George Comrie for PEO Council 2011

 

No, not the little photo of me on this website – not that you can’t find things wrong with that picture, I’m sure.  I mean the picture that’s emerging of PEO Council running off the rails and careening down an embankment towards destruction [of our self-governing profession], in their attempt to change how PEO’s President and elected Vice President are chosen.

As a life-long student of organizational behaviour, I have to ask how we got into this situation in the first place.  What led PEO Council in November to resolve to elect these officers themselves from among their own number, as opposed to having the membership at large do it, as we have for some ninety years?

On reflection, I believe a majority of the current Councillors succumbed to three pressures, perhaps without even realizing they were vulnerable to them.

1)    Frustration

There can be no question that Councillors have experienced frustration in recent years over some of the confusion and awkwardness with which Council ends up trying to conduct its business.  There seems to be an atmosphere of discomfort and mistrust that manifests itself frequently in arguments over procedure.  There are elephants in the Council chamber, or to use Jim Clemmer’s metaphor, moose on the table – things not spoken and not written out explicitly in the briefing notes that obviously are upsetting to some people.  Some wonder where certain agenda items are coming from, and suspect hidden agendae.

These are not new symptoms.  They have occurred from time to time over the 30+ years I have been involved as a volunteer in PEO affairs.  And make no mistake – I think they need to be addressed.  All Councillors, whether elected or appointed, are volunteers; and so to my mind, not to address causes of frustration on Council constitutes abuse of our volunteers.

That said, I remain unconvinced that changes to our governance model, including changing how the President is elected, will eliminate or even reduce these frustrations.  We have yet to define the real problem correctly, and until we do, it will continue to elude us.

2)    Hubris

Underlying the intended change to elect the President from among Council is the assertion that Councillors know better who can lead the profession effectively than do the membership at large.  Certainly, they are more likely than most of PEO’s ~74,000 members to have some personal knowledge of, and experience working with, the potential candidates.  But I think it is nothing short of arrogant for Councillors to think they know better than other members how to govern PEO.  Even more arrogant is the suggestion of some that the members should not be involved, since the goal of PEO is to protect the public [not serve the members].  What would make any Councillor think that he or she is better qualified to protect the public than any other PEO member?  Is there no collective wisdom or responsibility in the rest of us?

These arguments belie confusion regarding the fundamental concepts of the self-regulating profession.  In this model, the members [at large] of the profession agree to govern themselves in the public interest.  Self-regulation is not some arms-length arrangement such as exists in public politics whereby members elect representatives to govern them as those representatives see fit – the members are supposed to be actively involved in their own day-to-day regulation.  Versions of the Professional Engineers Act as it existed up to 1984 make this abundantly clear.  If that were not the case, then we might as well let government regulate us in the same way the States regulate their professionals south of the border.  Why would I willingly volunteer thousands of hours of my time to my profession if I have limited say in how it is governed and regulated?

3)    Selfishness

Third, I think proponents of the governance change are acting selfishly in an attempt to optimize their own Council experience at the expense of the long-term good of the profession.  After all, wouldn’t it make their life easier to not have to consult the membership on issues, and to not have to sell them on a fundamental change like a fee increase?  It sure would make communications easier:  one would only have to convince about 20 other people of anything to make it happen, and of those, 41% are not elected, and 17% are not even members of the profession.

Ask yourself, “Who benefits from this change?”

• Councillors:  maybe;
• The CEO / Registrar:  definitely;
• The Government of Ontario:  definitely;
• The profession as whole:  no;
• The members of the profession:  no;
• The public:  no.

 

Once again I am urging all Councillors to put this matter on the “back burner” until it can be considered carefully by a non-partisan task force.  Let’s make sure we are addressing the real problems.  If we are going to change our governance, let’s do it calmly, rationally, and professionally.  Let’s work out all the details, sell the benefits to the membership in a referendum, and get their support.  If this change is the right one, it will stand the test of time!  If it isn’t, it will only ensure continued frustration, confusion, and conflict.

Here are my responses to questions posed to candidates for election to PEO Council by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE).

 

1.   Respective Roles of OSPE and PEO in Advocacy and Public Policy

As OSPE completes its 10th year as the advocacy and member services body for engineers in Ontario, some confusion remains between the functions of PEO and the mandate of OSPE. PEO continues to advocate beyond the regulatory regime, having strengthened its Government Liaison Program and continuing with the Ontario Centre of Engineering and Public Policy as an internal department of PEO. What suggestions do you have to help OSPE and PEO clarify their respective roles and make each organization more effective?

I agree there remains confusion on this subject.

Both PEO and OSPE (and also Consulting Engineers of Ontario and Engineers Canada) have roles to play in advocacy and public policy with respect to engineering in Ontario.  Advocacy is not just one thing (it depends on what you’re advocating), and advocacy and public policy are not the exclusive purview of any one organization.  

Perhaps the simplest way to look at the division of responsibility is to ask what it is that PEO cannot do by virtue of an inherent conflict of interest with its legislated mandate:

• PEO cannot advocate for the economic or professional interests (e.g., related to employment or compensation or business interests) of individual professional engineers or firms;
• PEO cannot assist its licensees or certificate of authorization holders in their defence against disciplinary actions brought against them by PEO; and
• PEO cannot put the self-interest of the profession or its members / licensees / CofA holders above the interest of the public.  (Note this does not mean that PEO cannot and should not advocate for the interests of the self-regulating engineering profession.)

In addition, although it is not legally or morally prevented from doing so, PEO has agreed that it will refrain from offering member services and affinity programs to its members / licensees / CofA holders and leave these functions to OSPE and/or other organizations where applicable.

Everything else is “fair game”.  Which to me implies that all engineering organizations involved in advocacy ought to communicate effectively with each other, and coordinate their advocacy efforts wherever possible (i.e., where their positions do not conflict) to maximize the benefits to the engineering community  and to the public we have all committed to serve.  Frequently this does not happen.  Our collective advocacy is rendered ineffective whenever we send mixed messages, and thereby give governments and the public a ready excuse to ignore us.

You can find a paper on this subject – and a suggested protocol for collaborating to avoid confusion and conflict – on my website at http://grcpeng.com/Council2010

As originally conceived, the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy (OCEPP) was to be a shared initiative of the Ontario engineering community, with funding and support from PEO, OSPE, and other organizations and firms with an interest in engineering-related public policy.  It was also to be a separate organization from PEO with its own board of directors representing its sustaining   members.  In my opinion, this still needs to happen.

I believe that Ontario engineers should be much more involved in government and public policy than we have been historically.  Both PEO and OSPE have made important starts with their public policy programs, but it seems to me that we could accomplish much more if we worked together. 

 

2.   Elimination of the Industrial Exception

Recent changes to the Professional Engineers Act in Bill 68 effectively eliminate the industrial exception but not until the Bill is proclaimed fully. What steps will you take to support elimination of the industrial exception and have it proclaimed quickly?

The repeal of Section 12.(3)(a) of the Professional Engineers Act with the passing of Bill 68 will (when it is proclaimed) effectively eliminate one of the “loopholes” under which industrial employers currently perform engineering work using unlicensed personnel.   However, this loophole is not as big as many assume, in my opinion.  The so-called industrial exception as it has existed since 1984 is relatively narrow in scope.  What has made it so troublesome is that PEO has been reluctant to enforce Section 12. of the Act vigorously, and has thereby contributed to the widespread opinion that engineers working in industry and government don’t need to be licensed (which is not what the Act says).

Two things must therefore happen for the current situation to change:

(i)            PEO must initiate an extensive communications campaign to inform the public (and engineering employers in particular, including governments and government agencies) of the requirement for licensure.  This campaign should highlight the benefits of – i.e., make the business case for – hiring licensed engineers, even if it is not a strict legal requirement.  In other words it should emphasize the “carrot”, as opposed to the “stick” (what we will do if they don’t comply).

(ii)          PEO must step up its enforcement activities to identify and, if necessary, prosecute offenders who continue to do engineering work without a licence.  We should not be hesitant to take legal action against those who, after being advised that they are violating the Act, refuse to take reasonable steps to comply.  We should not be concerned about setting  precedent:  if the work involved meets the three-pronged test of professional engineering as defined in the Act, and no licensed professional engineer is clearly assuming responsibility for it, then PEO should expect to prevail.   

I hope to see these initiatives “in high gear” as immediate priorities.

One more thing…..  The other significant loophole under which unlicensed people do professional engineering work is the other exception at Act Section 12.(3)(b) – that’s the one that says you don’t need to be licensed if someone else who is licensed takes professional responsibility for the work.  This exception is necessary – if it didn’t exist, no one could obtain the practical experience necessary for licensure – but it was never intended to be a blanket exception whereby organizations could do all the engineering work they want with impunity so long as they have at least one licensed professional engineer somewhere on staff.  The problem here is that PEO has never had a performance standard for supervising / delegating / taking responsibility for the engineering work of others, except under a CofA.   Although I can’t understand why it took us so long to get to it, I am happy to note that such a standard is now under development.  Once again, I consider this an urgent priority. 

 

3.    Disenfranchisement of PEO Members

Changes to the Professional Engineers Act via Bill 68 increases Council’s authority over fee increases, by-law changes and other governance matters, eliminating member ratification at the AGM. How will these changes affect the growing feeling of disenfranchisement among PEO licensees, and what steps will be taken to create cohesiveness among licensees and confidence in PEO as the regulator of the engineering profession?

When Bill 68 was first discussed last Spring leading up to and at the AGM, commitments were made by the President and President-Elect of PEO that moving the requirement for member confirmation of By-Law changes by referendum from the Act to the By-Laws themselves would not eliminate the requirement for referendum approval of substantive changes to PEO governance, including changes in the annual dues.  I would have accepted such assurances had Council honoured them by creating a separate By-Law containing all of the substantive provisions of the current one.  However, this matter still remains largely in limbo.

To make matters worse, Councillors have since voted to make a much more fundamental change to PEO governance than anything in the By-Laws, and to do so unilaterally and without recourse to the members, namely to remove from the membership at large the privilege of electing PEO’s President and Vice President.   Their November 19^th resolution that

“At the first Council meeting immediately following the 2013 Annual General Meeting, Council shall elect from Council, the members to be President and Vice president(s).” 

effectively changes PEO from a member-centric organization to a Council-centric organization.  The argument that, under the new system, members would elect the same number of Councillors misses the real disenfranchisement.  It’s not who is eligible to be President, or who gets to vote in the elections; it’s who gets to vote for the President.  Under our present system of choosing the President, 100% of the membership (P.Eng. licensees) are enfranchised, and of ~74,000 of us members, only 7 are government appointees.  Under the proposed new system, 29 Councillors are enfranchised, of whom 12 (41%) are government appointees, and 5 (17%) are not members of the profession at all (lay appointees).  Will PEO continue to be a self-regulating professional body, or will it become just another government department?

I am categorically opposed on principle to any substantive change in PEO governance like this without approval by the membership in a referendum, and will fight to have this undemocratic and divisive decision reversed. 

I recognize there are improvements that could and should be made to PEO’s governance to address frustrations with PEO’s nomination and election process, and with the workings and inter-relationships of Council and senior staff.  For my suggestions in this regard, please see the ISSUES section of my website at http://grcpeng.com/Council2010

 

4.     Additional Comments

Please provide any additional comments you have regarding your vision for the future of PEO and the changes you hope to effect as an elected member of PEO Council.

I find it frustrating that so much energy is being expended on governance when there is work to be done on PEO’s core regulatory processes of licensing and registration, complaints and discipline, professional standards and guidelines, and enforcement.  The recommendations of the Licensing Process Task Force I chair that Council approved almost two years ago now still have not been implemented in Regulations, and there is much more work remaining to be done in areas such as assessment of experience and continuing competence.    Council has just initiated an apparently overdue review of PEO’s complaints and discipline processes.  Our standards and guidelines work is currently backlogged.  And as I noted previously there is a huge opportunity in the enforcement area as a result of the Bill 68 Act changes.  These areas must remain the priorities of Council if PEO hopes to retain the respect of its members and the public, and to achieve its stated goal of being a model regulator.

I also find frustrating the apparent disunity and dysfunctionality that exists within  Council and senior staff, and between Council and senior staff.  Lack of consensus, not so much on fundamental issues as on processes for advancing them, has been creating unnecessary conflict and preventing progress.  We need to agree on sustainable rules of engagement for the leadership of PEO, and we need to re-establish a working climate of mutual respect and collaboration.  I believe I have the necessary skills and experience to contribute to these important tasks.     

George R. Comrie, P.Eng., CMC
Candidate for Councillor-at-Large
19 January 2011