The Dilemmas and Challenges of Being Faculty Regent

                                           

Roland G. Simbulan

During my more than two decades-long academic career, I never imagined that I would ever become a member of the U.P. Board of Regents (BOR), the highest policy-making body of the University of the Philippines. Sure, I thought, I can be a faculty administrator i.e., as department chair, vice chancellor, etc., but as a member of the Board of Regents? My career track in the academe as full time faculty member did not exactly prepare me for this kind of challenge. 

 

     Anyway, I got there not in the usual way most BOR members are put there: either thru ex- officio membership by virtue of their government position (e.g., the Chair of the Commission on Higher Education is presiding Chair of the U.P. BOR, the 2 Chairs of the Senate and House Committees on Education, and the president of the U.P. Alumni Association also sit as BOR members). Or you can get into the Board of Regents if you are not connected in any official capacity with U.P. or receiving compensation from it, but if you are malakas[1] enough

with Malacanang to be one of those five regents with two year renewable terms who are appointed by the Philippine president. In practice, even the Philippine president's dentist or dermatologist can be appointed regent, there being no criteria for Malacanang's appointment. This composition of four ex-officios and five Malacanang appointees already comprises nine of the 12 total members of the Board of Regents, which according to the 1908 U.P. Charter (as well as the new Charter expected to be signed into law soon) is the highest policy making body of the University.  The BOR makes final decisions on all administrative, academic and fiscal matters of the University. The other three remaining regents are the U.P. President who sits as Vice Chair of the BOR, the Faculty Regent (FR) who is elected system-wide by all full time faculty members nationwide, and the Student Regent (SR) who is elected by the General Assembly of all Student Councils from the U.P. System.  

 

     The above structure and composition of the BOR members was spelled out under the 1908 U.P. Charter or Act No. 1870 ( which has been amended by presidential Executive Orders), as in the case of the inclusion of the Faculty and Student Regents. If the new 2008 U.P. Charter will be signed into law, a staff/REPS[2] regent has been added to represent the rank and file non-academic personnel.

[1] Influential.

     While the composition of the BOR as highest policy-making body has been subjected to the critique that the nine majority members are not constituents of the University, it does not always follow that they cannot appreciate or have no understanding of the experience, problems, complexities and issues of the University. The Board members' diverse backgrounds and experiences from the government or private sector may in fact be an asset to the complex decision-making processes of the University.  The former logic insists that they  are not fit to make vital decisions that are beneficial to U.P. I have sat in the Board of Trustees (BOT) of several non-government organizations in the country, and it does help that I am not a member of the staff (as most BOT members are not) because when decisions are made, we can be shielded from the partisan conflicts of the constituents. This is why most boards of corporations, institutions, government agencies and even NGOs are structured this way. My experience with the BOR also goes along that direction.

 

Being Honorable and Regent  

 

      I was elected as Faculty Regent in November 2005 and assumed the role of representing the 3,600+ faculty members of the U.P. System during the start of 2006.  The first practice I had to get used to was being addressed in person or in correspondence as "Honorable" and "Regent". I am used to being addressed as "Professor" by students and by more junior colleagues.  It wasn't flattering at all. I felt very uncomfortable because the "honorable" title which is often used for Congressmen, and for elected national and local officials whom we do not exactly respect for their honesty nor integrity.  It is not exactly flattering to  be associated with these types or to be addressed with the same title.  Secondly, that "Regent" title was, I felt, out of place and appropriately belonged in the period before the 18th Century to represent appointed guardians of infantile successors to the monarch's throne who were still more comfortable with their toys. I was more comfortable with being called "FR," as many colleagues began to eventually call me.

 

Whom does the Faculty Regent Represent?

 

     During my term as FR, I considered myself as a representative voice for, first the rank and file faculty members of the University; second, the rank and file administrative personnel as they were not yet represented in the BOR, so I had to bring up their issues and concerns as co-workers in the university affected by administrative policies.  I immediately had to resolve the dilemma I first had that since the university's faculty administrators (from the President down to the Department Chair) were  after all also faculty members, shouldn't I  consider them equally as my constituents? Faculty administrators will also benefit from the gains of the rank and file.  Should there be a head-on conflict between administration and rank and file, I considered myself first and foremost as a representative of the faculty rank and file. My relationship with the university's unions was important for me, as each union was a good anchor and sounding board for consultations. It was also an organized  mechanism for developing consensus among all U.P. units.

 

     But U.P. has a very diverse constituency. Even the faculty are not only distinguished by their academic ranks, their tenured and untenured status, but more so, by their very passionate advocacies from Left, Center and Right. Liberalism among  the  faculty is practiced only in the sense that we co-exist and tolerate each other: we can scream our hearts out in debating with colleagues with diametrically opposite views, but we can still have coffee together a few hours later and continue the heated debates over bouts of beer drinking underground if it is done within the campus. (I have never understood why we prohibit inside university campuses beer "Pubs" which are part of the University life of  most foreign universities that I have visited). Beer fermentation goes well with intellectual distillation and fermentation with colleagues and even with students!

 

Dynamics of being Regent

 

      It was important that my interaction with the other Regents was not only professional but personal as well.   Of course, I  initially had  very rigid and biased perceptions about the BOR and its members when I came in, having been previously a product of university sectors - as a former student, faculty and unionist -  which were usually in confrontational if not antagonistic relations with the BOR. That was where I came from. But perhaps, the pragmatist in me was also shaped by my three year stint  as Vice Chancellor  during Chancellor Dr. Marita V. Reyes' term, when I became some kind of mediator and bridge between U.P. Manila sectors/C.U.[3] and central administration/BOR.

 

      I realized early on, that if I wanted to get faculty issues, problems and concerns across to other Regents, I had to be close to them and interact with them as much as I could. Soon, they became my textmates, especially when I was made to chair three of the Regents' Committees. I also began attending their birthday parties.  This was critical so  I could be in a position to explain the perspective of the faculty on issues to the other regents the majority of whom are  not connected with U.P. Yet, though they are not connected with U.P.,  they are expected to make the  final decisions on appointments and other vital academic, administrative and fiscal matters.

 

      As the only three active members of the University in the BOR, the U.P. President (who is seated at the far end of the long table), the Faculty Regent and Student Regent, are seated next to each other, as if they were a team or caucus, but not so. But perhaps because it is the Faculty Regent, Student Regent and U.P. President who are the most familiar with the U.P.'s day-to-day affairs, it is they who are often  at odds with each other while the other BOR members end up as onlookers,  but who have to take sides. As for the other nine regents, their  being "above the fray" so to speak,  perhaps gives them the advantage of deciding with less pressure from the politics of  a particular constituency. The role of the Faculty Regent and for that matter also the Student Regent, is not to be a fiscalizer to the University President, but to support, defend and advance the interests and welfare of their respective constituencies.  In the event that the President proposes or recommends programs and policies that are beneficial to these constituencies, then they deserve and are given the full support of the FR and SR.

 

Powers of the Board of Regents  

 

     I came into the BOR with the view that it was too powerful, and perhaps, with its excessive powers, would always abuse these powers to the detriment of  University sectors. I soon  realized that as a collegial policy-making  body, the BOR could in fact be beneficial as a court of last appeal especially  in administrative cases. During my term, we were able to reverse some disciplinary cases involving faculty, staff or students where due process may have been disregarded, or where penalties meted by the CUs or the U.P. system were too harsh.  It was also an occasion to take a second look at stringent policies that adversely affected the rank and file.  Without the powers given to the Board of Regents, academic injustices or biases perhaps cannot be checked nor corrected. It can go both ways - advantageous or disadvantageous - depending where you are coming from. With the presence of a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Regent Abraham Sarmiento, I felt that we were the U.P.'s supreme court whenever we were reviewing and deciding on administrative or disciplinary cases.  But within the Board, after much polite but sometimes  heated deliberation, it  becomes ultimately, a numbers game where every vote does count. Even one vote could be the swing vote.

 

     The Board is a very powerful policy-making body in the University. Can these powers not be abused? What the University constituency must always be vigilant about and guard against is when thru the Board members (who have no compensation as Regents),  politicians try to gain special privileges for themselves that may disrupt academic excellence or equity or even distort our admissions system.  Malacanang has  been trying to keep in line its five appointees by giving them appointments as "acting  Regents" since 2006, which means that they only have one-year terms instead of the regular two year terms based on the 1908 U.P. Charter.

 

 

 

 

The Dilemmas and Challenges of being Faculty Regent

 

     Visiting all the U.P. campuses nationwide was a means of directly consulting with faculty constituents regarding their issues, concerns and problems. Communications with faculty constituents was further improved by the creation of a system-wide e-group that linked most faculty members of the U.P. system: ups_faculty@yahoogroups.com . The U.P. System website was also utilized and maximized for purposes of official messages, position papers and regular reporting of the FR to constituents. I had wanted to introduce an electronic system of voting for the Faculty Regent, but evidently, the U.P. system administration was not yet ready technically, for this ( I submitted a letter to the U.P. President and  was told that the proposal would be studied). I also made myself very accessible even to walk-in faculty constituents by keeping regular office hours at the Office of the Faculty Regent at Vinzons' Hall in U.P. Diliman.

 

     A dilemma that immediatey came about was, as FR, was I just to present my own personal views, or was I to be the  voice of the rank and file faculty who elected me as their representative to the BOR?  I resolved this with the realization that I was not appointed by any official unlike when I was chosen Vice Chancellor. I was elected by a constituency who wanted me to represent them and be their voice in the highest policy-making body. So I chose to articulate their collective and individual voices, interests, welfare in the Board, with my own personal views and insights secondarily. In the same manner that I articulated to the Board  the collective positions taken by the newly-accredited U.P. Academic Employees Union,  I  articulated the individual case of a non-tenured faculty member who was the victim of  sexual harassment and who was later terminated.

 

       The more than six-inch agenda file that a Regent receives before the monthly meetings can be intimidating, but also challenging if you do your homework. Not a few times I received a one-foot stack of papers comprising the agenda and supporting annexes of a Board meeting. But you are given only 2-3 days to prepare from the time you receive your agenda from the Office of the University Secretary and the BOR. You only have one clerical staff and a messenger, staff which you even share with the student regent.  For this you need staffwork to prepare, so I identified some financial experts from colleagues in some units and the academic union and asked them to assist me in preparing  for Board meetings. But the important thing in the FR's work is to be pro-active in preparations, rather than being just reactive to items presented by the President in the agenda requiring "Board Action".  

 

     On my relations with the Student Regent, our sectoral interests are not always the same especially when it concerns the faculty's interests. But I found our SR Raffy Sanchez to be reasonable and hard-working. It may be true that in-between the monthly Board meetings, as FR, I  had a lot of interaction with the SR as our offices are right beside each other at the back of Vinzon’s Hall  and we shared the same clerical and messengerial staff. On issues of tuition  increases (TOFI) I had disagreements with the student regent, in the sense that I was not exactly opposed to charging more tuition for students who daily drive Altises or BMWs to school, but to the structure of the Socialized Tuition Fee Assistance Program (STFAP).  I wanted to see that U.P. would still financially support students from the lower middle class whose parents' salaries did not necessarily increase by 300% since 1989. Many of our faculty constituents shared this perspective and position that I upheld within the Board.

 

     As expected, the Board of Regents, being the ultimate appointing power for the U.P. President, Chancellors, Deans, Directors, etc. is the target of lobbyists who are prospective appointees or nominees for these positions. They usually lobby directly by visiting the FR's office, sending petitions signed by colleagues and even by influential politicians who are endorsing their bid. More often, it is lobbying through the indirect approach, when you receive calls through your common friends. This never really affected me since I am used to this kind of lobbying done to influence decision-making when I was Department Chair and later Vice Chancellor. This kind of influence-peddling might in fact work in the reverse, backfire, becoming detrimental to the one being lobbied for. The important action is to get enough accurate information on the nominee for the position and be able to select the best in terms of solid credentials, plans and programs, experience, managerial savvy, leadership capability and potential, teamwork, etc.. Personal friendships should not even be factored anywhere here.

 

     On the year of U.P.'s Centennial,  everyone tries to look back and take stock at the direction pursued by the University, a direction that so much depends on decisions made by the Board of Regents. I have been reflecting on the  following that can be the focus of concern for the highest policy making body of the University, as well as its academic constituents:

 

  1. U.P. must give due attention to character-building, not just the pursuit of excellence. I am worried about the character of  many of our alumni who, though they may excel in their fields, have become some of the most corrupt and despotic leaders in this country. We can blame many of our alumni for the mess we are in, or why this country is poor, despite its rich natural resources and talented people. Never mind the Marcoses, Gloria Arroyo's, etc., it would have made U.P. proud to have produced someone like Jun Lozada. Despite its excellent reputation as an academic institution, U.P. still has to produce someone like Jose Rizal and Claro M. Recto. It seems that many private sectarian schools have an edge over U.P. when it comes to character-building.

 

  2. Commercialization / revenue generation in the university should not be at the expense of U.P.'s accessibility to students from poor or lower middle class families.  I have talked to many of our students and parents really affected by the 300% tuition  increases and miscellaneous fee increases. For them, our rates at U.P. are not anymore far behind those of quality private schools. And why do we keep on comparing our tuition rates with private universities when we are a state university?

 

     Let me share with the University constituents this piece of revelation which surprised me during my stint in the BOR. As a representative of the rank and file faculty in the Board, it is not always a " win-win-situation."  You win some, you lose some.  In fact even the U.P. President experiences this because not all his/her recommendations are approved or get through the  nod of a body that does not want to be considered "a rubber stamp of the U.P. administration."  You have to not only be well prepared when you enter the Quezon Hall Boardroom for the last Thursday of the month meetings. You have to be persuasive and convincing to get the nod of the rest of the BOR members who come from diverse political, economic, cultural, social, even religious backgrounds.

 

       But let me share with you my greatest consolation why I tried to become a very pro-active Faculty Regent. It is my little secret.  It is whenever  I was visited by faculty members who have devoted their brilliant careers with our University, who came all the way from our remotest U.P. units to present their proposals and recommendations,  or by untenured but promising instructors with grievances and appeals. There is really something uplifting in the feeling that you are looked up to as the champion, the voice and articulator of what is perhaps the most intelligent constituency in the country. But more than this, I really felt "high" in that, as "FR", in both title and practice, I was truly looked up to as the faculty's rank-and-file representative to the Board of Regents.