SPECIAL REPORT: Politics seeps into process of selecting SUCs heads

(First of 2 parts)

Years back, Dr. Ramon de Padua (not his real name) was offered the presidency of a state college in a far-flung town in central Philippines.

He was then the top official of an internationally known tertiary institution much prestigious, more adequately equipped, and better-funded and staffed than the obscure school that he was challenged to develop.

It did not take him long to accept the offer of a then powerful government official, who personally handpicked him to lead the school. That is, after his conditions were accepted, specifically non interference of local and national politicians in the way he would run the institution.

After a decade, the virtually unheard of college metamorphosed into one of the country’s strongest and viable universities. Its prestige has spread far and wide that, in recent years, even foreign students have been pursuing their undergraduate and graduate (doctoral and master’s) degrees in the “magically transformed” school.

Indeed, time was when the most qualified were called upon to lead state universities and colleges (SUCs), now numbering 114.

Traditionally, in the selection of a state university or college head, a search committee is created to screen the candidates based on feedback from the school’s academic and nonteaching staff, students, and other sources. The committee finally submits a list of candidates for the assessment and final decision of the school’s highest policymaking body (Board of Regents).

In recent times, however, the best qualified has not always been chosen for the position. At the extreme, it is he who has the best connections, particularly in places where politicians ride herd.

A few days ago, a former president of a university up north lamented to us that politics has seeped into the selection of key officials of SUCs, undermining the integrity and independence of the country’s higher education system.

Some candidates for the top SUC posts sometimes are left with no choice but to gravitate to politicians who brandish the power that they wield. Remember: They, particularly those in Congress, approve the General Appropriations Act (GAA) which allocates the budgets of all government instrumentalities, including SUCs.

Across the country today, some SUCs are again selecting their next top officials. And, as gathered by The STAR, unseen political hands are moving.

Years back, this writer had a one-on-one talk with an Education Secretary, himself a university professor once, over the selection of SUC heads.

He stressed that the winds of change should constantly blow vigorously over an institution of higher learning. Once a university becomes a closed system, as would result from a “tayo-tayo” policy, its growth would considerably be hampered.

Two distressing events come to mind:

• A Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) had once declared that the presidency of the university in the province should be occupied only by a native of the place.

• Another SP had declared the local university’s top official as “persona non grata”. The reason was a provincial official had locked horn with him over a school matter.

“Crab mentality” is another serious trait in some SUCs.

In the mad scramble for a university’s top position, some resort to unprofessional, unethical, and ungentleman(woman)ly tactics.

Take the case of an aspirant (A) who appeared to have swung a newspaper (not The STAR) columnist into attacking another candidate (B) and at the same time singing hosannas for Aspirant A.

The strategy boomeranged, as discerning readers wrote critical letters to the newspaper editor. Aspirant B bagged the university’s top position.

Other DDT (Department of Dirty Tricks) tactics are also resorted to by “unprofessional professionals” obsessed to become heads of SUCs. (To be continued)