ࡱ> g ˍbjbjVV DFr<r<܄""||\\\=;!!!:::::::$)=?V:\!!!!:|| :'''!|\:'!:''n89@:R4a#@: : ;0=;`: 1@}&1@@:1@\:(!!'!!!!!::'!!!=;!!!!1@!!!!!!!!!" B: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Discussion Draft Paper No.6 Guardianship and the Rights of Intellectually Disadvantaged People Draft prepared by : Darryl Paterson Date: November 1984 This is the sixth of the Human Rights Commission's Discussion Draft series. Discussion Drafts are issued by the Commission from time to time as a means of generating public discussion and comment on various issues or subjects. Accordingly, the Commission invites general or detailed comment on the Drafts to be submitted to the Commission at the following address: Human Rights Commission PO Box 629 CANBERRA CITY A.C.T. 2601 The views that may be expressed or implied in the Discussion Draft series are not necessarily those of the Human Rights Commission or its members, and should not be identified with it or them. The paper that follows outlines proposals for a system of guardianship for intellectually handicapped persons in the A.C.T. that have emerged from discussions with interested persons. It is circulated for information and comment. Under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, the Human Rights Commission's charter includes the protection of the rights of intellectually disadvantaged people. The Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, which forms a schedule to the Act provides, in Paragraph 5, that the intellectually disadvantaged person has "a right to a qualified guardian when this is required to protect his personal well-being and interests". Following consideration of a report prepared for it by Dr Terry Carney and Professor Peter Singer of Monash University on the Ethical and Legal Issues in Guardianship Options for Intellectually Disadvantaged People,' the Commission reached the view that some form of legal guardianship provision appears to be appropriate for people with intellectual disadvantage. Discussions were held with interested individuals and organisations in the A.C.T. after they had had the opportunity to consider a summary of the report prepared by Dr Carney and Professor Singer. This paper reflects the results of those discussions. The Commission wishes to thank all those people who took the time to give their views. It is the Commission's ultimate intention to advise the Commonwealth Government as to the need for legislative and administrative changes in this area. However, if sufficient public interest is evident following the circulation of this paper and the provisional conclusions it contains, the Commission will first arrange to bring together interested groups in order to discuss the issues in greater depth. The quality of the final recommendations will be greatly enhanced if there is wide and varied input from intellectually disadvantaged people, parents, organisations and other interested persons. This report is about to be published by the Human Rights Commission. Contents Introduction Examples where Guardianship is Required Is the Introduction of Guardianship a Rationalisation for Inadequate Service Provision? -TerminologyPage 1 1 3 The Guardianship Tribunal 5 How Large Should the Tribunal be? 6 What Should be the Composition of the Tribunal? 7 Open or Closed Hearings 9 Tailor-made Guardianship 9 The Guardian 12 Duties of the Guardian 12 The Identity of the Guardians 12 How are Best Interests to be Determined? 13 Should Parents be Automatic Guardians? 15 Should Guardians be Paid? 17 Review of the Order 17 Bummary 18 Appendix Relevant Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 20 Relevant Paragraphs of the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons 21 GUARDIANSHIP AND THE RIGHTS OF INTELLECTUALLY DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE Introduction The concept of guardianship is not a product of contemporary society. "Guardianship of person and property of vulnerable members of society was clearly recognised in Roman Law at least as early as 5B.C."1 The applicable law in the A.C.T. dates back to 1898 and was directed towards the committal of certain 'social nuisances' to confinement in institutions. The subsequent enactments are merely variants on this theme. Examples of Where Guardianship is Required Guardianship is primarily designed to provide protection for those people who are unable to exercise some or all of their rights regardless of the setting (i.e. in institutions or the community). The following examples will be helpful to gain some understanding of the problems faced by intellectually disadvantaged people and the circumstances in which an appropriate and effective form of guardianship may be desirable. I. A male "relative" of an intellectually disadvantaged 25 year old woman took her out of the hostel where she was living for a "day trip", and did not return. They were sighted at various locations throughout the State, but police were powerless to do anything. The woman put on excessive weight due to an unbalanced diet. Her health was deteriorating because she was not getting adequate medical care. P. McLauglin, Guardianship of the Person (Doensview Ontario, National Institute on Mental Retardation, 1979), p.37. 2 An intellectually disadvantaged 26 year old woman lived at home with her parents and was employed by a nearby sheltered workshop. The woman did not wish to live with her parents as they did not let her leave the house after work or on weekends to visit her friends. Her parents took her weekly earnings and spent them on alcohol. An intellectually disadvantaged 31 year old man, while waiting at the bus stop to go to a workshop, was approached by two men. They offered him a plan to "get rich quick" and have an overseas holiday. He was very impressed and decided to leave his job. He did not understand that he would have to be involved in drug smuggling. On turning 18 years of age, an intellectually disadvantaged female inherited $150,000. If she was in need of some money a social worker or one of the nursing staff at the hostel where she lived had to make the arrangements. The process was cumbersome and sometimes took up to three months. An intellectually disadvantaged 22 year old female living in an institution was going to be given a full hysterectomy because she would be "easier to nurse", 'especially when staffing levels were low. Her parents did not oppose the - operation and the intellectually disadvantaged woman was unable to understand the implications of such an operation. An intellectually disadvantaged 35 year old male who lived in a community house was quite capable in many aspects of his life, but was unable to manage his money, even after much training and help in this area. One day a door-to-door salesman enticed him into a hire purchase agreement which he could not understand or afford. 3 These examples illustrate some of the areas of need: the exploitation and abuse of rights; informed consent; entering into contracts and the management of money. Clearly, the ramifications of these problems are very serious, but at present they are being worked out in an ad hoc fashion. In these areas, and many others, a guardian could be of benefit to the intellectually disadvantaged person. 3. Is the Introduction of Guardianship a Rationalisation for Inadequate Service Provision? In discussions with individuals working with intellectually disadavantaged people, the view was expressed that increased funding for services to intellectually disadvantaged people, rather than the creation-of a guardianship scheme, would go further towards meeting needs in the A.C.T. Proponents of normalisation argue that all citizens require a vast range of supportive networks. Intellectually disadvantaged persons, like the rest of society, require housing, education, training and many other supports. "If their basic needs are not being met in a decent and effective manner, they will have difficulty, particularly in the life of society. It will appear necessary to manage their lives for them. General guardianship and/or institutionalisation will seem the only 'solution' "1 Counselling, in particular, is an area where it is argued that increased financial support is required. To illustrate, an intellectually disadvantaged person may have difficulty in budgeting his/her money. However many "normal" people may have similar difficulties, but do not require a guardian. Counselling and advice on the planning of expenditures, as well as access to banking facilities to help money management may be all that an intellectually disadvantaged person requires. The need for advice and assistance is very different to "the need for control".1 A wide range of people considered that if adequate provision is made for an individual's participation in society, then the majority of intellectually disadvantaged people would be able to manage adequately without the use of control mechanisms. The view that increased funding to services for intellectually disadvantaged'people, such as Citizen advocacy, would negate the need to establish a guardianship scheme, overlooks certain functions that only a guardian can perform. "Citizen advocacy, whilst an interesting and worthwhile concept, does not meet the concern held by many parents for the long term future of their mentally retarded adult offspring. For example, the citizen advocate would not have the power to consent to medical treatment on behalf of the retarded person, any more than a parent of an adult retarded person would, unless legally established as that person's guardian. There is also no guarantee that the citizen advocate would remain helpful to the retarded person for the remainder of his life."2 Programs such as citizen advocacy and moves for better service provision for intellectually disadvantaged people are positive steps. However, if all the least restrictive alternatives have been exploited, and provision has not been made for all needs, then it was generally agreed that guardianship must meet the needs of those intellectually disadvantaged persons who are incapable of making their own decisions in some or all of the aspects of their lives. M. Kindred, Guardianship and Limitation Upon Capacity in the Mentally Retarded Citizen and the Law', President's Committee on Mental Retardation, Free Press, New York, 1976, p.69. 2 S.C. Hayes and R. Hayes, Mental Retardation and Law Policy and Administration, The Law Book Company Ltd., 1982, p.236. 5 Provisional Conclusion A guardianship scheme should be established in the ACT in order to meet the needs of intellectually disadvantaged persons who are incapable of Making decisions in some or all aspects of their lives. 4. Terminology Legislation should contain terminology which has the least potential to be stigmatising. Although the term "guardianship" is far from image enhancing, it is relatively free of negative connotations.. The intellectually disadvantaged person who is subject of the guardianship order should not, however, be called a "ward". It is thought that this term may be confused with "the ward of the State" which is a related, but different, concept. The Victorian Committee' believes that the term "represented person." is an appropriate one. This is a word in common usage (political, legal, sales) that it is less likely than other terms to become a demeaning or devaluing label. Provisional Conclusion While the term "guardianship", as a relatively neutral term, may be acceptable to describe the overall scheme, the term "represented person" is preferable to that of "ward" to describe the person subject to a guardianship order. The Guardianship Tribunal Those consulted were favourable towards the establishment of a guardianship tribunal in preference to a court system to appoint guardians for intellectually disadvantaged people. Advantages of the tribunal model2 are firstly, that it may have less rigid rules than those which apply for court hearings and would be less costly. Secondly, a tribunal is more Victorian Committee's Report of the Minister's Committee on Rights and Protective Legislation for Intellectually Handicapped, December 1982, p.76. 6 accessible to members cf the public than a court. Thirdly, decision making power can be placed in the hands of those with appropriate specialised expertise. Provisional Conclusion The establishment of a guardianship tribunal to appoint guardians is preferred over a court system. 5. How Large Should the Tribunal Be? The majority of people were reasonably happy with the proposal of a three member body. This size is consistent with the need for some degree of informality in procedures. The concern was raised that a larger tribunal Might be threatening or overwhelming to the intellectually disadvantaged person, causing him or her to appear more handicapped than was actually the case. It was pointed out that the intellectually disadvantaged person should not be subject to any more distressing events than absolutely necessary. If procedural safeguards could be maintained, a small and flexible tribunal was generally agreed to be a good idea. Those who voiced a preference for a larger body argued that a three person tribunal would not provide sufficient expertise to cover a broad range of areas. However, the tribunal would be free to call expert evidence or, if necessary, individuals could be commissioned to sit on the tribunal in particular cases and be paid sitting fees. Provisional Conclusion The guardianship tribunal should comprise three members and be free to call expert evidence or, if necessary, be able to co-opt additional members in cases requiring particular expertise. This question raised a number of contentious issues. A majority of people considered that one of the positions should be held by a lawyer in order to deal with legal arguments concerning the interpretation of statutory procedures. It was felt, however-, that the remaining positions should not be vocationally prescriptive. Desirable qualifications should not only include professional background, but more importantly, relevant experience with intellectually disadvantaged people, and a personal commitment to improving their circumstances. Concern was raised that the members of the tribunal might all be "white middle class professionals", and therefore decision making would reflect these values. Hence, it was suggested that one member of the tribunal should be a non-professional. For example, the inclusion of an interested parent or an intellectually disadvantaged person, would be more appropriate. Potential tribunal members would need to be aware of the needs of intellectually disadvantaged people at the broad and individual levels, the latter so as to overcome any tendencies to react in terms of ill-founded stereotypes. A number of people considered that it was very important that potential tribunal members should have a good ability to relate to intellectually disadvantaged people, and that this ability usually comes with experience. 8 No member of the tribunal should have a vested interest in service provision for intellectually disadvantaged people. - Part-time membership of the tribunal was seen as an important device to keep members in touch with the life experiences which initially qualified them for the position. Furthermore, it was suggested that the tribunal should ultimately be answerable to intellectually disadvantaged people and the public. There should be provision to stand down members who did not undertake their duties satisfactorily. It was recommended that members of the tribunal should retain their positions for approximately 5 years. Who should be the chairperson? Most people maintained that the lawyer did not necessarily have to be the chairperson. It was noted that the Public Guardian of Alberta, Joel Christie, is a social worker who has had much prior experience with intellectually disadvantaged people' Opinion favoured relevant experience and good leadership qualities in preference to vocational training. Provisional Conclusions Membership of the tribunal should be part-time and comprise: a lawyer, not necessarily as Chairman; at least one woman; and a non-professional. All members should have the ability to relate to intellectually disadvantaged people and none should have a vested interest in service provision to them. Open or Closed Hearings Those who argued for open hearings maintained that public scrutiny would provide an additional procedural safeguard. Those who favoured closed hearings argued that the intellectually disadvantaged person-, who was the subject of the hearing, had the right to privacy if he or she so desired. Information which is of a personal nature should not be divulged to anyone other than the tribunal members. .Should the press have access to proceedings? On the one hand, people argued that the press would be able to monitor proceedings which might be leading to the deprivation of rights, and make these known to the public. On the other hand, the press might sensationalise and distort the facts for their own ends. However, it should be possible to steer a middle course so as to meet the goal of effective monitoring of proceedings, whilst maintaining the right to privacy. Provision could be built into the legislation to allow the press access to non-confidential information about hearings. Provisional Conclusion The public and the press should only be allowed access to non-confidential information about hearings. Tailor-Made Guardianship Up until the 1950s intellectually disadvantaged people were regarded as "incapable of adapting themselves to anything out of the ordinary" and "only capable of the simplest routine tasks under constant supervision".1 In recent times, however, there have been calls for more flexible forms of guardianship. Thus, while in a plenary guardianship system, the guardian has absolute decision making power over all aspects of the life of Clarke A.D.B. and Clarke A.M., Cognitive Changes in the Feebleminded, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1954, 45, pp.173-179. 10 the person who is subject to the order, a tailor-made guardianship system would empower the tribunal to appoint a guardian only in those areas in which the person lacked decision making ability. For example, in the case already mentioned where the intellectually disadvantaged man was unable to manage his money, a plenary guardian would not be required. He may only need someone to help manage his financial affairs. Before deciding on any order, the guardianship tribunal would need to be certain of a number of factors. Firstly, the person should be an intellectually disadvantaged adult who was unable to look after his or her own needs and make reasonable judgments in any or all of the aspects of his or her life. Secondly, before granting guardianship the tribunal would need to be satisfied that the person's needs were unable to be met by any less restrictive means. An order should not be made unless it was clearly in the best interests of the person to be subject to it. Thirdly, a guardianship order should be as least restrictive of a person's freedom as possible. Therefore, a plenary order should not be made unless the tribunal was satisfied that a limited guardianship order, would be insufficient to meet the needs of the person in respect of whom the application is made. Although there was virtually unanimous support for the concept of tailor-made guardianship, there were a number of issues raised concerning its practical implementation. A question might be raised in relation to limited guardianship and that is, how can a guardianship Scheme be tailor-made to meet the precise needs for a person whose precise needs cannot be ascertained? Mental development can vary over time and it is difficult to determine future development. The notion of a 'little incompetency' might reasonably be said to apply to all individuals in certain circumstances. Competence can also be a function of the services that are available to 11 intellectually disadvantaged people. New technology and methods may help a dependent incompetent person to function at a more advanced level. Any guardianship scheme would need to have the flexibility to take account of changes in individuals' levels of functioning. A number of people expressed the fear that due to uncertainties as to the legal status of those under limited guardianship, third parties might be reluctant to enter into contracts with such people. The legal standing of those subject to guardianship orders would need to be clearly set out. How much detail should be contained in the order? Some people argued that guardianship orders covering every facet of one's life would have to be far too detailed. This process would be too time consuming and expensive. The Alberta Dependent Adults Act and the Victorian Committee follow the approach of limiting the guardian's power by reference to areas of the life of the person subject to guardianship. Such an approach might result in less confusion as to the scope of the guardian's authority than if the guardian were granted power to perform specific acts on behalf of the person Subject to guardianship. It would also reduce the need for the guardian to go back to the tribunal every time it was found that some act had been omitted from the original order. The guardianship order should not authorise the transfer of all rights to the guardian. Some decisions are too personal and individual to be exercised by a substitute decision maker. For example, no one can exercise the vote for another person. The same principle applies to the decision to marry. Provisional Conclusion Individual guardianship orders should be tailor-made to suit the requirements of the particular intellectually disadvantaged person concerned. The Guardian 9. Duties of a Guardian Clearly the duties and function of guardians would vary with the degree and character of the intellectually disadvantaged person's handicap, and thus with the type of restriction of the legal capacity specified in each particular case. However, there are duties and functions which would be common to all guardians.' Provisional Conclusion A guardian should, at the very least, be required to : maintain close contact with the person for whom he or she is responsible; respect the wishes of the person whenever possible and help him or her to make his or her own choices when feasible;- ease the person's relationship with other people; recruit resources and services for the person; act as an advocate or spokesperson in both the public and private sectors. 10. The Identity of the Guardian There was favourable response to the proposal that the guardian should be an individual rather than an organisation, the tribunal, or a government department. 13 ,Provisional Conclusion A guardian should be an individual who: is eighteen years or older; would act in accordance with the best interests of the intellectually disadvantaged person in defined terms; is no, in a potential conflict of interest situation; has regular contact with the intellectually disadvantaged person; and is acceptable to the intellectually disadvantaged person (if he or she could voice a preference). 11. How are Best Interests to be Determined? Many people expressed concern about the phrase "in the best . interests", believing it to be vague and virtually devoid of meaning. It was suggested that certain guidelines should be formulated in order to assess a guardian's performance. The principles that were suggested were similar to those proposed by the Victorian Committee.1 A guardian would be said to act in the best interests of a intellectually disadvantaged person if he or she acted as far as possible: "(a) as an advocate for the represented person; (b) in such a way as to encourage the represented person to participate as much as possible in the life of the community; 1 Victoria Committee, op.cit. pp.60. 14 in such a way as to encourage and assist the represented person to become capable of carina for himself and of making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; in such a way as to protect the represented person from neglect, abuse or exploitation; and in consultation with the represented person taking into account as far as possible the wishes of the represented person". It was strongly suggested that if the guardian was not fulfilling such duties, then he or she should be dismissed and an alternative found. When an intellectually disadvantaged person is legally incompetent to make decisions in a certain aspect of his or her life, the guardian makes a substitute decision. Although guidelines are helpful for standardising roles and expectations, ultimately the substitute decision must be made by the guardian alone and what one guardian considers to be "best" for the intellectually disadvantaged person may differ quite markedly from what another well-meaning guardian may choose. The decision does not reflect what the intellectually disadvantaged person wants, but rather what the guardian thinks is the best decision, and this will be based or his or her own values. If the intellectually disadvantaged person knows the guardian and trusts him or her to make a "fair" decision on his orher behalf, this can be seen as a reasonable agreement. However, for those severely to profoundly intellectually disadvantaged persons (it was generally considered that this group is in the most need of guardianship) who are unable to voice a preference for a guardian or understand the implications of such a decision, they will not be under the same agreement. 15 Is society justified in making their decisions for them? Legal prohibitions are enacted in society to promote the public good. For example, a person is not free to take another's motor car, default on taxes, or abuse one's children. In fact, nobody is entirely free, each of us operates under many physical, social, legal, economic and moral or ethical constraints. Education is a major area in which individual rights are curtailed in the public interest. 鱨վ are denied the freedom of self-determination for ten years of their lives. However, it is considered desirable by society that the public interest is served by restraining children from growing up functionally illiterate and vocationally incompetent. This curtailment of children's rights is rarely questioned not to be in their best interests. Guardianship similarly illustrates the paradox' that, in orden to give real options to less competent individuals, one must take away those rights that are theirs theoretically, but which cannot be exercised on their own initiatives. Provisional Conclusion Guardians should be required to act in the best interests of intellectually disadvantaged persons. Guidelines should be formulated to help ensure that this is achieved in practice. 12. Should Parents Be Automatic Guardians? A number of parents were of the view that if their intellectually disadvantaged children were in need of guardianship after turning eighteen years of age, the parents themselves should automatically be appointed as guardians. However, parents - in the same way as any potential guardians - would need to be able to act in the best interests of the This report is about to be published by the Human Rights Commission. 16 intellectually disadvantaged adult. Biological ties alone have no direct relationship to the success or failure of guardianship. In talking to a number of intellectually disadvantaged adults, it became evident that some parents were over-protective of their offspring. Although well meaning, some parents quite literally "do everything" for their children. One intellectually disadvantaged 35 year old successfully cared for his own needs during the week in a hostel, but his mother would make him wear "old fashioned" clothes, cut his hair and insist that he shave off the "growth" on his face when he went home for the weekend. This man was sufficiently aware to question his mother's right to impose her values. However, many intellectually disadvantaged adults do not question their parents' authority to make decisions for them. Another adult intellectually disadvantaged male, referring to his mother, said "she always decides what I want". If intellectually disadvantaged adults have all their decisions made for them they are not only being denied the right of self-determination, but are losing the educational opportunity of being able to make choices, and being responsible for their outcomes. It must be noted that there was no opposition in principle to parents being guardians, and indeed it was envisaged that most applications would come from this source. However, it was stressed that parents would need to meet the same requirements as any other applicant before guardianship was granted. Provisional Conclusion Parents should not be granted guardianship automatically. They should have to meet the same requirements as other applicants. 17 Should Guardians be Paid? The consensus of opinion was that guardians should not be paid as this might give rise to a class of professional guardians. For example, certain people might attempt to supplement their income by applying for guardianship. Also, if guardians were to be paid there would be potential for conflicts of interest to develop. Nevertheless, there should be some provision for them to recoup any expenses they might incur in the course of their duties. The guardianship tribunal could perhaps regulate this process. provisional Conclusion Guardians should not be paid but should be allowed to recoup their expenses. Review of Order There was strong support for the proposition that the guardianship order should be reviewable. One person reported a case where a relative had been granted guardianship of an intellectually disadvantaged female when she turned eighteen. The order remained in force for two decades. However, during this time the intellectually disadvantaged woman had progressed rapidly to the point where she held a secretarial position in a business firm for a number of years and lived in a flat by herself. It was only when she wished to vote in a forthcoming election that "moves were made" to have the order nullified. Although there was general agreement that guardianship orders should be reviewed, there were a number of different views as to how frequently this should occur. Most people suggested that reviews should occur annually. It was argued 18 that if reviews were further apart than this an intellectually disadvantaged person might develop new skills and abilities that he or she would not be able to exercise for some considerable time; or an intellectually disadvantaged person's condition might deteriorate and the guardian would have no legal authority to act on his or her behalf in areas where the person had previously made decisions. Annual reviews should not, however, preclude the granting of a review at any stage where it appeared that there had been a change in circumstances. Provisional Conclusion Guardianship orders should be reviewed annually. Summary Overall, there was favourable reaction to the proposition that a guardianship system should be established in the A.C.T., although some problems were foreseen in putting such a system into practice. The following were seen as the basic requirements of any system: (a) establishment of a three member tribunal to hear guardianship applications membership of the tribunal should be part-time one member, but not necessarily the Chairman, should be a lawyer at least one member should be a woman and one a non-professional 19 (v) no members should have a vested interest in service provision to intellectually disadvantaged people; (b) any guardianship order should be tailor-made to suit the needs of the particular intellectually disadvantaged person. Orders should be as little restrictive of a person's freedom as possible; (c) a guardian should be an individual who is eighteen years or older would act in accordance with the best interests of the intellectually disadvantaged person in defined terms is not in a potential conflict of interest situation has regular contact with the intellectually disadvantaged person is acceptable to the intellectually disadvantaged person (if he or she could voice a preference). Parents applying for guardianship would also need to meet- these requirements; (d) guardians should not be paid; and (e) guardianship orders should be reviewed annually. 20 APPENDIX 1 International Covenant on Civil and Polital Rights ARTICLE 7 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. ARTICLE 10 1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 21 APPENDIX 2 Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (Relevant Paragraphs) 1. The mentally retarded person has, to the maximum degree of feasibility, the same rights as other human beings. The mentally retarded person has a right to a qualified guardian when this is required to protect his personal well-being and interests. The mentally retarded person has a right to protection from exploitation, abuse and degrading treatment. If prosecuted for any offence, he shall have a right to due process of law with full recognition being given to his degree of mental responsibility. Whenever mentally retarded persons are unable, because of the severity of their handicap, to exercise all their rights in a meaningful way or it should become necessary to restrict or deny some or all of these rights, the procedure used for that restriction or denial of rights must contain proper legal safeguards against every farm of abuse. This procedure must be based on an evaluation of the social capability of the mentally retarded person by qualified experts and must be subject to periodic review and to the right of appeal to higher authorities. Ibid., pp.54. 6. What Should Be the Composition of the Tribunal? Many people felt that there should be at least one woman on the tribunal. 12 (iv) all members should have the ability to relate to intellectually disadvantaged people 45Jcwx8 ƶxhXH8h=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphjhsh=U5x @ Z    ztr] d(] ^` d^  d]^ d^`Xd<]X^` PdU]P^Xd]^X $ t] a$0d^0 8 w   5 < ? @ Y Z   ߱{gS?+&hs?E5@ B*CJOJQJRHZph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZph&h=5@ B*CJOJQJRHZph&hs?E5@B*CJOJQJRHZph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?E@B*CJOJQJph"h=5B*CJOJQJRHZphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph  W   . t Z 0i"#Y̼ܼzl\L<h=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E  #u+n & F 9d$If^ d^0d ]0^Hd]H`hd]h`Hd ]H`Hd]H`$d]`a$ d]` YNtu$aϿqaQF6h=@B*CJOJQJphjhsh=Uh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph*+RSy˸lYH5%hshs?E@B*CJOJQJph!hsh=B*CJOJQJph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJph%hshs?E@B*CJOJQJph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJph%hshs?E@B*CJOJQJph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E>*B*CJOJQJphh=>*B*CJOJQJphhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJph +S?Ekd$$Ifd04 a$dd@$If]da$$@dhd$If^@a$ $ $If] a$ & F $If^ & F `d`xd$If]d^``x & F 9$If^ð{{tp^N@.@"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E hshs?E!hshs?EB*CJOJQJph!hsh=B*CJOJQJph%hshs?E@B*CJOJQJph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJph(hshs?E@B*CJH*OJQJph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJph(hsh=@B*CJH*OJQJph8Rm}~mY & F `.Hd^H & F `)H^H & F `)Hd^H .d & F `)H^H & F `)Hd^H & F `.`d]^`` & F `3Hd^H .d ,678PQRklmyz|}óÓÓo_O_O?h=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJph  (*+?ABKMNWq_O=+"h=>*@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJphh=5B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@ B*CJOJQJphh=@ B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph+BNXER|iHHd$]H^H` & F `^ $d"^a$ & F `%`xd]^``x . & F `%Hd^H & F `%Hd^H & F `.Hd^H WXDEQR|jXH8hs?E>*B*CJOJQJphh=>*B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph9z YϽϭߝ}k[K;-h=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=@B*CJH*OJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph pZeh & F ``dD^`` & F ``d^``Hd ^Hx`d ]x^`Hd$l]H^d H]^ N#H^HHHd$]H^H` & F `^ 9opTYZ[iϿo_OD6h=B*CJOJQJphjhsh=Uhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphiAyT8d¾ p`P@`h=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?Ehs?EB*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=>*B*CJOJQJphdeIo q Ͽq]H3)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphe !-"."1"#$7%&,'wwl hd H]hHd"]H`xd.]^`xHd"]H`Hd^Hdl]^d ]^ & F ``dh^`` & F ``dD^`` !![!!!!!,"-"."/"0"1"j"­nYUJ:*:hs?EB*CJOJQJRH_phh=B*CJOJQJRH_phjhsh=Uhs?E)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph%h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJphj"""!#a#######$$U$$ %˹ݹr_M;)#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph%h=5>*@B*CJOJQJph%h=5>*@B*CJOJQJph#h/@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phhs?EB*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph %6%7%s%%`&&&&&')'*'+'ɷ~iTA,A(h/h=B*CJH*OJQJRHxph%h/h=B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph +','f''' (T(U(V((((())խxc_M;&)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phhs?E)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZphjhsh=U)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph%h/h=B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph,'U(((X*c-.//\0]0_0w0>1M1{  l$d"]`a$dHd^HPPd]P^`P0dD]0^Hd.D]H` d0h`d,]lHd.h]H` )S)`)a)))*W*X*****+?+++վթՔjU@+)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHUph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph,h/h=@B*CJH*OJQJRH_ph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph+,=,z,,,+-2-a-b-c--.lU@+)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph,h/h=@B*CJH*OJQJRHiph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph .P.....-/.///\//////0[0t_K6)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZphjhsh=U)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph,h/h=@B*CJH*OJQJRH_ph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph[0\0]0^0_0v0w0011=1>11111ʸڳչ6?B*䴳ϴ=>**䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ?ҢB*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ=ҢB*䴳ϴ"?>*B*䴳ϴ"=>*B*䴳ϴ?*䴳ϴ=*䴳ϴ?)/?*䴳ϴ112222253333344<4}4444߽߭{iYI9hs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=@B*CJH*OJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphM13445j6667778>8:td"]` @d ]@`d  d ] $da$dD]^d,D]`Hd$]H`dHd$D]H` 455555576i6j6k666įp[P@0h=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphjhsh=U)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph(h/h=@B*CJH*OJQJph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph%hs?E5>*@B*CJOJQJph%h=5>*@B*CJOJQJph 666677<7{7777778888˻˩o_O?,%h/h=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph&hs?E>*B*䴳ϴ&=>*B*䴳ϴ#=B*䴳ϴ#=B*䴳ϴ?*䴳ϴ=*䴳ϴ??B*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ8:8=8>8888,999::::::ƶVF6=B*䴳ϴ?B*䴳ϴ#=B*䴳ϴ=*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ=B*䴳ϴ?B*䴳ϴ(/=>*B*䴳ϴ(//>*B*䴳ϴ::1;;;<<<<Z<\<]<b<<̼xcO=-h=@B*CJOJQJph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZph :<<<<!>>i@MA(B)B+B{rHd^H$d$D]^`a$$ d"] ^`a$Hd"]H^``d$h]`^`d"]^` d `d d"` <<<<<=S=====> >!>R>>>>>5?²p`pPp@phs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=@B*CJH*OJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphjhsh=Uhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJph5???@\@h@i@ALAMAAAB'B(B)B*B+BeBqaQM?hs?EB*CJOJQJphhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph+BfBBBBDEF7FtFFFFaGbG d,]X^XX^XX^XXd,]X`dl] d$`d'ld8di^d $d`]a$eBfBBBBBBB!CCCDYDDDDDEYEEEEEEߓߣp`P*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph&h=@B*CJH*OJQJRH_phFFFFFFFFG`GaGbGyG}jUB>,"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E%h/hs?EB*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph%h/h=B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph&hs?E5@B*CJOJQJRHZphh=@B*CJOJQJph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph bGzGH IXKpKKKMMNuf`^dD]^HHd.D]H^H` & F `E^hHd]h^H` Hd^HHHd"D]H^H`HHd l]H^HHd"]^H` & F `E^ yGzGGG"HEHFHcHHHH I ICIIII:J~n~^N>Nnh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=@B*CJH*OJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph:JxJJJ+KWKXKoKpKKKKKK-L߱}mXC.)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph(h/hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph(h/h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph-LnLLLLL)MbMMMMMMMMlWL:#h/@ B*CJOJQJRHZphjhsh=U)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph(h/h=@B*CJH*OJQJph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZphMMNNN N!NWNNNNOOOOOrbP>,>#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZphNN!NO-SSUUUVWZ\.\dHd"h]H`Hd']H` Hd"<]H$da$Hd"D]H`$d"]`a$Hd"]H` Hd$<]H$da$ OO9PWPxPPPPP0QqQuQQQ)ReRRRͻߩueUGe7Gh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h/@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h/@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phhs?EB*CJOJQJphRS,S-S6SdSSSSS TDTTU?U}UͽueSA1S1h=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phhs?E@B*CJOJQJph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h/@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=@B*CJOJQJph#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph}UUUUUUU{VVVVVtWWWW$XcXǷsasO=-shs?EB*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phhs?EB*CJOJQJRHphh=B*CJOJQJRHphh=B*CJOJQJRHphhs?E#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phcXXXXYQYYY ZDZZZZZ([h[[[\\ɷqaOq=#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phhs?EB*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph\-\.\f\\\\\\\\\\\]ʺwgWE5%h=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E>*B*CJOJQJphh=>*B*CJOJQJphjhsh=Uhs?E#hs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJph.\\\\\!^8^o^^^/_a_zg & F `dh^`HHd ]H^`H dl^ & F `dcD^` `dD^` HdD^H HdD] ^H` Hdh^H Hd ^Hd"]` ]P]]]^ ^!^7^8^n^o^^^^^^$_-_._}m]m]Mѱ=h=B*CJH*OJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJph._/_`_a_________ `!`3`q``ϿxeSC3h=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"h=5@B*CJOJQJph%h/h=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E5@B*CJOJQJph%h=5>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=5@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJpha____``````iai & F @@d"]@^` & F @^`^<Hd^HHdD]^H` Hd^H & F @ dD] ^` & F 0d ^ ````````````3ahaiaμzjZJ:*hs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E"hs?E5@B*CJOJQJphiaaaaaabFbGbKbtbubbb,chcccϿm]M==h=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphiaaaGbubcIdyddeekcah^hd"h]^`D^Hd"H]^HHd$]^H` Hd^H & F @d"]^` & F @d"]^` & F @h^` cccc%dHdIdxdydddddeeee̼|laQA=/h=B*CJOJQJphhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphjhsh=Uh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph&h=@B*CJH*OJQJRHipheee2fff8gkkk'moxvk` d$` d"`d)]^`d ]^`0H^0 & F @xxd$]^x` & F @xxd ]^x` & F @xxd']^x`$da$ eeJe}eeeef1f2fjfffff"g7g8goggg)hihhhóӓӓscӳóSCh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphhi"i#iZiiijNjjjkHkk̷xcN9)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph%h/h=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph kkkkkkkrlll&m'm`mmmmmnŷwgWG4G%h/h/@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E%h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZphnPnnn oJooooooo^ppppϿm[K;+hs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphoopp#rirjrmrrrsFu v|md0H]^d0l]^d,h]^`l^hd$]h^$da$dD]^d0D]`d$hd"]h`a$d ppppqq"r#r$rVrhrirjrlrįpeUE51#h=B*CJOJQJphhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphjhsh=U)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph%h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJph(h/h=>*@B*CJOJQJph%h/h=@B*CJOJQJph lrmrrrrrr%sfssstVttwbM8w#)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJph ttEuFuuuuv vVvvvvՖl\L<,hs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/hs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph vv"wPxhxxxxy{{f{}nd3]`Hd,]H` & F Hd^HHd^H@d.h]@^` dD^hd.D]h^`d0l]^d'D]^` vww!w"w]wwwxOxPxgx̼}hS>)(h/h=>*@B*CJOJQJph)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph%h/h=B*CJOJQJRHZphh=@B*CJOJQJph gxhxxxxxxxyy>yvyyyzhVD4Dh=B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph#h=@B*CJOJQJRH_ph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E)h/hs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)h/h=@B*CJOJQJRHZph(h/hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph yy.zizzz{{{{O{e{f{v{ՖhS>',hsh=>*@B*CJOJQJRHUph)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph,hshs?E>*@ B*CJOJQJRHUph,hsh=>*@ B*CJOJQJRHUph)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRH_ph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph f{w{}~~~19Aq & F   ^ `8Xd3h]8^X`d$]`^dd$$da$$d.D]`a$d0]` & F Hd^H v{w{{{&|d||!}}}}~J~~~ԿԪkVA,)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hshs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph,hshs?E>*@B*CJOJQJRHUph~~~~~Ey018²¢’p^N>h=>*B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphjhsh=U hshs?E89s%@Av}hS>))hshs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E>*B*CJOJQJph 0@ABDEuՖvfVF6h=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZphABEs%e & F `xxd"]^x` & F `xx^x`@d$]^@`0xd"]^0`x0d^0 & F   d3D]^ ` & F   d3]^ ` Drs$%PYZ̅߿oaQoAQah=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@ B*CJOJQJphh=@ B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph%ZLr{p d^8`^8 d`^$da$dd]^ & F `xxd ^x` & F `xxd$]^x` & F `xxd h]^x` ̅ͅӅԅ267KLNqóucuS?*)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph&h=5@ B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?E@B*CJOJQJph"h=@B*CJH*OJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph%hsh=@B*CJOJQJph qr&fˇ̇Ӈn\LLn\<h=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph"hs?E>*@B*CJOJQJph"h=>*@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E)hshs?E@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hshs?E@ B*CJOJQJRHZpḣSTUV\g&z & F `d)]^`` & F `d.^`` d'h` dG] $d a$ Hd^Hd0]` $da$ Xd$`X ӇۇERSVWZ[\fgtdTD4hs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?EB*CJOJQJph#h=@B*CJqOJQJRH(phh=B*CJOJQJphjhsh=Uhs?Ehs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJph%&^&$ٌ͌ڌϿ߯o_O?/hs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphڌی܌ijmnȍɍʍˍ d 6%& +D^ `d%&#$+D^d-&& +Dy^` &&#$+D.^ n8%& +D,^ & F `d,D^``ڌ܌[hijlmnsĴĀp`RD0&h=5@B*CJOJQJRHZphhs?EB*CJOJQJphh=B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphh=@B*CJOJQJphhs?E@B*CJOJQJph&h=>*@B*CJOJQJRH_phh=@B*CJOJQJphh=!hs?E5>*B*CJOJQJph"h=5B*CJOJQJRHZph!h=5>*B*CJOJQJphhs?EsǍȍʍˍhs?Eh=&hs?E5@B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@ B*CJOJQJRHZph)hsh=@B*CJOJQJRHZph(. A! "#$b% (. A!"# $ % (. A!Q"! #$% (. A!H"#^$% (. A!K"#&$~% (. A!H"#$ % (. A!I"#6$% (. A!F"#$% (. A!H"#$n% (. A!"_#$9 % (. A!K"#$% (. A!I"#J$% (. A!I"#$% (. A!A"#$n% (. A!"c#$F% (. A!"#$~% (. A!"[#$% (. A!"#&$R% (. A!"#&$% (. A!"b#$>% (. A!K"#$n% (. A!"#$ % (. A!)"#6$.% (. A!6"#$2% (. A!"s#n$V % (. A! "#$% f$$If!vh#v#v:V d,55/ 44 j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List H@H /0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJNoN /0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] C˅  C . ](.4):b?FMTX]cjjpvB{~TVۄ˅ B *B TB ~B B B B &C PC zC C C C "D LD vD D D D E HE rE E E E F 8  YWid j" %+')+.[01468:<5?eBEFyG:J-LMOR}UcX\]._`iacehknplrtvgxyv{~8̅qӇڌsˍGIJLMOQRTUWXY[\]^`abcdfghiklnoprstuwxyz{}~ +e,'M1:+BbGN.\a_iaeo vf{%ˍHKNPSVZ_ejmqv|L# @J(     V _x0000_s0#" `?    < C"`?   < #" `?   < C"`?    < #" `?  PB   g 3"?DB   G"?DB   !/"?DB    ;"?DB    G"?DB    ;"?DB   ;"? DB   ;"? DB   ;"? DB   g "?B S  ? Z.U .'j.44ET\#jvV˅ $;$;jF t> t n8%9T@ ${ $t } t  t  *J@-&/T@ i t)J@H t A t 6%8T@j :j ]t!Yf y B I ^gUcER ,7V a ""))-$-////==?@BBSSXXcXoX[[ ]]``HbMbg"gLyVy~~Ƅ̄܄Ʌ̅    " & pw} ""H#P#W'[') )**k../ /F8M8f:m:::==t>u>>>>>A AEF!F$FJJMMjVnVVVVVWWXXYYZZZZ[[[[}\\\]]]^^``ddmj{jjjkkFmTmnnpqs sBzCzI{K{{{w|x|}}P~Y~v~~ل܄svɅ̅333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333390:0EEVHWHHHKKeeVVZZ̄̄ۄ̅ ^;AY qmn)b, 43j5-41:4 _AnPC/>D0BvS$f,abK"ZPff8Kn6 ZsNgP$'^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH .'^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH *^7>*@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH .'@^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH ()'^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH . *^7>*@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH .'^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH .'@^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH *^57@ B*CJH*OJQJRHZphsH ()'^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH .*^7>*@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH .'@^7@B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH ()'`^7@ B*CJH*OJQJRHdphsH () ,abmn)5-4Pff;AY />DKn 431:vSZs_A =s?E/s܄ބ@̄̄̄̄˅X@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial?= *Cx Courier NewE=  Lucida Console7.@ Calibri5. .[`)TahomaACambria Math"qhK K qCqD! 20CHX $Ps?E2!xx  David Mason David Mason@         Oh+'0$ px    David Mason Normal.dotm David Mason2Microsoft Office Word@F#@\b4@\b4q՜.+,0 hp  $鱨վC  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fd4Data 1Tableq@WordDocumentDFSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q