Reality Cheque

Count me in among those who oppose that check for half a million bucks waiting for former Department of Tourism (DOT) Regional Director Dawnie Roa, representing her so-called retirement benefit from the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA).

I say this on principle alone, since the MCIAA Board might indeed have legal basis in cutting that check. (As we speak, the check's been signed and awaiting release. Good thing Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago issued an order commanding it to be withheld.)But legality aside (and that's a refreshing thing for me to say), there are plenty of reasons for Ms. Roa to just decline accepting this unexpected payout.

First, there's the fact she didn't really serve full time on the Board of MCIAA. Sure, she may have been connected with MCIAA for a reported 15 years, but wasn't that merely because she was already connected with the DOT? As Regional Director for the tourism industry, her duties and responsibilities would have included having to coordinate with the airport and knowing its quirks - after all, that's where a gazillion tourists come in and get their first impression of the island. Ergo, somebody from the DOT had to sit on the airport's Board, and as its regional head, she was merely the logical choice.

Second, Ms. Roa was only an alternate director. That to me means she was a sub for somebody else, and I would surmise that this somebody else was the Secretary of Tourism himself. In other words, she was filling in for whoever the appointed Secretary was during that particular administration. The post wasn't hers. Rather, it was the Secretary of Tourism who was being considered as present in the meeting, and not her. If for any reason the Secretary decided to pop in at a meeting, she would automatically have to give way, losing her right to act as the Board member for that meeting.

Ms. Roa was serving and functioning as the Regional Director of the DOT, full time. For that service, she probably deserves everything the law says she ought to get, may it be her salary for that whole stretch, or retirement benefits, or a generous pension. But the source of those benefits must be the DOT, and not the MCIAA. 

That brings me to the third reason - I presume Ms. Roa was already getting paid a salary by the DOT. (Should be a reasonable assumption to make, unless someone tells me this is another one of those one peso-a year posts. But even then, if she signed a contract for a peso a year, that means she was still being paid compensation acceptable to her. So my argument would still hold.) 

 So, going back to where I meant to go, for Ms. Roa to be able to take the time and step out from her DOT office, travel to the Mactan airport, and attend meetings there during business hours, that meant she was doing it during hours she was already being paid by the DOT. What am I getting at? Just that her presence and participation in the MCIAA was already being compensated - she was receiving her DOT salary to attend the MCIAA board meetings. (Let's not even consider the fact she was, as reported, getting a per diem from MCIAA for her body count at these meetings - funds that should have compensated her well enough for her time.)

The last reason for me (for now) is the bad taste in the mouth the existence of this check leaves. At a moment when we are excited with a new administration, when we're saying it's time to strike out towards a new direction; the MCIAA seems to be trundling off towards the old. 

The check supporters say that the MCIAA can establish its own retirement plan. That may be the case, but no one's said anything about there being an established plan. Is there really a duly approved retirement plan (with a sinking fund to support it) that's already been set up? It seems not. From all accounts, this is a one-off deal, supported by an isolated board resolution. In fact, a former MCIAA board member who was also a DOT designee, is himself questioning this check. So isn't this retirement plan peculiarly specific, and applicable only to one person that is Ms. Roa?

Where is the financial sobriety that we deserve from our government institutions? This isn't conserving money - it's burning it in a rather novel way.