Isang mambabasa ng "Pamatok" (na tinatawag niya ang sariling "Trial") ang nag-comment kung bakit hindi ako nagpu-post ng mga tukoy na isyu kung bakit disgustado ang Save OMECO Movement sa pamamahala ng mga kasalukuyang namumuno sa ating kooperatiba. Si "Trial" ay taga-Mamburao. Heto ang mga isyu at sampol pa lang ito dahil mismanagement at malgovernance pa lang ito. Wala pa dito yung isyu ng pagkalugi:
a)The GM abused his authority, because he availed of cash advances without supporting documents in willful violation of NEA Memorandum to all ECs dated March 10, 1993 - Policy on Cash Advances of Officials and Employees, as adopted by OMECO Board Resolution No. 107 dated December 12, 1997. By mere telephone instructions, the vouchers were prepared, encashed and deposited to his personal account. A further aggravating circumstance is that the responsibility for implementation of the above policy rests guidelines on the GM.
(Per III-5 of the NEA Guidelines – All requests for travel cash advances must be supported by an approved itinerary of travel including a pre-determined estimate of expenses)
b)There was laxity on the part of management in the grant and liquidation of cash advances. Cash advances were granted despite un-liquidated and/or un-refunded balances.
(Per III-5 of the NEA Guidelines – No official or employee of the coop shall be granted any cash advance until he has fully liquidated all previous cash advances.)
e)In 2007 and the first 7 months of 2008, the total amounts of P939,469 and P905,517.16 were granted to the GM; PP458,469 and P556,917.16 for travel, and P481,000 and P348,600 for contingencies, respectively. As of September 22, 2008, the balance of his cash advances is P402,924.28.
f)Additional cash advances were granted for contingencies during the GM’s travel; others were for the maintenance of coop vehicles and for purchases in Manila which ranges from P5,000 to P20,000. Other activities such as travel by group to Manila, to LUBELCO during annual meeting, and for other activities entailed additional expenses for the cooperative because the Driver had an Assist Driver for the duration of the travel.
g)Cash advances for the procurement of equipment and supplies were granted to employees other than the Purchaser.
Cash advance was made to a certain employee amounting to P216,500 (in August 2006) and P117,900 (in September 2007), for the purchase of materials in gathering of systems loss analysis which was deposited to his Metrobank account, for the maintenance of coop vehicle and the procurement of Printronix ribbon.
Cash advance was also made to another employee in the amount of P40,392 for purchasing a laptop computer , and to another employee also for a computer.
Per III-3 of the NEA Guidelines – Only the purchasing specialist/purchaser can be given cash advance for purchases.
h)A cash advance amounting to P9,194 granted last February 19, 2007 to a former OMECO Board director remained unliquidated.
i)There were cash advances split and claimed by several officers/employees, which will lead to difficulties in monitoring.
j)There were cash advances granted to casual employees and an office trainee for the purpose of bid publication and for plane tickets of the Board of Directors, for purchasing an Asus notebook PC and foodstuff.
k)Cash advances were granted for foodstuff given to various offices/personnel, including those of the NEA.
l)Cash advances in excess of the actual amount expended were not immediately refunded but were allowed to be deducted from the payroll.
m)The reported refund of un-liquidated damages by the GM still raises questions of possible falsification or mis-representation in the application for those cash advances which were purportedly made for specific purposes and those for official travel that never actually transpired. The GM’s whereabouts during the period corresponding to the official travel claimed for cash advance but not consummated also has to be established and accounted for.
The reimbursement or refund of cash advances that were not authorized or supported by proper documentation in the first place does not extinguish culpability of the officer involved for malversation or misappropriation of coop funds.
2.NEA Color Code Rating and Categorization
a)The Color Code Rating is based on NEA’s Comprehensive Operations Audit of OMECO which covers management, financial, technical and institutional aspects, for the period July 1, 2005 to July 31, 2008.
The objectives of the NEA’s EC Color Code Rating are:
•To measure the performance and capability of the ECs, and
•To determine the level of supervision/ assistance which could be extended by NEA
b)NEA’s latest Color Code Rating for OMECO is RED reflecting a numerical rating of 64.40%.
The color RED signifies poor performing ECs and those needing definite NEA intervention.
c)The NEA Categorization and Classification of ECs is a yearly performance-driven assessment serves as the basis for the upward or downward adjustments on per diems and allowances granted to EC personnel. It is part of NEA’s incentive program for improving the performance of ECs.
d)The results of NEA’s Categorization of ECs for the 1st Semester of 2008 reflects a rating of “D” for a numerical rating of 36 (out of a possible perfect score of 100), signifying and adjectival rating of “Poor”. This rating was lower than the “C” the coop received for 2007.
e)OMECO received “ZERO” points for registering a systems loss higher than 15.51% in 2007 and the 1st semester of 2008. The full score of 25 was awarded for EC’s with system loss of less than 10%. There were 12 ECs who have been maintaining single-digit system loss as of the 1st semester of 2008.
f)Excessive cash advances brought down OMECO’s Color Code Rating and Categorization. The maximum demerit of minus 20 points was imposed on OMECO. This reflects NEA’s drive to discourage ECs from granting excessive cash advances and encourage them to strictly effect immediate liquidation of the same.
One (1) point is deducted for every P50,000 unliquidated cash advances at the end of the year in review but not to exceed 20 demerit points. Without this limit, OMECO should even have received 22 demerit points for the P1.110 M in unliquidated damages at the end of the 1st semester of 2008.
g)On the basis of NEA’s Color Code Rating and Categorization of ECs it is evident that OMECO’s poor performance (financial, technical and institutional) is a result of mismanagement and ineffective governance.
3.Frequent Unnecessary and Fictitious Travel by the GM
a)The GM travels to Manila almost weekly.
b)In 2007 and the first 7 months of 2008, P458,469 and P556,917.16 for travel and P348,600 mostly for travel-related contingencies.
c)There is a need to verify whether expenses for official travel including contingencies are within budget, whether all these were properly authorized as evidenced by supporting documents and the reasons for the non-consummation of some trips.
a)It is public knowledge that local political leaders sometimes support candidates for the OMECO Board Directors or use their influence and patronage to further their own partisan interests. This results in some OMECO officers and directors being primarily subservient to the interests of their political patron rather than being responsible champions of the welfare of the member-consumers.
b)A local political leader has connections with Island Power Corporation (IPC), an independent power producer (IPP) which has an on-going energy conversion or supply contract with OMECO that is patently one-sided in his favor and unfairly disadvantageous to OMECO as gathered from the following facts :
•IPC continues to assert its right as exclusive power supplier to OMECO in spite of its failure to supply power since January 2005, or more than 3 years and 9 months to date.
Article 10.4 of the contract (Amendatory Agreement dated February 28, 1996) provides that OMECO shall not enter into further contracts with NAPOCOR or revise or extend the contract with NAPOCOR without the prior written consent of IPC.
Article 10.5 (Amendatory Agreement dated February 28, 1996) provides that – “Except for the Contracted Amount, OMECO covenants to purchase electrical energy only from IPC to the extent of IPC’c capacity and further purchases by OMECO from NAPOCOR of electrical energy in excess of the contract amount or from other electrical energy provider(s) shall be with the prior written consent of IPC which consent shall not be unreasonably with held.”
•The contract unnecessarily and unfairly restricts OMECO from freely engaging other IPPs even when IPC cannot reliably fulfill its obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the coop from availing of the efficiencies provided by a competitive and unregulated power industry as provided for under RA 9136 or the EPIRA of 2001.
•The OMECO management and BOD have not taken any initiative to have the contract with IPC rescinded due to the latter’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the contract and thereby preventing OMECO from freely negotiating more advantageous terms with other IPPs in the market.
c)The intervention of partisan political interests has prevented the institution of accountability and transparency in the governance of OMECO. At the same time it has emasculated the member-consumers by alienating and preventing them from effective participation in the selection of their representatives and in the shaping of the policies of a public service institution crucial to the improvement of the quality of their lives and the local economy.
(Ang Sulating ito ay mula kay Engr. Omar Costibolo, isa sa convenor ng Save OMECO Movement, at binigyan niya ako ng sipi noong Biyernes,- Oktubre 31, 2008. Isa ito sa mga gagamitin sa mga nakakasang pagpapamalay sa iba't-ibang bayan dito sa Oksi. -NAN)