The CICS is due for a reevaluation for Level 1 accreditation. CHED saw that the faculty do not practice posting or announcing a consultation period for students, parents or anyone who wants to confer with the faculty member outside classes. This is true for the simple reason that SLU faculty do not render consultation periods as indicated in the Faculty Handbook. So CHED recommended that each faculty of the college should render at least 3 hours consultation period per week.
During the regular faculty meetings the department heads informed the faculty of the recommendation of CHED and asked each one if we are willing to render 3 hours of our free time for consultation hours just so we can comply. Most, if not all, faculty members were against the idea even when the department heads appealed for a small sacrifice on our part for the good of the college. The faculty members were adamant at the idea especially because of the issue of precedence. So the meetings concluded with the faculty members not in agreement with the request for consultation hours.
The issue came out again during the college meeting last December with the dean asking everyone to submit consultation hours for the upcoming reevaluation. She stated that "3 hours a week is not much" while talking about the CHED recommendation. But before anyone could question her, she changed the topic very swiftly.
Everyone was surprised this January when a memo-like form asking everyone to write their consultation period schedule with a checklist of whether the schedule was posted and/or announced to the class. Attached to it was a questionnaire regarding the agreement/awareness/approval of some activities of the University. There was even a deadline for submission so everyone deemed that it was a compulsory document. Each faculty were consulting each other about what to put in the form and one even said that we should not write any schedule as a sign of protest. Some faculty members consulted lawyers and was told that it is illegal for the administration to require faculty members to render productive time without pay. Some faculty went to the Union president and asked for advice and were told that they should not sign yet until she has conferred with the VP for Academics. She talked to the VP and was told that he has no idea about the consultation hours being asked by the dean. In the end, we were told that the dean denied that she was requiring for the consultation hours. She said it was voluntary.
What does she think we are? Idiots? If it was voluntary why then would she say that she only asked for it so that "the evaluators will know where to find them"? Then we are obliged to submit so that the evaluators can find us.
Because of this, we were able to discern which faculty members are kissing up to the dean. We understand that the contractuals would submit their consultation hours immediately because we know that they are at the mercy of the dean. But what we can not understand are regular faculty members who would volunteer and lie about their consultation hours. The person who said we should not submit as a sign of protest was the first one to submit a schedule for consultation. When questionned he even said he was able to talk to the VP for Academics and according to him the VP said it is for our own good and that it is just on paper. If this was true, you mean he will agree into submitting a schedule just for the sake of the accreditation? You will give a schedule kunwa-kunwari?But that's deceitful. You would be lying so that the college can be accredited? This is putting a flavor of dishonesty into something that should be noble.
Renato Dekartos
