A week ago, I blogged about the article of Jojo Robles of the Manila Standard who wrote:
These MassComm students were more interested in awarding the deal to the supplier who could promise them the best “under the table” deals, who would wine them and dine them and who would take all the “test shots” of their faces that they wanted. In the end, one losing bidder told us, they ended up awarding the contract to someone who reportedly promised them a car, apart from what all the other bidders gave them—free booze, food and endless studio pictures of themselves in various poses.
But will the profit from the business transaction too huge to afford the photo studio to buy new car for the members of the committee? For a state university which produces a small number of graduates in every department, would this financially feasible? My sister who graduated from College of Nursing belonged to a group of less than a dozen nursing graduates. My sister who was enrolled in the Graduate School of Mass Communications before she migrated to the US belonged to a small class.
Below is the official statement of the UP College of Mass Communication Graduate Committee as sent to pinaysaamerika by F. J. dela Fuente.
Official Statement of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication Graduation Committee 2011 (UP CMC GradCom 2011) on the Manila Standard Today column “Convincing Noynoy” by Jojo A. Robles (Jan. 28, 2011) 31 January 2011 To All Concerned: This official statement is in response to the Manila Standard Today column of Jojo A. Robles entitled “Convincing Noynoy” (http://bit.ly/fpqbZ6) published last Friday, Jan. 28, which the Committee believes to be a defamation of the College of Mass Communication, its students, and its Graduation Committee for 2011. We demand that the Manila Standard Today publish this statement in its entirety. No actual bidding process, in the strictest sense of the word, took place for the batch’s yearbook photo studio selection. The graduating batch selected its yearbook photo studio of choice between two candidate studios. This number was determined through Committee meet-ups, as well as reasonable and meritorious consideration of objective feedback from the studios’ own clients, previous and current. The Committee declined certain studios because of their failure to meet certain deadlines and standards (professionalism: deliveries, deadlines, accessibility, quality of output) that were set to ensure efficient Committee operations. As an ad hoc committee organized for the duration of a single academic year, the Committee reserves the right to implement its own guidelines, in this case by presenting prospective studios to the graduating batch for all students to vote upon. Although the Committee considered these studios’ packages, it was primarily negative feedback from their clients that drove the Committee to decline them.
The Committee feels these are reasonable and fair standards grounded in the fundamental goal of achieving what is best for the graduating batch in the most transparent and efficient manner possible. Moreover, the Committee did not engage in such unscrupulous deals similar to the ones it is being accused of. The closest the Committee has gotten to “wining” and “dining” are food and beverage orders that are typical in client-customer meetings and have no bearing whatsoever in the yearbook selection process. “Test shoots” are a necessary privilege, in this case, when one wants to ensure concrete basis of judgment in sealing a yearbook photo studio contract. The assertion that the Committee excessively abused these test shoots to suit its members’ personal whims and fancies are false. The Committee only participated in three (3) test shoots, necessary to provide the graduating batch ample basis for its choice via a democratic election. Finally, no studio has promised a car, liquor, food, or any other photo package privileges apart from those stipulated in their respective contracts of agreement that the Committee has vigilantly reviewed. The Committee is offended by this column and believes it to be a malicious, unwarranted attack on its reputation and integrity. In light of this, the Committee, on behalf of the College of Mass Communication, demands a full published apology and retraction from Mr. Robles, no more, no less. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF MASS COMMUNICATION GRADUATION COMMITTEE 2011 * NOTE: Supporting documents pertaining to relevant Committee transactions are, and have always been available upon request. Kindly approach a Course Representative or any member of the GradCom Execom for queries.
No comments:
Post a Comment