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 59th) 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).
No comments:
Post a Comment