2012-1576-Minutes for Meeting February 06,2012 Recorded 5/2/2012COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F0OUNTY CLERKDS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/02/2012 08;25;10 AM
II Mill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III III
2 12-1576
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
~~U~vTES coG2a
o
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MINUTES OF MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2012
Allen Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan, Ken Hales, Corrections; Hillary Sarceno,
Children & Families' Commissioner; Board of Commissioners' Chair Anthony
DeBone; Jacques DeKalb, Defense Attorney; Rob Poirier, 9-1-1 County Service
District; Scott Johnson, Health Services; Scott Ramsey, City of Bend; Ernie
Mazorol, Court Administrator; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; Dave Tarbet, Redmond
Police Chief; Cory Darling, City of Bend Police Department, Dave Cook, City of
Bend; Ginger Martin, Assistant Director, Department. of Corrections; Tanner
Wark, Parole & Probation; Beth Bagley, District Attorney's Office; Shelly Smith,
KIDS Center; and citizens Jack Blum, Andrea Blum, Marilyn Burwell, Mimi
Graves and Scott McGuire. Judge Alta Brady arrived later in the meeting. No
representatives of the media were in attendance.
1. Call to Order & Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m., at which time the attendees
introduced themselves.
2. December Minutes
The Minutes of the December 5, 2011 were moved for approval, seconded and
unanimously approved.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 1 of 8 Pages
3. Public Comment
Citizen Marilyn Burwell said that statements made about matricular cards
(Mexican identification from the Consulate) and reflected in the December 5,
2011 PSCC minutes were erroneous. She explained that Los Angeles County
has accepted these since 2003 as valid identification from Mexico. She
submitted a copy of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors' policy on
this issue. She said this form of identification has also been accepted by the
Durham, South Carolina Police Department since 2010. Criticism from federal
agencies dates back to 2003, but the process is different now; it is now difficult
to counterfeit them.
She added that she met with Chief Sale after the December meeting and left
him with information on the issue. She said that many counties, cities and
individual law enforcement agencies now accept matricular consular
identification cards.
She stated that the old cards from pre-2003 are still out there on the internet and
people need to be aware of this. Some groups, such as the Federal Agency for
Immigration Reform and the American Resistance in Georgia are anti-
immigration groups that will try to manipulate people.
4. The Oregon Community Corrections Experience
Ken Hales noted that this presentation was given to law enforcement, and
provides an important perspective on corrections in Oregon.
Ginger Martin, Assistant Director of the Department of Corrections, stated that
she was invited to California last year to speak to probation directors. They are
making some adjustments in their laws, similar to what was implemented in
Oregon in 1997. She was asked to explain the resistance, the debates and the
results of what was enacted here as it might pertain to the Sacramento
Community Corrections realignment process. (She referred to a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is attached for reference)
The realignment resulted in counties being responsible for felony probation,
parole and post-prison supervision. Prior to this, they could choose whether to
take on this responsibility.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Also, the responsibility for short prison sentences (under 12 months) would stay
in the local jurisdiction. The State created construction projects to build local
capacity; in Deschutes County, it was the Work Center, along with enough
funding to operate.
They also expanded the powers of the supervisory authority, which decides
where the person would spend his/her sentence.
The goals of Oregon's realignment was to provide for financial considerations
plus improved sentencing; to coordinate local criminal justice response, which
would impact crime more than a short prison stay; and the opinion that
community-based sanctions are more effective against crime.
This change came about due to the passage of Measure 11 - mandatory prison
sentences for some offenses. More than 25% of prison beds were filled with
revocations; and a majority of intakes were not spending much time. It was felt
that local policy decisions should be made as to who gets revoked and who
doesn't.
About 92% of offenders were revocation of probation or parole, mostly
technical violations; and only 6% were new crimes. The average length of time
served was about 4.2 months.
The debate centered around cost concerns: additional costs, inadequate funding
at the start of the program, reduced funding in the future, and the State shifting
responsibility without backing it up with funding. Some in Oregon, and the
group in California, have the same concerns.
The cost basis for the local control offender is the State bed rate. This is
adjusted not according to inflation, per the legislature, but updated if costs go
up 3% or more. $92 a day applies to all offenders under local control, but some
might be on home arrest. An actual cost study is needed every six years. One
was done in October 2006 and costs were adjusted upward. Another study is
due this year.
Mr. Hales added that local control refers to 1145, which ends when someone is
released. They don't always have to be in jail. Judge Sullivan said that over
90% are felons. If they are not in prison, they are under post-prison
supervision.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 3 of 8 Pages
Ms. Martin noted that she thinks this number is closer to 75%. Criminal Justice
keeps track of those statistics.
Judge Sullivan said that the presumption when this was initiated was prison
would be 85%, under sentencing guidelines. They don't have 25% of those
going to prison coming out of the gates.
Ms. Martin indicated this is a cost basis. There are fewer people under local
control status than there used to be. The opt-out notion was put into law when
this was first passed. If this work was not funded by the legislature, they did
not want to trigger an opt-out. However, it has been triggered a couple of
times.
There has been a lot of debate, but they find no difference in recidivism rates.
The question has been raised, does this make them soft on crime or smart on
crime. Some people believe this allows dangerous people to be out on the
streets. There are some property management challenges and concerns about
the length of appropriate sanctions. However, cost efficiency has improved.
Ms. Martin said that there are some disadvantages. In the beginning, a lot of
counties had not run parole and probation, and did not know how to do it.
There was a lack of expertise to start.
A predicted spike in 13-month prison sentences was another aspect; a higher
rate for probationers than with post-prison supervision. You can't give more
custody days than sentencing guidelines allow. This is harder to manage. It is
not the same with post-prison tracking.
There was a concern about consistency around the state regarding probation and
post-prison supervision. There are Administrative Rules in place to try to
govern this. And a possible disadvantage is the impact of local politics on
funding issues.
The pre- and post- law change evaluation, 1995 versus 1998, shows the length
of stay went from 4.2 to 2.6 months. 62% were in jail; 19% were in combined
jail/residential setting; and 8% were in a jail/community setting. About 29%
were receiving programming they would never have gotten in prison.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 4 of 8 Pages
There was no difference in new felony convictions; and there was a lower
incidence of new incarcerations and a higher incidence of sanctions (more
corrective feedback).
The average local daily population has declined, and the state jail population is
increasing. The main reason is the length of stay. The average is now 60 days
from a high of about 150 days.
Research has been done on recidivism, reconviction, arrest, and re-sanctioning,
by crime type and risk level. This is higher following a jail sanction versus
community sanctions. Research shows no real difference between jail and
community sanctions to compel future compliance; both are about 34%. The
average for re-arrest is about 26% of the high to medium risk offenders.
After jail, high risk recidivism is about the same regardless of the length of stay.
For medium risk, there is a higher rate of recidivism due to less stability after a
longer stay. These figures are about the same for Oregon and in national
recidivism studies.
Alternatively, sanctions are about the same than jail; however, there is less cost.
Neither seems to affect future compliance. Studies show that brief
incarcerations are as effective at curbing new violations as longer stays.
Sheriff Blanton stated that much has to do with the level of local control and
what the jurisdictions are able to do to help things along. Some jails just
warehouse; others try to get offenders into program. A huge part of this not
reflected in the statistics.
Ms. Martin replied that they did not study treatment combined with sanctions.
National studies show you have to do intervention for future compliance, so it is
more than county jail days.
Scott Johnson asked what treatment addresses. Ms. Martin responded that they
target criminal risk factors and cognitive behavioral style. The treatment needs
to be appropriate to make a difference.
Ms. Martin noted that you have to have jail capacity to complete alternative
sanctions. And they need to be cost effective.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 5 of 8 Pages
The recidivism rate of those on probation continues to drop each year. They
have not seen this kind of downward trend in the past. It is an indication of the
effectiveness of these efforts.
Sheriff Blanton stated that sheriffs in general are supportive of local control.
The commitment from Salem is critical, but they are always threatening to
reduce funding. This is a huge distraction.
Mr. Hales asked about the current budget. Ms. Martin replied that they don't
have the final budget yet. They restored the holdback from last year's budget as
they do not want to trigger opt-out. It will be the same amount as last year.
There are other pots of money for treatment in the co-chair's budget. There
have been no cuts to Community Corrections yet.
Ernie Mazorol asked of the $57 million, how much goes to corrections. Ms.
Martin said that 17% goes to corrections; most goes to public safety, the State
Police, the Criminal Justice Commission, and others.
She noted that there is a new Department of Corrections Director, Collette
Peters, previously the Assistant Director for the Inspector General, and Director
of the Oregon Youth Authority. She was appointed by the Governor to run the
Department of Corrections, but this still needs Senate confirmation.
Mr. Hale asked about the Governor's Public Safety Council. Ms. Martin stated
that their mission is to produce a report, but with no recommendations
regarding sentencing reform. They will present findings and seek technical
assistance, and continue to prepare for the 2013 session. Technical assistant
providers will come in later this month to review the information. A number of
other states are working on sentencing reform, doing much of what Oregon
already did. The low-hanging fruit for Oregon is already gone.
Dave Cook noted that there are no Constitutional provisions to make significant
changes; these would have to have a citizen vote.
Mr. Hales asked if there are any provisions passed previously that may be
sunsetting. Ms. Martin said that there is the 60-day cap on probation for
revocation without a new crime; and allowing an inactive status for post-prison
control, off supervision or taken off the count.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Mr. Mazorol stated that there is a risk factor on all, based on type of crime. The
biggest risk is how to manage and where you should bank or put resources.
Ms. Martin said this is not crime driven. They have to look at those who might
reoffend. Property criminals rate high, and are usually driven by drug
addiction. There are some ways to figure out who might reoffend; a good risk
assessment is needed.
Mr. Mazorol stated that some are on bench or monitored probation, so the risk
factor is not done. Ms. Martin said that the risk assessment is based on criminal
history
Judge Sullivan said that when this was first implemented, he was an opponent.
But after seeing how this county handled it, he is a proponent. He does have
concerns, however. The constant threat of funding reductions leaves things
unsettled, making it hard to find and retain good people.
In the past he could give only a 180-day sanction for a technical violation. Now
with reductions, he can only give 60 days. It is a cost of doing business for
some offenders. Some information can also be skewed. A lot are case-banked
that were not previously, about 400 now. No one really looks at them. Tanner
Wark stated that there is one Parole Officer assigned to handle all of them.
Judge Sullivan added that the folks here did a good job. But it is still hard to
know if the people are making restitution or are using drugs. This is also very
unequal around the State. He signed eight warrants for probation violations in
Lane County, but they were not immediately acted on because there were no
beds for sanctions there. The system works well here, with the right people and
support and the courts behind it. Sanctions and treatment work, but some
counties don't have much treatment available. It is very uneven throughout the
State and people often ask how they make it work here.
He is supportive, but there are substantial problems. There was a monumental
shift to the counties when this occurred. If the State cuts funding, this would
also be a radical change and could end up being a non-program. They have to
stay vigilant.
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 7 of 8 Pages
5. Other Business
Judge Sullivan said that Judge Alta Brady has been presented as the new
Presiding Judge. He added that she will do an outstanding job. She indicated
she will try to attend the PSCC meetings in the future.
Judge Brady said she is committed to this group, but has Family Drug Court
scheduled at the same time. She asked Judge Sullivan to continue with PSCC
in the meantime.
Sheriff Blanton pointed out that Family Drug Court helps a lot. It is a
philosophy to have the treatment Courts. Judge Sullivan observed that the
Mental Health Court, Domestic Violence Court and Family Court all help in
this regard. The percentage of reunited or intact families is much higher than
the national average because of these Courts.
The next meeting is Monday, March 5. Ken Hales asked that members let him
know of any potential agenda topics.
Being no other items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
6W'U~ JG~
Bonnie Baker
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Agenda
Exhibit B: Sign-in sheets
Exhibit C: Los Angeles County information on identification cards
Exhibit D: Presentation on Realignment, Department of Corrections
Minutes of PSCC Meeting Monday, February 6, 2012
Page 8 of 8 Pages
DESCHUTES COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
G~v-res co`2
w -A
O <
February 6, 2012 - 3:30 p.m.
Barnes Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR
AGENDA
Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan
II December Minutes Attachment 1
Judge Sullivan
Action: Approve November minutes
III Public Comment
Judge Sullivan
IV The Oregon Community Corrections Experience Attachment 2
Ginger Martian, Asst. Dir. Dept. of Corrections
Share Sacramento community corrections realignment presentation
V Other Business
Judge Sullivan
z
z
H
W
H
'Q
W
J
a
N
I
III
i
i
M
L
C
C
I
S
"
I
~i
d
~
L
S
G
~
I
a!
I
00
c
Q
E
^
~
i
~
z
v✓
f
i
z
z
u
H
W
H
W
J
a
N
I
'
lil
N
1
L
C
0Q1
H
LL
J
V
V
I
i
uo
C
Z
lit
I
~
I
i
I
'
0
m
0
v
co
N
0.
3.050 Identification Cards
Net
Los Angeles Counw
: 14, BOARD OFJUPfRV60R1 POUCYNNUAl
Page I of 2
Policy Title: Effective Date:
3.050 Identification Cards 06/11/02
PURPOSE
Establishes a County policy to accept foreign consulate identifications cards as valid
photo identification for County services/programs.
REFERENCE
June 11, 2002 Board Order, Synopsis 90.
January 14, 2003 Board Order, Synopsis 56
February 8, 2005 Board Order 14
POLICY
1) When members of the public are required to provide identification, County
departments are authorized to accept as valid identification a photo identification
card issued by the Consulate of Mexico known as the Matricula Consular
Identification Card.
2) The Chief Administrative Officer is delegated the authority to approve acceptance
of other foreign consulate identification cards after notifying the Board of
Supervisors, if the card meets the following requirements:
a) The card includes on its face a photograph of the person, the person's date
of birth, height and weight, and current address;
b) The applicant was required to provide reliable identifying information in
order to obtain the card; such as a passport, birth certificate, or other
document acceptable to the CAO; and
C) The card has features reasonably designed to protect against fraud and
counterfeit reproduction.
3) The CAO will notify the Board of all applications of foreign consulate identification
cards deemed as satisfying requirements of this Policy, and, provide Board
members with adequate time to place the matter on a Board Agenda if so desired.
http://countypolicy.co.1a.ca.us/3.050fhtm 8/24/2005
3.050 Identification Cards
Page 2 of 2
4) The CAO will compile and make readily available to County departments a list of
the identification cards that meet the requirements established by this Policy.
5) In December of each year, the CAO shall provide the Board with an annual review
of the use of consulate cards by departments, including training provided and
information on any operational issues. The initial annual review shall address the
issue of the appropriateness and feasibility of conducting background checks
and/or obtaining fingerprints along with the issuance of consulate cards.
6) The GAO may deny acceptance of previously authorized or proposed consulate
cards otherwise meeting requirements based on security considerations.
7) A County accepted foreign consulate identification card is to be used for
identification purposes only and shall not be accepted as proof of legal residency.
8) The Policy to accept foreign consulate cards does not apply under circumstances
where (1) a Federal or State statute, administrative regulation or directive, or court
decision requires that County departments request different identification, (2) a
Federal or State statute or administrative regulation or directive pre-empts local
regulation of identification requirements, or (3) the County would be unable to
comply with a condition imposed by funding source, which would cause the County
to lose funds from that source.
9) No County department is required to accept a foreign consulate identification card
if it has reasonable grounds for determining that the identification card provided by
an individual is counterfeit, altered, improperly issued to the cardholder, or
otherwise not accurate identification.
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
Chief Administrative Office
DATE ISSUED/SUNSET DATE
Issue Date: June 11, 2002 Sunset Review Date: January 14, 2003
Reissue Date: January 14, 2003 Sunset Review Date: February 8, 2005
Reissue Date: February 8, 2005 Sunset Review Date: February 8, 2009
http://countypolicy.co.1a.ca.us/3.050fhtm 8/24/2005
4)
V
~
o
N
0
o
z
~
L
-J
:
~
W
CL
° N
4-J
CZ
0
U
X
N
N
ro
N
-
4-
o
z
LU
Q
v
1
4-J
0
0-
a
U
w
.-J
V)
0
~
(D
ci
L-
O
o
r-I
Jc
r.4
O
N
4)
O
V
a1
'L
a1
C
X
a-J
W
E
O
CAA
b0
4~
,
-
O
DC
~
~
ca
-
s
Jc
F- F-
t~
C
V
V)
O
4-J
0-
~
c
a-J
0
O
L
.
f~
0
N
i
Q
O
t/1
4-J
p
V
O
O
' -
}
'
V
O
Q
Q
U
~
°
CL
1-'
O
O
N
~
• i
DC
Q
4-
O
E
N
E
O
~
~
U
U
ca
L
O
N
O
E
r-i
.
U
U
U
O
0
a
L
O
U
Ln
O
V
.
O
O
Q
N
O
N
L
3
°
a
.
4-J
b.0
E
to
+J
>
Q
0
MO
a)
C
Q
>
+J
U
L
O
Q
fa
+
o
E
•
a--'
c~
C
s•-
AA
c~
V
4-J
(IJ
4-J
Cl)
O
try
O
fa
_
~
O
~
U
~
c:
4-j
• -
O
-
co
C:
C:
~
N
U
U
cu
O
E
E
Q
O
E
O
LL.
I
U
I
U
I
U
f'L•
N
l1A
U
O
cn
s.
CL
N
O
L.
U
svj
O
N
.i
CL
i
O
+-1
ca
ca
0
E
N
N
N
4-0
N
c
O
N
O
NO
os,
Ln
N N
C: C:
O
ca
~ V
O >
2 w
•
E
c6
S
O
~V
.V
O
c6
V
O
J
•
O
V
E
O
4-
i
ca
.V
V
CL
O
m
u
O
DC
•
4-J
O
V
O
a--+
Of"
N
O s- cn
° C: to
c O =
E
m
~ Ol N N
Ln • -
°
a °
c: E O
O ca cu u ul
v W O
f~ w i -0 v
w d 4-
O i a u O
se o -0 O ° ~
U ~ > Q. ~ w 4~i0
~ W _0 (]J (1) aj C:
O > aJ -0 -0 ~
CU CAA ~ m ~
-C CAA
os, ° \
N M d- 01 's. 0) a) >
a) a Ln M-a wLr) N Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W
S
c
W
b
c
cr
c
• •
W
Q~
V
O
c
-
c:
U
~
~
O
.
•
U
~!0
~
~
cu
O
u
U
4-
4-J
O
O
C
W
i
s
N
ca
t
H
MA
4--
fa
N
D
S
E
N
l10
Ca
U
4-J
V
O
>
t/1
O
O
a--~
Q
a
O
4-a
V)
(IJ
W
E
.
v
O
O
=3
E
O
W
O
E
. -
O
ca
4-
•
~
O
0
-0
4-J
N
~
~
•
O
cn
c(
O
V
.E
E
E
O
V
a)
4-J O cn
M +
bu0 .O N • O
V ~ V
MO
p C
O can in
U -
E
° N O
+j
S - ~
4-1 C:
O O w
u F- V)
U
to
O
~
O
O
Ln
0
Ln
4-0
C:
L.
.0
a
tio
. -
0
u
O
=3
O
v
C~
O
L
c
u
O
V
4 '
=
'
a
cu
>
'a
E
=3
aj
0
0
4~
c~
E
.
E
>
O
Ln
a)
L.
E
v
O
O
~
°
E
m
U
N
N
-
V
Z
4-
U
O
L.
V
O
-
to
-
*
-0
U
m
U
4)
N
v
O
O
c~
E
a~
0
E
E
cu
Jc
~
~
O
L-
a-J
O
w
-
V
V
ca
0
0
0
0
•
Q~
f6
S
U
4-
4-
m
V
O
N
N
N
V)
Q.
S
c
O
fa
i
O
L.
CL
E
0
N
c
O
4-
V
i
O
V
f~
E
a)
V
L.
O
MO
to
Ca
V
0
4--l
~V
CL
C~
V
0
V
V)
O
V
V
i
f~
ci
•
O
L
0.
E
V
V
N
O
V
•
O J V
S a)
a~
O
O V ~
O ~
N E O
Q~ O
txo 0 s--
Ca -C
.n
O
> cu E
O
V 4A
ca (V Q.
J -
c
O
O
L.
CL
0
.O
V
O
O
t/1
i
O
s
4A
•
a~
s
O
c~
V
(A
cn
O
V
4-
O
V
J
•
O
O
c~
c~
O
V
O
i O
=3 0L
O V
~ v O
U y_
j O
O a,
U v u
O O
O
V O
W
~ N
p O
O
• - N U O
4-; •E
0 -0 E C~
O w (A
C~ ca E Ln a)
> E O U
LU N U s
4-0
E ~C: O~
.O co
p +j - E N
C: wi~
4- r4
c--I
S 00 c 0
U E 00 c~
0 0 E
N~
J (n m r--4
can
i
V) C:
p 4- o cu 0
E = (A m
4-1 O
V c • - +-j U o
E S. W" vw) M-Soo
Q1
0 0
a--+ fa
f6 b.0
W E
N
b~u0 ~
t1A
ca
s O
U ~
J ~
c/'f U
O N
• o
N
N
O
E
E
O
V
c~
t/1
4-
0
V
O 0 ~
0
E
U
E
O
O U
~ O Z 0v
CAA
- cn
S ~
~O
cn . -
4-1
O V
ca cn
~
V O
V
V ~
~ V
tko
O
y
Imw
c
rO
O
a
s
u
■
c
0
m
CL
0
om
0
LM
4-J
c
0
t~
0
J
0
N
C9
O
N
CT
N
C1aa~9
G~
N
O
N
ON
4h
N O 00 ~O N
J
0
4mJ
O
U
f~
V
O
J
c~
V
Q~
rr
cz
*r
d
U
0
■
N
O
O
N
CT
Q
O
N
00
N
0
O
N
N
O
N
3 dO" 0 a 000 0 dO' 0 0
E
E
0
U
Ln
4-
C-
O
p
N
U
U
W
c
O
W
V)
1
O
O
4-+
U
U
O
>
a-J
c
v)
O
CIO
L)
E
U
4--J
cu
i
co
E
0
Ln
O
>
V
'L)
O
O
o
(A
4-
O
t/1
~
cn
~
cn
a)
bn
L.
O
4-J
+-0
>
0
O
v
O
1
~
aj
~
.
.
(IJ
I
4
buo
O
U
c
I
I
l-I
I
E
O
L
4-
c
O
U
y-
4A
U
i
O
I
r-i
O
c-I
m
I
N
r-I
O
E
nW
N
r
V /
O
ca E
O
co
.O fn
•i--+ +J
V C:
L E
O
V w
u
a~
s O
E w
O
ca ~
I
c
O
U 4-J
> cn
c O a)
O
U
~-C
4-J co
u -C
a p O
Q > c~ a~
a~ c/1 > U U
- = >
' -C (10 L...
• - ~ cn to
buo
E .0
c: v O
N O
U 0.- U
a) - (D
bD cu ai
N •E
bm
L i U
p u~ E• U
i- Qi ~ U V O
I I I
0
0
can
a~
s
O
a~
PC
O
4 J
.rw
m
V)
E
E
O
V
%fam
a
a~
V
W
3
U
U
M N N vo wo
4-
O
O
4-1
c
O
V
V
C~
E
O
V
O
L
m
a~
a~
V
O
. cn
a~
s
0
W
L
4+-
tio
a~
CL
O
V
cn
.O
V
a-j
E
O
V
4)
V
cu
7a
E
O
V
s
0
0
V
to
L
O
i
w
W
a~
cu
s
•
a-1
L
W
0
NO
m
O
cn
.o
m
c
O
V
c
fu
LA
i
i
ca
ca
a~
0
4wJ
0
V
4mJ
U
f0
Q
E
O
V
3
0
0
ao
i
m
ll~
.r
O
x a
V
a
V
W
~
N
•N
Jc
^
S
O
.
L
• -
W
•
bn
~
L
•
4~
V
~
~
O
:3
END
V)
V
i
Q
4~
• ~
4~
~
t~i~
V
cu
a-J
a-J
L
O
4-J
~
• -
ca
c
cn
~
~
i
ca
4u
E
a)
.c
O
V
N
0 0
Q)
fa
N
L..
Q
i
d
a~
U
U
a
Now
Qa
.C
• ~ a
U
0
A
U
ti
. _
E
>
~ C7~0
cn O
O
O O .o
U
cn . U
-I--~ >
bD c
tw O
J
+j
N ~
V
O
bn v,
C
O ca
cu O
- ai
E
N
c > o E
L >
W
c-n i- Q
i E
aj • L„
E ~ 6 c
a +j
LL
I I
E
V
w
cc
4wJ
w
~
V l
O
ago
-401
~
a
U
~
J
0
y
..r
~
~
a
a
M
~IN
0
M
co
0
M
0
~pb
cc
O
M
0
o to o v, o o
M M N N
fa
-0
f6
z
C~
aA
N
i
0
bn
LL
.(A
5
. =
U
DC
CAA
~U
re
0
O
4-+
2j
E
E
-
L.
O
L...
O
U
O
ai
O
cu
r-
c:
C:
M
aj
o
V
E
cu
C
M
4
a-0
>
-C
cu
IOOO'
O
4-J
C
=3
-
Lf)
E
a
(
• -
CD
U
4j
U
I-
cn
t/7
ON
O
E
U
U
.O
V
N
E
N
>
-0
~
V
O
V)
z
O
3
~
O
O
C c:
•O .O
O a-J
V
U
V
• ~
can
t/1 V
wV
Q
>
>
.
4-J
c:
L.
4-J
_
Q
I
ca
t
O
a-J
ca
O
f6
Q
E
O
V
O
V
>
4-J
Q
i
N
O
V
O
Ln
E
4-0
Q~
+j
4-0
4-0
4-0
f~
E
E
O
V
L-
0
c
4-J
z
I
V
fa
Q.
E
O
V
4-
aA
N
CD
O
Z
C~
llA
L
0
• •
CA
c
• o
LL
V)
.7
O
UA
J
0
4-J
U
c~
O
U
c~
U
O
O
Q
4-
W
m
4-J
4A
_O
ca
c
.O
m
O
U
a)
4-J
U
0
O
c
0
.V
O
J
L
f~
44-
L
O
U
c
E
O
U
E
0
U
O
U ~
O U
> C:
ca
~ to
N O
.i .N
bn
C: U
JO W
O
a-J
O O
cu
p
S
O
b
O
c/1
O
O
V
CL c
N
r
V
W
U
c
ca
E
O
U
>
O
U Q
E
O
U ~
V
U
U
cu
W
a-+ >
O c6
N
O
V
Ca
N
C6
L
4-1
m
0 0
c/'f
O
ca
E
E
O
V
DC
V)
CMMM`
_O
L
a.P
O
a)
cu
c~
MID
c
c~
4J
•
.7
'00
O
a-J
O
c
C.0
c
V
3
V
i
O
V
L
N
a SOMME,
E
E
O
V
N
•
V
~V
y--
SEE.
ca
L
to
L
0
ca
.
m
Q
•
W
c
c
O
V
c
ca
t/1
s
0§
E
c~
SEE.
•
N
C
O
b40
OJ
L
O
O
N
N
(1)
E
CLO
ca
a
cc
c
a
4wJ
m
0
LM
CLO
c
0
E
V
4a
E
less
o
i
V
N eh
0
4w a*
N a
0
13 40
N o
r O
to
N o
r o
y ~
u
o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0
M M N N ~ ~