B. OTHER MATTERS (cont’d)
V. OTHER MATTERS
1. Board Resolution on the cutting of hazardous trees in the areas of Palma Hall and Quezon Hall in UP Diliman
1.1. Regent Farolan said that he was one of the Regents who expressed certain reservations in the referendum because he does not agree with the draft resolution as it was written. It sounded insensitive and made the Board look like people who can simply cut down trees just to ensure the safety of the community. But he fully understood the necessity of cutting down those hazardous trees given his background work with the College of Arts and Letters and with the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, related to disaster and risk reduction management programs. As a way to address the matter, he suggested that the resolution include a whereas clause which would reflect the BOR’s recognition of the value and importance of each and every tree in maintaining ecological balance and managing climate change.
1.2. As pointed out by Chair De Vera, President Concepcion informed the Board that the assessment was done not by tree doctors of UP Diliman but by the licensed forester of the JSA Inc., the company contracted by the University for the maintenance of the campus. He apologized for the oversight and moved for the deferment of action on the matter. He would refer the matter to the tree doctor of UP Diliman and consult Regent Farolan regarding the appropriate wording of the resolution in case the matter will go back to the Board.
30 1. Board Resolution on the cutting of hazardous trees … (cont’d)
. . .
1.3. Chair De Vera said that the University should exhaust all scientific means possible, including getting the experts from UP Los Baños to look at it as many times as possible, just to ensure that the Board will not be making a mistake on it because it involves a lot of trees.
1.4. Regent Guillermo concurred with the suggestion of Regent Farolan to include in the resolution a whereas clause affirming the commitment of the Board of Regents to maintain the health of the trees around the campus and to re-plant and maintain the greenness of UP campuses.
1.5. In connection with the statements of Regents Farolan and Guillermo, Regent Pedrano recommended that the resolution reflect an assurance that a similar number of trees would be planted within the UP Diliman campus as those to be felled/uprooted.
1.6. Regent Jimenez explained that he wanted the resolution approved as written because it is a necessary precautionary and life-saving measure, especially because it is already the typhoon season. He finds no problem in requiring that the trees to be felled be replaced as it is a matter of following existing laws.
1.7. There being no objections to the motion to defer action on the matter, the Board approved the same.
Board Action: DEFERRED
2. Briefing on the recruitment process of varsity players through the Varsity Athletic Admission System (VAAS)
2.1. Prof. Francis Carlos Diaz, Dean of the College of Human Kinetics, presented the rationale of the proposal to increase the Varsity Athletic Admissions System (VAAS) recipient quota from 120 to 250.
2.2. In summary, Dean Diaz highlighted that since the approval by the Board of the policy increasing the VAAS recipients from 50 to120 during its 1178th meeting on 29 January 2004, there has been a significant increase in the sporting events of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP), thus necessitating the corresponding increase in the number of student-athletes needed to participate in said events. Thus, the VAAS Committee proposed to the Board that the VAAS recipient quota be increased from 120 to 250. Under the present set-up, the Chancellor has the authority to approve up to 120 VAAS recipients. Beyond that number, there must be BOR approval. Hence, in order to avoid having to repeatedly request the Board to approve VAAS recipients in excess of 120, they are requesting instead that the Chancellor’s authority to approve VAAS recipients be increased from 120 to 250.
31 . . .
2. Briefing on the recruitment process of varsity players ... (cont’d) . . .
2.3. In response to the query of Regent Jimenez regarding the academic performance of varsity players, Dean Diaz said that around 90% of varsity players recruited through the VAAS are able to graduate within 5-6 years. The remaining 10% is due to attrition rate in their second or third year in college.
Chair De Vera ordered Dean Diaz to submit to the Board a formal report on the academic performance of varsity players over the past 5-6 years.
2.4. Regent Punzalan commended the VAAS program because all the varsity players whom he had known in his four-year stay in college recognized that the CHK program has helped them a lot in their academic performance in school.
2.5. In response to Chair De Vera’s query on how athletes are identified and recruited, Dean Diaz replied that the recruitment process starts with the conduct of try-outs by the coaches. Those who will pass the try-outs will be recommended to the VAAS program by the VAAS Committee, provided they meet other VAAS requirements, including a review of their high school grades and required UPG (university predicted grade). With regard to aggressive recruitment activities to identify potential outstanding athletes from all over the country and outside the country, Dean Diaz said that it is the responsibility of the coaches of varsity teams to recruit players for their respective teams. One platform for doing that is by participating in a number of tournaments prior to the UAAP events, such as the Palarong Pambansa.
The coaches are able to actively recruit from the players who excel in these tournaments.
2.6. On the issue of harnessing the alumni network all over the world to identify good athletes, Dean Diaz admitted that there is no system in place yet at the College of Human Kinetics to address that aspect. Right now, it is just through the individual diligence of the coaches and the good support from the alumni that CHK was able to tap good players to join the VAAS program. To address the concern of Chair De Vera, Dean Diaz said that they will come up with a better system of recruitment.
2.7. In response to Regent Laurel as to why it is limited to just 250, Dean Diaz explained that it is because varsity teams are still tied to an approved formula.
Chair De Vera said that this quota may be increased in the future once the system of recruitment improves.
32 . . .
2. Briefing on the recruitment process of varsity players ... (cont’d) . . .
2.8. After further discussions, and there being no objections to the motion duly made and seconded, the Board approved the recommendation of the CHK to increase the VAAS recipient quota from 120 to 250 at the level of the Chancellor, with the condition that the CHK Dean will report back to the Board on the college’s plans on recruitment, particularly overseas, and how members of the Board, the alumni, and the alumni working with government agencies abroad can be tapped to identify potential student-athletes to join the VAAS program; and to submit a report on the academic performance of VAAS graduates for the last 5 years.
Board Action: APPROVED. The Chancellor’s authority to approve VAAS recipients is increased, from 120 to 250. The CHK Dean will submit a report to the BOR on its plan to recruit outstanding athletes, including from overseas, and;
to submit a report on the academic performance of VAAS graduates for the last 5 years.
3. On the UPIS VAAS Program
3.1 In response to the query of Regent Farolan, Dean Diaz said that the UP Integrated School (UPIS) has seven (7) official varsity teams and therefore participates in 7 out of 16 junior events in the UAAP. Only 10 slots are available for all 7 varsity teams admitted through the UPIS VAAS program. The lateral entry level of student-athletes to UPIS is at Grade 7.
3.2 When asked why UPIS has only 7 varsity teams and why only 10 slots are admitted through the VAAS, Dean Diaz explained that it is because the 100- 110 UPIS students admitted at the Kinder level are the same set of students who will progress up to Grade 12, which is a lean number of individuals to be tapped for varsity teams. The UPIS cannot accept through the VAAS more than 10 students from outside because of the limitation in human and physical resources of UPIS. The operation of the UPIS sports program is directly under the College of Education as a laboratory school of the college.
33 . . .
3. On the UPIS VAAS Program (cont’d) . . .
3.3 After a long discussion, Chair De Vera moved to instruct the President to sit down with the UPIS officials to determine the carrying capacity of UPIS. If the only problem is the limitation set by the Department of Education on laboratory schools, then the University could request from the DepEd Secretary for an exemption from that requirement, if the intention is to increase the number of UP high school students. Regent Farolan seconded the motion.
Board Action: The Board instructed the President to sit down with the UPIS officials to determine the carrying capacity of UPIS.
4. Update on the promotion for faculty, REPS (research, extension, and professional staff), and administrative staff
4.1 Regent Pedrano stated that the clamor from the REPS and administrative staff sectors is to have a corresponding promotion for REPS and administrative staff simultaneous with the faculty promotion to be effective 1 January 2019.
She added that the REPS Welfare Council is already drafting the guidelines for the REPS sector and she hopes that the Office of the Vice President for Administration is doing the same for the administrative staff sector.
4.2 Knowing the difficulty in getting vertical promotions, Regent Pedrano said that the two sectors are just requesting for a lateral promotions or step increment in current salary grades. However, if the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) approves the granting of maximum increment (Step 8) of a particular salary grade level, it is the prayer of the REPS and administrative staff sectors to be promoted up to that limit. Any step increment could make a difference to employees, especially for those who are retiring as computation of their retirement benefits will be based on the recent salary grade upon their retirement. But more than the money, Regent Pedrano said that the promotion could uplift the morale of the employees knowing that the University that they are serving for so many years puts value to their service.
4.3 Lastly, since the faculty promotions will be effective 1 January 2019, it is the prayer of the REPS and administrative staff that the same effectivity be applied in the grant of their request.
34 . . .
4. Update on the promotion for faculty … (cont’d) . . .
4.4 President Concepcion clarified that promotions will only apply to faculty members and to employees holding plantilla positions. It will not apply to UP contractuals, non-UP contractuals, job order workers (JOs), or to contract of service (COS) workers. He added that no faculty or employee may be promoted without the prior approval of the DBM because it is the DBM that authorizes the classification of ranks and salary grades of employees in the plantilla. So even if the University has the money to fund the promotion, the payroll and retirement benefits will not be adjusted accordingly if the promotion is not approved by DBM.
4.5 He said that it is easier in the case of faculty because the DBM already approved the faculty promotion by giving UP higher faculty positions. For example, by giving a Professor 12 item to UP means that a faculty sitting on that item but whose rank is not yet Professor 12 is entitled to be promoted up to Professor 12 subject to merit qualifications.
4.6 President Concepcion also apprised the Board that the UP System has already written the new DBM Secretary, Sec. Wendel E. Avisado, requesting for approval and funding for the promotion of the faculty, REPS, and Administrative Staff. His request from the REPS and Administrative Staff sectors is not to tie the promotion of faculty with their own.
4.7 President Concepcion emphasized that this particular faculty promotion is a not a general call for promotion but an individualized merit promotion. It will be up to the faculty if they will apply for promotion or not and they even have the option to apply this year or next year. It is not an across-the-board promotion, but is based on merit.
4.8 President Concepcion informed the Board that there is a proposal from the All UP Workers Union (AUPWU) requesting for a one-time benefit for administrative staff and REPS if the requested promotion will not be approved by DBM. The problem with this one-time benefit is the availability of funding and the legal justification to COA. It is not clear with him how this will be implemented. The sense of the AUPWU is across-the-board benefit but it would be difficult to justify that to COA.
4.9 Regent Pedrano informed the Board that she participated in the dialogue between the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) with the Salary Increase Solidarity Network. When she asked the official of DBM for guidance on how the REPS and administrative staff could move forward with their promotion, she was told that DBM has no domain over UP because UP has its own Charter. President Concepcion refuted this claim by DBM because the plantilla items are controlled by DBM. As explained earlier, UP cannot adjust the salary grades of its employees without the approval of DBM.
35 . . .
4. Update on the promotion for faculty … (cont’d) . . .
4.10 Chair De Vera said that there is a proposal submitted to the DBM from state universities and colleges (SUCs) called the Revised Organizational Structure and Staffing Standards for SUCs (ROSSSS), requesting for the creation of new administrative positions for all SUCs, excluding UP and MSU. Since UP is not included in that list, the statement of DBM to Regent Pedrano is perhaps taken in that context.
4.11 Regent Guillermo said that the challenges explained by President Concepcion are clear. However, the context of institutional memory and institutional expectation from the sectors that promotions are always parallel for faculty and the employees cannot be discounted.
4.12 After a long discussion, President Concepcion committed to exhaust all possible legal means in order to get DBM approval for the promotion of faculty, REPS and Administrative staff. He reiterated his assurance that he is doing his best for the welfare of all sectors of the university.
Board Action: NOTED
5. Update on the request of the Office of Admissions’ for an additional P10,000 incentive pay for the work done in the recent UPCAT
5.1 Regent Pedrano informed the Board that there is a pending request from the personnel of the Office of Admissions for an additional incentive amounting to PhP10,000.00 for their work done in the recent UPCAT. She said that this is on top of the BOR-approved PhP15,000.00 cash award already given to them this year.
5.2 President Concepcion said that he has not received any report yet from the Director of the Office of Admissions on the matter. He asked for more time to check the proposal and to study the financial implication of the proposed increase.
Board Action: NOTED
36 . . .
6. Acknowledgment and consideration by the BOR of the following documents:
a. Statement from UP Diliman University Council released on 9 September 2019, urging the UP President and the Board of Regents to respect and uphold the authority of the University Council and its constituent faculty on all academic matters and to honor the principles of democratic governance long established in the University;
b. Newspaper editorial entitled “From cheating come crooks, pretenders”;
6.1 At this point, the Board went off the record.
Board Action: NOTED
7. On the policy for faculty members, who were formerly REPS, who are retiring and wish to avail of the expanded Service Recognition Pay (eSRP)
7.1 Regent Guillermo brought the matter of faculty members who are formerly REPS regarding their concerns in availing the Expanded Service Recognition Pay (eSRP) benefit given to REPS and Administrative Staff. He referred to the case of Dr. Remigio Ocenar of the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), who has rendered 39 years of dedicated and continuous service to UP, 29 years as REPS and 13 years as faculty member. While he was granted the Faculty Sick Leave Benefit (FSLB) for his 13 years as faculty, his 26 years as REPS was not counted as part of the eSRP benefits. His appeal therefore to the Board is to grant him the eSRP benefit for his 26 years of service as REPS.
7.2 President Concepcion said that this is a problem that requires a fair and just solution. However, he requested more time to enable him to create a committee to study the case of Dr. Ocenar and other faculty similarly situated to determine the financial implications. He requested Regents Guillermo and Pedrano to join the committee he will create for the purpose. Both Regents agreed.
7.3 Regent Guillermo also mentioned the case of faculty administrators whose services rendered as such are not counted as part of FSLB.
37 . . .
7. On the policy for faculty members … (cont’d) . . .
7.4 Regent Pedrano proposed to include in the study the proposal of the Unions to harmonize the eSRP with the FSLB in terms of the number of days of coverage, which is to make both 15 days per year of service.
Board Action: The President to create a committee that will study the financial implication of faculty members, who were formerly REPS, availing the eSRP benefit.
8. On the statement of grave concern from the UP Diliman University Council on the proposals to amend UP-PNP Accords to allow police entry into UP campuses
8.1 President Concepcion clarified that he has not received any proposal or request from anyone to revise the UP-DND Agreement.
8.2 Regent Punzalan explained that since Regent Guillermo brought up the statement of the UP Diliman University Council (UPD-UC) regarding democratic governance, he thought of bringing up UPD-UC’s statement of grave concern on the proposals to amend the UP-PNP Accords. He said that the UPD-UC is asking the Board to be firm with its stand in upholding the academic freedom of the University. He requested an update if there is any follow-up meeting/press conference, or any forthcoming proposal on the matter.
8.3 Chair De Vera made a manifestation on the matter because a lot of the issues regarding this are alluded to him and he takes exception to a lot of the insinuations made against him. He said that it is unfortunate that UP officials, particularly the Chancellor of UP Diliman and the Faculty Regent, put it out officially that he was making claims about problems of drugs and crime in the University without basis.
He warned that if attempts to accuse him in the media persists, then he would be forced to answer officially in the media. He wished that those who are accusing him would watch the whole press conference, at Camp Crame which is available online, to see that he did not mention anything about military or police presence inside any UP campus. When asked about the UP-DND agreement, he explained that what he told the media was to stop pitting the police and universities against each other and to stop using loaded words like “militarization”. He recalled saying on record that there are problems in the UP campuses including drug use and the threat of extremism but he asked the media to investigate whether the UP Police are capable, because if they find that UP Police are capable then there is no need for any discussion on protocol. But if they find that the UP Police does not have the capability then, perhaps, they should start discussing the matter. He does not understand why the PNP came out officially with statement of crime statistics in the campus 2 days after the press conference.