A Bishop Explains Plan

Please find below Bishop Daniel Arichea's brief discussion relative to the development plan (excerpted from a letter circulating via e-mail):

"...The development of PCU-UTS has been the subject of discussions for many many years. In fact, Carlito Puno came up with a plan that was approved by the Board but was not implemented because of the crisis situation that prevailed in the late 1990's and all of 2000, during which time UTS and PCU were almost dissolved. When the new administration took over, the development talks resumed, and the Board gave the president the mandate to prepare a master development plan, and allotted 5 million pesos for this purpose. Oscar then started consulting with development people, and thus began a series of what I termed as show and tell. When I joined the Board some 2 years ago, I began to be involved in these matters. We listened to various proposals for development of all three campuses: the elementary and high school campus, the Taft Avenue campus, and the Dasmarinas campus. It became obvious for many of us that development is the way to go, that the university (and the seminary) cannot survive on student revenue alone, that there is a need for endowment supported education, which is of course the rule in the United States. To make a rather long and complicated story short, the Board began to seriously discuss development plans, and all these culminated in a special workshop meeting a few weeks ago at Island Cove in Cavite. After a day and a half of real brainstorming and serious discussions, the Board convened officially and passed several actions. The first action was that the Board goes on record as favoring the development of all three campuses. The second was to approve the MOA with the Financial Advisers. The third was to refer the MOA with the Architectural Firm to the Legal Counsel, and then to circulate the revised MOA for approval by Board members through email. The fourth was the creation of an Internal Management Committee composed of four members of the Board together with the PCU President as ex officio. The four members incidentally are Cito Fontanilla and Rouel Marigsa for the UCCP, and Dave Santos and myself for the UMC. The IMC has met several time since then, and the latest action is to recommend the hiring of a Project Coordinator. There are many details of the plan, and it will take pages to include all of them. But the gist is this: the development of the campuses will be through non-collateralized loans from a consortium of banks. It is hard to believe this, but it is true. No properties of UTS will be used as collateral for the loans. The banks will make the money available on the basis of the viability of the projects and on the basis of the value and strategic location of the properties. Actually the loans will be self-liquidating. Again, this is hard to believe and hard to explain, but those in the know say this is true. As to priority, the first priority is that of the elementary and high school campuses. Why? Because the alumni are behind the projects, and they have pledged to raise the equivalent of 2 million dollars (that is correct, $2,000,000) towards the project. There are quite a few prominent alumni of both Union Elementary and Union High School, and they are very much interested and involved in the project. (Just a parenthetical note: if those who want to stop the development plan succeed, it will only be the Elementary and High School development plan that will definitely continue). The second priority is that of UTS, because of the Centennial in 2007. The plan includes the enhancement of Salakot Chapel, and the building of a convention center, complete with accommodations; and all of these will be in place by the middle of 2006, so that a new UTS can be offered to the churches during the Centennial celebrations. The profit centers will also be prioritized so that funds will begin to be generated. A third priority is that of the Taft Avenue property, to make it much more attractive to students, and to enhance fund generation. As I consider the objections, I realize that there is a great deal of misunderstanding. Junifen Gauuan's comments indicate that he is thinking of a build-operate-transfer scheme as well as collateralized loans. I presume this would also be the thinking of those people whom Bishop Toquero consulted. In order to remedy this problem, a primer will be prepared, addressing all the issues, and presented in such a way as to be understandable even to those who have no background on this matter."