Updated February 8,  2016
 • Dates to Remember: 
Faculty Senate: FS Blog  
Faculty Association: FA Blog
Educational Affairs: EA Blog
–Meets 2nd and 4th Wednesdays

• Destiny of the Republic on PBS

The American Experience on PBS premiered the program “The Murder of a President” on February 2. This documentary is based on our Common Read selection Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard.The episode is available on YouTube:

• The Common Read Selection for 2016-2017

The faculty voted during in-service and the 2016-2017 Common Read selection is In Defense of a Liberal Education by Fareed Zakaria.


• The English Department Plans the Second Annual Cavalier Conference on Writing and Literature

responding 2

The JCCC English Department will host the Cavalier Conference on Writing and Literature this April 29, 2016. The conference theme is “Responding.”  A call for proposals will be sent to you soon.
The keynote speaker will be Prof. Nancy Sommers, Harvard Graduate School of Education, and author ofResponding to Student Writing.” 
The planning committee for this conference, which is the only one in the area that involves both college and high school English teachers, is composed of Beth Gulley, Maureen Fitzpatrick, Marilyn Senter, Sam Bell, Kay Haas, and Keith Geekie.

• League of Innovation Student Literary Competition Information

The League for Innovation in the Community College is sponsoring its annual literary competition to celebrate the creativity, talent, and diversity of student writers. Each League board member (including JCCC) conducts its own competition, for which students submit work in four categories: fiction, essay, poetry, and one-act play. The work of the local winners will be forwarded to the national competition to be judged by nationally known writers in each category. The winners of the national competition are then published in a journal.
The JCCC competition is now underway, and as mentioned above, we are accepting submissions in four categories: fiction, essay, poetry, and one-act play. The deadline is April 1. Please spread the word to your students. The guidelines for the JCCC portion of the contest are attached. They are also available on the E/J office bulletin board, in GEB165, and at the Writing Center.
Submissions can be placed in my mailbox or dropped off at my office (GEB 165H). Several reminders will be sent before the April 1 deadline.
League Student Literary Competition–JCCC Guidelines

 • Creative Writing Club Meets in Spring Semester 

The Creative Writing Club meets every Thursday, starting January 28, 3:30-5:30 in the In-Focus Dining Room in Dining Down Under in the Commons.  Mostly the club does writing exercises and critiques club members’ manuscripts.  The club is considering inviting faculty members to speak on writing in the different genres; this will probably be one of the first items of business once the club starts meeting.

• Nathan Jones Presented at Noon at the Nerman 

Nathan Jones, associate professor, English, was the presenter for the Noon at the Nerman discussion program at noon Friday, Jan. 29, at the Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art. He discussed Commodification of Indian Art  by Linda Haukaas.


• The Journalism Department Announces the Headline Award 

The 2016 Journalism Department Headline Award recipient will be Jon Cook, who is the CEO of VML Advertising.  Jon will give a presentation to JCCC students, faculty, staff and other interested parties at 11 a.m. on Thursday, April 28.


More details will be forthcoming.
• Beth Gulley Reads from Her Work

On January 17, Beth Gulley joined other Kansas poets at the Raven Bookstore in Lawrence to celebrate the work of poet William Stafford on the occasion of his 102nd birthday.


• Monica Recommends the Revision Website at Dartmouth 


• Changes Coming in D2L 

Here’s a brief update from Ed Lovitt:

• TYCA News!

Professor Beth Gulley is the new Kansas Representative to TYCA-Midwest.  She is preceded by Sam Bell, who was the representative last year.
• Filling the New Position of FA Division Advocate

Diane Davis has volunteered to the E/J Division Advocate to the Faculty Association. We certainly appreciate Diane volunteering her time to speak up on behalf of the division at FA meetings.

 • Andrea Broomfield Blogs about Life as a JCCC Student, Post #3

Shortly after I was awarded my sabbatical, euphoria disappeared and a host of pesky logistical problems crowded in on my little celebration.  Chief among them was gaining admission to JCCC as a student.
Be Prepared
The best students often become teachers.  There’s nothing new about that.  When they were students, these teachers didn’t have to rely on the syllabus to know when or what to study.  They prepared weeks before the syllabus was even handed out, anticipating assignments, working ahead.  Instruction engaged them, lectures scintillated them, and discussions thrilled them. They were, in other words, hard-wired for academe. I was that student.  I loved gaining teachers’ respect and admiration.  Their praise was my drug of choice.
Well, a lot had changed between those days of my academic accomplishments and the weeks leading up to me becoming a JCCC student.  I was preparing for class, all right, but not because of pride and enthusiasm.  Instead, I was preparing because I was scared.  Here I was, a fifty-year-old woman with no professional cooking experience other than a two-week stint at Long John Silver’s when I was sixteen (I was let go) and a head stuffed with too many Iron Chef episodes and images of bad asses like Gordon Ramsay screaming at inept under-cooks.  The professional kitchen, in other words, was a man’s domain, the realm of one-upmanship and sabotage.  What would these guys make of me? “Molly Homemaker” who might know how to bake chocolate chip cookies but take down an ox? Clarify two hundred gallons of consommé? Gut and fillet one hundred flounder?  In an hour?  Yeah, right.
My fear was compounded by my ineptitude with math.  Having no idea of what the first day of Professional Cooking I would entail, I decided on my worst-case scenario.  I imagined being ordered to convert recipes from metric to standard and bring a one-hundred-gallon soup recipe down to one gallon.  This particular scenario was based on a conversation I had had with a well-meaning student who advised me get on a cooking team with someone experienced in banquets because the banquet guys were the best at recipe conversion.  Given that my Perspectives in Hospitality Management class also required a calculator and that the textbook contained math problems,  I spent much of the winter break doing all manner of conversions, working far ahead of chapters one and two in my textbooks, worrying that on day one, I would be exposed as the imposter I was.
In my “spare time,” I was frantically trying to prepare for Professional Cooking I  by cooking all manner of odd things that our family never eats and with which I had no first-hand experience.  The house reeked of roasting veal shins and beef knuckles as I attempted to perfect brown stock and consommé. Pangs of inadequacy and fear of failure drove such cooking sprees.  The days where I prepped for class knowing I would go in and “blow them away” were gone.  Now, I was the “mature student,” desperate not to stand out, to not appear the fool.
It all turned out fine in the end, as they say, and over the next months, I will write about what I actually learned, what the realities of first-semester HCA classes really entail.  The point of this post, however, is to impress upon readers that the fear and anxiety that gripped me–at some points almost defeated me–grip many of our students from the minute they enroll in class, not just when they show up on the first day.  This fear and anxiety are particularly acute for the so-called “non-traditional” students.
We know this intellectually as faculty and administrators.  Community colleges accommodate thousands who do not match the cookie-cutter 18-21 student mold, and in the mix are scores of students who resembled me: older, and way out of their comfort zone.  But given their work ethic, experience, perspective, and most of all, their humility, many of these adults are oftentimes not only our best students, but the ones that we become lifelong friends with.
Repeatedly, these older students would confide in me, their English professor, how frightened they were of walking into my classroom on that first day and confronting all those students that they just knew were smarter and better equipped than they were. I laughed with them about their early fears, but on a fundamental level, I never could understand that fear, until I became that student myself.
I achieved a 4.0 during my sabbatical semester not because of talent and genius for cooking.  It was the result of me being old enough to be humble, to consider my shortcomings, and to want my peers’ acceptance.  Somewhere on a professor’s roster are the names of students who are going to be amazing not because of their native intelligence and smugness, but because the alternative is unfathomable for them; in other words, shame and exposure as an imposter.  It was essential for me to go through this agony myself.  It makes me better prepared to meet my students on the first day, knowing that for some weeks prior to it, they have been checking D2L daily to see if any early assignments or information or clues have been posted.  They purchased the textbooks months in advance, and they have tried to memorize a load of material in anticipation of being called on and, in their worst-case scenarios, flushed out and written off as “old,” or “dumb,” or a “clown.”

Post #2

Since I am an already an English professor here and “just” taking a sabbatical,  did I even need to apply?  I assumed no, and I nursed that false assumption all the way to October, 2014, when it was time to pre-enroll.  Numerous niggling questions related to admissions also invaded my peace of mind:  If I did not have to go through an official application process, did I go through an “application lite” process instead?  How do I use the Class Schedule and Academic tabs on JCCC.edu to find classes?  How do I pay tuition?  Do I actually want a culinary career waiting for me after I start–and finish–actual coursework?  Should I audit some of these courses so that I can save myself from having to study so hard?    Do I really have to take the sanitation class, or can I just kind of “sneak” out of it?  Do I have to take the Compass placement test even if I already have a terminal degree?  Surely not, I told myself, but that particular question haunted me the most. To read more . . .

• JCCC Ranked in Top Echeolon of Community Colleges in Higher Ed 

A survey, which is part of the Open Doors report on international educational exchange,  conducted by the Institute for International Education, provides data on the top 40 associate’s institutions hosting international students from 2014-2015. JCCC ranked 8th in this survey.


 Mind’s Eye Info for 2015-2016

Mind’s Eye, JCCC’s student literary and arts magazine, is currently seeking poetry, fiction and creative non-fiction submissions. The deadline for submission is Friday, December 5.
Manuscripts must be submitted in hard-copy form to GEB 165H or to my mailbox in CC 221 as well as sent as an electronic file email attachment to treynold@jccc.edu. Entries per person are limited to three, all of which can be sent as a single document via email. A separate entry form must be completed for each entry. Those submitting should include a two to three sentence bio.

• The Epson International Pano Awards for 2015 


• Textbook Committees for Comp I and Comp 2 Being Formed 

Please consider volunteering for the Comp 2 Textbook Selection Committee if you regularly teach Comp 2.
Contact Matthew Schmeer, by September 18, if  interested. schmeer@jccc.edu
Ted Rollins, lead insructor for Comp 1, is in the process of forming of the Textbook Selection Committee for Comp 1 books.  trollins@jccc.edu
• Follow English on Twitter


The English Department Twitter account is run by Professor Steve Werkmeister English Dept@JCCCEnglish
. The Twitter account is one attempt at having a greater social media presence in the hopes that we can showcase our disciplinary values and the achievements of our faculty.
The English Department Blog Twitter account is run by Keith Geekie JCCC English Blog@kgeekie
 • Booktalk Dates and Selections: 
Friday, January 29            Jacksonland  by Steve Inskeep
Friday, February  26        A Spool of Blue Thread by Anne Tyler (Sheri Barrett facilitating)
Friday, March 25               Dead Wake by Erik Larsen (Marilyn G facilitating)
Friday, April 22                  Being Mortal by Atul Gwande  (Judy Oden facilitating)

 • NCTE Statement Affirming #BlackLivesMatter 

The following statement, invited by the NCTE presidential team and authored by the NCTE/CCCC Black Caucus, calls on all English, English language arts, and literacy teachers “to transform our world and raise awareness of the crisis of racial injustice.” It affirms that “as an organization, we are committed to providing English educators with the tools, training, and support needed to build a more equitable system better able to serve the unique needs to all youth.” As you begin the school year, please consider this eloquent statement as you, too, work for equity in your classroom, institution, state, and country. Sincerely,
The NCTE Presidential Team
Kathy Short, Doug Hesse, Susan Houser, Ernest Morrell
Read the NCTE Statement Here 

• Study Aboard Opportunities for JCCC Students 

Farrell Jenab, as the new Study Abroad Coordinator, wants the English Department to know that the most effective way to let students know about study abroad options is through classroom visits.  She would like you to invite her to speak to your classes about the study abroad program.  It will take less than five minutes. You can contact Farrell at fjenab@jccc.edu. 

• Faculty Senate Report for November 19, 2015 
Members present:  Dennis Arjo, Peggy Barlett, Vin Clark, Paul Decelles, Amy Fisher, Janette Funaro, Keith Geekie, Steve Giambrone, Leanna Graham (for Valerie Mann), Judi Guzzy, Doug Harvey, Howard Hendren, Shaun Harris (for Andrea Broomfield) Jim Hopper, Chris Imm, Nathan Jones, Kay King, Patrick Lafferty, Cherie Leiker, Sharon Lundeen, Valerie Mann, John McNally, Ron Palcic, Lorie Paldino, Traci Putnam, Matthew Schmeer, Irene Schmidt
Members absent:  Andrea Broomfield (substitute present)
Open forum: No comments.
President’s report. Nathan spoke about the November 13, 2015 Town Hall meeting about campus safety. (Nathan’s summary of the meeting, along with summarized comments from those present accompanies these minutes.) Nathan continues to push for faculty representation on the committee on safety created by the administration. Nathan has spoken with College General Counsel Tanya Wilson, who is willing to come address us on this matter (probably in the spring, 2016 semester). JCCC Police Chief, Gregory Russell, has offered to return to address us as well. Andy Anderson will come address us at the December Faculty Senate meeting.
President Sopcich:  Joe mentioned our Town Hall meeting and said it was a good thing for us to do. He said that at that evening’s Board of Trustees meeting, there would be an executive session in which the taskforce on safety would report to the BOT. But he said that there was also a need to talk about and create the policy that we will use on campus when the legislation takes effect.  He said that “This is not going away.” According to Joe, the legislators who passed this legislation were re-elected subsequent to the passing of the legislation.
Joe called our attention to the list of people taking their retirement at the end of this academic year. Andy Anderson is on this list. This means that the position of Chief Academic Officer will need to be filled. Joe said that he looks forward to working with us on this.
There was also a budget amendment in the BOT packet for that evening’s meeting. The amendment was to add $9.8 million to the budget for campus infrastructure projects, e.g. HVAC. This will be funded by General Obligation Capital Outlay Bonds. An additional sum of money has been earmarked to fund a facelift for the Carlsen Center. Joe says that none of this money comes out of our regular budget.
Joe said that the approval of a facilities master plan would also take place at the BOT meeting that evening. We currently do not have such a plan. Joe says that this plan will tell us how we can maximize the spaces we have given our current and projected future needs. For example, our current enrollment is down to 2002 levels. The firm chosen to do this work is highly regarded and will lead a very inclusive process.
A senator asked if there is a timetable for replacing Andy. Joe answered that we would begin the “first thing in January.” He said that there is a very small window for getting everyone together. Because of breaks, finals, etc., it will take about a year.
A senator asked about the Facilities Master Plan. The senator said that he saw two possibilities: giving space to programs that still exist, or leasing out space. Joe said these were possibilities. He said that we needed to work on consolidating space.
A senator asked if there would be a national search for Andy’s replacement. Joe said yes.
Discussion of Job Descriptions. Larry Reynolds, Dean of Communications and English and Journalism had been invited and was recognized to speak on this issue. Larry said that Andy Anderson asked him to work on the job descriptions of full-time and part-time faculty. Larry compiled what we currently have and put it in a new format. Then he and the other Deans made some changes and edits. Andy presented this at an IDC meeting to Nathan and Ron for feedback. That is how we got to the point where Ron and Nathan sent the descriptions out to be reviewed by the faculty.
Larry said that he took the current job descriptions and added some things. There is a teaching aspect and a college community aspect. He also incorporated the “effective teaching” description that was developed by a group of faculty as part of the Strategic Plan implementation process.
Larry referenced four documents: the current full-time faculty job description from 2006, the current adjunct instructor job description from 2003, and the drafts of the new job descriptions. These documents accompany these minutes.
Larry explained that he believed the college wanted new job descriptions because there was a concern about civility, there was a new definition of effective teaching, and the descriptions had not been looked at for a very long time.
A senator asked what the “required meetings” were for the adjuncts referenced in the new description. The word had previously been “scheduled.” The answer was that there are some areas where they require their adjuncts to attend meetings. There was a suggestion that Larry change the word to “scheduled.”  Larry agreed and said he would take the change back to IDC for discussion.
A senator asked if adjuncts were required to have office hours. Larry said no; the reference to that is just one thing on a list of things that equate to accessibility to students. Several means might be used to do this besides office hours.
A senator asked about a section carried over from the previous job description.  It is about being involved in recruitment and retention of faculty staff, and students. The senator wanted to know when this actually happened. The senator suggests that Larry take a look at this.
A senator remarked that we often confuse civility with conformity. She said that more so than telling us that we should be civil, it would be more valid for the job description to say that we should express our opinions openly and that we should participate in discussion, etc. Larry responded that what she suggested was already in the draft description. Larry borrowed it from the AAUP statement of professional ethics.
A senator asked about the mention of portfolios in the adjunct description. Larry said this was a mistake.
A senator suggested that they break out the parts about expression of opinion (that are already in the draft description) and list them in bullet points to draw attention to them. Larry noted this and said he would take this back to Andy.
A senator asked if Larry was at liberty to say how these descriptions would become official. Larry responded that he would take the drafts back to Andy along with our suggestions and questions that would be considered. The FA were also slated to have a discussion of the documents at their December 7 meeting. Larry thought that after all comments were taken to Andy, the amended version should come back to both the FS and FA, so that there would be some validation. He was not completely clear on what would actually happen.
A senator commented that civility is a very subjective term whereas academic freedom is a longstanding tradition. She said she did not think civility belonged in a job description. Larry agreed that civility is very subjective. Larry said he would take this back to Andy as well.
A senator asked why this was being done now. Larry said he thought it was perhaps driven by the civility discussion.
A senator asked if the same expectations would be placed in the administration’s job descriptions. He said this seemed one-directional. Larry says that he thought that it should. But he said that his job description changed overnight and no one told him.
A senator expressed concern that we seem to have a tradition of creating policy and procedure with someone’s name on it.
A senator asked if all job descriptions at the college were available publicly. Larry said he thought they should be. Another senator said that he thought we should ask if HR can make all job descriptions available. Nathan said we would consider that.
A senator asked about the section in the descriptions about creating and sustaining strong interpersonal relationships.
Nathan suggested that senators should send Larry additional suggestions.
A senator suggested that the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate discuss obtaining all job descriptions from HR.
Vin Clark moved that before they were implemented the descriptions be brought back to the Faculty Senate for discussion. The motion was seconded and passed.
Discussion of Strengthening Campus Safety. Nathan first asked for two volunteers for Keeping Our People Safe committee. Dr. Barbara Larson, Executive VP, Finance and Administrative Services, asked for volunteers from the Senate, one full-time and one adjunct representative.
Senators asked for clarification about which committee this was. Other senators clarified that this was not the new taskforce on campus safety that would be reporting to the BOT that evening. KOPS has been around much longer. This would be an advisory committee to the already existing KOPS endeavors, and Dr. Larson would chair it.
Senators discussed the need for an adjunct to serve. One adjunct senator said that because there were only two adjuncts on the Senate, they were already stretched thin. They had the same concerns as full-time faculty in this area. Another senator said that the adjunct experience is significantly different from that of the full-time faculty. Irene Schmidt then volunteered to serve on the committee. Leanna Graham also volunteered. They then decided that they would alternate attending meetings, thus sharing the adjunct faculty position on the committee. Matthew Schmeer volunteered as the full-time faculty member.  The committee will continue for three years, with a rotation of 1/3 of the members every year.
Nathan spoke again about the Town Hall Meeting. He said that they distributed a survey to everyone who had attended. All three faculty leadership groups were in attendance.
Ron Palcic stated that he wanted to implement a survey for faculty.
A senator asked if students would have input at some point. Nathan responded that Student Senate had already met once on safety and would be having another meeting on the topic. They would also produce a report.
A senator suggested that the next Town Hall be held on a Tuesday or Thursday (the first was held on a Friday). Another senator suggested that one be held during Professional Development Days.
The senator from AHHS said he had asked the AHHS faculty what they thought about guns on campus. Thirty-one were against the measure. Three were in favor of the measure. Nine adjuncts said that they would stop teaching face to face if there were guns on campus.
One senator had a discussion with Trustee Stephanie Sharp and she said she would encourage us to connect with students and all on campus to vote on this issue. The senator stated that he would like to find a way to get people registered to vote. Ron said that Stephanie has an app that helps get advanced ballots out to people easily. Patrick commented that this is the only secure and verifiable way to vote – advanced voting.
A senator asked if there is a formal network or channel to communicate with other higher education institutions in the state. Ron said that KNEA has been approached to look at the law and what the stance is on campuses. Apparently in the western part of the state, faculty are more favorable to the measure, according to Ron.
Nathan and Ron discussed the possibility of putting together a survey of the faculty about guns on campus. Ron said that he would like the FA research team and the FS to work together on this.
Nathan said he believed we should have regular Town Hall meetings until this is settled.
One senator asked how we might learn about the conclusions of the taskforce on safety that would be reporting to the BOT. He asked if we might ask them to share their recommendation with the senate. Another senator said that it appeared that our participation on Barbara Larson’s KOPS committee was the administration’s response to actually having faculty on the taskforce on safety. He said that perhaps the four representatives on the KOPS committee would need to be the ones to push for more information.
A senator also asked about the role of the college lobbyist. Senators had asked Judy Korb about the lobbyist’s activity on this issue during the Faculty Senate meeting about safety, but she did not respond fully at that time. A senator remarked that we should pursue asking about the taskforce’s recommendation as well as encouraging faculty on the KOPS committee to continue to request information about this matter.
Doug Harvey moved that we form a Faculty Senate committee to work with Faculty Association to create a scientific survey of faculty on the guns on campus issue that will strive for anonymity but certainly be confidential. The motion was seconded and passed.
Doug Harvey, Paul Decelles, Patrick Lafferty and Chris Imm volunteered for this committee. Nathan said others were welcome to join as well.
Discussion of Strengthening Leadership Development Opportunities for Faculty. Irene told the Senate that there is currently a leadership institute for all employees and there is also one for students. But there is none for adjuncts. The current institute is billed as something for those interested in professional development. Irene said she finds this ironic. She asked for discussion.
Vin Clark moved that the Senate ask the College to open the leadership institute to part time faculty. The motion was seconded and passed.
Committee reports:
Adjunct affairs: Irene reported that a group met about the Adjunct Handbook and Tom Grady attended and took their comments back for consideration. A group also met about the adjunct PDD sessions. In response to a question, she said that the Adjunct Handbook is already available digitally, but adjuncts were not happy with it and now want it to be revised.
Communications: Patrick asked for feedback about the Senate photo. He does not want to post it without people’s approval.
Elections: Lorie thought the minutes approval process went more smoothly last month than it had the previous month. Patrick said that it could be even better. He said there is another alternative to what we did: to send senators a link to the WordPress site, have them go there and vote there.  He suggested we try it.
Lorie moved that we approve trying this new method for voting. The motion was seconded.
In the discussion, Lorie reminded us that the minutes go out on Monday. Senators will have 48 hours to respond with edits and clarifications. The vote will be sent out after that. Senators will receive a link and password. They will click on the link and go to the WordPress site where they will enter the password and vote.
One senator asked if the vote needed to be unanimous. Another senator answered that a majority of a quorum is needed for the minutes to be approved.
A senator asked if the Senate has a policy and procedures committee. The answer was no, we follow Roberts Rules of Order.
The motion was voted on and passed.
Faculty chairs. Vin told us that Keith was working on a report. The committee had a list of release time and stipends. They were to talk about it with Andy the next day. The report Keith is writing will be distributed to the FS at the December meeting. Then once we’ve approved it it would be distributed it to the campus community. Nathan asked if we might get the report prior to the next meeting. Keith said that although the report had some heft, she would try to get it to the FS by December 1 (for the December 3 meeting).
Collegial steering. Janette reported that student engagement was discussed, and that it will be discussed again at the next collegial steering meeting. She suggested that faculty be asked to provide examples of how they promote student engagement in their classes so that those examples could be shared at the meeting.  One senator remarked that a robust arts program — like the high schools have — would engage students.
Instructional Deans Council. Andy is slated to come to the December 3 FS meeting to speak about this. One senator remarked that the IDC issue is similar to her experience with the nursing faculty meeting. She said that they allow students to come and talk to them at their meetings. But the students don’t stay the whole time because the faculty wouldn’t be able to speak freely if they did. She saw the IDC issue the same way. She said she is impressed that they would allow us to come. Another senator said that this comparison sets up a false equivalence between students and faculty. Nathan said that he advocates for greater presence at those meetings because the senate passed a motion that he do this.
Ed Affairs: Dennis reported that the decision was made to remove the PE requirement from degree programs. Now any program that grants one of the three associates degrees has to decide if they will take that requirement out of their program. Ed Affairs will be asking programs to consider this.  If a program doesn’t want it, Ed Affairs will be able to remove it from the degree plan without this having to go through the Ed Affairs process.
Another senator who had been present at the Ed Affairs meeting remarked that if any of us are revising our programs and removing requirements, we should let the affected programs know that we are doing so. These changes can affect enrollments and scheduling.
Faculty Association. Ron had already left for the BOT meeting.  Dennis remarked that everything had been covered that had occurred at the FA meeting.
Adjournment. John McNally moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and passed. The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.