According to a reliable source who was personally present during the Board of Regents (BOR) meeting on the chancellorship of UP Mindanao, the meeting was held behind closed door in Pampanga in January.
Hence, the deliberations during the meeting were off the record. There were no minutes of the meeting. When the students requested a copy of the minutes, they were informed that no minutes were taken during the meeting.
But we ask: What really happened inside the BOR boardroom that time?
The source who has first-hand knowledge about it recounted as follows:
"There was a split vote between Mommy Gilda and a contending nominee.
So then CHED Chairman Puno asked the President about her views on the matter.
President Roman reasoned that among the nominees, only Mommy Rivero has no house in
It is interesting to know that Bobby Ramos, UPAA president, misrepresented the alumni association by nominating her without getting the alumni association's board approval. Hence, Bobby Ramos’ nomination was done in bad faith. Ergo, the BOR’s decision---hinged on Ramos' nomination of Mommy Gilda---was illegitimate.
As you may know, the UPAA sent a letter to the UP System disclaiming Ramos' representation of the alumni association. Apparently, it did not reach the BOR for one reason or another. (Our source said ang disclaimer letter ng alumni association ay hinarang sa OSU!)
As to the issue of who "has no house in
President Roman, the UP Mindanao constituents know what transpired during the BOR meeting during that fateful day in Pampanga in January 2007.
We find it absurd and illogical to base the decision on the chancellorship of UP Mindanao on these two implausible arguments!
We deserve an explanation!
Sincerely,
OPERATION IMPEACH GILDA MOVEMENT
3 comments:
hindi ba pwede gawing "Calbario" na lang yung "Carballo" niya? heheheh
luud diay ang proseso sa pag-appoint sa iyaha...
Hi,
I don't know who your source is but I was personally present in the board meeting in question. Please let me clarify the following:
1.) Indeed the meeting took place in an executive session. This means that the only persons present when her selection was decided were the regents and the secretary of the university. I am against this kind of an arrangement because it runs counter to the tenets of transparency that the University espouses. By tradition, however, the selections of chancellors, deans, and even the president are done in an executive session. This was not a special case.
2.) A "split-vote" did not take place. Neither did the chair have to prod the president to explain her choice. On the contrary, the president's explanation took place before the voting. That is the process according to parliamentary procedures.
3.) I think it is correct to criticize the proceedings for lacking an indispensable component- a written, accessible record. Nonetheless, the office of the secretary of the university keeps a tape record of the deliberations. But, based on experience, even the student regent could hardly access that tape record. I have tried requesting from said office during my time. The office has its reasons.
4.) In my report on the 1217th BoR Meeting to the UPMin Student Body, I have clearly articulated my insights on the events that took place during the proceedings. Let me cite relevant portions of this report for everybody's enlightenment, viz:
"Another crucial matter discussed was the appointment of the chancellor of UP Mindanao, the youngest unit of the UP System. The students’ position is clear—they will support any of the four nominees except Dr. Gilda Rivero because of her anti-student, anti-worker stance. Dr. Rivero is currently the vice-chancellor for academic affairs of UP Mindanao. The UP Mindanao USC has reported that she issued a letter of reprimand to its chair and had said letter attached to the USC Chair’s official academic record. This is a case of summary execution. Democratic process entails that the chair or any student should go through a fair trial and if convicted, meted with the appropriate penalty. This reprimand was issued because of a successful call for boycott against ToFI by the UP Min USC which paralyzed the classes in the unit. Reports from both faculty and other sectors indicating Dr. Rivero’s harsh treatment towards them are also contained in the committee assessment. Dr. Roman began the deliberation by playing safe. She said she preferred either Dr. Rivero or Prof. Dans Lee. After I articulated the students’ position, Dr. Roman was quick to state her preference for Dr. Rivero whom the Board appointed. This is not merely an issue of popularity. This is about choosing an academic leader who can uphold the ideals of the university and the welfare of its constituency. Given the kind of attitude that Dr. Roman’s Administration has towards democratic processes, I can understand her preference. The Student Body of UP Mindanao fears that with this development, in due time, the unit will return to the Dark Ages."
5.) Based on my recollection of the meeting in question, I can confirm the following:
a.) The president explained her preference for Dr. Rivero over Prof. Dans Lee by saying that the former has the right answers which the latter lacks although she asks the right questions.
b.) The president also expressed her comfort in having someone who knows how to manage a unit. Because of the demands for the centennial celebration and other upcoming activities, she said that she couldn't micromanage a unit.
c.) The nomination of the alumni association of Davao was made a basis to support the chancellor's selection. The alumni regent pointed out in that meeting that the chancellor enjoys the support of the active alumni association. At that time, I could not question this assertion as we were presented with a black and white account of such support. I only learned later that the nomination is not backed by a resolution from the alumni board.
d.) I can't distinctly remember her "not having a house in Manila" as being a basis for her selection. I think the phrase used was that she was "willing to relocate in Mindanao" (given that her family already resides abroad).
I may have missed some details but these are the crucial points. If you require more information, please ask. Actually, I may be under the pain of a reprimand for expressing what transpired in that executive session. It is supposed to be confidential. But I cannot, however, permit the escalation of this conflict and the movements that may arise therefrom if the foundations in which they stand on are pieces of information that are rather unverified.
I share a number of your valid sentiments. But, as a former student leader and mass organizer, I urge you to please come to the open. Let us put brave faces and names behind our calls and statements. That bravery can only spring from careful ascertaining of the correctness of our cause—one that transcends the boundary of self-interest, that is, one that calls for liberation not so as to take the place of the oppressor but one that commits to justice for all. Unless this type of bravery is shown, any attempt at mass organizing will remain tainted with a questionable motive.
Great is my belief that the learned and noble men and women of UPMin could discuss and come up with a clear-cut manifesto of unity to collectively address their concerns in a manner that is not parochial. No matter how honorable its cause is, a movement that exists in isolation is elitist. It will collapse in succession. UPMin deserves something better. This daunting task requires collective action. Collective action has a tested formula: the binary method of negotiations and mass actions.
With you in the pursuit of excellence, I remain
For the students and the people,
Raffy Jones G. Sanchez
Lecturer in Social Sciences
Former Student Regent, UP System
Post a Comment