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).