Swimming against the current in PSME

29 October 2012

My previous four articles focused on concerns regarding the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineering, and this is on account of the Mechanical Engineering Week which is being celebrated every 3^rd week of the month of October (on the strength of E.O. 319 signed by President Cory in 1998). Incidentally, October 2012 was also proclaimed as Mechanical Engineering Month (as per Proclamation No. 480) by President Benigno S. C. Aquino III in conjunction with the “Society’s” 60^th Diamond Anniversary and its 60^th Annual National Convention which was done last week. Today’s column will be the last of this series dealing with PSME.

The celebration of ME month was centered on the 60^th Annual NatCon, which, by my observation drew in about the same number of delegates present last year.  Many good things took place during the convention among which were the 1-1/2 day 2^nd National ME Student conference which drew in about 3000 student delegates (double that of last year), coming from about 80 schools; the 2^nd Philmach Exhibition which had quality exhibitors and appeared to be more organized this year; the completion of the road map for the global competitiveness of the ME profession in which the “Society” participated; the announcement that the organization’s fund has already grown to some PHP 12 million and is expected to increase further to PHP15 million by year-end; and the approval of the New Mechanical Engineering Code by the PRC, signified by Chairperson Teresita Manzala’s signing the said document in front of the general assembly.

It is but right that the good is acknowledged, and it should make the members of the organization happy. However, it should not negate the existence of any bad that may be happening, nor inhibit any effort to expose whatever is bad so that these can be properly addressed. Exposing what seems bad in PSME, at this point in time, would be, as a saying goes, “swimming against the current”.

It is in line with this thinking that on the second day of the convention, a number of reform-minded PSME members came out and distributed   a “Manifesto for NatCon 2012” containing eight concerns which the reform group believes needs looking into. Some students, who felt they should also start getting involved in making right what is not, volunteered to distribute the manifesto. They were apprehended by the venue’s security force, but eventually released after Eng’r. David and Eng’r. Maglana (who incidentally is also a lawyer) made representations and contested the reason for the apprehension as well as the suppression of the distribution of the manifesto.

Members of the reform group identified themselves by wearing red arm bands which they were also prepared to provide others who may want to openly show support for the move. There were quite a lot who sympathised but were hesitant to expose themselves because they say they didn’t want to encounter difficulties in the future…some saying “alam na ninyo yuon”.

On the third day, upon the suggestion of a young engineer, the reform group set-up a “freedom wall” so that more members could be informed. Two such freedom walls made from red “cartolina” were posted on the wall of the venue, but then, as advised by a staff member of the venue, these were transferred to blank spaces (and finished activities) of a tarpaulin column showing the program schedule of the convention. In less than two hours, the convention chairman arrived to supervise the removal of the “freedom wall”. The members of the reform group reacted and objected by invoking their right to use the tarpaulin (being members), as well as the right to dissent. This caused a more or less 10 minute heated discussion with the convention chairman, but the removal, however, eventually prevailed, with the convention chairman removing the “freedom wall” himself as required by the reform group.

During the internal affairs workshop, the manifesto was entered for discussion with the intention of getting resolutions (for proper action) approved for each of the eight concerns, and which will then be presented during the closing plenary for ratification. This intention did not materialize due to what appeared to me as a strong and orchestrated effort to block it. What prevailed was a resolution requiring that the “manifesto” be formally sent to the national board for action, and for the results of the board’s action/s regarding the “manifesto” to be reported back to the general membership. This to me is odd, considering that most, if not all, of the eight concerns have reference to the national board. (For those who may be interested, copies of the resolutions may be accessed at http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com/).

By the way, on the election for the members of the 2013 national board, I mentioned in my October 9 column that “…it seems that the hand(s) that intend to manipulate has already started to move because someone appeared to have made the mistake of sending to me a ‘listing of preferred candidates as per so-and-so’. As per this list the following are to be elected: (for NCR) Aguiluz, Reyes, Paulino, Maglaya, So and Mamawal; (for Luzon North) Yorobe, Nicolas; (for Luzon South) Dadua, Cometa; (for Visayas) Chong, Moncada, Montero; (for Mindanao) Sultan, Aquillera.”

The actual result of the election, as reported, is as follows: (for NCR) Aguiluz, Reyes, Paulino, So, Mamawal and Ocampo; (for North Luzon) Yorobe, Nicolas; (for Luzon South) Badillo, Cometa; (for Visayas) Chong, Moncada, Montero; (for Mindanao) Sultan, Aguinea. I leave it up to the reader to make his/her own conclusion.

At any rate, I wish the incoming 2013 national directors, and the 2013 national officers, good luck! May the real interest of the profession and the “Society” prevail. Mabuhay ang PSME!

Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com). 

Manifesto for NatCon 2012

PSME October 2012 Events (3)

21 October 2012

Last week I expressed my strong disagreement with the thinking that the mechanical engineering profession’s situation is better, as compared to the other professions, because two of the three BME positions are currently held by examiners who are holdovers for only more than a year, while other professional regulatory boards contend with examiners that are holdovers for as much as 8, 10, or even 12 years. Agreeing to this kind of thinking is, to me, just like agreeing to a reasoning that says that one can be a little corrupt because others are a lot more corrupt. The stance also does not jibe well with the concept of “improvement” or the pursuit of excellence which the ME Law dictates in its “Statement of Policy”.

I also find some inconsistency and can’t understand why the third BME position has been allowed to be vacant for almost a year now, given that the two holdover BME examiners have been said to be complaining of being shorthanded. I also am concerned with what I perceive to be the difficulty in getting the “list of 15 BME nominees” (prepared by the Nominating Committee as required by EO 496) endorsed to the PRC by the PSME national board. Although I’m aware that a “fine tuning” of the list is being done, I only hope that what’s happening is not out of a deliberate effort by “influential hands” to stall and eventually influence the outcome of the appointments. I’m concerned, because, for reasons that I’ve already mentioned in last week’s column, I believe that having a fresh set of BME examiners would be best for the mechanical engineering profession.

But that should be enough, for now, regarding the BME, because as mentioned last week, today’s column would focus on issues concerning the election of the members of PSME’s national officers… so we shift to this subject now.

The quality and credibility of the “Society’s” election for national officers has been a problem for some time now, and it is also a major reason (if not the main one) for the split of the organization into two factions in 2006. And although each faction claims to be the legitimate one, it is the group where I belong that has been acknowledged, since August 1, 2008, as the Accredited Professional Organization by the PRC. But even within this group the detrimental effect of what is viewed as inequitable election result is being felt. There are those who doubt the authenticity of the results for what may be a credible reason… (there are lots of grumbling about) members not receiving their ballots. There has also been up to this time no system installed and operational (e.g., credible census and accounting of members) that can be used in validating authenticity of votes. Given this kind of environment, election results are prone to manipulation to serve the purposes of a group, or individual, with poisonous intentions.

As mentioned earlier, the general membership has been very conscious of this problem for quite some time now, and although year on year, since I rejoined the organization about 3-1/2 years ago, efforts were made to improve the system, but not much positive movement on this was generated. So when the discussions regarding the elections during the closing plenary of last year’s NatCon (the 59^th) seem headed towards another status-quo, it was, to me, no longer acceptable. The situation compelled me (despite my being the National Secretary then) to personally raise a motion for the PSME to exert “utmost effort for the possibility of having e-voting by October 2012…subject to the approval of the amended By-Laws by SEC.” This motion was seconded by Eng’r. Felix Cenizarez of the GenSan Chapter.

During the discussions that followed, the more relevant inputs came from:  a) Eng’r. Rod Antadio of Metro South Chapter, who suggested that there must be a presentation to the general membership, during the next semi-annual convention, of whatever e-voting system that would be developed, and; b) an engineer from the South whose name unfortunately I didn’t get, and who suggested the creation of a safety net in the event that the e-voting cannot yet be implemented in October 2012 because of a possible delay in the approval of the amended By-Laws by SEC. According to him, such a safety net should make the non-electronic election transparent to everybody by announcing the room where the votes will be canvassed; and, giving the region as well as candidates the right to assign watchers to witness the canvassing.

Although there seem to be efforts by a few to railroad the blocking of the motion, those who were for it succeeded in having it voted upon, and the said motion was overwhelmingly ratified by the General Assembly amid a robust round of applause.

Given this ratification, and given that one full year has been wasted already, the effort to make e-voting into a reality needs to be shifted to high gear…and this effort should address both the e-voting system itself (which includes a complete accounting/validation of members) and whatever SEC requirements that are needed. Along this line, it may be necessary to appoint a COMELEC (supported by its own exclusive secretariat) that must function from Day 1, so to speak, and focus solely on the task of implementing a credible e-voting by October 2013. In line also with the speeding up effort to implement e-voting, the incoming 2013 Comelec may have to thoroughly study the “2000 Amended By-Laws”, as well as the “2010 Amended By-Laws and Omnibus Election Code” (still to be submitted to SEC for approval), because, based on my review of the said documents, there seem to be no conflict with the immediate implementation of a purely electronic voting, or even a mixed paper-ballot & electronic voting.

Despite, however, everything that has been mentioned, the bottom line is that we are bound to use the same problematic system for this year’s election. It is therefore necessary for members to be conscious of the dangers and help make the elections credible by openly expressing opposition to any manipulation attempts; and actively engage in steps deemed necessary to bring about credible election results.

On another matter, the third week of October was mentioned in previous columns as being celebrated as Mechanical Engineering week by virtue of EO 319 signed in 1998 by then President Cory Aquino. I have just been informed that President Benigno S. C. Aquino, III, has through his Proclamation No. 480, declared October 2012 as “Mechanical Engineering Month”. This, according to the President, is to “focus public attention on the important role of mechanical engineers in the development of the country and nation building”, and he calls “upon all mechanical engineers and students to give the observance of the Mechanical Engineering Month their full support.”

Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com). 

PSME October 2012 Events (2)

15 October 2012

As mentioned in my column last week, I shall be writing on PSME events in my next few columns. This is on account of the Mechanical Engineering Week that’s being celebrated 3^rd week of October (in line with EO 319; 1998), and the Diamond (60^th) National Convention that’s going to be held on October 23 to 26 at the SMX Convention Center in Pasay City.

Simultaneous with the 60^th NatCon would be 3 co-located major activities, namely the 10^th PSME National Board Meeting, the one and a half days 2^nd PSME National Student Conference where about 1,500 members from the various student units are expected to attend, and the 2^nd Philippine Machinery Exhibition, or PHILMACH, that would also be open to the public.

While preparing this article, it occurred to me to review whatever sound bites I have of last year’s NatCon just to refresh my memory on what has transpired. I was not surprised to note that the 2 major concerns covered in last week’s article (that of the BME and the election of the PSME national board) were somehow also a subject of intense interest then.

From PRC, we learned that (as of October last year), there were a total of 145 examiners of various professional boards with expired terms.  A lot of them serving as holdovers examiners for 8, 10, and even as long as 12 years.  Although effort was exerted to explain that it was a condition that was inherited from the previous administration’s PRC appointees, the revelation was to me, something that would generate a head-shaking reaction. A better professional management performance is expected given that the agency is PRC.

We were given then an idea of the magnitude of this inherited problem in terms of the number of nominees that will have to be interviewed by the PRC commissioners for the position. We were told there were 750 of them, and that this problem surfaced during the budget hearing last year, which prompted one Senator to tell them to make sure that this (what to me is an) aberration is corrected in one year’s time.

 I wonder how the Commission fared in responding to this deadline because our two ME examiners (the third BME position being vacant) are also holdovers, their terms having expired last September 2011. This makes the three positions of the BME technically vacant and for which the Nominating Committee selected the 15 names (currently being fine-tuned) that will be presented for approval to the General Assembly during the 60^th NatCon. After approval, the list of 15 will have to be transmitted, covered by a resolution, to the PRC Chairperson, she being the one with oversight function over the BME. PRC will then have to trim the list to 9, for submission to Malacanang, as it would be the Philippine President who would make the final choice.

There were comments (heard personally by this writer) being ventilated by supposedly responsible personalities that, given the magnitude of the holdover problem, the mechanical engineering situation is better than the others because our holdover cases are only a little over a year. Maybe, but is this the right comparison to make? Isn’t it like saying that one can engage in a little corruption because the others are engaged in bigger corruption? And how about the vacant 3^rd BME position? I really wonder why filling it up has not been pursued.

Hopefully, the next BME set would be a fresh one. In my humble opinion, what we need would be a group that would not just focus on the regulatory  aspects of the job (i.e., making test questions, conducting examinations, enjoying social functions, doing what’s required by letters (a) to (f), (h) & (i) and (k) & (l) of Sec.9), but would be one that would really live up to what’s required of the position by the ME Law, particularly, spearheading the execution of  what’s stated in the “ Sec.2. Statement of Policy”, and letters (g), (j), and (m) of “Sec.9.Powers and Duties of the Board.” This is sort of saying, doing that extra mile…for the profession.

On a happy note though, and in fairness to PRC, there has been a very important and significant development in their operation that unquestionably addressed the needs, and one that is truly appreciated by their clients…the professionals. This is regarding the renewal of the PRC license. What used to take 3 months for release during the previous dispensation was reduced to 1-2 weeks about a year ago. Now, I am told there is already an on-line system that would take only a few days to renew one’s professional license, and get one’s PRC ID, for as long as requirements for the renewal are complete. Although the system, I understand, has temporarily been put on hold for the correction of some glitches, its effect has already been enjoyed by some when initially tried a few months back. I’m sure, that the improved system would soon be reinstalled and that those who renew their license (especially professionals working abroad) would appreciate the convenience provided them. I would attribute this “beautiful” accomplishment to the initiative and effective leadership of the current Chairperson. May she rub on her attributes to others in her organization.

Due to space limitations, concerns regarding the election for the 2013 PSME National Board will have to be covered in the next column, hopefully sooner than my regular schedule. Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com). 

PSME September/October 2012 Events

08 October 2012

Since 1998, the third week of October has been celebrated as Mechanical Engineering Week. This is by virtue of Proclamation No. 319 signed by President Cory Aquino in September of that year. This year, the Mechanical Engineering Week shall be from October 15-19, but related activities shall spill over to the following week since the 60^th (Diamond) Annual National Convention shall be done from October 23-26 at the SMX Convention Center in Pasay City. And due to this, I’m inclined to focus on PSME and the ME profession concerns for the next few columns.

 This month will be a very busy one for members of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers. First, there shall be activities usually done by the various chapters nationwide as part of the celebration of ME Week (e.g., attending flag raising ceremonies done by the LGUs at the start of the week, discussing with the LGU Head/Officers RA 8495, or the ME Law, including the matter of its implementation). Then, in the subsequent week, the expected 2,500 delegates that would come from the 80 chapters located all over the Philippines, and abroad, shall be converging at the SMX Convention Center for the 4 day 60^th NatCon. Here, they can avail of the usual learning and sharing opportunities, get first hand updates on the developments in the “Society” as well as the profession, or catch up with classmates, former workmates, friends and other acquaintances. But probably what is  more important is that they can also participate in the process of determining the focus of the organization for the coming year or so.

In addition, three other distinct co-located activities shall be done in conjunction with the Natcon, namely: a) the 10^th PSME National Board Meeting, b) the 2^nd PSME National Student Conference where about 1,500 attendees from the various ME schools are expected for this 1-1/2 day event, and c) the 2^nd Philippine Machinery Exhibition , or PHILMACH, which will have 160 booths that will showcase (to both PSME members and the general public) tools and equipment related to the following: HVACRe, Green energy Technology, Boiler and Valves, Fire Protection and Safety, Metal Works, Maintenance and Reliability, Process and Packaging, as well as Food and Beverage.

Meanwhile, while anticipating these important events, I would like to share some recent developments (that came out of the 9^th National Board Meeting held last September 29 in Bacolod City) which has relevance to these events.

First is the matter of the nominees to the Board of Mechanical Engineering Examiners. As related in a previous column, the BME Nominating Committee chaired by IPP Rene Florencio submitted already to the PSME national board the list of 15 nominees for the 3 vacant BME positions, and this list, as required by EO 496, has to be sent by the national board (covered by a resolution)  to the PRC. As it is, the list was discussed during the 9^th meeting and it was agreed that a further fine tuning will have to be done on it by the Nominating Committee. It was however also agreed that the final list must be made available by the 10^th National Board Meeting, at the latest, so that it can be presented to the General Assembly for approval (and subsequent transmission to the PRC) during the 60^th NatCon.

Second is the matter of the election of the 2013 PSME National Board to be done also during the 60^th Natcon. As a backgrounder, issues have been raised for years already regarding the current system with respect to its credibility, and susceptibility to manipulation; and together with the complaints are demands to improve or change the system. This demand for change was taken up during last year’s NatCon General Assembly and as a result, the GA overwhelmingly approved the shift to an electronic system of voting. It has, however, been made apparent by the report of the National EVP that the system of election for this year would be the same as with the previous years for the following reasons: a) that the change in the election system can only be done once reflected in the “amended By-Laws” of the organization, which needs approval by the SEC; b) it was established, after a survey of the various chapters, that only roughly 25% of the members have email addresses, and that even a greater percentage does not have updated contact information at all. So, even if we did have the approved “amended By-Laws”, it would be impossible to implement an electronic voting system. Nevertheless, the National Secretariat has started with a drive to build up an information database of the members so that we hopefully will have the needed infrastructure to implement electronic voting once our “amended By-Laws” gets approved.

So given the current situation, PSME is back to square one with respect to this year’s elections for the National Board. However, even at that, I believe that a member can protect his vote if he is willing to be vigilant enough to make sure that it is his vote that gets counted. First of all he has to make sure that he is qualified to vote, which means that he is a member of good standing. Second, he has to get from his chapter president his ballot and make sure he fills up all of the 15 slots. Third, he has to strictly follow the “Rules and Regulations for the 2012 Election” released by the 2012 PSME Comelec and which can be accessed at the PSME Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/psmenow).

Meanwhile, on a rather funny development, and still in relation to the upcoming 2013 PSME National Board elections, it seems that the hand(s) that intend to manipulate has already started to move because someone seems to have made the mistake of sending to me a “listing of preferred candidates of so-and-so”. As per this list the following are to be elected: (for NCR) Aguiluz, Reyes, Paulino, Maglaya, So and Mamawal or Ocampo; (for Luzon North) Yorobe, Nicolas; (for Luzon South) Dadua, Cometa; (for Visayas) Chong, Moncada, Montero; (for Mindanao) Sultan, Aquillera. Well, this is a nice development, because this very list can be used as the measuring stick which will determine whether or not there was manipulation of the elections. More interesting developments in the next article.

Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).