The Curious Case of the President/Gen Manager

 

Early on, having created an organization plan, the board elected and distributed positions and titles among themselves. Mr. Ayop was elected President and Gen Manager. As has been the practice for years, the President has always been regarded de facto General Manager, even if this title was hardly used. The box in their organizational chart read "President/Gen Manager." 

(The "scrubbed"  minutes belatedly split the office and position, so the President and GM were made to occupy 2 separate boxes in the chart to clothe it with the veneer of legitimacy.)

Following the decree from the  primus inter pares, the board resolved to compensate him (in addition to his per diem and gasoline allowance??) at the rate of P20,000 monthly (with 13th month pay?)

Here is what Section 15. Association Bylaws under RA 9904, in part, reads:

(e) The qualifications, positions, duties, election or appointment, and compensation of other officers and employees of the association:  xxxxxxxxx  Provided, further, That no officer of the association holding a rank of director or trustee shall likewise be entitled to any compensation.

Since REHOA was formed more than 12 years ago, the President (and de facto Gen Manager) never asked, never received compensation other than the P1,000 per diem which was put in there by the original incorporators. In the last 4 years prior to the present board, the word "per diem" was never heard, let alone hear anyone suggest an increase.

According to one trustee, the Board was aware of this  provision in law, but ignored it to continue compensating a trustee.

In time, however, the stench of this preferential treatment continued to reek, and consequently, the Board contrived to have the occupant resign as trustee, have him apply for a "newly created" position of Gen Manager,(never mind the President was already a GM; never mind that at one time, one trustee was designated VP and GM) and get himself  accepted from supposedly two other applicants) all in one day. Yes, all resolutions done in one day, and timed for the general assembly. Neat.

That this contrivance was employed to enable continuing compensation is, imho,  a tacit acknowledgement of an impropriety. If so, may not this acknowledgement by substantiated by clawing back all the monies provided to the occupant, by virtue of his being a trustee with compensation, by way of restituting the Association?

Section 12 of  RA 9904 on the Duties and Responsibilities of the Board,  in part, reads:

In the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board shall exercise the degree of care and loyalty required by such position.

Contextually, "loyalty" here refers to loyalty to the Association. It sure is laudable for friends and associates to favor a cohort in seen to be in need, but wouldn't it be it would far more laudable if they all pitched in and not use Association funds for the purpose?

Further, the HLURB Code of Ethics prescribes in Article II, Sec. 9 the Primacy of the Interests of the Association

9.2 No officer/board member shall use or take advantage of his/her position, or knowingly allow another to use or take advantage of his/her position, to advance and promote his/her personal or professional interests and gain. In all activities and processes undertaken by the board such as the procurement of goods and services, the annual and regular board meetings, the accounting of association funds, and any interaction with vendors, contractors, subcontractors, and homeowners, the conduct of each officer/board member shall at all times be above reproach and free of any appearance of impropriety (underscoring mine).

(sidebar:  They are enjoined to be like Calpurnia)