This actually has no scientific basis (lest Professor Mangar Mangahas Phd raises an eyebrow), as we all know “Personal Experience is not Evidence” but I would like to give a little credit to the decent number and variety of the sampling, probably not statistically significant but a start.

The terms EVERYONE or ALL means 100%. ALMOST ALL means close to 100%. MAJORITY means at least 50%+1. MOST is less than MAJORITY but more than SOME. HALF means just that-half/50%. Again let me reiterate this has no actual evidence value based on any statistical analysis. It is data gathered after connecting the dots of my bullet journal entries and what I can remember. No real statistical analysis, no null hypothesis, no P values just a simple and hopefully understandable description.

I’ve spoken to different people-professionals, academe, rank and file, entrepreneurs, executives, CEOs, OFWs, students, housewives, ministers, clergy, expats, men in uniform, seamen, retirees, a judge, a couple of past cabinet members, a couple of congressmen are the different profiles of those I’ve had a discussion. ALMOST ALL knew of my involvement in PCCI and ALMOST ALL of them had one thing in common with us-we all had a purebred dog. MAJORITY were well aware of PCCI administrative controversies. SOME were exhibitors.

These were the topics discussed:
1. How much does the club make?
2. How much does one make as a Director?
3. How does one become a Director?
4. Qualifications to being a director.
5. Profile of past and present directors.

ALMOST ALL discussed all 5 topics. SOME did not get to discuss all 5 topics.

For topic number 1- I would quote our income based on the annual financial report of the past 3 years. ALMOST All were surprised that PCCI was not just an ordinary neighborhood Mom and Pop Non Profit organization but a serious business based on its income.

For topic number 2- I would explain a Director did not make anything substantial, just gasoline coupons and a token allowance for meetings and representation in events. I told them that compensation was not allowed by the By-Laws since the conception of PCCI. ALMOST All believed in some form of compensation after all there’s no such thing as a free lunch. However the form of compensation was split in half. Approximately half believed some form of monthly compensation should be given to a Director for motivation BUT term limits should be implemented because being a PCCI Director should not be ones primary source of income. Must have strict attendance to meetings and events for one to avail of any compensation. You can’t be an absentee Director and be compensated. Compensation should be lower than that of present corporate standards as being a PCCI Director is not a full time job anyway and PCCI is afterall a non-profit organization. It is a known fact that members of an efficient organization always look forward to something and one of it happens to be a commensurate compensation. The remaining half agreed that the present system of compensation is adequate but believed an increase to the present amount is in order. All however believe that Directors should not have any out of pocket expenses when attending to the duties of a Director.

For topic 3- I explained the “PCCI Proxy System”. ALMOST ALL believed our “proxy system” was flawed and was the number one problem why the wrong people got elected. ALMOST ALL agreed that regular members should discern deeply before they give their proxy to someone and that proper information dissemination could help them discern. ALMOST ALL agreed that before one became a regular member some criteria had to be considered that factored in such things as education, integrity and present financial capability. NO ONE could give a viable alternative to the present proxy system that would guarantee the election of the right people to the board.

For topic number 4-I answered that all that was needed was a member to be in “good standing”, basically meaning any Tom, Dick or Harry can actually be a Director. In fact someone who owes the clubs hundreds of thousands can even be a Director. ALMOST ALL suggested that at least a college degree is necessary, with SOME suggesting, NBI, Court and PNP clearances. I told them that historically Directors had a College degree. The idea of clearances have been broached before but even for local positions, pending cases does not preclude one from seeking a local or national position. ALL believed, that in the absence of local authority clearances, a regular member who has been proven to be involved in past actions not in the best interest of the club should be prohibited from being a Director in fact should be expelled from the club.

For topic number 5- I answered that everyone was a college graduate. Post Graduate degrees are a rare thing but I do remember a past director I had the privilege of working with who had a Fordham degree and an MBA from NYU Graduate School of Business-GSD man past director Carlo Mendez (one of the few PCCI Directors I respect and hold in high esteem). Very few actually had a day job. Some septuagenarians. Most Directors claimed personal income from being the ubiquitous “trader” or “entrepreneur”, but to actually have a monthly regular income or their own SEC registered business is something very few and very far between. Some are retirees, probably without a retirement parachute. The source of livelihood of most are dog related which technically is not allowed in the by-laws. EVERYONE I spoke to agreed that a Director had to have a personal source of income so as not to be tempted to dip its fingers into the club’s resources. I remember something Justice Marvic Leonen (a fellow fountain pen user) mentioned at an Ateneo Law School forum – “members of the judiciary must have the financial means ‘to maintain integrity’ and make them less susceptible to corruption.” This adage I believe is very applicable to PCCI Directors. MEMBERS OF THE PCCI BOARD MUST HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO MAINTAIN INTEGRITY AND MAKE THEM LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORRUPTION.

I told them that alleged issues have involved Directors known to have no regular personal source of income and interestingly also involved Directors with a personal source of income. Alleged issues have involved Directors with a college degree. Alleged issues have occurred even with the present allowance system. Alleged issues involved officers.

So what conclusions did we arrive at after discussing all 5 queries? IF we cannot choose the brightest to be a director (which is most of the time) then at least try to choose the intellectually and morally best among the 15 directors as officers. When stuck with lemons make lemonade? Not good enough! At least source some Patron or at least a Cuervo in the lot and make a Margarita, unfortunately most of the time the only thing available is some cheap Tequila or none at all. Interestingly, the bottom line agreed upon by everyone was a very simple thing though not necessarily simply easily attained. The basic thing that a Director should have is a “Strong sense of right and wrong and common sense”. Yeah! Good luck!

Personally, I believe it is the system that is at fault. I can’t fault the aspiring Director without any intellectual much more moral heft who diligently solicits proxies as he/she aspires for a board position. Maybe a small part of the fault is the member that gives his/her proxy to the aspiring Director who has no intellectual and much more moral heft. It is the system unfortunately that is at fault and I honestly have no solid solution to this except a bandaid one-each and every regular member should take the moral high ground and give his/her proxy to the right person or not give it at all if the choices are none of the above.

Let me end this with a quote from Thomas Jefferson-“It is neither wealth nor splendor, but tranquility and occupation which give you happiness.”

Being a PCCI Director is not an occupation.