June 28, 2014 To Mr. Rey Reyes, (cc Dean Ricardo Lim) DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR COMPLAINT DOCTOR HAZEL PARAGUA 1. Complainant, Khristine Carissa Consuelo Malig Consunji, is charging MDM 2014 Program Director Doctor Hazel Paragua with repeated bullying and harassment, coupled with discriminatory behaviors towards Complainant and lack of impartial behavior as well as favoritism towards a dysfunctional academic behavior complaint brought to her by Complainant about Class Officer Armando Lee. Thus, Doctor Paragua is also being charged with academic dysfunctional behavior for condoning plagiarism on the part of Class Officer Armando Lee. 2. In the following email exchange with Armando Lee, Complainant noted that she was uncomfortable with Class Officers asking for Stakeholder Analysis Powerpoints for the Marketing Class by Professor Gavino: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armando Lee <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Learning Team 6 Stakeholder Analysis - Bureau of Customs To: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> Dear Chin, OK. No problem. Im not forcing the issue. -Arman On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, I already referred this matter to Dean Luz and Doctor Hazel. As we stated, we are more comfortable submitting directly to Dr. Gavino, for our own reasons. Please do not force the issue. Chin
Transcript
June 28, 2014 To Mr. Rey Reyes, (cc Dean Ricardo Lim) DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR COMPLAINT DOCTOR HAZEL PARAGUA
1. Complainant, Khristine Carissa Consuelo Malig Consunji, is charging MDM 2014 Program Director Doctor Hazel Paragua with repeated bullying and harassment, coupled with discriminatory behaviors towards Complainant and lack of impartial behavior as well as favoritism towards a dysfunctional academic behavior complaint brought to her by Complainant about Class Officer Armando Lee. Thus, Doctor Paragua is also being charged with academic dysfunctional behavior for condoning plagiarism on the part of Class Officer Armando Lee.
2. In the following e-‐mail exchange with Armando Lee, Complainant noted that she was uncomfortable with Class Officers asking for Stakeholder Analysis Powerpoints for the Marketing Class by Professor Gavino:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armando Lee <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Learning Team 6 Stakeholder Analysis - Bureau of Customs To: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]>
Dear Chin, OK. No problem. Im not forcing the issue. -Arman
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, I already referred this matter to Dean Luz and Doctor Hazel. As we stated, we are more comfortable submitting directly to Dr. Gavino, for our own reasons. Please do not force the issue. Chin
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Chin, Can you please send me a copy of your ppt too? I need to include it to the class ppts. Thanks. -Arman
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, We will just submit our work directly to Professor Gavino. Thank you, Chin
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Chin, Please understand im only doing this because of deadlines set by our Prof. If i were not given the task i would not have done setting deadlines too. Next time, i will ask our Prof to assign somebody else (not officer) so the issue will not be set on the officers in the class. Cheers. -Arman
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, I think this deadline is a little too close, given all the other work we need to do. I understand you were assigned the responsibility of choosing the presentations but you also have to be considerate of our schedules and timing constraints--while I respect your position as class president, I would reconsider your approach to assigning academic work and imposing deadlines on us on very short notice-- I believe that is something only instructors can do and not class officials. Best, Chin
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Please make the 4 slides ppt right away and email me a copy (due tomorrow AM). Make a hard copy too and submit it to Prof Gavino next class session with him. -Arman
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Or is the Bureau of Customs your identified stakeholder already?
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: OK. Who is your major stakeholder in BC?
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, We're doing a stakeholder analysis of the Bureau of Customs. Best, Chin
3. Complainant was hesitant to submit academic work to a fellow student or the
autocratic approach taken by Class Officer Armando Lee taken towards submission of work by classmates. She was also uncomfortable with the approach taken by class officer Armando Lee towards the issue as she did not believe it was within the mandate of Class Officers to ask for and assign academic work.
4. On February 24, 2014, Complainant had following text message exchange with teammate Rommel Rubiales:
February 24, 2014 4:59 pm Rommel 09209507432: Chin the group is productive with you as our Leader, I think Father is the only one not contributing. We can ask him if he wants to transfer to another group. February 24, 2014 5:00 pm Complainant 09212549616: Ok, but I think we should bring that up soon. I will email the spreadsheet of work accomplished, I can ask Dean Luz. You called earlier? February 24, 2014 5:01 pm Rommel 09209507432: Yes, sorry to disturb you but I just want to tell you something I found just last week. February 24, 2014 5:02 pm Complainant 09212549616: Ah will call now. February 24, 2014 5:04 pm Rommel 09209507432: Chin I am with our classmates now we are drinking. It’s regarding our concept notes. February 24, 2014 5:04 pm Complainant 09212549616: Ah ok! I am in greenbelt now. February 24, 2014 5:05 pm Complainant 09212549616: Why, what about the notes? February 24, 2014 5:08 pm Rommel 09209507432: Chin this will just be between the two of us, Dr. Arman copied word for word parts of my submitted concept notes (presentation) within the Google Drive of Prof Ron Chua. February 24, 2014 5:08 pm Complainant 09212549616: P****** ina niya! February 24, 2014 5:09 pm Complainant 09212549616: Oh my god. Sorry Mel but that is terrible!!! February 24, 2014 5:10 pm Complainant 09212549616: Did you want to discuss it with someone on the faculty? February 24, 2014 5:13 pm Rommel 09209507432:
Chin, I will not do that. You can check our Google Drive and you can compare our work. That constitutes violation of Academic Honesty but I am not reporting it because I respect our class. February 24, 2014 5:17 pm Complainant 09212549616: Ok, my god that is terrible. I will do it now.
5. Part of the initial exchange between Complainant and Armando Lee was copy-‐furnished to the MDM 2014 thread:
Hi Arman, We will just submit our work directly to Professor Gavino. Thank you, Chin
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Chin, Please understand im only doing this because of deadlines set by our Prof. If i were not given the task i would not have done setting deadlines too. Next time, i will ask our Prof to assign somebody else (not officer) so the issue will not be set on the officers in the class. Cheers. -Arman
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, I think this deadline is a little too close, given all the other work we need to do. I understand you were assigned the responsibility of choosing the presentations but you also have to be considerate of our schedules and timing constraints--while I respect your position as class president, I would reconsider your approach to assigning academic work and imposing deadlines on us on very short notice-- I believe that is something only instructors can do and not class officials. Best, Chin
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Please make the 4 slides ppt right away and email me a copy (due tomorrow AM). Make a hard copy too and submit it to Prof Gavino next class session with him. -Arman
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Or is the Bureau of Customs your identified stakeholder already?
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Armando Lee <[email protected]> wrote: OK. Who is your major stakeholder in BC?
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Arman, We're doing a stakeholder analysis of the Bureau of Customs. Best, Chin
6. Complainant refused to submit the Stakeholder Analysis of LT6 to Armando Lee due to her foreknowledge of the fact that Armando Lee had plagiarized the work of her teammates Rommel Rubiales.
7. In a previous text message exchange on February 13, 2014 Rommel Rubiales
had sent Complainant the following text which she responded to on February 14, 2014:
February 13, 2014 Rommel 11:59 09209507432: Chin I would like to apologize that I was not able to ask for your permission when I did the MRR PPT I never meant to bypass our group only good intentions for our learning team. February 14, 2014 Complainant 8:47 am 09212549616: No its fine! Rommel do not worry! I thought your report was great and you don’t need my permission.
8. The text message exchange was referring to the initial draft of the Powerpoint Presentation for the Concept Notes sent by Rommel Rubiales to LT6, of which Complainant was a member, as documented by the following email exchange:
This is the revised PPT slides, I cited Section 602 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines for the function of the Bureau of Customs. Ismeera, this is a group work.
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:20 PM, rommel rubiales <[email protected]> wrote:
9. On February 17, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Rommel Rubiales forwarded his notes to the class in the following email exchange. During this exchange, it is explicitly clear that Mr. Rubiales submitted his notes ahead of Dr. Armando Lee, who expressed his admiration for said notes in the following e-‐mail exchange which was sent to Doctor Paragua as well as Dean Juan Miguel Luz: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM Subject: Fwd: Management Research Report (Concept Notes) To: Hazel Paragua <[email protected]>, Juan Miguel Luz <[email protected]>, Juan Miguel Luz <[email protected]> Dear Dr. Hazel and Dean Luz, Please note the chronology -- Arman did not submit his report until after Rommel did. I also have earlier emails from Rommel when he gave his draft to our LT for comments, so I can personally attest to his original authorship. Best, Chin
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armando Lee <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Management Research Report (Concept Notes) To: Rommel Rubiales <[email protected]> Cc: MDM 2014 <[email protected]>
Rommel, That's one very good MRR you got there. I like it very much.
-Arman
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Rommel Rubiales <[email protected]> wrote:
10. On February 24, 2014, Complainant reported plagiarized Concept Notes Presentation of Class Officer Armando Lee to Professors Ron Chua, Doctor Paragua and Dean Juan Miguel Luz. While the original email was addressed to Professor Ron Chua. However, only Doctor Hazel Paragua responded:
Dear Chin, We will look into this case. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Dr Paragua Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Khristin Consunji Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:02 AM To: Hazel Paragua; Juan Miguel Luz; Juan Miguel Luz Subject: Fwd: Anomalies in Comparison of Concept Notes
Hello, I am writing to advise pertinent faculty members of Dr. Arman Lee's plagiarism of Rommel's concept notes for the MRR. Given the immense lack of ethics displayed by this act, I would recommend that Dr. Lee be removed from his post as student officer. As per the advice of Dr. Limlingan, I was told to forward this issue to both of you for your consideration.
Best, Chin
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Anomalies in Comparison of Concept Notes To: Ron Chua <[email protected]>
Dear Professor Chua, After consulting with Dr. Limlingan earlier today, he advised me to forward you the files for you perusal, to document the alleged similarities. As I noted earlier, Rommel is still uncomfortable coming forward but I believe that this a serious academic offense that merits attention. This was something Rommel had spoke of in confidence but in light of this breach, I believe the class cannot be lead by an officer such as Dr. Armando Lee who has stolen the intellectual property of another student. Best, Chin
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Sir, Today, I was recently made aware of a situation pertaining to academic dishonesty, where a student's concept notes presentation for the MRR was plagiarized by another student. In order to give due respect to the other student, I want to exercise utmost discretion regarding this matter -- however, I am immensely disheartened because the offender is a class officer. What is the protocol for matters like this? Best, Chin
11. On the morning of February 26, 2014, on the steps of the AIM Lobby, Doctor Paragua had informed Complainant that there was no plagiarism to speak of as the MRR Powerpoint was merely a “pro-‐forma” strategic management template contrary to the statements of Rommel Rubiales.
12. To be clear, here are the slides that demonstrate significant similarities between the submissions of Armando Lee and Rommel Rubiales:
Slide No.
Rommel’s Slides Arman’s Slides Annex
3
A
4
B
6
C
7
D
8
E
9
F
10
G
13. Clearly, the unmistakable identity and similarity of the slides is not limited to the text alone, but goes to the very organization and progression of the intellectual framework behind the work which belies the claim that Doctor Paragua claims came from a “pro-‐forma template”.
14. On the same day Doctor Paragua then referred the case to Dean Juan Miguel
Luz who called Complainant into his office at approximately 11:00 am with a copy of the MRR Concept Notes that had been run through Turnitin instead of the plagiarized presentation MRR presentation attached with the e-‐mails.
15. Dean Luz then addressed Complainant for raising a supposedly false case of academic dysfunctional behavior whereas Complainant informed Dean Luz that what she had forwarded was the MRR Concept Notes Presentation.
16. Dean Luz then consulted the MDM Student Handbook as opposed to the AIM Student Handbook and claimed that since the MRR Concept Notes Presentation did not constitute an expellable offense in the MDM Handbook, then the charge of plagiarism did not matter.
17. However, Dean Luz was not aware of the other policies pertaining to academic dysfunctional behavior since he only consulted the MDM Student Handbook, as opposed to the AIM Student Handbook.
18. To wit, in the AIM Student Handbook, page 22, under Academic
Dysfunctional Behavior 1(j), Armando Lee was liable under the subsection plagiarism which is defined as “to copy works of others, including works in the public domain, without proper acknowledgement, citation or permission.”
19. Thus, Doctor Paragua had intentionally and maliciously supplied Dean Luz
with the MRR Concept Notes instead of the plagiarized presentation, in a clear effort to discredit Complainant to Dean Juan Miguel Luz in blatant favor of Armando Lee, condoning academic dysfunctional behavior, as Complainant had copy-‐furnished the Plagiarized Concept Notes in the Presentation instead of the MRR Concept Notes that were provided by Doctor Paragua to Dean Juan Miguel Luz.
20. It is believed that Doctor Paragua abused her position as MDM program
director and her personal relationship with David Zuellig, son of Stephen Zuellig, chief donor to the AIM Center for Development Management School, in order to continue harassing Complainant without repercussions from her direct superior Dean Juan Miguel Luz or other Faculty, or misrepresent the Complainant.
21. Complainant had also referred the case and the matter to SA Chairman Coen
Damen who was unaware of the protocol for such matters: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Apologies about earlier today To: Coen Damen <[email protected]>
Hey Coen, I went over the situation with Dean Luz and Hazel. They are claiming that since there was no copying in the official concept notes submission -- just on the Powerpoints -- then there is no plagiarism to speak of. I think this is ridiculous. Best, Chin
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Coen Damen <[email protected]> wrote: OK, see you tomorrow.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Coen, Ok, let's try to meet to talk about this. To be honest, I'm really quite weary of this whole situation. Arman is very close to Hazel and although it is clearly articulated in the handbook that any plagiarism of MRR material is an expellable offense, I am not very confident in her abilities to handle the matter impartially which is why I consulted with Dr. Limlingan (former Dean) on this issue. Best, Chin
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Coen Damen <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Chin, Lets have lunch one of these days. I'm quite stunned by the similarities between the two! (actually I uttered a few profanities...) I have to check what exactly the role of the SA is in these matters, as I seem to recall that there is a distinct difference between disciplinary issues about behavior on campus and academic issues. I'm quite hung over today, this really doesn't help.... I also hope Rommel is not affected by this. Cheers, C.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Coen, I don't think we were misreading anything, Arman was way out of line and being immensely autocratic. I've already forwarded this plagiarism matter to Professor Luz, Professor Chua and Hazel. Please just talk to them about it as both Rommel and I are weary of discussing the issue -- Arman is a master of managing upwards and can attempt to portray himself as the victim rather than the perpetrator. Please look at these presentations and then decide for yourself. You will probably be called in as there will be a disciplinary hearing.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Coen Damen <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Chin, Thank you for discretely informing me about the whole matter. I'm a bit shocked now... I really hope nothing comes from it (I can't imagine why he would have done something so profoundly stupid), but its definitely a serious matter and can have serious consequences. So its good for me to know something is 'cooking', and just to be absolutely clear: I will always use maximum discretion. If this matter needs anyone to listen, talk or mediate, know that I am available. Reading this, I can understand that there are some strong feelings and tensions. I do think email is usually not the best way to discuss matters, as it is a rather crude way of communicating (in that a lot of "non-verbal-information" is lost), but I can understand why you emailed it. I wasn't that happy with the tone of his mail and the process he chose, I just chose to ignore it, also because I knew that Armand was already very unhappy with the prof giving him that task. Anyway, I think he got the point loud an clear, hahaha. About what is in his powers to do: I don't think we need to go so far as to debate what exactly are his powers, in fact, I would assume that they are not that different from each and every classmate. I do think he tried to accommodate what the prof asked him to do. I don't think he meant to do it in an autocratic way, just give him at this point at least the benefit of the doubt :-). Enjoy the day off today, cheers! Coen.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Coen, Sorry about earlier today. What I did not want to say was part of what fueled my fit of pique was the good doctor had plagiarized something from one of my teammates in the concept notes for MRR. Please just keep that between the two of us but I am rightly pissed off. Also, I resent the idea that Arman can just choose presentations based on his own discretion or assign us work when he feels like it -- that is overstepping his bounds and I am very quick to point out -- rightly so, I might add-- that it is not within his powers to do so.
Please exercise discretion as we may be elevating this matter to a disciplinary body, depending on how the other student feels. Best, Chin
22. Failure to act on the part of Coen Damen and failure to address issues of Academic Dysfunctional Behavior that are forwarded to the SA or failure to know and act upon the relevant sections of the Student Handbook for academic dysfunctional behavior resulted in continued inaction against offender Armando Lee.
23. On March 3, 2014 Rommel Rubiales texted Complainant the following about
the results for the EMDA Take-‐Home exam: Rommel 5:12 pm: Chin we got the 105/100 for EMDA. You answered all the questions therefore you should get the individual grade of 5.0 Complainant 5:16 pm: Wow! How did you know?
24. Complainant then deferred with the following text message out of modesty
and recognition for teamwork even though Rommel Rubiales’s statement was true:
Complainant 5:26 pm: I did not answer all the questions. Ismeera and the rest helped a lot! Team effort.
25. On the same day, Rommel Rubiales also sent a text to Complainant on March 3, 2014:
Rommel Rubiales 5: 26 pm: I got the copy from Dong. Dr. Arman talked to me regarding the issue with his MRR Concept Notes.
26. On March 3, 2014, Complainant received a response to the email from Professor Ron Chua:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Chua <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Anomalies in Comparison of Concept Notes To: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]>
This is to acknowledge your email and will look into this to determine the proper course of action.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Professor Chua, After consulting with Dr. Limlingan earlier today, he advised me to forward you the files for you perusal, to document the alleged similarities. As I noted earlier, Rommel is still uncomfortable coming forward but I believe that this a serious academic offense that merits attention. This was something Rommel had spoke of in confidence but in light of this breach, I believe the class cannot be lead by an officer such as Dr. Armando Lee who has stolen the intellectual property of another student. Best, Chin
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Sir, Today, I was recently made aware of a situation pertaining to academic dishonesty, where a student's concept notes presentation for the MRR was plagiarized by another student. In order to give due respect to the other student, I want to exercise utmost discretion regarding this matter -- however, I am immensely disheartened because the offender is a class officer. What is the protocol for matters like this? Best, Chin
27. However, it is unknown exactly what transpired and how the case of Armando Lee was handled, and what corrective measures (if any) were taken to address the academic dysfunctional behavior brought forth by Complainant.
28. Doctor Paragua’s treatment of Complainant had been discriminatory from the outset. To wit, Ms. Paragua once accused Ms. Consunji of trying to use her social status and position into “fooling her classmates to gain an unfair advantage” on February 10, 2014 in class when Ms. Consunji questioned her if they were allowed to perform research in sectors they had prior experience with.
29. In a Complaint Filed with Rey Reyes against Doctor Paragua on March 12,
2014 addressing Doctor Paragua’s dysfunctional behavior, Complainant had noted the following:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM Subject: Re: Complaint To: "Reyes, Rey D." <[email protected]> Dear Mr. Reyes, I have not forwarded a copy of this complaint to Dean Lim yet. To be perfectly honest, my experience in reporting the situation to Hazel Paragua and Dean Luz's response have made me reticent to forward this to Dean Lim until I could gather my thoughts. I spent the past two weeks debating the pros and cons, and after consulting extensively with my parents and my extended family, I was told to withdraw from the program if this type of behaviour was condoned in AIM. However, seeing as I have already committed to the program (both in terms of time and money), the other option was to see to it that these things never have the opportunity to repeat themselves. I would like to note that I had made Dean Luz aware of lack of impartiality on the part of Ms. Paragua before, particularly with respect to our RAA assignments. These correspondences can be found on the server. Ms. Paragua had advised our team that we were not to use prior contacts or work in sectors/industries we have had prior experience with for our RAA. (I can copy furnish all correspondences to that effect.) I had made her aware that this was to our detriment because our learning team contains members of government, two members of nonprofits, a member of the private sector such as myself and a member of the church -- in effect, this was to our detriment and it seemed like an arbitrarily excessive application of the RAA rules.
Upon questioning two previous MDM students Ms. Paragua invited to our class this afternoon, it was noted that Ms. Lim's team violated the restrictions Ms. Paragua had enforced by working with a sector a teammate had prior experience with. Thus, I am questioning the inconsistencies and selective application of policies on her part with respect to RAA assignments, as her biases could severely affect the assessment we are meant to carry out. You are free to forward my correspondences to Dean Lim if the official submission of the complaint necessitates it. Best, Khristine
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Reyes, Rey D. <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Khristin, I am in India right now, back at the office on Tuesday. I noticed that this was sent only to me. do I presume that Dean Lim does not have a copy of your complaint yet? thanks. Sent from my iPad On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:19 AM, "Khristin Consunji" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am enclosing the presentations, both the original from Mr. Rubiales (my teammate) and Armando Lee. To this date, Armando is given access to the work of other students (marked and unmarked) due to his position, which creates more opportunities for dysfunctional academic behaviour in the future. All correspondences where Mr. Rubiales sent out his original report to the entire class and Mr. Lee expressed his admiration for said report can be found on the server. E-mails alerting Hazel Paragua and Dean Luz to the similarities between these submissions can also be found on the server.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Khristin Consunji <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: This is a formal complaint I am filing against our program director, Hazel Paragua, for lack of impartial behaviour in investigating a plagiarism allegation. On February 24, 2014, I was made aware that our class president Armando Lee had lifted significant portions of his MRR Concept Notes presentation from my
teammate, Rommel Rubiales. When Ms. Paragua was made aware of this anomaly and when I spoke to her about it on the morning of February 26, 2014, she alleged that she did not believe any plagiarism occurred because she believed that Armando and Rommel had followed a "pro forma strategic management template" and that the MRR presentation was technically not subject to plagiarism charges, even if it was submitted to our instructor Professor Ron Chua. Ms. Paragua then referred the case to Dean Luz who called me into his office at approximately 11 am and reprimanded me for a supposedly false plagiarism accusation, with a copy of the MRR concept notes instead of the plagiarized presentation which was forwarded to him via e-mail on February 24. As of today, there have been no significant repercussions for Armando Lee for his plagiarism and such permissiveness from both our program director and the dean of the management school does not speak well of the academic integrity of our institution. Furthermore, Ms. Paragua did not exercise sage judgment in recommending a reprimand for the person who reported the plagiarism instead of the perpetrator of the plagiarism -- this constitutes dysfunctional and immensely biased behaviour in any context and will not be tolerated in any form. I would recommend that Ms. Paragua be recused from any and all assessments I am involved with, as I am seriously questioning her judgment or lack thereof with respect to academic matters.
<Management Research Report Rommel K. Rubiales (Concept Notes).pptx> <MRR_Management Research Report_Lee.pptx> [https://www.aim.edu/files/thumb/960] Rey D. Reyes | Executive Managing Director | Student Services Admissions and Registration | Asian Institute of Management | Eugenio Lopez Foundation Building | Joseph R. McMicking Campus | 123 Paseo de Roxas | Makati City 1229 Metro Manila Philippines | E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | T: +63 2 892-4011 Ext. 1820 | www.aim.edu<http://www.aim.edu> www.theaimblog.com<http://www.theaimblog.com> | www.aim.edu/facebook<http://www.facebook.com/aimbschool> | www.aim.edu/twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/aimbschool/> | www.aim.edu/linkedin<http://www.linkedin.com/company/asian-institute-of-management> | www.aim.edu/youtube<http://www.youtube.com/aimbschool> | www.aim.edu/google+<http://www.aim.edu/google+> The information transmitted through this e-mail is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its content. Save trees. Print only when necessary.
30. On March 17, 2014, Complainant received a text message from Rommel Rubiales:
Rommel 9:23 pm: Chin, goodevening (sic) I don’t want you to feel stressed but our learning teammates have complained to Program Director that we are dominating the group and I am your bodyguard. I was invited by Dean Luz to explain the issue this afternoon and I said we are just doing our part for the benefit of the entire team but it seems like the foreigners are misinterpreting it.
31. The same night, due to what she felt was an unfair and untrue representation of what she had contributed to the team, Complainant sent an email to Dean Luz and Doctor Paragua:
32. Failure to act on said Complaint filed on March 12, 2014 or provide
Complainant with further instructions on how to submit a Formal Complaint to Human Resources resulted in a progressive escalation of bullying behaviors, resulting in failure to grant an RAA Extension to Complainant’s learning team, despite the fact that it was severely understaffed.
33. Two other students, Ms. Dong Thi Thu Nguyen and Father Richard Ripon Rozario, had to abstain from the RAA Assessment yet Doctor Paragua constantly refused Complainant’s requests for an extension. Ms. Dong Nguyen Thi Thu and Father Richard Ripon Rozario had to return to their respective countries. Ms. Dong Nguyen Thi Thu’s mother suffered from a stroke and Father Ripon’s father had died. Yet as the following exchange demonstrates, Doctor Paragua continually refused to grant extension to Complainant.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Chin,
This is a rapid appraisal, not an MRR. The assumption is that you will not have complete data given the short period of time. But given data collected (and you seem to have a lot), you should be able to draw a profile of the community and its existing challenges.
Do what you can and submit what you have. The deadline cannot be moved given the presentation
I would like to request if we could extend the deadline for submission of the RAA report. Seeing as our team is understaffed at the moment (Dong and Father Ripon have family issues to attend to) and given the amount of fieldwork we had to undertake, it is simply not possible or feasible to have a report of 25-35 pages due by 1pm tomorrow. Today, Ismeera and I sat down for 15 hours straight with no breaks just to finish up our data analysis and write the preliminary draft. We are not sure what the other teammates are doing as we have asked Rommel and Leka to join us to write the report but we have not received submissions or feedback from them at this date. There was a considerable amount of fatigue involved given all the data we had to gather in such a short amount of time, as well as the stress of interviewing IDPs for the duration of our stay. The stresses also caused considerable conflicts in the team as we had a very complex topic to cover and we needed to give it the consideration it merited.
I understand if this is not feasible or possible, but I hope you understand that we were all working immensely hard in the field and we barely had time to write after coming back to the resort every day. We also decided to stay in Estancia on April 27, 2014 to get the technical reports from DENR-EMB, Doctor Rex Sadaba and the rest of the interagency task force. The informal interviews we conducted with them were key, as they allowed us to finally understand why the contractor was hired and all the attendant issues. Since fishing is the main driver of the economy in Estancia and it is the LGUs role to enforce fishing bans 3k from the shore, unfortunately there is a very high chance that everything from that port is contaminated. We also discovered that residents were allowed to move back to the shoreline on December 20, 2014 but the benzene ppm on January 2, 2014 and January 4, 2014 was far above the permissible level. Other issues such as skin diseases and health issues we saw in the evacuation centers, as well as the considerable amount of bunker oil left on the shoreline where people are actively fishing are immense causes of concern and it still eludes us how to articulate the nature of what we observed.
Best, Chin
23. Complainant requested another extension as she had not slept due to the difficulties of the data-‐gathering required for the RAA, which Doctor Hazel Paragua oversees:
� Dear Chin, We do understand your predicament but the deadline set for the written report (April 30, 1pm) only allows minimal time for the faculty to review your work before your� oral report presentation. Since your group will be the first to report at 8:30am on May 1, it will be to your disadvantage if the faculty will not be able to even glance at your paper and base your evaluation almost entirely on the oral presentation.
Before Dung and Fr Ripon left the country, they promised to participate in your report writing thru email. Since you were concerned about your group and individual grades and participation prior to leaving for Estancia, I suggest you get contribution from ALL team members so that not one or two will be overloaded. Remember that RAA grading is mostly about teamwork and cooperation. This must be reflected in your output as well. We can only move your deadline to 5pm tomorrow. We still have to provide all faculty members with hard copies of your written reports before they all leave AIM. Late papers will be graded down. Good luck. Dr Hazel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Request for Extension of RAA Submission To: Hazel Paragua <[email protected]> Cc: "Paragua, Hazel L." <[email protected]>, Juan Miguel Luz <[email protected]>, "Luz, Juan Miguel" <[email protected]>
Dear Doctor Hazel, Thank you for your response. Would it be possible to submit our preliminary draft tomorrow and then the final one at a later date? I understand the need for teamwork but given the severity of the personal/family issues for Dong and Father Ripon, it has been difficult to contact them for participation in this report. On the evening of the 27th, there was also an incident where a teammate simply stated that he did not want to work anymore, as he had been overtaxed. Unfortunately, these are issues that happen and they are understandable when everybody is under duress, but this what we have to work with. Ismeera and I tried calling the other teammates to come in but they have refused, so we have to factor in the possibility that she and I will have to write this report solely. As of now, there are roughly 2,000 words and realistically, perhaps another 2,000 can be produced tomorrow but it is unsure what the quality of the output would be. I would like to stress that everybody has contributed and everybody has worked very hard -- it is a collective effort. The team has performed and we performed well. But there's really nothing left in the tank and we cannot be assured that everything will come together in less than 24 hours time. If there is a late penalty, perhaps it would be best if we are aware of it so we can plan for that possibility. This is a good report and we were able to identify the key gaps -- but as I had joked, I believe we are also in need of some humanitarian assistance because exposure to these issues while working was very taxing for us all, psychologically. Best, Chin
34. Doctor Paragua claiming that they “just have to be fair to the rest of the nine
learning teams who tried to comply by the rules” and discriminatory
behavior against Complainant whose team was understaffed constitutes workplace bullying and harassment, namely, imposing unrealistic deadlines and tasks and setting Complainant up to fail.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <[email protected]> � Date: Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 AM Subject: Re: Resent LT6 RAA Report To: Khristin Consunji <[email protected]>, Juan Miguel Luz <[email protected]>, Juan Miguel Luz <[email protected]>, Leka Pitoi <[email protected]>, "Paragua, Hazel L." <[email protected]>, Lyndon Constantino <[email protected]>, Ripon Rozario <[email protected]>, Rommel Rubiales <[email protected]>, Dong Nguyen Thi Thu <[email protected]>, [email protected] Dear LT6, Please note that your written report is being submitted only at 6:52 AM, May 1. We will have to give your team a corresponding deduction for being the only team not submitting on time (despite the extension originally given you). We just have to be fair to the rest of the nine learning teams who tried to comply with the rules. Good luck on your presentation.
Dr Hazel
35. Clearly, “just to be fair” to a severely understaffed team not only constitutes immense bias but also malicious intent and injurious harm against Complainant by Doctor Paragua as she does not possess the capacity to realize the inherent irony in her statements.
36. Failure to grant the extension by Doctor Paragua resulted in Complainant’s hospitalization on May 6, 2014 for high fever and exhaustion. Ms. Marlene Bonnin accompanied Complainant to hospital as Complainant had been sick for several days after the RAA.
37. Supporting medical documentation was provided to Lyndon Constantino and
Ms. Marlene Bonnin can personally attest to Complainant’s ill-‐health prior to her RAA assignment, as well as after the RAA itself.
38. Failure to grant the extension by Doctor Paragua resulted in Complainant’s hospitalization on May 6, 2014 for high fever and exhaustion. Ms. Marlene Bonnin accompanied Complainant to hospital as Complainant had been sick and immobile for days.
39. Supporting medical documentation was provided to Program Associate Lyndon Constantino on May 6, 2014 when Complainant went to AIM to pick up her EMDA Individual Examination test results.
40. Doctor Paragua knowingly and maliciously abused her position of power and
authority as Program Coordinator to misrepresent truth about Complainant and harass her continuously, with the intention of maligning her to the rest of the Institute in the hope of her expulsion.
41. Yet Complainant displays significant academic aptitude and skill, earning her
a place in the Dean’s List for Module I which clearly demonstrates that despite Doctor Paragua’s continued harassing and bullying efforts at obstructing Complainant’s rights to unimpeded learning, Complainant demonstrated sufficient intellectual prowess and superiority to disprove Doctor Paragua’s repeated unfounded ad hominem attacks.
42. Complainant respectfully prays for the application of the imposable sanctions
against all liable parties under the rules of the Institute. In the City of Makati, July 1, 2014 Khristine Carissa Consuelo Malig Consunji
