ARM Information Bulletin No. 4 (1st of 2 parts) S. 2013 Fellow USePian, HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT? Considering the importance of any university or college in a country’s development and the complexity of the leadership role of a University President, one would expect that a rigorous and informed process would be used to appoint/renew a President and, more importantly, that it be conducted along the traditions that characterize the academe. After all, the most important and the most critical job a Board performs is the selection of a President. The case of the process of reappointment of Dr. Perfecto Alibin, however, was a bizarre interplay of politics and personalities. The process was designed by the BOR to be rational enough. But he manipulated it. When we say “manipulate”, we mean he controlled or played upon the process by artful, unfair, insidious means to his own advantage. With luck on his side and thanks to the “president’s men” in both the evaluation committee and the BOR, he succeeded in being “reappointed” to a second term. How did he manipulate the whole process? First, Dr. Alibin wanted a Board that was his, one he could control and manipulate in order to serve his ends. He had it all planned since the beginning especially when he decided he would like a second term. For one, he deliberately and purposively allowed two private sector representatives in the BOR to “overstay”, beyond the two years prescribed by RA 8292. It was unlawful, but he defied it in order to be sure he has two votes every time. (Of course, the two private sector representatives, both cronies of Dr. Albin stayed on. After all, being a Regent served their ego needs. And anyway, the BOR was not even aware of it. (Tuloy ang ligaya.) They were “his” right from the start of their terms; he had a direct hand in their appointment. Naging tuta na sila ni Dr. Alibin.l The student regent and the faculty regent were his, too. After all, the faculty regent owes Dr. Alibin his position in the BOR and he has truly acquired a taste for it after years of being in the BOR. The story of how the faculty regent has managed to stay on in the BOR is an intriguing story of manipulation itself by Dr. Alibin and his cronies in the University. The House of Representatives in the BOR then was his, too. After all, the Gym project and his scholarship program were in the university. It was “strategic” thinking that made him manipulate the election of the faculty regent who has been there for years now. He bested other highly qualified and more senior faculty. Wasn’t he still an ‘Instructor’ when he was appointed to the BOR? But he certainly met Dr. Alibin’s requirements of a Regent—obedient, quiescent and can be manipulated. Luckily again for him, he found another loyal ally in the alumni Regent, a buddy of sorts, who has been standing by waiting for his turn to sit as Regent. While he let his “tutas” stay on, he was quick to seek for the replacement of then Alumni representative in the Board as soon as his term expired. Is it because the alumni representative did not support him and even contradicted him openly on a number of issues? Is that why he was cajoled by “the President’s men” into not running again to represent the Alumni in the BOR so that Dr. Alibin’s ally could sit sooner as Regent? It must have been an embarrassing moment for Dr. Alibin when the case of the two overstaying private sector representatives was “discovered” by the BOR and the two private sector representatives asked to either step out of the meeting or stay on only to listen but not vote. And did not the private sector representatives feel awkward and embarrassed? We would surmise they were, too, because (we are sure) they knew all the time that their 2-year terms already expired long ago but Dr. Alibin prevailed on them to stay on. Stay on, they did. After all, the perks of the office were irresistible and it felt good being addressed “Honorable”. (To be continued) ARM Information Bulletin No. 4 (2nd of 2 parts) S. 2013 To continue, Dr. Alibin also manipulated the Evaluation Committee that was formed by the BOR to evaluate his performance during his first term. While two members of the Committee were named by the BOR, he had a hand in choosing the three others and he chose people he knew would be on his side, come hell or high water. He chose a “buddy” president of another university, a co-Ilocano. He chose a faculty member of USeP he knew would support him under any circumstance. After all, the destiny of his (the faculty) career rested on the benevolence of Dr. Alibin at the moment and they were both aware of that kind of relationship between them. The third person need not be mentioned here as a form of respect for a departed colleague. True enough, he earned two “Excellent” votes while the other three, two respected members of another state and private university, and the other also a respected official of a regulatory agency, rated him “Very Satisfactory”. Indeed, Dr. Alibin has a good eye for people whom he can manipulate and who can be doggedly loyal to him all the way, through thick and thin. When his presidency was questioned by the Board and the matter put to a vote, he got a majority vote for the reaffirmation of his reappointment despite a strong case presented to the BOR in session against the legality of his reappointment by government lawyers and the chairperson of the Board. Even as some members of the BOR knew about his questionable manipulations of the Board as demonstrated by his coddling of two BOR overstaying members, they still gave him their vote of confidence. Did it ever occur to them that when Dr. Alibin deliberately kept from their knowledge the case of the overstaying private sector representatives, he actually cheated on them? If he did this, what else is he capable of doing? Strange—but true. Indeed, luck was on his side when the BOR itself as a body was not fully aware (we would guess) of the provisions of the law on reappointment of presidents who would have turned 65 years of age before their second 4-year terms expired. Luck was on his side when the BOR was not aware of the implications on their decision to vote or not to vote when the Evaluation Committee reported a non-unanimous vote on his performance. Apparently, he withheld some information from the BOR when a member of the BOR commented that he did not tell them he was already 63 when he applied for reappointment. It is sad that at the highest level of academic leadership in USeP, the responsibility of deciding on his reappointment was partly vested in an Evaluation Committee the majority of members of which were chosen by Dr. Alibin himself. It is sad indeed that the Evaluation Committee only submitted the individual ratings they made and failed to make a recommendation as required by the law. Had they made a recommendation not to renew him on the basis of their evaluation, it could have helped make it clear to the BOR that Dr. Alibin does not deserve a reappointment. After all, Dr. Alibin failed to get a unanimous vote of “Excellent”. RA 8292 requires a unanimous vote of “Excellent” before the Board can vote to either reappoint him or not. Had the BOR been fully aware of the prescriptions of RA 8292, they would not have proceeded with voting on his reappointment. They would not have proceeded with the voting anymore. After all, the law requires that Dr. Alibin should first get a unanimous “Excellent” vote from the Evaluation Committee before the BOR sits to vote. Then and there, the Board could have declared the presidency of USeP open. It could have made a big difference in the destiny of this University if everybody read their homework.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:38:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015