Status: Selection of nominees for the BME (3)

2 September 2012

The Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers held its 8^th National Board Meeting last August 16, 2012 at the Villa Margarita Hotel in Davao (which actually was scheduled to synchronize also with the Society’s 15^th Mindanao Regional Conference held August 15-17 at the Waterfront Hotel). There were three of us, members of the national board, who arrived late for the meeting because our 9AM flight was delayed to 3PM. This was because the PAL Boeing 747 that was scheduled to take us to Davao was hit by lightning while flying from LA to Manila (and had to be towed to the hangar for checkup upon landing at the NAIA), and the airline had to arrange for another B747 for our flight.

Having caught practically just the tail end of the meeting, I had to rely on feedback from colleagues regarding what has transpired.  I was told that the BME Nominating Committee, chaired by Eng’r. Renato A. Florencio, presented already the list of 15 names as the committee’s nominees for the BME. This shall be my topic for today’s column.

So far, I have “zeroed in” on the concerns of the ME profession in 5 previous articles, namely, “Professional imbalance also an ME concern” (PJ,  4Dec11), “Ideas on the matter of RA8495 and the PME gap” (PJ, 17Mar12), “The BME and EO 496” (PJ, 28Apr12), “Status: Selection of nominees for the BME” (PJ 6/10/12), and “Status: Selection of nominees for the BME 2” (PJ, 19June2012).Today’s article is  going to be the 6^th on the concerns of the ME profession, and the third under the same title.

Why the focus on the BME? There are, for me, two major reasons which I have expounded on in my previous articles.

The first one is that “the BME is the one mandated by RA 8495 to regulate, as well as enhance, the profession (Sec.9g and Sec 9m), [and] it would be to the profession’s interest that we practitioners get involved in the selection process and try to influence it so that, we will hopefully have a new board that would truly live up to its mandate of also enhancing the mechanical engineering profession”.

And the second reason is “that the profession should break away from the ‘framework’ within which it has been operating during the past decades. It has to allow new approaches and ideas to flow in to enhance the profession and extricate it from the stagnation, if not deterioration, that it has experienced. And this, to my mind, can be achieved only if those that are at the apex of the profession – the BME – is composed of professionals who are [not only of impeccable integrity, but, aside from just being focused on the regulatory tasks, are also] focused on … [other means of enhancing] the mechanical engineering profession; … [individuals who] are receptive to changes, more creative, and willing to explore new methods (that are within the bounds of the ME law) which will enable them to achieve what is mandated; …[individuals who really] have the time, capacity and capability.”

Now that the BME NC has already submitted its report containing its list of 15 nominees, it is incumbent upon the PSME National Board to approve and submit the list to the PRC, given that the submission is way way past overdue. Perhaps it is necessary that a special meeting of the board with the Nominating Committee be conducted asap to discuss the list of nominees so as to facilitate its approval and immediate submission to the PRC.  Personally, I think that this task should not be difficult to accomplish since SEC. 8 (Submission of List of Nominees) of EO 496 says that “On the basis of the report of the Committee on Nominations, the National President of the duly accredited professional organization shall submit to the Professional Regulation Commission the resolution of the National Board of Directors recommending not more than five (5) nominees, ranked in the order of preference, for appointment to each vacancy in the professional regulatory Board…” The BME NC has done its task and submitted its report; it is now the turn of the PSME National Board to comply with the requirement of EO 496. There is no justification for further delay.

Again EO 496 mandates the PRC to immediately publish upon receipt the PSME resolution containing the list of nominees “in a newspaper or general circulation for the purpose of inviting anyone who may have derogatory information against any of the nominees which may render him unfit for the position to inform the said Commission within a period of ten (10) days from such publication. A copy of the list of the nominees shall also [be] presented on the bulletin board of the Commission.”  It is from this list of 15 that the PRC would get its list of 9 individuals that they would submit to the President of the Philippines, and from which the 3 new members of the BME shall be picked. This is where we practitioners can get involved. We should actively watch out for this list in the newspapers and actively monitor the PRC website (http://www.prc.gov.ph) so that we can react as needed to inform the PRC of any objection (especially integrity and corruption related issues) to any of the personalities in the list. I believe that “If we want to achieve something for ourselves, we [of the ME profession] have to work for it and not expect others to do the work for us”.

For this purpose the following contact information of the PRC Chairperson, sourced from the PRC website, can be useful: : email, prc_chairperson@yahoo.com; Landline, (632) 736-4880; Telefax, (632) 735-4476.

For those who may be interested, the other (earlier) articles previously mentioned can be accessed through my webpage (http://www.facebook.com/jtl3mekaniko), blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com) or the PSME NOW Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/psmenow?ref=hl). Also, comments/reactions from the readers, especially from the other 60,000 or more registered mechanical engineers, can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com). 

Status: Selection of nominees for the BME

25 May 2012

Things have moved fast for the Board of Mechanical Engineering - Nominating Committee since their official appointment last April 14. I recently learned from the grapevine that the members have been meeting regularly in full force (yes, all 5 of them). This is not an easy accomplishment for busy individuals, given that some of them are based in the Visayas, which not only reflects commitment, but is also an indication that they have taken their task seriously.

I also learned that the 5 gentlemen, all of them reportedly independent minded, initially had different ideas on how to conduct the search, but have eventually forged the general guidelines on how to go about their task. I only hope that the search guidelines they agreed upon is geared to make sure that they will come up with a list of worthwhile nominees for the 3 BME positions.

Perhaps, we, the members of the profession can help the BME-NC by adopting what I suggested in my earlier article (“The BME and EO496,” PJ, 28 April)… that of getting involved in the search effort by sending recommendations to the BME-NC. We should be capable of giving quality recommendations given that a lot of us practitioners would have an idea of the qualifications and capabilities of our peers. This means that if any of us is aware of a practitioner (or practitioners) that fit the requirements for the BME position, we should take the initiative to send recommendations to the BME-NC. It may also be that if anyone of us feels qualified for the position, we should apply ourselves…or ask another practitioner to do the recommendation. Self application letters, or recommendation letters (with Curriculum Vitae attached) can be emailed to the BME-NC Chairman, Engr. Renato A. Florencio (raf@pldtdsl.net), and I would suggest that copies be furnished also to the four other members, namely, Engr. Saylito M. Purisima (smpengineering@yahoo.com), Engr. Ramon F. Solis (mon_solis@ yahoo.com), Engr. Danilo P. Hernandez (Hernandez-dph@gchi.com.ph), and Engr. Expedito S. Bollosos (exbollosos@yahoo.com).

Just for clarification, EO 496 requires that candidates for the BME should have “demonstrated outstanding qualifications” as the search would be “based strictly on merit, integrity and fitness”. Other attributes required of candidates are that of having “proven leadership qualities,” “professional competence and experience,” “impeccable integrity,” “up-to-date knowledge of current theories, principles and practices in the profession,” and “capability to perform the duties and fulfil the obligations of a Regulatory Board Member.”

And if I may just reiterate a personal take on the matter which was also mentioned in my earlier column…that the next BME be “composed of professionals who are focused on the enhancement of the mechanical engineering profession; those that are receptive to changes, more creative, and willing to explore new methods (that are within the bounds of the ME law) which will enable them to achieve what is mandated; [and] those that have the time, capacity and capability.” In addition, I also feel that at least one member of the BME should be a hard core manufacturing industry practitioner, as I believe that manufacturing is  still  very much the primary client of the mechanical engineering profession. A development such as having a manufacturing practitioner in the BME would also dovetail with the plans of President Pnoy to revitalize the manufacturing industry as one of the strategies in his effort to improve the country’s economy.

This writer also enjoins those practitioners who feel they are qualified to take advantage of this rare chance to do something for the mechanical engineering profession, and for that matter, for the country. Apply now, as the window for this opportunity is not big. I got the impression from the discussions during the 4^th NBMeeting last April 14 that the BME-NC would accomplish their task as fast as they could, as under the current BME vacancy situation, time is of the essence. The latest info I got from the grapevine is that they intend to finalize by May 30.

By the way, this writer appreciates the various positive responses (received via text, email, web messages and phone calls) to “The BME and EO 496” article. There has been a sharp increase in the “reach” of the Mekaniko webpage from 2,186 to 4,376 “netizens” (a 100% increase) and “likes” from 200 to 361 “netizens” (an 80% increase) - just 2 days after the article was published. Some commented about the information being an “important development and… [that they’d] certainly welcome changes for the better”; about the “PSME’s transparency in the selection of the BME as well as an initial move of reconciliation”; as well as “hoping that MEs will show more concern and react positively”.

Comments/reactions from the readers, especially from the other 60,000 or more registered mechanical engineers, can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com). 

The Board of Mechanical Engineering and EO 496

25 April 2012

At long last, the national board of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers finally approved during its 4^th board meeting last April 14 in San Fernando, Pampanga, the composition of the Committee on Nominations for the BME. The committee was formed to comply with the requirements of EO 496, which “institutes procedures and criteria for the selection and the recommendation of nominees for appointment to the vacant positions in the professional regulatory boards”.

As directed by EO 496, Eng’r. Rene A. Florencio, by virtue of his being PSME’s Immediate Past President, was officially appointed as the chairman. The other 4 members, all of them past national presidents of the Society are Eng’rs. Saylito M. Purisima, Ramon F. Solis, Danilo P. Hernandez and Expedito S. Bollosos. Their duties, based on Article1, Sec. 3 of the said executive order would be the following: “a) To actively search, screen, and select qualified nominees for appointment to vacant positions in its professional regulatory board, b) To submit to the National Board of Directors for approval the names of five (5) qualified nominees, ranked in the order of preference, for every vacancy in...[the BME], and c) To comply with the requirements of the Professional Regulation Commission regarding the selection and nomination of persons for appointment to... [the BME]”.

The committee is further directed to “actively search for persons with demonstrated outstanding qualifications...” and that nominations should be “based strictly on merit, integrity and fitness”. Other attributes required of the nominees, as per the executive order, are that of having “proven leadership qualities”, “professional competence and experience”, “impeccable integrity”, “up-to-date knowledge of current theories, principles and practices in the profession”, and “must have the time, capacity and capability to perform the duties and fulfil the obligations of a Regulatory Board Member”.

I believe that this development should be of importance to the mechanical engineering profession (composed of the 10,000 strong PSME members, as well as the other 60,000 who are out of the loop), because as of today, all the 3 positions in the BME are technically vacant. The two current members are now functioning in a holdover capacity, given that their appointments expired as of the 2^nd semester of last 2011, while the third position has been vacant and never filled up since December 2010.

As the BME is the one mandated by RA 8495 to regulate, as well as enhance, the profession (Sec.9g and Sec 9m), it would be to the profession’s interest that we practitioners get involved in the selection process and try to influence it so that, we will hopefully have a new board that would truly live up to its mandate of also enhancing the mechanical engineering profession.

I believe that the profession should break away from the “framework” within which it has been operating during the past decades. It has to allow new approaches and ideas to flow in to enhance the profession and extricate it from the stagnation, if not deterioration, that it has experienced. And this, to my mind, can be achieved only if those that are at the apex of the profession – the BME – is composed of professionals who are focused on the enhancement of the mechanical engineering profession; those that are receptive to changes, more creative, and willing to explore new methods (that are within the bounds of the ME law) which will enable them to achieve what is mandated; those that have the time, capacity and capability.

Now is probably also the opportune time for the practitioners to get involved since we have no less than the new chairperson of the PRC who has taken interest in the Mechanical Engineering Profession, and in so doing, has recently assumed oversight function over the affairs of the BME and the ME profession. And if I may quote once again from one of my earlier articles akin to this subject matter, “This according to her gives the profession a special place among the roster of regulated professions, and has made, as well, the upliftment of the mechanical engineers of special significance in the PRC”.

If we want to achieve something for ourselves, we have to work for it and not expect others to do the work for us. We can get involved by perhaps recommending to the Nominations Committee headed by Eng’r. Rene A. Florencio (raf@pldtdsl.net), qualified practitioners (refer to RA 8495 for requirements) for their consideration. We can also watch out for the publication of the names of the nominees that would be sent to the PRC (as required by Art 2, Sec 1 of EO 496), which is being done “ for the purpose of inviting anyone who may have derogatory information against any of the nominees which may render him unfit for the position”.You know, I agree with you that our focus should not be only on technical aspects. In the same way that I usually declare that having just a good technical skill is not enough to assure success for an engineer. One has to be as well rounded as possible, and develop the necessary competence in other skills, such as behavioural, communication, etc. Such a widening of concerns should also be the case with respect to the professions or organizations. As for the PSME, I joined and became an active PSME member since I retired from active employment more than 3 years ago. However, it is my thinking (after being exposed to the national activities through the national board) that although there is a current thrust being undertaken to improve its effectiveness as an organization, I’m afraid it may not be successful. This is because it is still operating within the very same “framework” that (to me) has been the cause of its stagnation, if not deterioration, over the last few decades. What I believe is needed is a more radical approach – a breakaway from this old “framework” – so that new approaches and new ideas for enhancing the profession would be allowed to flow in. To achieve a meaningful improvement, here should be an overhauling and the introduction of “fresh wind” at the very apex of the profession itself.You know, I agree with you that our focus should not be only on technical aspects. In the same way that I usually declare that having just a good technical skill is not enough to assure success for an engineer. One has to be as well rounded as possible, and develop the necessary competence in other skills, such as behavioural, communication, etc. Such a widening of concerns should also be the case with respect to the professions or organizations. As for the PSME, I joined and became an active PSME member since I retired from active employment more than 3 years ago. However, it is my thinking (after being exposed to the national activities through the national board) that although there is a current thrust being undertaken to improve its effectiveness as an organization, I’m afraid it may not be successful. This is because it is still operating within the very same “framework” that (to me) has been the cause of its stagnation, if not deterioration, over the last few decades. What I believe is needed is a more radical approach – a breakaway from this old “framework” – so that new approaches and new ideas for enhancing the profession would be allowed to flow in. To achieve a meaningful improvement, here should be an overhauling and the introduction of “fresh wind” at the very apex of the profession itself.

Comments/reactions from the readers, especially from the other 60,000 or more registered mechanical engineers, can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com). 

Ideas on the matter of RA 8495 and the PME gap

15 March 2012

During the 2^nd meeting of the 2012 National Board of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers held in Cebu City last February 4, I was handed a copy of a 3,801 word document titled “RA 8495: Clarification on our hierarchy based on different perspectives”, authored by Eng’r. Carmelo P. Tompar. I was also made to understand, that this document (available at http://www.psmecomments. blogspot.com/) was written as a response to my December 4, 2011 article titled “Professional imbalance also an ME concern”.

As a backgrounder, my December 4 article zeroed in on the “prevalence…of the shortage of [Professional Mechanical Engineers]… that has resulted in the unchecked and large scale violation of the ME law [which] is a disservice not only to the [mechanical engineering] profession but also to the country, as the shortage, in a way, deprives the various enterprises of competent personnel that can enhance their success, and in effect, undermine the country’s nation building and development initiatives. Such a situation, to this writer’s mind, points only to one course of action, which is, expediting the correction of the prevailing particular professional imbalance”.

Going through Eng’r. Tompar’s document, I would interpret its essence as follows: He believes that in order to address the PME shortage, there is the need to provide “Focus and emphasis on [the] Professional Mechanical Engineering Examination…” He believes that the Fundamental Cannon #2 of the “Code of Ethical and Professional Standards for the Practice of Mechanical Engineering Profession” should likewise be an operative factor, together with Sec.17 (a) of RA 8495, in the “structuring” of the prerequisites for granting the PME grade. In so doing, there would be a full implementation of the provisions of the law.

Sec. 17(a) specifies that “The granting of professional mechanical engineer Certificate of Registration shall be testimonial in nature…”, while Cannon #2, which was crafted as part of BME Resolution No.6, Series of 2003 (on the strength of Sec. 9(a) of RA 8495), states that “Mechanical Engineers in the fulfilment of their professional duties, shall…Perform services only in areas of their competence”.

The logic of this approach is that it can speed up the processing of PME applicants without compromising on the qualifications of a passing engineer since his/her competence would be tested with respect to his/her own experience and expertise. More PMEs can then be generated in the process.

Eng’r. Tompar also opined that “the full implementation of RA 8495 could only be actualized if there is immediate action of PSME, the PRC and the Department of [Interior and] Local Government”. He did not support this statement with details but I would hazard to guess what he means as follows:

The function of DILG and PRC will be material in terms of enforcing the ME Law on the strength of Sec. 40 empowering them to enforce the provisions as well as prosecute violators.

The function of the PRC and BME will be material on the strength of Sec.9 (a) and Sec.9 (g) of the ME Law. These sections empower them to promulgate and adopt rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of the law. Perhaps what can be addressed along this line is to reconsider current operating policies in the light of what is stated in Sec.2, Statement of Policy, which includes also, aside from regulatory measures, programs and activities as other means of nurturing and developing the mechanical engineers and the mechanical engineering profession. Perhaps even the policy of not entertaining applications of RMEs connected with non-compliant companies can be reconsidered as it seems to be one of the PME stumbling blocks.

As to the function of PSME, perhaps what it can do is to fortify its effort in getting the ME Law amended as soon as possible so that it can be improved  to be a truly effective law for the enhancement of the mechanical engineering profession.

Professional imbalance - also a mechanical engineering profession concern

30 November 2011

It was serendipitous that while I was contemplating on this article more than a week ago, the editorial of the People’s Journal titled “Tragic and ironic” came out. The editorial talked of professional imbalance, particularly pointing to the shortage of professionals in the mining and health care industries, and how the corresponding professional regulatory boards (i.e., mining and optometry) are addressing their respective problems.

It seems however that this concern extends beyond that of the earlier mentioned professions, as according to Professional Regulation Commission commissioner, Atty. Jenifer Manalili, the country is also suffering from a severe shortage of licensed optometrists, guidance counsellors, psychologist, medical technologist, social workers, pharmacists, nutritionist and dentists. The editorial also noted that the PRC has likewise warned that “...the country may soon run out of mining engineers and other professionals...”

Professional imbalance, if this mechanical engineer may opine, is also a concern (among others) of the mechanical engineering profession – that of the Professional Mechanical Engineer grade in particular. Based on the latest statistics that came my way, there are currently about 5,000 PMEs registered with the PRC, half of whom are already dead, inactive or retired. Section 34 of the ME Law (RA 8495) dictates, among others, that a mechanical work, project or plant with an aggregate rating of more than 2,000 Kilowatts, and which operates for 24 hrs, should have a complement of at least 4 PMEs. This is so that each of the three shifts can be manned by one (while the fourth can also serve, on top of other responsibilities, as a buffer). A simple computation would show that the nation has currently enough PMEs for only about 625 such facilities with a rating of more than 2,000 kW. The effect of this is the large scale non-compliance with this particular aspect of the ME law in various industries. This discrepancy is further magnified by the fact that a good number of PMEs are employed abroad.

The ME law in its statement of policy (Section 2) declares that, “The state recognizes the importance of mechanical engineers in nation building and development... [and] shall develop and nurture competent... mechanical engineers...through regulatory measures, programs and activities”. On the basis of this policy, this writer believes that among the underlying objectives of the law in developing and nurturing the mechanical engineers’ competence is the enhancement of their ability to contribute to the success of the enterprise they are with, as well as, ensure the safety and protection of life and property. In this manner the mechanical engineer’s value is likewise enhanced and would translate into better gains for him from the practice of his profession. The prevalence therefore of the shortage of PMEs that has resulted in the unchecked and large scale violation of the ME law is a disservice not only to the profession but also to the country, as the shortage, in a way, deprives the various enterprises of competent personnel that can enhance their success, and in effect, undermine the country’s nation building and development initiatives. Such a situation, to this writer’s mind, points only to one course of action, which is, expediting the correction of the prevailing particular professional imbalance.

The ME law was passed in 1998, some 13 years ago, but sadly, its implementation is grossly wanting as of today. The situation has prevailed despite PSME, with its roughly 10,000 members, engaging in an effort during the last few years to rectify the anomaly (but barely made a dent in improving the situation). This development, again, to this writer’s mind, may be the biggest factor that caused the stagnation of the profession and parked it to the sad state that it is now in. There seems to be however a proverbial “light at the end of the [dark] tunnel” development in the person of the new PRC Chairperson, Atty. Teresita Manzala who has personally assumed oversight function over the mechanical engineering profession (the only engineering profession under the PRC chair). As I mentioned in an earlier article about her message to the “Society” during the 59^th Natcon, she feels that this enabled her to gain a deeper awareness and involvement which has given her intimate views of its issues and concerns. “This, according to her gives the profession a special place among the roster of regulated professions, and has made, as well, the upliftment of the mechanical engineers of special significance in the PRC”.

Hopefully, her “presence” would usher in the necessary initiatives and changes that would improve the profession, and also, bring about dynamism to this “sleeping giant-resource” – the more than 70,000 mechanical engineers registered with the PRC- so that it could finally unleash its potential abilities and gain its rightful place as a significant partner in the country’s effort to achieve economic prominence and progress for all.

Comments/reactions from the readers, especially from the 60,000 or more inactive registered mechanical engineers, can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).