Faculty Regent

8/3/2019 Faculty Regent

1/5

FACULTY REGENTS REPORT

2011

Since I started my term as faculty regent, I have reached out to a number of

faculty members through email and personal interactions to get their opinions/inputs

related to the Plan of Action which was uploaded in the UP website during the electionperiod for the faculty regent:

1. Assessment and rationalization of faculty recruitment, renewal, tenure andretention

2. Faculty promotion and rewards system

3. Institutionalization of consultancies and other income-generating activities

4. Provision of additional faculty benefits and assistance5. Institutionalization of faculty mentoring

Documents relevant to the above topics were asked from the different UP CUs.

In addition, CUs were encouraged to forward matters needing attention which were notexpounded in the Plan of Action. Some of the feedbacks which I received from the

faculty are as follows:

In general, the main issue is consistency across units. A mechanism must be in

place to make sure that all academic units adhere to the same procedures andstandards. There are units which have very rigid requirements and there are units

whose standards are less than ideal. There are also units with no clear program of

recruitment and faculty development.

For renewal, the requirement of taking a teaching effectiveness course for youngfaculty members whose scores in SET are quite low should be included.

On faculty promotion and rewards system Many faculty members with goodresearch performance get promoted despite not so good teaching performance.

The use of the SET as a criterion for promotion differs among campuses.

Consultancies and other forms of extension work should be encouraged. If it is

institutionalized; however, the point system in the promotion scheme shouldconsider this.

For income-generating activities, UP can put up private subsidiaries (under the

provision of RA 9500) that can charge market rates and employ faculty member,REPS and even staff. The BOR has already approved the Revised IntellectualProperty Rights (IPR) Policy of UP.

Credit loading should be reviewed. If UP wants to push for more research, then it

should give faculty more time and resources to do it. Queries regarding creditload for some faculty members who have other responsibilities have already

been answered by the UP Legal Office.

Other benefits: Expansion of the health benefits currently being received;

increasing the enrolment in UPIS, UPLB Rural High School and other laboratory

schools in UP to accommodate, as many as possible, children of UP employees.

Institutionalization of faculty mentoring: Where possible, formation of researchgroups should be encouraged and mentoring will naturally happen.


2/5

Limited number of regular items. Staff with graduate degrees cannot be hired

because of the lack of positions commensurate to their qualifications.

Lack of housing for staff and faculty

No clear-cut policies on tenure

Insufficient funds for attendance to meetings

Additional suggestions/comments that were aired during the consultations:

To enable collaboration among developed CUs and younger campuses, therecan be System Research Program which can be led by mature CUs which

have facilities and seasoned researchers. This can also be a form of mentoring.

Hiring of faculty should be based on area of specialization and not necessarily onthe number of students since in some cases, the ratio of faculty:students would be

correct but expertise to answer specific training may not be met.

Establishment of elementary school for children of staff members within thecampus or in close proximity to the campus (for CUs which do not have such

schools) Instrument used for promotion and the action on the promotion of the faculty at

each level of evaluation should be made known to the faculty member.

Points earned by the staff which have not been considered during a call for

promotion can be banked and can be credited in the succeeding round ofpromotion.

The basis for establishing the number of students registered in a class before a

multiplier is applied in giving teaching load credit should be clear.

The cost for improvement of facilities which are not necessarily for direct use bythe students be allowed to be charged to tuition fees.

All the problems, concerns, issues, comments and suggestions gathered werepresented to the BOR and were submitted to the appropriate UP official(s). Some of

the replies that were received from the Vice Presidents (VPs) are mentioned below:

With regard to the need for housing/additional housing on campus, according

to VP Zamora, several efforts have been initiated, e.g. the preparation of a UP

Systemwide Master Development Plan which will form the basis for all developmentefforts of the University, and talks with Pag-Ibig for on-campus and off-campus

housing have already been made.

During the BOR meeting on July 25, 2011, VP Zamora reported that there is

already a work program for the conduct of the Master Development Plan which

requires 18 months to complete. She added that the Master Plan is part of the

Strategic Initiatives of the Administration.

On the budget forretooling/post-graduate studies/attendance to meetings of

UP staff, VP Bersales replied that funds for this purpose are already in place and thatthey are being managed by the different CUs. Perhaps the amount for this purpose

can be increased so that more staff members can avail of this grant.


3/5

The concern aired about the possibility ofusing the increment in the tuition feesfor projects notdirectly affecting the students, e.g. improvement of facilities, can

be done provided that there will be consultation with the students and proposal wouldbe presented and approved by the BOR.

With regard to transparency and efficient dissemination of information, VPAmante mentioned that a seamless, connected system of information, through online

documentation and retrieval is being developed with the Office of the Vice President

for Planning and Development (OVPD) AVP Jimmy Caro working on this initiative.

The issues concerning academic matters affecting the faculty, like recruitment,

tenure, retention, renewal and promotion, were discussed with VP Giselle

Concepcion. The documents pertaining to the above topics were sourced from thedifferent campuses and will be used as reference in formulating a uniform set of

rules/guidelines that can be applied to all CUs.

Although not brought up in any of the consultations made, the extension ofservice of faculty and REPS has been discussed in the BOR meetings and need to be

looked into. A number of staff who have retired from UP are still beingrecommended for appointment as adjunct professors or lecturers while the services of

some staff are being extended. Some are given compensation while others are not.

Such recommendation for extension of service should only be done under highly

meritorious cases. Campuses are highly encouraged to follow their staff developmentplan and see to it that younger faculty are trained to take the place of the retiring

faculty.

A special committee under the Vice-President for Academic Affairs will be

formed soon which will be tasked to study the different issues concerning faculty

and REPS (promotions criteria, incentives and extension of service of faculty and

REPS) and come up with the guidelines consistent across CUs.

Also included in the Action Plan which I forwarded during the search for thefaculty regent is the promotion of the democratic participation of all the UP personnel in

university governance in matters affecting the rights and welfare of all UP constituents;

hence, I also made some effort to look into the plight of the REPS. I had the opportunity

to meet with the REPS of UPLB and was able to get some concerns and problems relatedto the:

(a) minimum qualification standards (MQS) specifically for researchers withMS degree and

(b) minimum requirements for appointment of research and extension staff

with a masters or doctoral degree to the rank of assistant professor(research/extension), associate professor (research and extension), or

professor (research/extension) for UPLB.


4/5

The details pertaining to the above concerns were also forwarded to the VP for

Academic Affairs. Below are the general observations and suggestions of the REPS:

(a) The REPS agree that they are expected to produce more publications

than the faculty and they pose no objection to the BOR-approved

guidelines re: Proposed Minimum Requirements for appointment ofREPS with MS or doctoral degree; however, they noticed some unfair

and biased criteria forpromotion of the MS degree holders to a higher

rank as compared to their colleague with PhD degree.(b) The proposed MQS, currently being used to evaluate REPS for

appointment/promotion to appropriate rank for UPLB research and

extension staff for salary grades 16 and up, which require more

publications for MS degree holders, is being suggested to be used onlyfor initial appointment of REPS. However, once an MS degree holder

and PhD holder satisfy the initial requirements for the rank, both of

them will be required to meet the same set of guidelines and criteria to

be promoted to the next higher rank.(c) The number of publications required for the REPS to be appointed as

research/extension faculty is considerably much higher than the numberrequired for the faculty. This Minimum Qualification Standards for

Determining Academic Rank of UPLB Research and Extension Staff,

particularly the requirements for salary grades 20, 22 and 24 were

approved by the UP BOR in its 1083rd meeting on 26 January 1995while the Research/Extension faculty designations were approved by

BOR on 21 June 1996. Any changes in the provisions therefore would

necessitate BOR action.(d) Ceiling of Grade 24 for researchers need to be reviewed and appropriate

action to amend this provision has to be made.

Suggested course of action include:

the development/improvement of the criteria for tenure and promotion (if need

be)

the preparation of a proposal for a career path for the REPS. (This might

solve the problem of the Grade 24 ceiling for the researchers)

Granting of automatic promotion for REPS upon finishing a degree (similar tothe faculty)

Additional Information:

The U.P. Strategic Plan 2011-2017 has already been formulated where UPs

mandate, responsibilities, guiding principles, vision and thrusts are expounded.

UP Professional Schools at Fort Bonifacio Global City has been established. It

will offer post-graduate courses from the College of Law, School of Statistics, College ofEngineering, College of Business Administration and the Open University.


5/5

The Philippine Genome Center, a center of excellence in gene discovery and

genomics research that effectively translates knowledge into applications beneficial toPhilippine society has also been created.

Ida F. Dalmacio

Faculty Regent

2011-2012

Faculty Regent

Documents

Transcript of Faculty Regent