This subject has been discussed at several Council meetings in 2010, most notably the one in September. It ended up on the Council agenda as a result of two main events: (i) the termination in February of the Centre’s Executive Director, and the controversy that led up to it, and (ii) his earlier report to Council requesting a substantial increase in PEO funding for the Centre.
When the Centre was established in the summer of 2008 with PEO “seed” funding of $500,000. for the balance of 2008 and 2009, it was intended that other sustaining partners would be brought on board within the first year of operation, and that the Centre would be “spun off” as an independent entity with its own board of directors. One of the mandates of the Centre’s Executive Director, Dr. Donald Wallace, who was hired at the end of 2008, was to develop a funding model for 2010 and future years. In the fall of 2009, as part of PEO’s budgeting process for 2010, he delivered a report to Council indicating that no other significant sources of funding had been identified and suggesting that PEO budget close to $1million for 2010. Needless to say, this report caused Councillors some angst; so Council approved an interim budget for 2010, and established a task force to consider future funding options for the Centre.
In the spring of 2009, a member wrote a strongly worded letter to PEO demanding (inter alia) to know why PEO was funding the Centre and questioning how the Centre’s activities were consistent with PEO’s legislated mandate. Instead of leaving the response to PEO’s President, Dr. Wallace replied to the member in kind. The member’s letter, and Dr. Wallace’s response, were forwarded to OSPE, which published them on its website and e-mailed them to its membership. This resulted in (i) widespread discussion of the respective roles of PEO and OSPE in influencing public policy, and (ii) Dr. Wallace’s termination as Executive Director of OCEPP. (He was, after all, a PEO employee.)
At its September, 2010 meeting, Council considered various models for the continuation of the Centre. After considerable discussion, Council agreed to maintain the Centre as a PEO program, at least for the time being. Its operation is continuing without an Executive Director.
It is my position that the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy performs an important function for PEO – and for the entire engineering profession in Canada – that should be maintained and enhanced. The Centre’s publications and events have received encouraging reviews from government and academia, and have enhanced the profession’s reputation as a player in the public policy space. Abandoning this initiative is not an option!
I further believe the original concept of the Centre, including a shared funding and governance model, remains viable, and should be pursued. Unfortunately, this will require starting over with a new Executive Director who must attempt to establish sustaining partnerships. Council should be prepared to maintain existing funding levels until this can be accomplished, then set a target sustainable funding level for steady state. Council should also establish immediately an independent oversight committee or board for OCEPP, with external representation from OSPE and other stakeholders.
For a more detailed discussion of professional engineers’ roles in government and public policy, click here. Why Should Professional Engineers Be Involved in Public Policy