CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS by Prof. Sarah Raymundo

Note: This chronology is appended in Prof. Sarah Raymundo's June 24, 2009 letter to UP Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao.

Appendix A: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

• On February of 2008, I submitted my application for tenure to the tenured faculty of the Sociology Department through our then-chairperson Dr. Clemen Aquino.

• By the second week of June 2008, on account of some information regarding my application through informal channels, I was informed by Dr. Clemen Aquino of the official result of the tenured faculty's deliberation on my tenure application. The voting that took place among the tenured faculty was to my favor at seven to three. I was also informed that the minority sent a separate minority report to the office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Subsequently, The OVCAA then wrote the Sociology Department asking the majority, who voted in my favor, to justify their position in light of the allegations cited in the said minority report. During this talk I was also assured that the back-and-forth between different levels of decision-making as well as the delay are only to be expected when one applies for tenure. I was also made aware of some issues that were discussed when the tenured faculty deliberated my application. These issues involved the Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan press conference. Lastly, the process that my application would undergo from then on was explained to me. The College Executive Board (CEB) would comment on the clarification requested by the OVCAA-APFC, after which the Dean would write a response to the OVCAA. However, months later, I would find out that the OVCAA’s request for my position on the tenured faculty’s hitherto undisclosed allegations was not mentioned in this discussion.

• Towards the end of July of the same year, the aforementioned department majority invited me to a discussion, which revolved around the most minute details relating to a press conference held in the previous year that called for the immediate release of Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, two disappeared UP Students. In particular, I was asked about which faculty members I had invited, the means of communication.

• On November 6, 2008, Dr. Clemen Aquino informed m that the tenured faculty unanimously decided on non-recommendation. To this day, I am baffled by this sudden reversal. When I asked her about the grounds of this decision, I was told that the Chair was bound by the tenured faculty’s wish that she only be allowed to merely inform me of their decision. Furthermore, I was told not to show up for my classes the next day, until further notice. When I asked her if my contract until May 31, 2009 was aborted, the response was that this is being clarified with the administration.

• In January of this year, some members of the tenured faculty wrote your office questioning the prior decision of the tenured body for non-recommendation.

• By March, I was invited to a dialogue by the whole body of the department’s tenured faculty. I was again asked several questions regarding my involvement on the press conference on the disappeared students, some details on the poem I had written dedicated to Karen Empeño that I submitted to the Philippine Collegian, and my role in preparing a statement that was eventually adopted by the University Council calling for the immediate release of Karen and Sherlyn. I was also made to clarify some details that appeared in another statement signed by the University Student Council. Note that these are the same questions raised in August of 2007 (a meeting with Dr. Clemen Aquino and Dr. Cynthia Bautista on matters regarding the renewal of my contract and in July 2008 during a meeting with the tenured faculty “majority”). I was also made to explain my involvement in the statements released by the CONTEND and the Academic Union that questioned the process of my tenure application.

• A few weeks later, I was called on by Dr. Arguillas in her capacity as OIC and Dr. Gutierrez as member of the tenured body to inform me that the tenured faculty voted, with five in my favor, four against, one abstain, and one in favor of waiving the discussion for a year. They added that since the vote was “deeply divided,” the tenured body decided to defer their decision and thus left it to your esteemed office to decide on granting my tenure, after which, my tenure application and the department vote were discussed by the CEB.

• On June 2, 2009, after waiting more than two months after aforementioned meeting, without a word as to the status of my tenure application, I decided to talk to Prof. Randy David, who was then acting as the Department’s Officer-in-Charge. During our discussion, I learned that some members of the CEB questioned the exercise and officially sent you a letter a few days after the CEB voted in my favor.

• Moreover, I learned that on May 19, 2009, Dr. Aquino and Dean Zossimo Lee received a letter from you asking for my basic papers to be prepared for “the tenure process to commence” and that the tenured faculty, yet again, met to discuss this on May 25, 2009. It was mentioned that members of the tenured faculty found your letter ‘vague’ as to whether or not you had decided to grant my application for tenure as “the tenure process” commenced when I applied for tenure in February of 2007. I was also told that the tenured faculty were of the position that for my basic papers to be processed, a vote amounting to a simple majority is required. It was also made known to me that a letter to your office to clarify whether or not the tenured faculty was correct in their interpretation of the requirement of a simple majority for processing of basic papers for tenure.

• Lastly, I was informed that, as far as my contract is concerned, I am technically no longer a faculty member of the Department of Sociology despite my open case for tenure, and that given this, I am no longer entitled to teach any courses from the same department. When I mentioned the 60-day rule on the termination of contracts, I was told that that “the former Chair was emphatic in her position that it was the Dean’s responsibility to inform me about the end of my contract.”

• On June 15, I finally got the chance to discuss the matter with Dean Lee. On my status, it was clarified that it was the Dean's responsibility to enlighten me on the matter. When I inquired as to what he would have told me, however, I was told that there was no clear answer since my case was still being discussed between the OVCAA and your office when the 60-day notice should have been given. The results of the CEB meeting on my case was also revealed. The same body voted 7 to 1, in my favor. Furthermore, I was apprised of the fact that the OVCAA studied my case, upon your authority, and that the same office wrote you a letter stating that there should be no obstacle to my tenure based on my records. I was also informed that your office sent the Dean and the Department a letter asking for my basic papers to be prepared. Lastly, I was made aware that a meeting between Dean Lee, your office, Dr. Aquino, Prof.. David, and Vice-Chancellor Lorna Paredes was to be held on June 16 to discuss the issues surrounding my tenure, and that the Dean would inform me of the proceedings of that meeting.