:9#> A! A! 02W88#9:<#9 !'! D!"'!"!""!%! !"!'" && )&!!!# ""! !!!"" !! -3#! $! ""! !!%1@! !Z[ #1 ""! G!A3 1!" ! %) !&! % !!"" & 3#1C-:8 1! % !&! ; J!! DD" #1C-:51E #1" 1L !!"" !3!! #1C-:= 1!! !D !" !"  C-:=" -""! &! !*%1"$!!!!

PAGE 183

:<: !" !& "" !!#1 & '!! %A ""! E !! "'! #C-:8! !"" &&!!%1 !!"!!!! !"&# !" &!) !"" #1C-:5" !!%!"""%1! '! "" Z!!["%3! '! #1 C-:8" @ %1" !!!"""ID !!&!!" !D#1 "$ !&!&!! !! "&!&%!##% #!""!"C-:= G!A3 & %1 & "! ! D#1!% C-:= 1 !&!3% !&!;!!!

PAGE 184

:<> !!"! !!#1 C:=" !"1& !!!#1! $! ""! !&!&! 1A #+A!,!" !!!" !--&& # &!!" !&! & ) '! E E&E #1C-:8" 1. & !!!"!! &E #E1 "1 !! !!#1 !! "!VA ""! !&!$ !"#C-:81" !. !( !+&, &! !; !" #1 ""! "!! !!!!#/; 1 !!! !) '! #1C-:5!"! !" %1!! !!!!#Y"@ ""! &! #C-:8 1% % % !" &

PAGE 185

:<5 #1!% ""! 1K%&!#ED$" 3# &' !3!! !. !( !Q! #1 ""! !& "& $ !""!&! -3#C-:8" G!A3 1& )! !""! !E"E !#1 ""! "1! ! -& !#1C-:8" "1"!%! !" QEA ""! !&" !!"" !%;%1' !& !! & #1 !%@ ""! 1 $% !" 3 '! && E" #1 ""! "! '!"! &!'!! -" # ""! +C-:5," %1 &! E&E%! !!!"!!!!! # "& #1C-:8 1( !" &!!! & )#!! %

PAGE 186

:<8 !# !" !!! !! #1C-:= !1E &" #1 ""! @ "!!1 $!""!!! #1 !! "" '!"! "&! '!#! $! ""! %1K% & &! !F&E .(#1 !&!.(F1G!.(%& !E!! ) !)!)#1 O!! -"!!! !" !!& "3!! !! "3!! !" # %!! !!D!!"!"!# !'!!!" ""! !!! !)&"!D# !"! & !'! &!! "! !!"&!&! --!!"3#'!+! "!,!1!! !" 3& !!&!! #1

PAGE 187

:<= !'!%!!! !#"%59W % # %! #A 88W" !&!@ !" '8>W#G!A3 5=W#/& %&&) !&G! 1"!%1&! !!%5=W85W !# ""! &! % !! '# 80W"!#! !=@ !!" '%=6W#%&!A !59W#G! !U %80W# )" ""! ! ! $! !" ""! %!##%=6W" % &!88W! % # G&!!!!! !! '!!)! & &&!)& #! % & :
PAGE 188

:<0 >>&!!"" ! # & +!!" J!,!89#> &! % J +85#5,&!!+85#<,# U !!! !&&) J #& U J":2#<%! &! D !!%:<#=:0#8 !#! J D! ""! %! J $ !% !! U&!" !" "3& !# D >> JO!5= K !. D 3 !##K !. # D 59W89#>:2#< UA! D JA! 80W85#5:<#= ,!!:
PAGE 189

:<< ""!!" +!-&!,I Z[!#G !)& #3)& #1C-:=" 1&%! !!U1C-:8 1! !!" E!" " 3#1C-:=!1! # !Z[& !! 3!! !#1 C-:= 1!! !!& 3 !!!* C #1! $! ""! !"! &!%1A # 3? &# % !& & E ) )#1 ""! )!! %1!&3ED#1C-:5 !!" " !E ! %1 !"!! ! #1 A C-:8!$!!!; 1!!!" 3& !! C "&%! " !!!! E# 3!!%! ; &! !!#1

PAGE 190

:<9 C-:5+& '!,1!& E&E !"#1 @ ""! !! !!"!&!&"! U!"3#C-:8 1& "$!!!% #1 C-:81 & J!" !!" & D & & J #1 C-:8) !!!" J !! %1 J& )" !"!'!#. !! &!! J !-!& D !!-"& J D !"#1!%@ J ""! %1E! U !*!&!!""!& % J!)!& )&! !#1 "&'!"! :!#C-:8!1!& J )#1C-:= 1!& J #1A ""! & &! U!1!& #1 ""! '!"""!%!"" !"

PAGE 191

:<2 !""!#C-:="" !& "D 31G! !!& !%3? & !!#1A C-:8"1!& !%!& !!! $ !#1C-:8" U !&1C! !! J !! !!!#1 3!! !" "& D!&! !!!!&! ? + J !" 3!! !3!! $! !*!# !. !( J!"& !*! # J !!!!&! J!!!!E"!!! !*! J" !# U !. !( ! D J!! !%! %!% D %!!D!"&" J !" #" ""! %!! J & !"#!!!.( ! D D!!! J!! !!#D!"!!" !!"! J!! !!"! &!! 1!! !1" & )"$!

PAGE 192

:96 C #!! !" 1!! !!#1 !!'!! -!$#! ""! E !" !*!% %!!! &!;" ! !%!! #!'!1!%!"%! !" E&E!3 ""! !!'!#"%=0W # % !!! !! "!$" @ # A ""! !=0W"! &! !=6W@ & +88W,#G! !!! '06W#G 0:W"A "A" ""! )!# %86W D% !!!! !"& &# C %1"!1 ""! "& ""!G!A3 ""! #%A ""! % 88W"!% =6W @ =9W#G!A3 % !!5=W"!#

PAGE 193

:9: & !"! $! ""! %<>W" % &!>>W! % # >5%!" !& ""! !!! "'!#" & !!&!! !"&#" % !& !!"" && # >5 O!50 K !. 3 !##K !. # =0W8=#<:<#9 A! A! 86W85#5:<#< !"$!!! !'!# & )!D& 11 1!""!1 !"&#'!& &!&!!" !" "! ! &!&!! #%!& !"3# %%&& %! !"" !" "& "!

PAGE 194

:9> !# &!" %!" "3&! !# """3! &!! % ! & !!"!! &! % % !!!% '! & "&#! $! ""! G!A3 1&" I!!!I#1 C-:= "!& 1 & >W !%& &&& )&!#1 C-:="!! !" !%1 &"! ! D#1C-:8 1 %!!E& )&#" !+&!, #1 !C-:=!1A !" ""+ &," #1 ""! ""! !! !#C-:8" A 1' !&) #1C-:5)! !

PAGE 195

:95 1! !" #1C-:8!! &&&1&E!""! %3!QEE#G& % 5-=W #1C-:8" !$!! &! !!!*!1. !!& &!% %) !)"&!&& "!#1 ""! !! &! !"1&1!'!!"# $! ""! G!A3 )&1 !. !( "! #" %E!) !E&E# ! !! %C-:8" @ %1 !I & E&E! & )" !&" #G !""!;! !!# '! ! D"!""!#!!! E"! I !! !""! !E #E& )D&!" #1

PAGE 196

D ""! & &!'!"!!# !&% !"!&!!&! # ""! G!A3 1!!" #1C-:=!1. #1 ""! " 1" &! !" & &! !E&E"& F!)Z[ &!!" !'#1"! ""! ) !! #C-:8" A 1G!! $% !" "D+.(,%&!&! 3#1C-:8" & !""! &! !!!1! 3%#!#YC-:5) " !!!"" !1" !%& "+!# ,%! !!"!#1 "! &!!! & !""! !& !#C-:8" G!%A3 1"!!! !""!#)! %& "3 <:

PAGE 197

:9= ; !#1C-:= !1 !""! #1""! ""! "" !! #C-:8" A 1EA&E!!$! "% %#1!%C-:8! #/;!!1@) !.(%3 %#$!"#. $Z&[ " #1 L! !"3!! !" % &!!!# & ". " $! !% "!" !. !( D&" #3! & 3# $'!!! ""! ""3 !&" )3 ""!". !!!!&#O!! 1" & !! !! !!E!E &!3#1

PAGE 198

:90 !"'!! & "#"%<6W #!" ! "! &!!! #A 02W" !&!@ &0:W D!" #&! % & !!!!#!A ""! &>=W" '" !&! 55W#@ !! D!! !%:8& !!" & !" #!!% ""! & !"& #

PAGE 199

:9< >8 O!5< K !. 3 !##K !. # <6W8=#=:<#0 A! A! >:W85#2:9#9 ""! ) N "! !*!!! !!" !!&. ""! "#'!!%& ""! ""! "N $ " E)!! !!+ !*! !" !* !*!," !*!% )! 1!D1 !!N!-:206E3!! !3!!!&D ""! #" !! & &!. ""! &) "!!)!1#1)! & ""! &!!" !!!!%)&%! !%

PAGE 200

:99 !!" "!!#!&% ""! &!! D!"!! !*! !!!!& # &!!! & 1! #1 !! &! D! ""! # && & ""! & ""! !&&! &!) ! !!%! "!&! !"!%%"!!%+ !!!, ""! !"!!!!)!# '!!!! !"& )! !!& ""! # "! '!"! !'!! -!#1 !*!%!!)! !. ""! %" !! #1 !! &!" # !!! !!" !! & ""! % ""! !D !"#! "!!!!

PAGE 201

:92 08W" ""! & !!!)! # !& !!" !!&"! ""! G! ""! #G! &!90W!" &!&!"! !!!>=W# 2W !! !!!)! !#G55W"! $! ""! # !">=& !! ""! &!! & )#& &% "88#9&! &% & 86#9# >= O!52 K !. 3 !%#K !. # & 08W88#9:9#6 !>2W85#5:0#<
PAGE 202

$'!&!" !" !!& J ""! #O!" 1% #1!'!" "! !"" ""! !&! !!! &!!!!!" ""! # "!" --"! !"& )!!!#! % ""! + &!, !"! ! #!%=2W" ""! &%# ""! ""! G!A3 !&% "! ""! ) &! G! #A !! !%05W#@ ""! & "!"! !!#( 00W! !!# G" %9W" ""! !!&! #

PAGE 203

:2: %:6W" ""! !! !! #G!:6W! %!"&! "! %! !! &!!!!&!! &! ""! #"A !!&"@ !!"! !!#G! )" ::W#!! !"::W" G! % " $! !#" %5:W "!# >-0& "!! ! % !!!! '! #"!% & !!$!%&! !!#

PAGE 204

:2> >0 O!86 K !. 3 !##K !. # & =2W8=#>:9#> !5:W88#9:0#< :6W80#8:2#8 !!"& )! !!! "& )!"" ! !*! !" )!!!#G ) ""! !"!!&! !!!% !*!!!%! !%# !$" "! & ""! #O! -1%. ""! % !" $!" !"!&!! E"!E" #1 !!! ""! !! %"!)! !!1"1&!! !! &! ""! &! #! !'! !&# "!!!!%!##%" ""! !1 1&!&! !! !!% D"!!

PAGE 205

:25 !! !% &"" !# !"! & A +:5W,# @ !! # %:=W"G! !! !" # !!"! ""! !!F>6W!! !" !# " !" W" ""! !!!%!"% "" $! !" !&!1"1 # !><& !! &$ '!" -#!!! !!"" !! "$ !#& !""!" ""! !'!#

PAGE 206

8=#: :<#2 85#5 :<#= 8=#2:<#: :28 >< O!8: K !. 3 !##K !. # & 09W !>6W :5W E @! !N !"! " "!# &!! "! !! % !! "!!! ""! % !!!) ! # !!!&!! !& ""!!"!" !# '!+" -&,&!! !1! "!+ !% !""!% "" !!% #,#Y !" "!!&:>W" !)!" !!!!# !! !!!!# "!

PAGE 207

:2= !'!%&!>=W!! #A &!0W&!@ !! !#G! E :5W# !! !>>W"! $! ""! !!" # G&* !!" % !%& "!::W,F&!A &:5W9W @ ""! # %>5W"& & !&!!#A G! "' !!%&! !!:2W"!#@ "!! !!" %!&=6W"!# ! !!A >=W# %!!!" "!# ""! &! !8
PAGE 208

! :20 !##%@ !! 8>W"!%&!G!%A3 !80W" !# G" !! +>5W,"" !"& #! !+89&! ""! ! !" !!&! #" "$ !! !!+:9#5, # +8=#08=#5,#& & ! %!##%85#>%:0#: !#

PAGE 209

:2< >9 O!8> K !. 3 !##K !. # & >5W 85#> :0#: :W 8=#> :0#2 ! ""! "! % %! !!&!! 1)" #1!) "!!! !%!" !! %& !!! !!!" % !-!) # '!+" ,&!! !!1%E"!!!" E !"!ED)" E !!!E!!)! E! #1 %" ""! !&)" !! #" &!"& %& >2W" ""! !! )! " "!# "! ""!

PAGE 210

:29 ""! G!%A3 #A ""! !!!>=W" !!@ #/& % !!!%!!55W" !#G! !!:2W" !# "! !& )" !" # !"!!>0W" !" ""! #A )" '!"!!%>=W&! @ ""! !:2W"!# !!"% '+80W," ""! # "! ""! & !!! !!G! #%A !!!=6W"! ""! #@ !=9W&!G! !!8>W"" '# ""! &" # !" !! ""! %!

PAGE 211

:22 #!!" !!!! !!!&! ""! ! "!# & &!! !!" ""!"" !!!" #&%!!"& ! !" +" &-!, >2 O!85 K !. 3 !##K !. # & >2W88#8:0#8 !>0W8=#2:2#6 80W8=#9:9#: !!" !*!! !" ""! & !D#&!! !! !" !"& !#(!!%!"D! !" ""! #/ !! !"D!"! "%!"""!". %" "!& '! !!!!#&!!

PAGE 212

>66 !%!'!+" !%1!! &!" D%!##% & )% !!%!% "!!& !%!%#%) "&!#1 !'!& ""! "! !! "&!)!" #& +>6W,"!! &)&&)" # !!96W "!!!&E$! # %% & '"!06W# !" ""! "! !#A 85W"!&! =6W"!@ 00W#G!% A3 ""! !@ 05W# "%9W")&& !"!! "! & # ""! !!; )&&!"! J#G J! "!" +55W,# J56&9W &! J !'!! J #/& % !%% !!!"

PAGE 213

* >6: $ !#!!!!&!! &! % &# 56 O!88 K !. 3 ! ##K !. # &>6W 88#= :<#0 06W 8=#9:<#2 9W 88#> :9#5 3!" !*!.!! !& ""! &!! !!" %!%" !#G" !"!!!! ""! & #"&!'!!& ""! !!" ""! & & "! !! !" !*!!!!!#" ! !! !&!!)&"!" ""! !" "!!!#O!" -!)% 1A )&" ""! &&" "!; !!" !*!!! !!!!'! N#1" %>9W !! & "!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 214

>6> !!!'!#A &! +8:W,# %>=W!! )&"!"!!55W"@ & )&"!!#& !G!A3 ""! >8W# G&* ""! ""! & )&" !!%&"!! !!#8:W" A !!!'!%"!" "&! !&'!! #" & 11!'!%"!" &! !&" "& '!+)!!,&" !" & # !& '!! )& &&!!!! !&!"# !&!"" !" #85W"& '!! !&!# ""! @ !&!=6W!# G!%A3 !$&!85W"& A &!5:W#

PAGE 215

>65 !"11!11! !& !!"" "$ ! !!# 5:& !! !! #&!!D !&"& " #!&!! !! KE!& !! E# !!! KE% !!"" !+G!%A3 ""! %:9#6#:9#<,# 5: G!!B !& K !. 3 !##K !. # A ""! 02W8:#8:0#2 K5:W89#9>:#6 ""! =6W8=#<:0#> K=6W8=#6:<#6 @. ""! =6W85#9:=#6 K=6W88#9:<#> G!%A3. ""! =
PAGE 216

>68 ""! 3 N G"'!&!). ""! E !&"! !*! "!%! !! &!"! !!&! #'!+! -!,&!!! !!!!" !!E &!!" #1 !" !'!& ""! !#" %::W! % !!#A ""! !&!! %&!>=W!! !!"! # & !!+
PAGE 217

>6= G!%A3 ""! !"! "!# &! $ &!"" !" &G!A3"!# $% G!A3+ !!" !#% && D !! !&!! !!#!&% !&! !%&"! ""! !" "! "!!!' ""! !&!!!&!"" !# &!!&G! "! !!!! "!!& '" !" !!!# !G!$ )"!& # +,& !!%!&!1 1 !!%!& !# !%'!! & !"! &! "!!" F!"!!% !% !*!!!% 3!! !" !# !% & !& ! !"#

PAGE 218

>60 !& D!!!+,"& )#.3 .:GK& #! '!+>8%>=%>0, !!"" !" !!'!! !% & ! # %'!% !! "&P 3!"!! !! "!'! &! !! !! "! !& "!"!!"!!! #G !!" '!$"""!! &"!!!" !"'! !$"!# :8# !!"!!"!! % !!%+ !!, ) !# :=# !!"!!"!! % !"!!""!)& !! !! # :2#"1" !1 !"!!!% !! '! !! !# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 219

! >6< >6#"1" !1 !"!!! &!! ""! # >:#! !*! !!!&!! "& # "!! !" !!!"!!% ! # !#G!$! !!"6#=920 &!!! !!!"!!"" & & !! !&!&! !"!!"!!#%! !" &!&!!"!!"!!!! &1"!11' 1" !!"!# ! !!" '!&!! ""! !! #'! '!&! !!! !! !!" D!!# !#! !*!%!"1!D1 ! !!%1!DY) # :<# !!&!!! % &! !!&'!"!! '! 1!!1 '!. !"!#

PAGE 220

>69 :9#)!! !" !"!& !!'!&!! %!!!D!! !!% !!!! !" !!%# >8# !! !!! !!!!#"&! !!" !! !!'!% $&! & # !#G!$! !!"6#69>8 &!!"" $!&& # !&" )" '!!! !""!! ! ! !' # !*!.!! !"!&! !*!!! &!!% ! !!!" ""! #!%! )& !!!" !# >=# !!%&$. ""! ""! "1 !*!!11"!$ 1! !&! '!!N +3 !!!*!!! &

PAGE 221

>62 & !! %!##%C%(% A .,# 52# !*!%!!)! !. ""! % !! # 86#% # 8:#%. ""! % !"$!" !"!&!!1"!1" # !#G!$! !!"6#0665 &!!! !!!"!!"" !& !&!& %1' 11"!1%!&! !!!! !*!#!%" % )! !" !!!!! !*!%" !!"!# 3!! !" ":2<9 3!! !" ! !" &!!&! ! #!" '!! !" ""! ""!"!!"! ! #

PAGE 222

>:6 5>#"3 # 55#3! !%$ 3!! !3!!# 58#. !3 3!! 3& ! !3 3&! & )" )!!! !"1&1! !!"& )" # 5=#!! !" 3& !!&!! # !#G!$! !!"6#2592 &!!!!"" && "3!! !" +3,#G)&" !!!"'!! & !"! 3# &1' Y1"!1 !! !"3E "" # !"'!!&!!! !" ""!

PAGE 223

>:: !"!!! !"""! "! !"! # >0# !& !!" !# ><#>-5!! !&&!.! &! '""!" !! # >9#% !!&!! ! # >2#$" &! !& % ""! !! !!!" ! &!!! !" !E # !#G!$! !!" 6#686:#&!!!!!"!!"" & "!#!!"" !! '!! %!! %!!"! ""! !& %!! !! !" !%& G! !# % & &G!"! &!!

PAGE 224

>:> & !""!!! !! !!# G A "N O!" -"!)" !#'!% 1O!:5->: $&!!&! %!##%" !!"!!%! !D% E"!E!%#! %!$ !" !&!$!!!! #1 "& &!& !! !'!! !# ""! "!"! !%:,!!! !! !%>,&! "" !"$! %5,! "!!"&!" %8,=,!"! !1"!#1 G!%A3 ""! "!! "&%C:81 ! !!! &!! !" !!#1 C-:8 % 1!!! #&

PAGE 225

>:5 && !&!! #"&& &! !# +&3 & !,& !#/& & & &!!!" !!#1 A! ". " !1G #G A! "!! !&E "!# %&& "! #G!!!%!! & &!!" #1C-:=" 1!!!!!!& !"! >= #!"& !D#! !" !!!D#"! ! !'!% #! $#1 3" A &!"! !!! !#C-:>%1! !*!! "%!!! & % "$!!!!! !%&!E" E!#1 !!""" ""! !%1"

PAGE 226

>:8 !! / "" !&! !*!""#! "! ""#""Z![!!! !! !! !#1 @ &" !!! !%1L!""!! !#@! !!! D#1 C-:81!" ! Q)E !)&!"!!#" ) &!! !" !!! !$! QQ !!!#1 &!!!"'!! % " !! !"# ""! "!#! $! ""! 1 " !! Z[ -$!F" F # $3!"!! +:6>6 !! !!,F !>=W& (@% Q&E E ! Z[#1C-:=

PAGE 227

>:= """!". &!! !% 1G& !!"! !!!) & )#! """!". !!"! #EE &!&!! !"# $!!&!&%. ""! +&%&,!!". %"#1C-:=!!!" &!! 1G !) !!!& )" !! "!!#/& !UU !!%"!%""!Z!["! !#@)! D !"!!! #1! $! ""! !*! %1 + !"!!'!"!!, !!# &! !!!#! !"!! ! # & !D "" #1 !& !!"" !#/1!"!!%'!"!! ! &! !# %!#1 ")! #C-:=" G!

PAGE 228

>:0 %1 !&)E %E" 'G!/ 3 ! #1 ""! !!!! !#!C-:8% 1$! &! & 3 !! EG!/E! #. !$ !# !! !!$ !!!% !" D !"! "3#1 &!! %&!!"" "!!!! #C-:8 A "! !!" !%1! !! Z[!#/& %! !!" !!! !! # $% !) !!"&!" "&!"!!D -!!! !" D#1 ""! !"!# C-:8" G!%A3 !1 !!"!!E) E" !!! !D--& !-"!!I #1C-:8 !1! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 229

>:< '! !!D % E&! E" D#1C-:= "! D #/;" 1&! ;% & "E-!E# !"!! !& # & !3&)& !N1 C-:8"1 !! "!! !!#/& ! !!!!&!! ! !)#1 1!% !!" ) "" !!" !!# EEE! !!#1 A %C-:>!!!! %1. -!! ! !#1 C-:5! !!"! !"!"" #/;"1 % !! # !"!!%! !D%! #!! ; !"E D &E" #Q1 ""! !*!!!! )!" !! !#C-:=" G!%A3

PAGE 230

>:9 1"EE !*!!!! !F !!# "EEE--! "! Q"$!!!&)I!#1 1 %!"!! %! !#!& !"! ! ! +,&!& %!"!# ! !F) "E !E #1 C-:=&&. A! D %1 "D !!Z&!" !"!!![!"3 !! a5E' !" & )"'E&!" !!"!!"!!!)!#%. ""! %! !" ""!"I!!! !!# !" !!! !!!Z[" #1 C-:= %1/!! !AA !!F" "! #( $ !%!! Z[#1 $! ""! 1 !" )"

PAGE 231

"!!!"# & #1 3" "! ""! !*!!! !#C-:8 A %1!" '"!. !!!!#"EE! !$" !!" ##" E"!E ""! !!# !&Z[!'!"! !!&" !!!<6b %&!! !*!1C-:5" !!&!& !!&% 1!! !&!&!E!! & & '" & !% !&!. D!E & +!&! !,% "! -& !!!&! #G"!&! )! !-!!!&! !U!&!! !#1 !*!A!" '!! ) ""! !!"

PAGE 232

>>6 &!!! &!#'!%1O!>>->5 &!!" &!! !*!#! %!$ !" !&!$!!! !*!#1 !" '!"! !% !# !"&! ! !" E&E !!" C-:8%1. !&!!!! !*!# !! # !. $ #1 !!! !!"" !! #C-:=" G! 1 !*!!& "! #!!"! "!!!'%! !""#1C-:5" !&! !!! !%1 !!"! "! !!#& '! $!" #1 !"!%" ""! !&!!"'!"! "#C-:8" G!A3 %1 !!!&

PAGE 233

! % "!% !% !!" !" # " !% "" !!""! !#1C-:= !! ""! #/;1( & !%&)! " !!!!%!!"# !!E !E&) #1 C-:= &!!; & !"#/; %1 %E &! E !E#! !!#!!##!:29< !:99<& E !!E#1C-:5" ) 1!" !*!" )# $ !! ! & & !!"!!" !& !"!! #1 !!! & !%!##% !! 1!D#1!

PAGE 234

>>> $! ""! "!"$!!!" !!! #/ 1D !" E !!E ! #1!! &%C:5" A &!!&! !%1 !! " !#%!! !%!) & #/& %! !%!" !!%! % '!! # ""!% ! %& )! !"! #1 ". ""! D!" " !" D!#C-:=" G!%A3 ! !%1 !%& !NG !!N !! !! #G '!"! !#1 C-:8" !1/! !!!!&"!& !E! !E%&!)&!'!"!#" !; !!)!! )!) #1 "! $! 1 !! !% !"""!

PAGE 235

>>5 ) # 3'% !Q!!#E1 !'!!" !! !*!!! "!#C-:=" G!A3 !!!!%1Z[! !* !*!I< ""! %<66! ## ! && "!! !"! #!"" &! !! & !!!"!&! %% !!""!!#Z[%&& &!%!!!" !*!" G!%A3 !""!#1 ""! !1@! !!" !&!! !! $! !#G!& E)E!!%E !#1C-:8" A 1G !) & +! !;!, &+! ,*) !! #1C-:5" !!; !*! 1. %.!!! %

PAGE 236

>>8 &"! !*!# !$E"&E) !#!)" !*! !$!" ""! #! ""!"! &!& )!! ! "!#1 + !!#," C-:8" @ # !!"! '! &%1 !*!!Z[! & & !!!&! !# !""!)E "! !%& !"! &&E !#1 @ !3! "! '!&!!'! !!"#'! %1O!52-88&! !! !!. ""! "!# %!$ !" !&! $! !!" #1 !%!% !" &!!#

PAGE 237

" '!"! "!" !" #! $! ""! G!A3 !!! &!!&! %1! "! "!# !-! "!! !!! &!#. "!%!!% ) &! "" !!#1 ""! G! 1 & )! !*!& #!!& !% & 1C-:=!! !! !*!! %1C !! !!!)! #" !! !!"!!Z[ !;!"" Z[! # !!!!* Z[ !!!#1C-:5" A !! !*! !" %1% !!! !D!% !#"!! !"#1

PAGE 238

V >>0 !! !! !!'!"!&#! $! ""! G!%A3 % 1G!#A# &% !! &!EE&!! %E)& !#E!""&! ) "! # J&E!!!!!)! #1C-:=)3!! !" !!$%1!&%!# (" & ) 3&!C%& D &) ! J" !%!!!!!! J #1 !!&!! !!% JC-:8%" G!1 ! "&! J "" !!#!!&! DZ[ "Z[& !!% E !#1A C-:8!! J !! &"!!!!" "!#/; !!!!!&%1 J& &! !& &&!!!! '! !#C! !! !##%&) %&!

PAGE 239

D >>< !! !!!!!  "%! D % !!" !#" ( ""! !!" !"!%1 !" :290&"!!! -$" Z!& 3!""!! ![%&!! !#!Z[! !!!%$%E)D )E !!)!# $%' "Z [& !*!Z[&!!" ""!!--!!. ""! --! #'% !" !;' & "! & !*!& )! !*! % !!%!" !%#""%E & E% !!&"!# !*!" G!%A3 !!!!"! !! #1 ""! !!"" !&" !!!!; !*!%1E !!Q !!")!!%E&&E EE &!&% !%" #E1A

PAGE 240

>>9 ""! !" !" &!!%1. %" % "# G !*!)&&! !&!! !#1 @ ""! !! !!& ""! !& ""! #/$!1E ""! #"!)& ! ! !!&! ""!!#)&"!!) & &!!! A! ". #3!"!! !"! & I"!! !""! #G"!! #1+ #,

PAGE 241

>>2 .#L! %1 !!*! !!% .":995%1!3!".!. .!% # )?#+). )%@#P .!!3##% :2<2,%8#

PAGE 242

3/.L 33@ D !&! !!3 "&P / :," !! E" 1D1 !" !)# (!"'!! & "!" '!&! !&!!"!! !#$!! ""! @ "'!#'!:8%>6%>:!! !! # !!!"!"'! !$" :<%>6&! # "! '!!! !!&!&! !" !*!D E !!!" )!"

PAGE 243

>5: !+! ,#!%>=W& # $'!!! !!'!&! &!! !! !"!!"!!#!! 1 !1 & !# /& %""$!"!! & %!!"D &!! !" !"D#O!" !! !"! )D # '!%:9W" ""! & # '!&!$&! !!!1"1! ! !!!#!'!)! !!'!"!! !1!!1#! %8:W" !&! '# A! !&!!"!!! D" '!# !"!'!&!! !! &!)

PAGE 244

>5> !!" !"!! #) !"!! " # "!!>2W"! !! '# '!+&-,) " !!!& !!&! ! !!! "% " # !!!!& :9W" !#!! ! 1" !1 !"!! !" !# !!!!! !! !"" &A @ !'!#A !5:W&!@ !6W# '!+! ,&!!" '!! !!! !" !#!'!)Q !!" ! "" !" !#!!"! !!" !! !!!" !&! !!"! #!%:5W" !! !!& !! #

PAGE 245

'!!!!+! -&,&! &!'!"& 3!! !" !#!'! !!!"! & !" # "! +! ," &<>W# !"A ""! !!!28W#G! ""! && <>W# >, !!! !!! ""! !1) #1 !"'! !! &!!! ""! ! !" !#"!!! "!&)!!!" &!"! !! # '!! &88W" :6->6W !" &!&)!!!" &!! !#!! !! !!!'!FA 5:W%55W%@ 55W%G!=6W# %>:W ">6-86W !!#@ ""! %!

PAGE 246

>58 !!" % ) !#@ ""! !!55W"">6-86W"!& )!!!" !&!! !# !"'!&!)$ &! ""! "& ""! !&! !! &=8W" & !&% G ""! !&!"; "1 !*!!Y!D" '!+&-"!,# "<:W! '% &! !*!!! ""! !!& # !" % !! !*! ""! !& !# "!'!!! +&-!,!!!%$" !! !% ""! !$ !&! $!! # !52W &! !'!# 5,! &!!&! ! !" ! !%%!%! !!!#

PAGE 247

>5= "!'!&!% %& "! !! !" ""! "! !! !# !*!!!!""! !*! !!" ! #'!! &! !!!! % !&% !#% !! !! !#'!%+" -&,%! &! !!&! Q + ) "," "! !*!!!#!""& ""! &!& ! ! !& !# !! ! !!# !" !*+C.,!! !!! !" ! ! !!# "! '!+&-!$!!! '! !!! !#!'! )& !! '! &!!" !# !%05W" !! '!# !"

PAGE 248

>50 ! ""! # A 02W%00W%@<=W G!06W# $'!!!+&-,) &." !#!!>-5! &!! !!!! !&# !"!%'!)& ""! !!!!'#! !'!% & D!"!%!##%=8W # ""! !" !! !&! <=W % '!# $'!!!+! ,&! !3!! !" #'!)& ""! !3 !%$% !&!!&!!! # !'!!<8W! % # !" D!"! !!!!$" A &! &!28W!" % # $'!+! -,&! !!3&! !! !! !# '!)& 3& !!!!!

PAGE 249

>5< !1!1"!# !<6W & !" !%&! !!!"# "!'!"!+" -&,! !'!&! !*!!!# /& %& "!%"" '!" !! !#G!! ":>W! &!%!!!!"!! !! !!! !! !&!!# "!!" ! &! !"!!!! !" !" !# 8, !*!!!&!! ! !" !!# !!""'!&! &!D" !*!!!! !! !&!)&! !*!!!!" !! !# '!&!!"! &! !* !*!!!#G!" !%! &! &!)#

PAGE 250

>59 "! '!+"!",&! E!"!"!! # &" '!+:8W & ,!! !D !" !" !!# $'!+! -!,)& ""! "! "!!)! #! !
PAGE 251

>52 %!& &!!!& &! !*!!" # O!" -&)" !!! # :>W" J %!!! ! !*!!&! J !*!! !!!$!" J !!" !*!)! # J'!+" ` !*!!!" &!'! ""! !"! "#! !& J ""! !!&!!" D!" &!1)! J" 1#!% ""! >2W" !!& % J D! # '!)& !*!!! "" D! ""! J!# J=, !"" !! & !&G!A3 ""! "!# $!!"" '!! !! !!""

PAGE 252

>86 ""! E &1"!1 1' 1+G!A3,#/& %!!! & & ! ""! !#!" & G!A3"!!!3 L& !!"!!"" D '!%!##%!#'!! !" !! !!! !!" !! ""!!% # !)!!"! !!!# !" $!!"!!"" #!"" !! !&! !% &! !! !# %'!&! &! !""!"3!! !" % !! "# '!!&!3% !! &G!%A3"!# &%'! "!! !! ! !% % !"!#

PAGE 253

>8: !!!!!"! !&!!# ! !"A "A"!!@ ""! #!!&! A "A" ""! & @ % & !#/& %AA!:66W" !!"!!!&! &! # !G )" >666 !!! !&" " !&)&!% &)& ""! &!! !*!!!" >666#&!* &! !&% D!$ !! &!!&! &! !>: # "! &!! !" & )" # " % !&! """ E""!)+!&! "!,# A @ P

PAGE 254

>8> & )" &! &&% % !#:= "& $:5 &!!&!% 8< #: P D !!"& )" &! D "& )#! UP D &D! !! !&! )!D" D #L "&&D&! & %"&! !% !# !% ! D & )" &!! )! '! J"&!! & JP D )!! #R D "!!!! &!&! D ! !!!!!% J !& )" "!" D" & )#@!% &! ! &! ""! & )" !! % !C!%!! !! J! "!&! D !!!"& )" P J J&!! &%& %)!!" &!&

PAGE 255

>85 !!" #5 &!!"& )" &! """! !*!!!%!##%& $ !!" !*!#G !"!!" !& ""! Q !!!# "! !!! !& !&! "" &!!)!%!& )" #/;&!! "!!% %;&! !!! !! % X !! !!! !!& !# '!!%&""!! "$!!!&!! ""! !!! N '&! !#%!!:29= !" !&! !"& )" >666# % ""! !" !'!%#### "! %!"

PAGE 256

!&!$!!*#! !&"!!!& ! !; !% D )1 !NE1R !!" !!% "! $!! #!! & ""! !& !!& )"!# !!"!!! "$!!!! !" "! !#" $ !& )" >666 # &! !& & )" !" !"!# %!' !!% !! !!"" !)!% &! &!" !&!&! "! !! #G N"1 !1!) !!! !!" !R R !"& )"

PAGE 257

>8= >666&!" !!"!!"!& & )! # !%! &!!!"!!"! ""! &!&!& ! &! ""! !&! &! !! !!" &"! )# !&! & !! !! #G! D !!)!N"% & !&!!" !" !" !!)!%D # !!%C!1!)! !! !!&! '! !!)!### /& 1!! !! !!! !&!!$! ""!!! #19 !'!%!! ! !$" ""! !! #G!'!% '!& )" >666% & )" !&! !!"

PAGE 258

>80 !!"& &!) !*!! # &" !!! >: %!! E !!!! &!! !!"!" !*!!!#/"!" &!!"! "!!!" !!" "!!!&!&&! !" # ## !. !( " !" #.! ") !% !*! !!! !#!"!! !%! !!!" &!""!!# ?:%:292%! "## !( %A!#@!%! !# & !&".Q :6 # !% !" "!!&! !" ""! E'!! !!# !" !" !!!& #" !" &! !""! !"

PAGE 259

" #G %" & !" & )" >666# P !" "!!! &) &!! !"! "! !#" !&! %&!" # C &!!! !!! !$& #2 !% !!!! &! " ! !& )" !!# !*!!!! !!% !!#)! !!&! "! ! !!"! "!!!" !# ""! " !; D# !!& F !"1) 11 !*!!1"!# !" ""! !!!" !" # ""! &! !&!&;&!

PAGE 260

>89 & )" >666%&!!" & )"& )%""! "!!!" !# G&!" !"& )" >666NG&! !& )" !!!!NG &!&)& !&'!"! !!!" ! &! '!"!!!!" !!!# G! !! !" %!!!) + ,&! )!&!! !" !! X !!" "!!!!! !)"& )" >666#!! &!&! !" !!" %! !" & )" # !!!&!! !! !!% !! "& )" >666& !!)#!!! #G .& !! !! !!$!!+ ," !!&! !" D !)!" !$!! #@!)&!% :2<6E3!!

PAGE 261

>82 3!!&!$!!! G ) !!&!!"!! !& )$ !)!! !& !# ! )!& ) &!%!!)! )" !!)" & )" >666#G! !!% !!&!" '!"!+ !,!% !%!&& "!!!" !%!##% !%" % &! !" # !! !! !!!" !# &! ""! 1!!""! 1&!!!! !!! !; !!!& !! !!!# ""! ! !! !!&!. ! !!!" !! &! ""! !; !" !""" .#! ) ""! 11".! !!! #!" !!!!! ""! & )" +, +*-./

PAGE 262

>=6 #!" & !!" !!" ""! .+! !,# %&!.!& !!" ""! &! !! !! !% !! ""! !! E !*!!! &!" # "& !! !&)&!% !.%% ""! '!"& !!!#!& ! !&$!!"& ) !!! #G! ""! !!!""!!!!! # D!" !!" ! # !! ! !! &!! !! !#"&E!)!! &&!!&! &!. !% ""! 1"!$ 1"E !!! !&!

PAGE 263

&!!! #

PAGE 264

>=> :!L E !!!%G )" >666 !EL +A %3%:299,%#< >!# R ).#C!%1! G )" K >666%1 :+:299,P>># RH !H#%1 !; '!!.! !%1.!. .!P.!!"3!! !%# A!/#+&K )P!. %#:29=,%92# =H !A!/#% ( !.!!+&K )P .! %:29:,%58# 0D#" !*% 3#/%A!/#% !C P.!!. #> #+&K )P A)) %#%:29:,#:==# < ).#C!%1! G )" K >666%Y :+:299,P>># 9//%1"3!! !P! N1! 3!".!. .!%# )?#+) )%@#P .!!3##:2<2,P82# 2 !. !( %##""!". !P !# +G!%A3P##C !!""!%:299,P5=#

PAGE 265

@3A((@C./K () ( %3 #!"$!#3 !%P / !#. %:259:209# (!%G #1 !*!" #13!I" !*!(! %#G # %>9:->25# ). )%@P .!!3#%#%:2<9# /%/#C #G!%A3P ( )!!!%:2<<# #1"3!! !P! N13!" .!. .!%# )?#%89-=9%) )%@P .!!3##%:2<2# /%3 #( !A #%&K )P %:2<9# H !%%A!/## ( !.!!%&K )P .! %:29:# @!%3 #1!"! #1 .!!" ( #%>#%# 3#%::2-:5>#&K )P / &%:2<<# %?C#%/ #!#13!!@!! !!#1.!!" ( %> #%# 3#%::=-::2# &K )P/ &%:2<<#

PAGE 266

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

PAGE 267

>== G%A&!#1G.!!! !N13!" .!!! !%?#" !* 3#/# ). )%@#P .!!3##%:2<9# !% /#1. "! !" !. PG!@" N1!&".!. !! != + :29=,P>0-8:# C!% ).#1! G )" #1 :+:299,P>:->=# C #1 !( A!!!@!L. ""! #1:290 #:6<# / % G#1!!!P!C @!)(!#1.!!! !!&# :29=#58:-5=:# ? %/ #1 !P!EG (#1( G! :2<2-:296#>=-55 @ %! #1! .!. !#1.!!? :: +A :29>,P><:-><0# !!% !. % %?.#1!! (!"% !*!.!!%G!(&! PA! !!!#1" ? ><+A :298,P09<-<6=# %C %#1!!"!! -K A!! !. !( #1? 3!!!!.! :+:29>,P8<-=6#

PAGE 268

>=0 .%? #/ #C 1!%. %3!! !" #1.!. :6+:29:,P5-:6# %( #1A! !%1( G! :29>:295%#9-:8# %( #13 !!!##3!! !#1.! !! !!&#;?:290#>6<->:8# %A!/#1!*!.!!.!. #1.!!? ::+A :29>,P >8=->=8# !% /#13!&& !*! 3 #1!&G! :298#5-:0# %(###1G !.!! C #1. ? 0>+:29>,P>28>2<# 7%?#1/! !() -3!"!!! .!!3!"!!#13!"! Q3# ?;:295#:5-:0# C / % !@#1. ""! P"#1 !" A # '! ##3!! !3!! 8% :20=##:6# !L E !!!#G )" >666 !EL #A %3#:299# $$

PAGE 269

>=< !Q. 33 # %+!. >5%:295,##C !!""!%#:5=:# % H#1". A! !!! C #1 """!". !!"!! A "3!! !#:2<># ##3!! !3!! # G!A3P:200# ##3!! !3!!# !3!! #G!%A3P##C !!""!% :2<9# ## !. !( #1 !!"! !"""!". A !:298:29=%1 "?## !. !( # ""!" !!&!#:290# ## !. !( ###""!". !P #G!%A3P##C !! ""!%:299# ## !. !( #(&!G!! C P3 !!":296 :295 !!# :290# ##""!". P""!"A! & !C-=C-< -@?#?:299# ##C !""!# ""!". #:295#

PAGE 270

3 !/ >=9 ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# 3!! !":2<0#/ !(" !& 3!! !#283#% #%:2<0#3!. !0<# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# 3!! !""!!&#/ !(" 3!.""!3!! !#283#% >#%:2<0#3!. !9># ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# A!.!!"!. !C !!! !#25 3#% >#%:2<8#3!. !>># ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# A!.!!"!. !(!!! !#283#%: #%:2<=#3!. !8# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# @!! !!&"3!! 3!!#2>3#%>#%:2<>#3!. =8# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# !!!3!! !P ( #283#%:#% :2<=#3!. !:6# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# "'! !""!# !""! !&!3!! !3!!# %283#%>#%:2<0#3! !:8# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# L!!" !. !!!

PAGE 271

>=2 :#283#%:#%:2<=#3! !:2# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# L!!" !. !!! #283#%:#%:2<=#3! !. !>6# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# L!!" !. !!! #283#%:#%:2<=#3!. !82# ##3 #/#3!.""!3!! !# L!!" !. !!! #/ !(" & 3!! !#283#%:#%:2<=# U3!. !89# :

PAGE 272

..A3

PAGE 273

>0: ..AM 012)34 556)2 7 8155 95'22:;2 <%=& 8>?>=4>> 4@>%<%= !""#!! $%# """#!!"" "#! # &#!"" $ '#! !"()# "* + ,"'$ %$" -!".# !! !! $ %""!" /*+,'## ###""# $ 0#1 !"234!""$0 !# #$! "#$ +! 5+"& 6"

PAGE 274

>0> ..AM( 01AB2)3C4 556)2 7 8155 5D22:;2 <%=2@E >68>?>=4>> 4@7%<%= 7!FF: 6!""7 !( 1 "###!"! #!!$ 8$" "!!#1 #!$!&! "")!"# ### $% #" !#" !#!!" !!$ !!#1# !!!'*949/2/32! # !!$ %$

PAGE 275

>05 ..AM3 3%=2><<%?G%2@><<4=% 7%C>0=4H38<6>=C4@>< 4B&E612 $ E3E >)3IJ E EB E&+B >) .!! !"!# :HB)2)01$$$"2!8BCK$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8B01CK F01LMCK$$$$$$5017B@&7B CK$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$C&B&!&I1 E<$$31&B1 902'92%2'$$$8)M)))1&)K !&BNOBB)1O!1 B!OBB)1PM1 4Q& &$$4@!2 < B)B) !B!19B)1B !M)B1! 4Q&&$$8+I! 4@! 21!<

PAGE 276

>08 B)B) !B! M1Q) 1B1 4Q&&4@!$$21!$$< $$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$:3B! & BN 4Q&&4@!21!< $$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"!Q))) )B)!B! Q)Q)RR! O11ORB>3C 4Q&&4@!21!< $$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!M)B)!!53H Q )RB11Q) )1B))BKB)B)1B B&B)1)B 1 4Q&&4@!21!< $$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FOBO)11 D !B!)))B)B1R1! !)! 4Q&&4@!21!< $ 8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 277

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

PAGE 278

>00 8!!+I9<' &Q)I13> ))OBNBP1)PIOB1 )T&!Q)1 R/91 8B1N&&Q) 1 04>>CT17!7%' 4Q&&4@21!< $$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!U." !"& &C&BNQK1) Q1& Q1!& Q 3) & !!# :4B1 B &!)11Q) 11! 2B&4B4B<>$$7B2B&7B$$$"@);1&1B! QQ))>3CQ B1R)1! 613CB! 2B&4B4B<>$$$7B2B&7B$$$!&B&) &!Q)) 1R&B11B1B!&! 2B&4B4B<>$$$7B2B&7B$$F%I Q))!&1QB1 )3>B1&1B Q)!)B&U !B 2B&4B4B<>$$$7B2B&7B$$

PAGE 279

>0< 8+I!9 7B2B&7B$$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$82=4!!1!I1! !B!&!)1)18 2 8!! 2B&4B4B<>$$7B2B&7B$$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$31818!!8!Q )8B))&! ) &82=4Q1! )61QM&!MB B1)O11Q1O1! 1 &)QM 2B&4B4B<>$$7B2B&7B$$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 280

>09 @)IQR!! B&R @)!B)182=4Q &1)!QB11 2B&4B4B$$<>$$7B2B&7B$$3?%42%8>CC%<@$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$:B1O11Q1O 82=4!Q 2B&4B4B<>$$7B2B&7B$$8!!+I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$5<# C&)11&!Q 1 1B 1!O11O) !Q)82=4 2B&4B4B<> 7B2B&7B 59# &1Q)&)3 2B&4B4B<> 7B2B&7B @)QB '! &) BN!Q)Q))3&B& 8)M)Q))1&)K F!&BN)1!MB 1!1)3>)&B !B!) )11 4Q&&4@!21!< $$$$5&B&!B! 1B1 4Q&&4@!$$21!$$< $$)3> I )!B!Q)) O1BBO) &! 4Q&&4@!21!< $$$0 V$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PAGE 281

CB!!&B& 1B!1 )9 !!!B B1 4Q&&4@!21!< $$&B&!B!U13U !&1&OM!O)B O1!MBO)!!B! 4Q&&4@!21!< $$!&B&Q))!&)1 QM1)!&B&1B&1 B&B!M!Q)!B! 4Q&&4@!21!< $$G )IQ))Q))!&! !&BB O1BBO!)B I! )!Q)))I)&B& :G;1Q))1&!)!&! !Q)&BN)B I!)!Q)))I)1&! &BN @

PAGE 282

><6 "GF;1Q))1)! B& )3>13) B I!)!Q)))I )1)!&B& 7&&MQ3>Q)Q1 )+)BN) )11)R&/EWQ1QB1) 11)Q)+)1)1J )Q&Q1&&) !QB11 QW$X <4C%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$40%<8E$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$3!&)!4=%48>7%9$$$'$ 1&1B))93C4C'!$$$$$$$@) !!&)!QM!