My sincere thanks to all PEO members who voted to elect me as PEO Vice-President in the recent Council elections.  I appreciate your confidence and support.

I would like also to congratulate all of the other candidates who supported our self-regulating profession by standing for election.  I look forward to working with those of you who were successful in the 2012-2013 Council.

In particular, I am delighted to welcome as newcomers to PEO Council two long-time colleagues and friends - Annette Bergeron (President-Elect) and Bob Dony (Councillor-at-Large) - along with Sandra Ausma (as Northern Region Councillor).

I am excited to be part of such a diverse group of talented and committed leaders of our profession.

After the all-candidates debates two weeks ago, a few of us were continuing our discussions over a beer when the subject of the 2007 judicial review of the Ontario Government’s Building Code knowledge testing regulations came up.

To refresh your memory, the previous [Conservative] government had introduced, as part of one of its “red tape reduction” omnibus bills numbered Bill 124, a provision that required all designers of buildings, including licensed professional engineers and architects, and all chief building officials in municipalities, to pass examinations set by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) on various parts of the Ontario Building Code.  Designed and championed by staff within MMAH, this initiative came out of the Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group (BRRAG), where concerns had been expressed that building designers were failing to comply with provisions of the Code, thereby causing additional work for building officials and delaying the permitting process.

Notwithstanding the fact that they had opposed this provision while in opposition, the current [Liberal] government continued with its implementation despite protests from architects and engineers, who argued that the regulation was an unwarranted incursion into the mandates of their respective regulatory bodies.

This matter first came to my attention during the PEO Annual General Meeting in 2004 when several members, including (now Western Region Councillor) Len King, raised it as an issue from the floor and urged PEO Council to resist it.  PEO subsequently formed a Bill 124 Task Force consisting of members who were knowledgeable on the Building Code and related issues, including Len King and Chris Roney.  During my terms as PEO President, I received and responded to literally hundreds of communications from PEO members concerned about this issue.  Since the Fundamental Review of 1997, I can’t recall a single issue that so galvanized the membership as this one did.

During 2004 and 2005, numerous meetings with Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John Gerritsen and his staff and officials were held in an attempt to obtain some form of exemption for professional engineers from the building code knowledge provisions.  One approach was to create a Building Design Specialist (BDS) designation for professional engineers that would satisfy the intent of the Building Code regulations – but the Ministry remained adamant on its testing requirement.  The offending regulations came into force on January 1st, 2006.  At this point we engineers were on our own in opposing the legislation, the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) having already agreed to administer the Building Code knowledge examinations for its members.

At PEO, the whole matter came to a head at a Bill 124 Task Force meeting on February 24th, 2006 attended by Past President George Comrie, President Bob Goodings, President-Elect Pat Quinn, Councillor Chris Roney, CEO/Registrar Kim Allen, Deputy Registrar Johnny Zuccon, Director of Communications Connie Mucklestone, and Government Affairs Consultant Howard Brown.  After weighing all options and their potential outcomes, the Task Force decided unanimously to recommend to Council that PEO take the Ontario Government to court; i.e., seek a judicial review and clarification of the apparent conflict between the Building Code regulations and PEO’s enabling legislation.  It was a gutsy move, especially in light of the low probability of success foreseen by our legal counsel, Richard Steinecke.   But as Johnny Zuccon sagely pointed out, we had nothing further to lose by trying, and everything to gain.

I look back on that courageous decision as one of PEO’s finest hours, at least in my memory. Clearly, it was defining moment.   It stands as a shining example of what is possible when leaders reach consensus on an important issue and step forward boldly.  Council approved the Task Force’s recommendation on March 3rd, 2006 and authorized the unbudgeted expenditure of up to $500,000. to proceed with the legal action.  On March 20th, 2006 PEO filed an application for a judicial review with the Ontario Superior Court.

The hearings were held on October 26th and 27th, 2006 with a panel of three Superior Court justices.  The compelling arguments prepared by PEO’s legal counsel Richard Steinecke appeared to be well received.  At the same time, the government did not appear to be opposing them as vigorously as they might have.

The judges’ ruling was received on May 17th, 2007.  It essentially vindicated PEO’s position, declaring that the knowledge testing provisions of the Building Code regulations did not apply to Professional Engineers and Architects, and that licensed designers could not be required by municipalities to possess an MMAH-issued Building Code Identification Numbers (BCIN).   PEO issued the following press release to its members.

Dear Colleague,

On May 17, 2007, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision on PEO’s judicial review of amendments to the Ontario Building Code, finding that certain articles of the Building Code are invalid. It also found that certain provisions of the Building Code Act and the Building Code conflict with the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of PEO and do not apply to any holder of any licence or certificate issued under the Professional Engineers Act.

We have now been informed by the Province’s legal counsel that the Province will not be appealing the decision, and have been advised that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing intends to work with stakeholders, including engineers, architects, and building officials, to monitor the implications of the court’s decision on the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act, 1992, and the Building Code. The government’s statement on the decision is posted on the Ministry’s website at http://www.obc.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1400.aspx.

The court has, in effect, said that Building Code Identification Numbers (BCINs) are not needed by professional engineers when submitting drawings for building permits and that PEO seals are sufficient. Already, building departments in Barrie, Kitchener, Milton, Mississauga, Pickering and Toronto are complying with the law and are not requiring BCINs from professional engineers.

PEO asks that professional engineers or Certificate of Authorization holders who experience any difficulties arising from not using a BCIN report this promptly to PEO’s BCIN hotline at BCIN@peo.on.ca.

Regards,

Kim Allen, P.Eng., CEO & Registrar

Ironically, the court’s decision benefitted architects as well as professional engineers, even though the OAA had chosen initially to capitulate to the MMAH and participate in its Building Code knowledge testing scheme.  About the same time as PEO Council decided to seek the judicial review, the OAA Council (which had changed substantially in their recent elections) altered course and agreed to support PEO’s legal challenge as an intervenor.  It was also ironic that the building officials, whose organizations (OBOA and LMCBO) had vigorously opposed PEO’s initiatives to obtain exemption from the testing, were the only ones “left standing” (ie., to whom the requirement for a BCIN applied).

While the court decision was based on “legalities”, and while there is no doubt that the government could find legally defensible ways to infringe on PEO’s regulatory mandate, it nevertheless represents an important vindication of our Canadian model of self-regulating professions and a reinforcement of how that model is intended to work.  Further, it serves as a deterrent to other government incursions into PEO’s regulation of the profession.

I believe that nothing the profession has done since I have been a members has done more to raise our respect with government than this action.  Overnight, professional engineers became a force to be reckoned with in Ontario politics. 

We must, however, remain vigilant to initiatives at any level of government that threaten our mandate and status as a self-regulating profession, and we must always be prepared to fight them legally and politically if necessary.

This question was asked of some of the candidates for election to Council in last week’s telecast all-candidates debates (which you can find on PEO’s website www.peo.on.ca – I hope you took time to watch some of them).  The ones I heard answer it did so wisely, pointing out that matters of employment of PEO staff were for consideration by PEO Council, and not an appropriate subject for public debate.  As I recall, they also indicated they did not have sufficient information to have formed an opinion on it.

As much as the question may have been asked in the hope of embarrassing the CEO/Registrar or tripping up a Council candidate, it is still a legitimate question for PEO’s leadership to consider.  Had I been asked the question, I would have given the same response, but would have added the following two comments:

1)                  In PEO’S current governance model, the CEO/Registrar is Council’s only employee, in whom all of the members’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with staff is focused.  Every text I have ever read on governance emphasizes that a critical role of the board of directors (Council, in PEO’s case) is to set expectations for their sole employee, and to evaluate annually his/her performance against those expectations.  The “policy board” model, with its one direct report responsible for executing the policies established by the board, and with directors precluded from direct interference in operations, only works if the directors exercise their performance review responsibilities diligently, and are prepared to replace the CEO if their expectations are not met. 

Unfortunately, it has been my observation that PEO Council has been unwilling to take this responsibility seriously on a consistent basis.  Such failure is grossly unfair to both the CEO and the organization at large, as it breeds contempt, mistrust, and poor organizational performance.

2)                  There exists a body of opinion within PEO’s volunteer leadership that the office of CEO/Registrar should be an appointment with a maximum term, similar to that of a university president or department chair.  The rationale for this view is that the chief staff officer in an organization like PEO can become ingrown, and that the longer his tenure, the greater the likelihood he will attempt to consolidate power to himself and to control the organization’s agenda.  This does not imply malice of intent on the part of the incumbent.  It simply reflects the reality that, in the balance of power between the staff officer and the board, the staff officer has longevity, while the board and its chief officer (the President) is transient.  It is only natural that the CEO will try to optimize his/her operating environment by keeping the board and the volunteer officers at arm’s length.   Any disunity or dysfunctionality within the board can actually work to the advantage of the CEO by distracting the directors’ attention from his/her performance.

Because of PEO’s past bad experience in this regard, its current CEO/Registrar, as well as his predecessor, initially received term appointments.  Council’s clear intention was that they would not remain in their positions for longer than six years.  While there may well be circumstances that justify extension to that limit, I believe it is incumbent on Council to consider carefully the potential risk to our self-regulating profession of the accumulation of influence in a single staff person over a protracted period of time.

In preparation for the referendum regarding how PEO’s President should be chosen, the January/February 2012 issue of Engineering Dimensions contains two [Viewpoint] articles, one on each side of the question:

(a)  PEO Council appoints the President from among its elected members (the proposed new approach); or

(b)  PEO members at large, voting in the annual Council elections, elect a President-elect who automatically becomes President the following year (the status quo).

I find that neither article does justice to the subject of how these two alternative approaches serve PEO’s leadership and governance.

 The first article by Past President Diane Freeman and LGA Councillor Chris Roney advocating the proposed new approach starts out by asserting that

“We, the engineers of Ontario have a serious problem: our current system of electing the president has, far too frequently, resulted in presidents who were ineffective, ill-prepared, out-of-touch, or ill-informed.”

Besides tarring PEO’s past Presidents with a pretty wide brush, this statement begs the question:  “Against what standard are we evaluating our [past] Presidents?”  Ineffective, ill-prepared, out-of-touch, and ill-informed are somewhat subjective assessments, which could be applied by some to any of us (past Presidents), including the author. 

It might be fairer and more defensible to say that some Presidents have not enjoyed the confidence and support of Council to the extent that they (and their Council colleagues) would have liked.  It is fairly easy to determine to which individuals this assessment applies, based on their own remarks at the end of their Presidencies.

Councillors may well be in the best position to judge the effectiveness of a President’s leadership, since he/she is their immediate “team leader”.  But Council has no defined criteria or process for assessing PEO’s leaders, or for providing feedback to them in that regard.  Moreover, the “job description” for the President in terms of roles, responsibilities, authorities, and limitations is woefully inadequate – which makes it subject to widely varying interpretation from one President to the next.  Given this fact, I have trouble accepting that a President chosen by Council will be necessarily more effective than one chosen by the members, especially given that the pool from which he/she is drawn could be much smaller under the proposed new scheme.

The second article by President-Elect Denis Dixon and Councillor-at-Large Dr. Roydon Fraser advocating the status quo asserts that

“Members of a mature, self-regulated profession are capable of electing their own president” as they have done historically, and that this model is more democratic, and more in keeping with the concept of a self-governing profession.

It does not address the matters of some presidents not enjoying the confidence of Council, or the lack of consensus regarding the roles, responsibilities, authorities, limitations, and expectations of the President.  And it does not admit the possibility of any improvement to the current nomination and election process.

Choosing Better Presidents

Presumably the drive to change how PEO’s President is chosen is the desire to choose better, more suitable, individuals for that office.   This begs the question:  “What makes one individual more suitable than another to be President?”, or “What criteria are we using to evaluate candidates for President?”  Neither article provides an answer to this fundamental question.   

Such criteria are a necessary condition for any selection to be meaningful.  But I believe the profession as a whole ought to define them and assess candidates against them, not delegate that job to 29 Councillors – a significant number of whom are appointed, not elected.

At the risk of getting the horse (selection criteria) before the cart (the job description – which we’ll get to shortly), let me go out on a limb and suggest some selection criteria:

Ø  Broad understanding of PEO’s mandate and core business (domain knowledge)

So far as I’m concerned this is a requirement for any Councillor.  It is impossible to make good business decisions if you don’t understand what business you’re in.  In my opinion, much of the current disunity within our profession’s leadership stems from fundamental disagreement about roles and mandates of the organizations themselves, never mind their leaders.  Many of the matters before Council such as changes to licensure, the Certificate of Authorization, and complaints and discipline are inherently complex; so it is essential that Councillors have in-depth understanding of PEO’s core regulatory functions.  Many do not!  PEO’s President must know what he/she is talking about when it comes to professional affairs.  That includes thorough familiarity with PEO’s enabling legislation and rules of procedure.    

Ø  Commitment to PEO’s core values

PEO’s core values are accountability, respect, integrity, professionalism, and teamwork. 

PEO’s President ought to demonstrate these core values consistently in his/her treatment of others.  Among other things, that means no end runs, no passing the buck, no “dissing” one’s colleagues, and no emulating the “Lone Ranger”.  

Ø  Demonstrated leadership skills

I’m not referring here to management skills, or technical skills, or depth of life experiences; I’m referring to leadership in the context of modern organizational psychology – the ability to: develop a shared vision; motivate and enlist the support of others; resolve conflicts within the team; hold oneself and others accountable for results.

Ø  Availability and commitment of time

The consensus among those who have done it seems to be that being PEO President is roughly a half-time job.  That may seem excessive, but leading PEO’s substantial volunteer base requires significant face time, without which disconnects and disagreements can arise quickly.  So we need to ensure that prospective candidates for President have the time available and are willing to spend it as necessary to do a credible job.

Ø  Vision

PEO’s President should have a clear vision of where the organization needs to go, and should be prepared to sell it to Council and to the rest of the volunteer leadership.  He /she should be able to communicate that vision with clarity and passion, thereby engaging the rest of the leadership base and the membership at large.

 Ø  Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (that’s EQ, not IQ) is a requisite for any effective leader.  As I’ve already suggested, the ability to work effectively with others (as opposed to instructing them or managing them) is essential in a President; so self-awareness and awareness of others and one’s effect on them are important attributes, as are empathy and humility. 

Most of these criteria are applicable to any leadership position.  And the list could go on.  But to validate it, I challenge you to think of any PEO President (or any leader, for that matter) with whom you have been dissatisfied and evaluate that individual against the criteria listed.  I’m confident you will be able to identify their real shortcomings.  And that moves the discussion from general dislike / disrespect of a particular leader to demonstrable strengths and weaknesses. 

Regardless of who chooses the President, the process won’t produce the desired results reliably unless there is consensus around the selection criteria and some effective way to measure candidates against them.  It shouldn’t be a popularity contest! 

So What Does The PEO President Do, Anyway ?

Opinions on this subject range all the way from

• he/she is simply a figurehead who shows up for photo ops and is centre stage during public meetings and ceremonies, to
• he/she runs the Association, setting its agenda and directing both staff and volunteers.

Council’s attempts in recent years to clarify the role of the President in response to their dissatisfaction with the actions of some Presidents have not resolved this confusion.  Part of the problem is that most Councillors – never mind most PEO members – have little idea of the role the President actually plays.  To compound that problem, the role changes from President to President in response to their individual beliefs concerning their role, and their availability of time and energy to carry it out.

Once again, I believe we need to get consensus on this as an organization if we have any hope of achieving greater consistency in the performance of our Presidents against expectations.  In effect, we need a job description for the PEO President, so candidates applying for that job know what is expected of them, and electors know what competencies to look for in those candidates.

Here’s my take on this.

Ø  The President leads Council in setting its decision-making agenda, and managing its work plan.  

Council’s business agenda can be roughly divided into two categories:

• Routine business that occurs every year, generally at a predictable time, such as approval of next year’s budget, review of the CEO/Registrar’s performance, consideration of items raised by members at the AGM, appointments to committees, approval of election procedures, and so on; 
• “Change” items, such as reports from committees and task forces, regulation and by-law changes, legal actions, and other emergent issues requiring Council decisions.

The agenda of any given Council meeting ought therefore to be more predictable.  Every effort should be made to avoid “surprises” that require “snap” decisions, since such items can create discomfort for Councillors, and often result in what are eventually considered to have been poor decisions.

Council also needs help in tracking and progressing major initiatives, such as governance changes and changes to core business processes like licensure and discipline, through multiple stages and multiple meetings.  To me, this is an important role for the President which, if carried out diligently and respectfully, can help to avoid what I refer to as “abuse of Council”.

The President should ensure that Council decision making takes place in an environment in which the following criteria are met before any substantive decision is taken:

• Councillors have had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the issues to the extent necessary to have comfort in their decision-making;
• Councillors have had an opportunity to influence others and be influenced by others, preferably in informal discussion outside the rules of procedure (e.g., in plenary session or committee of the whole);
• Councillors have before them the results of proper peer review of the recommendations before them for decision.

In carrying out this agenda leadership role, the President is expected to work closely with the Executive Leadership Team (see below), and can delegate responsibility for “championing” major change issues through the Council approval process to other volunteer leaders on Council, committees, or task forces.  But in the end, to be successful, he/she must ensure that these responsibilities are carried out faithfully and responsibly.  After all, the President is ultimately both the leader and the servant of Council.

 Ø  The President is the [outward] face of the Association.

The President has an important role as the chief representative of the Association in its dealings with its major stakeholders, which include governments, other engineering and related organizations, members of PEO’s leadership base, members of the profession at large, and the public.  Once again, it is possible for him/her to delegate participation in external meetings to other officers and senior leaders of the Association.  But the President is expected to set the tone of PEO’s relationship with its stakeholders in a manner consistent with PEO’s core values and Council’s direction, and to ensure that others engaged in speaking for the Association understand and respect that tone and direction.

I see the President as the main custodian of PEO’s critical stakeholder relationships. He/she must be prepared to intervene personally and provide leadership whenever there is tension or [potential] conflict among PEO leaders or between PEO and its “sister” organizations like OSPE, CEO, Engineers Canada, OACETT, OBOA, etc.

There is also an expectation on the part of members, and particularly of chapter leaders, that the President will interact with them both to help them understand the issues Council is dealing with, and to solicit their views on those issues.  Printed and electronic communication vehicles can help in this exchange, but there is no escaping the need for significant amounts of “face time”.

It is important to note that this is not the role of the CEO/Registrar, who should remain in the background and refrain from comment on the Association’s direction or agenda (and especially from asserting his/her own views or agenda).    

Ø  The President is the leader of the Executive Leadership Team.

While the President is not expected to be directly involved in PEO operations, he/she is often called upon to advise and work with senior staff on operational matters that arise where there is no clear Council policy direction.  Such matters may well end up on Council’s docket for discussion and direction, but sometimes executive decisions must be taken before there as an opportunity for broader discussion.

The office of the President is also an independent (of the CEO/Registrar) conduit between the volunteer organization and the staff organization for information necessary for the former to have confidence in latter.  I mention this because disconnects between the volunteer leadership base and staff arise easily and can have a toxic effect on the entire organization.  

PEO’s Chief Executive Officer and Registrar is Council’s employee (currently its only employee), and does not report directly to the President or to any other Officer or Councillor.  However, it is obviously very important that the President and the CEO/Registrar have an effective working relationship, and that the bounds of that relationship and the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and limitations or each office be clearly defined and accepted by both.

In an effort to address this fundamental governance requirement, Council in 2006 approved executive limitations for the CEO/Registrar, which in turn defined an informal entity called the Executive Leadership Team consisting of the Past President, President, President-Elect, and the CEO/Registrar, and gave it limited responsibilities and authorities.  As a means of ensuring unanimity within the team, and at the same time protecting Council’s authority, the rule is that any member of the team can insist that a matter be referred to the Executive Committee or to the entire Council.  Of course this model presumes that consecutive Presidents themselves have cooperative working relationships, which has not always been the case.   

 Ø  The President deals with issues within the volunteer leadership base

The staff organization has its own chain of command culminating in the CEO/Registrar for resolution of inter-personal or inter-departmental issues and inappropriate behaviour on the part of a staff member.  And if a staff member is not satisfied with the final resolution of his/her issue within the staff organization, he/she has a right of appeal to the Human Resources and Compensation Committee (HRC).

But what of the volunteer organization?   It is clearly inappropriate for any member of staff, including the CEO/Registrar, to attempt to deal with issues involving volunteers or volunteer behaviour.  That responsibility falls to the President.  And in my opinion, this is a responsibility the President should not delegate.

I expect the PEO President to take the lead in resolving any conflicts that arise between individual volunteers or between groups of volunteers (e.g., chapters, committees, and task forces), and in dealing with any complaints (from anyone) regarding inappropriate behaviour of members of the volunteer leadership base.  Of course I’m not talking here about instances involving incompetence and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in the Act and Regulations – which should go through PEO’s formal complaints and discipline process in which the President cannot be involved; rather I’m referring to situations in which volunteers have failed to live up to PEO’s core values.

Ø  The President chairs Council 

I believe our normal assumption should be that the chosen President chairs meetings of Council and the Executive Committee, unless he/she wishes or agrees to delegate that responsibility to another senior Councillor who enjoys the confidence and support of Council in that role.

 Where Do PEO Presidents Come From ?

Now let’s turn our attention to the pool of potential candidates for the office of PEO President.

Over the years (at the least the ones in my memory) most of PEO’s Presidents have been drawn from the ranks of the volunteer leadership, and have risen through those ranks through positions on chapter executives or standing committees / task forces.  And I believe that most voters in Council elections weigh heavily candidates’ volunteer experience within PEO, in the expectation that those who have “come up through the ranks” would have already established their credibility within the volunteer leadership base, and would have a good understanding of the ethos of our self-regulating profession.

In a few cases, candidates have been “recruited” to stand for President [-Elect] from among those in leadership positions within the profession.  Such candidates did not necessarily come up through the ranks of the volunteer organization.  This was more often the case during the days when the Central Nominating Committee was required to present a complete slate of candidates for all “central” positions (i.e., those for whom all members vote).

Ironically (in the light of the current debate), there was until 2007 a requirement in the Regulations that candidates for election to the offices of President-Elect and Vice President (elected) had to have experience on Council at the time of their nomination: two years in the case of President-Elect and one year in the case of Vice President.  Council abolished this requirement, against the recommendations of its Task Force on election procedures which I chaired.  At the same time, they abolished another provision which prevented a Past President from seeking re-election as President [-Elect] for five years, which had been put in place previously to prevent presidents from “recycling” themselves continuously, as some would no doubt be happy to do.  Presumably their intent in removing these constraints was to maximize the pool of candidates who could run for the officer (President-elect and Vice President) positions. Since then, several individuals with negligible volunteer leadership experience within PEO (and definitely no Council experience) have contested these officer positions, but unsuccessfully. 

The wisdom of these former procedures was that newly elected Councillors did not start in officer positions, but first spent at least two years as a regional councillor or councillor-at-large.  This meant that, when they did become officers, they were already familiar with the workings of Council and already had established working relationships with at least some of the other Councillors.

In effect, the proposed new scheme for choosing the President would reverse this opening up of the candidate pool:  one could only become President or Vice President after having been elected to Council.  The pool of eligible candidates for President-elect would therefore go from 75,000+ to 17 (that’s assuming the size of Council and the number of LGAs would remain the same, with 3 more Councillors-at-Large added to replace the President-elect and elected Vice President).  It is hard to imagine that this process would result in more effective Presidents, given the drastic reduction in the pool of potential candidates, and given that there might easily be no one on Council at a given point in time with both the time and willingness to assume the responsibilities of that office.  Under the current system, we know at nomination time that there are individuals seeking the officer positions, and can recruit others if we don’t like the existing slate.

PEO Politics

One of the advantages PEO has enjoyed historically over most public institutions is its substantial freedom from partisan politics.  To my mind, PEO Council works best when Councillors come to the table to debate and vote as individuals, not as members of a political party.  I believe “block voting” is not in the best interest of an effective Council, the profession, or the public.

Throughout most of my experience as a PEO volunteer, PEO Council has been largely free of partisan politics, and Councillors have for the most part functioned as individual contributors, regardless of the [perceived] effectiveness of the President.  Two exceptions to this stand out:

• The first occurred in the 1997-1999 timeframe when there was a major turnover within Council as a result of member dissatisfaction with its leadership over the “fundamental review” and the attempt to impose a uniform continuing competence regime.  Council and staff were polarized by an abrupt change in direction and the resignation of the entire staff senior management team.
• More recently, Council has again become deeply divided in its reaction to the leadership of certain Presidents.  Council’s attempt in 2010 to address its dissatisfaction by changing how the President would be chosen in future has only served to further polarize Council and much of the rest of the volunteer leadership base.

These digressions into partisan politics have much in common.  Both have involved substantive disagreements over the direction of the profession within its leadership.  Both have involved significant “disconnects” between Council and the membership at large, including the broader leadership base.  And both have involved consolidation of power by the chief staff officer at the expense of Council and the leadership base.

There is no doubt that having a President who is at odds with a majority of Councillors tends to politicize Council.  But the performance of a President (any leader) is not by itself sufficient to cause the deep division Council is currently experiencing.  And letting Councillors choose one of their number to be President is not going to eliminate it.

On the contrary, I believe the proposed new scheme would tend to permanently politicize Council and the broader leadership base as factions emerge and vie for their preferred candidates to be chosen for the officer positions. The potential would exist for “back room deals” to be made, such as occur routinely in public party politics.  And Council could be permanently divided along party / faction lines.

The Electorate

Finally, we need to consider who actually does the choosing in each of the two scenarios.

I’ll deal first with the status quo (the current system), in which all PEO members vote for the President [-Elect].  Under this system, all 75,000+ PEO members (i.e., P.Eng. licence holders) have a vote.  Historically, on average, only about 12,000 of them (~16%) have exercised it.  Of those 12,000 members, a maximum of 24 are PEO Councillors – that’s 0.2% of those voting (assuming that all member Councillors vote), or 0.032% of the total population eligible to vote.  And of those 24, only 7 are government appointed (LGA) Councillors – that’s 0.058% of those voting, or 0.009% of the total population eligible to vote.

Under the proposed new system whereby Councillors choose the President from among elected members of Council, 29 Councillors are eligible to vote.  Of those, 24 or ~83% are PEO members, while the other 5 or ~17% are non-members (lay persons).   But what’s more significant is that only 17 or ~59% of the 29 Councillors voting are elected by members, while 12 or ~41% of the 29 Councillors voting are government appointees.

So it is clear that, under the proposed system, the members’ role in choosing PEO’s President is substantially diminished, while the government’s role in choosing PEO’s President is substantially increased.  (I realize that was the whole idea:  to take the choosing out of the hands of the ill-informed and irresponsible membership and put it into the hands of the more knowledgeable and discerning Councillors.)  The counter-argument is that members still elect a majority of the electors, but it’s only a slim majority (less than 60%) – hardly consistent with the notion of a self-governing profession.   I suppose if one believes that the President doesn’t play that important a role, then it doesn’t really matter that much who elects him or her.  But if that’s the case, then what’s all the fuss about in the first place?

Conclusions

So do we have a problem with our Presidents?  Yes, I think we do.  But it’s not with who chooses them, and it won’t be solved by changing who chooses them.

We have an opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of our PEO Presidents by getting greater clarity and consensus around their roles and responsibilities and our expectations of them, and then around the attributes we are looking for when we choose them.  And I believe there are some simple, cost-effective, non-controversial ways we can improve our current nomination and election processes without the need for member referenda and Regulation changes.  The electronic all-candidates meetings just completed are a good example of such improvements.

Even if we could agree on changing how PEO’s officers are chosen, we would still need to make such enhancements.  So let’s do what we can to improve the current system without turning our whole democratic governance model inside out, and let’s save the more major renovations for a new governance task force at some future date.  We’ve had enough excitement and distraction for a while!

OSPE asked candidates for election to Council in 2012 the following questions. 

Questions for PEO Candidates 2012

Here are my answers.

1)            OSPE – PEO Relationship

I think the collective membership of both OSPE and PEO expect our two organizations to work cooperatively on behalf of the profession.  What they clearly don’t expect is to see OSPE and PEO at war with each other, because they know this will undermine the credibility and influence of the whole profession.

The challenge, it seems to me, is for the leadership of PEO and OSPE to make the time and commitment to rebuild a relationship based on open communication, mutual respect, and trust.   

We need to do the “heavy lifting” required to develop a consensus around the respective roles and mandates of the two organizations, and on some protocols for collaborating and resolving differences.  It’s not as simple as “PEO does regulatory and OSPE does advocacy” – that mantra hasn’t worked for 10 years now, and isn’t likely to any time soon.  We need to peel the onion back a couple of layers and get into the nitty gritty of how the relationship ought to work.

And it can work, if there is openness and good will on both sides.  We owe it to our profession to make it work!

2)            Elimination of the Industrial Exception

Led by a Task Force, PEO is currently working on plans to implement repeal of  Section 12.(3)(a) of the Professional Engineers Act:  the so-called industrial exception.   This work involves assessing the impact of the change on industries in which unlicensed persons are currently performing professional engineering work, and determining how PEO should enforce the Act once the change has been proclaimed.  The overall objective is to ensure industry’s compliance with a maximum of cooperation and a minimum  of prosecution.

The importance of doing this implementation work carefully and collaboratively should not be underestimated.  It is important that PEO not be seen as arbitrary or inflexible.  At the same time, it is important that PEO uphold its licensing and professional standards, and that we communicate effectively how these changes protect the public interest. 

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and we need to get it right.  For this reason, it may take a little longer than some would like.

3)            Removal of Requirement for Members to Ratify By-Law Changes

Prior to the passage of Bill 68, the professional Engineers Act required  any change to a By-Law to be ratified by the membership in a referendum (not at the AGM as the question implies).  Once the Act amendment is proclaimed, only those By-Laws that specify a requirement for member ratification will require it. 

Council has already agreed that changes to the annual membership dues will require member ratification.  It still needs to consider to which other [governance-related] By-Laws the same provision should apply.  Once this work is done and the By-Laws have been amended accordingly, members should have confidence that their say will be sought and respected with respect to substantive organization policy changes. 

lt is also worth noting that Council recently passed a resolution that substantive governance and policy changes will be submitted to the membership for ratification.  The first example of this new policy is the referendum question on election / appointment of the President that is included with the current election ballots.  Once again, I believe members can now have confidence that their input will be sought and respected on substantive matters. 

 4)            LGA Councillors

I agree with OSPE’s observations and position on this matter.  The current number of appointed Councillors is inconsistent with the concept of a self-governing profession.  I would support asking the Attorney General to reduce the number of his appointments to the minima specified in the Act.

That said, the current size and composition of Council is effectively prescribed by the Act; so an Act change would be required to effect any significant change in the balance of elected and appointed Councillors.  And I would not see PEO proposing any major governance changes without first completing a comprehensive governance review.

So I think our most immediate challenge is to restore trust and respect among Councillors – both elected and appointed, thereby depoliticizing Council and avoiding what has been perceived as “block voting”.   When I served as PEO President in 2004-2005 we had the same Council composition, but I do not recall the same concerns regarding LGA Councillors, many of whom have over the years made significant contributions to our profession and have been held in high regard.   

5)            Additional Comments

What is this election about?  To me, it’s about our profession.  Our democratic, self-governing, self-regulating, engineering profession.  It’s about strong member involvement in our profession, and it’s about accountability to those members.

It’s about our core values: accountability, respect, integrity, professionalism, and teamwork.  And  it’s about our value proposition:  the value our self-regulation brings to the profession and to the public.

My positions on the various issues facing our profession – which you can find on PEO’s website and on my own website (grcpeng.com/VP2012/) – all stem from these fundamental values.

I’m just a rank-and-file volunteer.  When I first became licensed, I was recruited to help with PEO’s education outreach programs.  Eventually , I became involved in the Executive of my [Etobicoke] chapter, and was appointed to PEO’s Education Committee – both of which I chaired.  I was subsequently elected to PEO Council, first as a Regional Councillor in 2001, and I served as President in 2004-2005.  Since then, I have continued my volunteer involvement as  Chair of PEO’s Licensing Process Task Force and a member of its Emerging Disciplines Task Force.  As a result, I have developed extensive knowledge of PEO’s enabling legislation and core business.

I am committed to preserving and enhancing PEO’s stature as a self-regulating professional body.  To achieve this goal, I believe we must:

• develop a shared vision of the future of our profession;
• rebuild trust and consensus within PEO Council;
• work more effectively with OSPE, CEO, Engineers Canada, and other organizations within Canada’s engineering community;
• reinforce a culture of accountability. 

The Past Chair of Ottawa Chapter, Ingrid deBuda, asked candidates to answer the following questions.  Here are my answers.

1. Why are you running at this time?

I’m running [again] primarily because I believe I have the leadership skills and experience that are sorely needed right now to reestablish goodwill, trust, and consensus on PEO Council.

I am concerned that the lack of consensus within our profession around the core concepts and values of a self-regulating profession is undermining our progress on some important issues and, if not addressed promptly, could threaten our self-regulatory status.

 2. What do you see as the three biggest issues facing our profession at this time?

I believe we have been drifting away from the model of professional self-regulation in which a broad base of volunteer members of the profession are involved in both the governance and the regulatory work of the profession, towards a model in which the power is concentrated in a few “elite” volunteers and a large paid staff.  We need to reverse this trend.

We need to reestablish fiscal prudence and accountability within PEO.

PEO’s broken relationship with OSPE needs to be rebuilt.   The collective membership of both organizations expects them to work together for the benefit of the profession, not wage war. 

3. What do you plan to do about each one?

In each case, there is “heavy lifting” required to build consensus around the roles and responsibilities of the various parties and groups, and their rules of engagement.   Within PEO, there remains confusion concerning the roles, responsibilities, authorities and limitations of the President, the other officers, the CEO/Registrar, and the Treasurer, as well as key standing committees like Finance, Human Resources & Compensation, and Legislation.  Externally, the same goes for PEO, OSPE, Engineers Canada, and CEO.  I plan to push for the necessary face-to-face time and commitment within the leadership to resolve fundamental issues and get consensus.

4. If for some unfortunate, unforeseen circumstance you had to withdraw from running, which of the other candidates for your position would you vote for…? 5. …and why?

I have just recently met the only other candidate for Vice President – Vinod Chugh of Toronto Humber Chapter.  I have not worked with him previously as a volunteer, but he seems enthusiastic and committed to the success of the Profession.

I would encourage voters to examine all the other candidate statements, as I believe they will find considerable support in them for the issues I have mentioned above.   An ad-hoc group of PEO members concerned about preserving a member-centric profession have established a website (www.ourprofession.ca) in which they endorse candidates who support the fundamentals of professional self-regulation.  (I mention this as I am one of the candidates they have endorsed.)

6. In the past year, what volunteer work have you done for PEO?

 I am currently:

• Chair of PEO’s Licensing Process Task Force (which requires me to attend most Council meetings, as well as meetings of other committees such as the Academic Requirements Committee, the Experience Requirements Committee, and the Legislation Committee);
• A member of the Emerging Disciplines Task Force and Chair of its Task Group on Communications Infrastructure Engineering;
• An Executive Member of PEO Etobicoke Chapter;
• A participant on two subcommittees of the Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board (part of Engineers Canada);
• A director of the Information & Communications Technology [Sector] Council (ICTC), nominated by  Engineers Canada.

In addition, I currently serve as President and Chair of the Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education, an independent charitable foundation funded by PEO members that awards scholarships to students enrolled in accredited Ontario engineering programs. 

7. How much time did this take?

I spend roughly 50% of my available time on these and other volunteer activities related to the engineering profession. 

8. Do you work full time, and if so, where?

I am semi-retired;  still doing occasional work as a self-employed systems engineer and management consultant.  

9. How much time do you predict you will have to devote to PEO activities in the upcoming year(s)?

I expect to continue to devote at least 50% of my time to PEO affairs (even if I am not elected to Council). 

10. What experience do you have in the past, with consensus-building in a volunteer-run organization?

This is an excellent question that goes to the heart of much of our current problems!

My leadership style is collegial and collaborative, as I think those who have worked with me on PEO Council and Committees will attest.

In contrast with some who believe that Councillors are elected to regulate (i.e., govern, rule over) the members of the profession, I believe Councillors are elected to serve the members of the profession as they seek to regulate themselves.  I believe the biggest strength of our profession – and its biggest value proposition for both the members and the public – is its substantial leadership base of members who volunteer their time and talents to provide direction for and do the work of the profession’s regulatory body). 

Even when I was leading the software products and services company I founded (Data Design Systems, Inc.) and was pretty much in a position of absolute authority, I tried to engage all of the staff in designing and improving their own business processes and in providing leadership within their own functional teams.

I have also been an elected leader in my church for many years, where we practise the same type of team leadership and consensus-based decision making.

11. What is the largest budget that you have managed to date?

When I led my own company, and when I managed the Software Engineering Group at Wardrop Engineering, our annual revenues were approximately $5million USD.

When I was President of PEO in 2004-2005, its annual revenues were about $17.5 million (they’re now about $24 million).  Individual Councillors (including the President) don’t exactly manage PEO’s budget, but when I was President I led the introduction of a system of financial controls (previously there was none).

12. What changes if any, do you feel need to be made to PEO’s finances?

Of late, Council has been a bit too “hands-off” in terms of financial management, in my opinion.  There appears to have been no effective spending control (or project management, for that matter) with respect to the new headquarters building.  I would like to see the Treasurer report directly to Council through the Finance Committee (not to the CEO/Registrar) as was the practice some years ago.  Council should then take it’s responsibility for prudent fiscal management and financial accountability to the membership more seriously.

13. What changes would you like to see made, if any, to our current fee structure?

Other than rationalizing the fee structure for the Certificate of Authorization (which is currently under review) I would not foresee any significant fee changes.

14. What changes, if any, should be made to the current renovation/new building plans?

Most of the building project is already complete and the associated costs sunk.  However, I would like to see the remaining work not already committed be reviewed and possibly retendered to reduce costs.  Some desired renovations may be able to be postponed to a future date.

15. (This question may be a bit sensitive given current circumstances, but please don’t take offence: people legitimately want to know your position.) Every so often, sub-groups of Engineers feel strongly enough about certain topics that they either initiate legal action, or threaten to do so. For what differences of opinion (e.g. which topics) do you feel that legal action against PEO is acceptable/a good idea/necessary?

The only recent example of this that I’m aware of is the OSPE-PEO conflict.  I consider legal action a last resort, and believe it was inappropriate for either party in this case.  At the end of the day, we can’t rely on lawyers and courts to tell us how to govern our affairs as a profession.  

On the other hand, it was entirely appropriate when we initiated legal action in 2005 to repel the Ontario government’s incursion into PEO’s regulatory mandate in regard to Building Code knowledge testing.

16. What would you do while in office, to address the concerns of the Ottawa Chapter?

What I’d like to do first is to understand what the concerns of the Ottawa Chapter are (possibly including concerns such as the licensure requirement for federal government engineers, for example.)

I am anxious to avoid a disconnect between our volunteer base in the chapters and those on Council. Any chapter should be able to get its issues before PEO Council, and get a timely response.  For some reason, that doesn’t always work properly. 

17. What should have been asked, but wasn’t in this list? \

 I think your list is pretty exhaustive.  (I’m exhausted answering it – just kidding.)  Thanks for the opportunity.  I look forward to continuing the dialogue in the days ahead.

18. How would you have answered the question that should have been asked?  

I hear a lot of things being said on both sides of the “discussion” (perhaps a euphemism) concerning the respective roles and mandates of PEO and OSPE that I believe are simply untrue.  But whatever the truth is, one thing is clear:  neither Ontario’s professional engineers nor the public they serve will realize the full benefits these two organizations were intended to deliver until we – the leadership of the profession – reach a basic consensus both on their respective mandates and on how they can work together effectively and harmoniously.  I like to refer to this as our “rules of engagement”.  These observations and opinions are offered constructively in the hope that they will stimulate real dialogue about what needs to be resolved so we can move forward together as a profession.

Myth #1:  As a regulator, PEO can only serve the interests of the public; it cannot serve the interests of its members.

If you read Peter DeVita’s history of the Canadian engineering profession (starting in the latest edition of Engineering Dimensions), you will see that in the early 1900s engineers fought to have engineering recognized as a self-regulating profession like medicine and law. The deal they struck with legislators that resulted in the first Professional Engineers Act in Ontario was that the government would delegate to the profession the responsibility and authority to regulate itself in exchange for a commitment to put the public interest ahead of its own self-interest.

Note that the profession clearly has a self-interest, which the Act recognizes in giving the Association (PEO) a broad mandate to regulate as it sees fit – including regulation making powers – and to perform a wide range of ancillary functions (the so-called additional objects).  It just can’t assert that self-interest ahead of the public interest.  Fortunately, there are relatively few situations in which these interests conflict.  And where no [perceived] conflict of interest exists, PEO is free to advocate for what is best for its members and the public.

Note also that the members of the profession have a self-interest, which the Act recognizes in granting them significant discretion in the performance of their professional duties, plus the right to elect a majority of PEO’s governing Council.  At the end of the day, PEO Council acts in accordance with their wishes.  Fortunately for all concerned, professional engineers as individuals have a stellar record of putting the public interest ahead of their own.  There is, therefore, no reason to believe that we will renege on the commitment we made when we were first delegated our responsibility and authority in 1922.

The argument for having a separate member advocacy and services body in a profession (such as exist in law and medicine, but not architecture) is that such an advocacy body has no constraint on its advocacy, and can never be perceived to be in a conflict of interest, because unlike the regulatory body it has no public interest mandate.  It is free to put the members’ self-interest ahead of the public interest, or even to ignore the public interest altogether.  This is a key area in which OSPE can differentiate itself from PEO in the minds of members of the profession.   

Myth #2:  OSPE was created to do everything the profession needs except regulate it; i.e., to do everything except licensing and registration, complaints and discipline, enforcement, professional standards, and related regulatory affairs and communications.

OSPE was not created to do things that PEO was already doing successfully and that had no inherent conflict of interest with regulation – things like communications (the journal), local chapters, education outreach, and awards.  At the time of its creation, there was an attempt to identify PEO programs and activities that were inconsistent with regulation or were primarily of benefit to the members of the profession, but in the end only a few were transitioned to OSPE:  the Employment Advisory Service, the Women in Engineering Advisory Committee (WEAC), and the National Engineering Week Ontario Steering Committee (NEWOSC).  It is my impression that the early OSPE Directors were concerned to focus on high-impact programs that would demonstrate tangible results for members of the profession.  As a result, they initially declined to get involved with PEO’s chapter system, and with programs that were neither regulatory nor advocacy such as education outreach.

Instead, OSPE was created primarily to do something that PEO was not doing and should not do, namely to advocate for the economic interest of professional engineers and to provide additional services to them.  Members like me believed that having a separate organization that was unconstrained by a public-interest mandate and could focus on member advocacy and member services could help to reverse the decline of our profession’s prestige, influence, and income relative to the other senior professions.

Myth #3:  The Ontario Government told PEO it must divest itself of all non-regulatory activities.

One periodically hears references to remarks made by two past Ontario Attorneys General -   Roy McMurtry and Marion Boyd – regarding the role of professional licensing bodies.  As I recall, Minister Boyd specifically encouraged us to establish a separate advocacy body like those that exist in the legal (the Ontario Bar Association) and medical (the Ontario Medical Association) professions, in order to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest between the public interest and the self interest of the profession and its members.

However, at no time did the Government of Ontario direct PEO to divest itself of any function; nor has it intervened in other professions like architecture where the there is a unicameral professional body (the OAA).  Moreover, all provincial engineering associations except those in Ontario and Quebec remain unicameral to this day.  This is not an argument that we should return to a single organization representing professional engineers.  On the contrary, I believe we made the right decision to create OSPE, and for the right reasons.  But it does suggest that there is little real conflict between the public interest and the interest of the profession where engineering is concerned – definitely less than with law and medicine.

More recently, when I as PEO President met with then Attorney General Michael Bryant, he encouraged us to mount a government liaison program to “educate” legislators concerning the important role in our society played by professional engineers and the engineering profession.  His Parliamentary Assistant, David Zimmer, counselled us on more than one occasion that PEO and OSPE should work together to ensure that the voice and influence of the profession is heard.  I believe that they, both lawyers by profession, were satisfied that the conflict of interest inherent in such cooperation and collaboration is minimal.

If you examine the split in the roles and responsibilities of the organizations representing doctors and lawyers, you will find that their regulatory bodies do indeed “lobby” the government and advocate public policy where they believe it is in the public interest.  Recent articles in OSPE’s journal The Voice (Vol 2 No 1) confirm this. 

This leads me to conclude that the main line of demarcation between PEO’s responsibilities and OSPE’s should be public interest vs. self interest (of the profession and its members), not regulation vs. advocacy.

Let’s not get dragged into unnecessary conflict models that are the mainstays of our [adversarial] legal system and the legal profession!

Myth #4:  All activities undertaken by the profession can be categorized as either regulatory (PEO’s mandate) – or advocacy (OSPE’s mandate).

If we were to compile all the activities that are now being, or could be, undertaken by our profession and try to categorize them as either regulatory or advocacy, we would find only a few at the ends of the spectrum that are clearly within the purview of only one organization or the other (i.e., of either PEO or OSPE, but not both). 

At the regulatory end of the spectrum, it is clearly PEO’s responsibility to act and advocate to protect the public where engineering is concerned.  This would include lobbying the government to enact good public policy, and letting the public know it is doing so, especially if the government does not heed PEO’s advice.  Of course OSPE, which claims to have the public interest at heart as well, can also advocate for [hopefully the same] sound public policy, but its motives may be suspect since its primary raison d’être is to advance the self-interest of its members, not those of the public at large.  By the same token, I would not expect OSPE to take a position on requirements for licensure, since these exist solely to protect the public, and since OSPE members are already licensed.   

At the advocacy and member services end of the spectrum, PEO should not advocate for the economic self-interest of members of the profession.  The Professional Engineers Act requires PEO to license any and all applicants who meet its requirements set out in the regulations. So PEO cannot engage in nor advocate for any restriction or expansion in the supply of professional engineers, even if there exists a shortage or surplus in the labour market.  But OSPE can!  And only OSPE can provide members services like legal representation, that could be in direct conflict with PEO’s discipline process.

As the Venn diagram below depicts, everything else in between these extremes falls within a grey area that is neither regulatory nor advocacy, and is therefore “up for grabs” in terms of both  PEO’s and OSPE’s involvement in it. That is why having open communications between the two organizations, and agreed upon rules of engagement for how they will sort out their participation in new endeavours,is so important.

Myth #5:  Only OSPE should advocate.

The root of this myth is the assumption that advocacy is just one thing.  The truth is it all depends on what you’re advocating.

PEO cannot advocate for the economic self-interests of members of the engineering profession – only OSPE (and certain employer-specific associations like PEGO) can do that. 

But PEO can advocate, and I assert must assume the primary advocacy role, for the self-interest of the self-regulating engineering profession.  OSPE can assist PEO in this advocacy, but PEO Council must retain control of the advocacy agenda.  For this reason, PEO must have its own Government Liaison Program and steering committee.

This provides an excellent opportunity for the two organizations to work together.  It is hard to imagine many situations in which the two organizations would have differing positions on an issue to present to government and/or the public.  So in most cases, there should be common messaging and coordination of message delivery between PEO and OSPE.  This situation also provides the opportunity for PEO to assume a disproportionate share of the cost of such advocacy, leaving OSPE to focus more of its resources on member self-interest advocacy, in which PEO cannot participate.

Another area in which both organizations can collaborate is that of advocating good public policy.  Part of our deal with the government when we achieved self-regulatory status is our independence from government.  This puts us in the enviable position of being able to the advise the public – through the government, and directly when warranted – on matters of policy where we have expertise to contribute. 

Myth #6:  OSPE’s success is limited by PEO undertaking activities that are not strictly regulatory.

This argument has been around since CSPE days, before the creation of OSPE.  It has been said by some that PEO “killed CSPE” by preventing it from ever gaining traction with the membership of the profession.  Certainly, the attitude of PEO’s leadership towards CSPE was not friendly or encouraging; however, I think it is also fair to say that many members of the profession saw an advocacy body in the same light as a “union”, and believed (incorrectly) that it was antithetical to being a true professional.  It would be naïve to suggest that this thinking doesn’t still exist today.

The real question is this:  “If all activity that is not strictly regulatory were left to OSPE, how would that affect OSPE’s success?”

This question begs yet another:  “How should we measure OSPE’s success?”  I would have to assume that the two easiest indicators of OSPE’s success are (i) the size of its membership and (ii) its revenue base.  Indicator (ii) is not a simple function of (i) because OSPE has other sources of income besides membership dues, and because members might be willing to pay higher dues if they perceive that OSPE is doing a good job of advocating for their economic interests.  Any other indicators such as engineering salaries or perceived respect or influence will be harder to quantify, and harder to prove that improvements result from OSPE activities. 

The other important factor here is the relative size of the PEO and OSPE memberships – roughly 10:1 at present.  What does this ratio reflect?  Engineers today join PEO because they either (i) need a licence to practise engineering (this accounts for less than 25% of PEO licensees), or (ii) don’t need a licence to practise engineering but want to self-identify with the profession and use its [P.Eng.] reserved designation.  Engineers join OSPE because they believe they and/or the profession as a whole can benefit from an organization that is free to advocate for their economic and career self-interests.

In any case, we know that historically fewer than 20% of PEO members have participated in any way in PEO affairs (e.g., voted in Council elections); the remaining 80% seem to be content to just pay their annual dues and carry on their business, whatever that may be.   So I speculate that the upper bound on OSPE membership is probably about the same – 20% of PEO’s membership.  (That’s still twice the current level.)

I am not making light of the challenge of convincing members of the profession that OSPE activities are enhancing their livelihood or status. And I concede that any confusion within the membership regarding the roles and mandates of the two organizations makes that task harder.  I even think it is in PEO’s interest for OSPE to “get the credit for” any actions of either party that raise the profile or status of the profession.

But I remain unconvinced that simply stopping PEO from doing anything beyond its core regulatory functions would increase OSPE membership, revenue, or perceived relevance.  In fact, I believe it would harm both the profession and individual members.  For one thing, some important ancillary activities like education outreach would simply not get done at all for lack of resources.

Conclusions

I believe that lack of consensus within the profession – and open conflict between OSPE and PEO – over their respective roles and mandates is damaging the credibility and effectiveness of both organizations.  For the good of the profession and its members, this needs to stop now! 

Our collective leadership must put aside past hurts and frustrations, move beyond misconceptions and rhetoric, and commit the time and energy to work through the underlying issues and arrive at a consensus on how the two organizations (and others) can work together effectively going forward.

These issues are not insurmountable. Conflict between PEO and OSPE is not inevitable.  There is more than enough important work to be done for both organizations to flourish.  Let’s get on with it!

As the governing council of a self-regulating profession, PEO Council is ultimately accountable to the membership of that profession, both financially, and in terms of policy direction.  It is not a law unto itself.

While PEO should respect the government’s mandate and authority to govern, and must honour its commitment to the people of Ontario to put their interest first, it is not directly accountable to either.

A major strength of PEO is its reliance on a substantial volunteer base of over a thousand volunteers to help formulate its regulatory policies and carry out its regulatory activities.  This is what we mean by peer review.  This is what enables us to deliver outstanding value to our members and the public compared to more bureaucratic models of regulation.

We do not want to see PEO become yet another bureaucratic government agency.  Members must therefore exercise their rights and responsibilities of self-governance, and must be vigilant to avoid shifts away from our envied Canadian model of professional self-regulation.

Recent Councils have attempted to “tweak” PEO’s governance model in terms of how the President is elected.  They have not, however, shown a willingness to do the “heavy lifting” necesssary to define completely and correctly the problem they are trying to solve, consider alternative solutions, or engage the membership in peer review of their proposals.  Nor have they even attempted to resolve the longstanding confusion surrounding the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and executive limitations of the President, the CEO/Registrar, and other senior PEO officers.

Trying to change PEO governance on the fly like this – especially in anger and frustration – is foolhardy and doomed to failure!  From my experience as a management consultant, I can say with certainty that the changes originally agreed to by Council would not have achieved their proponents’ desired outcome.

If we really want to change PEO’s governance, we need to strike a task force of respected senior volunteers to develop workable proposals and vet them with the membership.  This will take some time and effort.

If we’re not prepared to do that, then we should put governance aside for the time being and focus our efforts on PEO’s core business.  In the meantime, we can consider some simple incremental improvements to our nomination and election processes, and to our informal leadership structures within Council.

Much of PEO Council’s agenda has, of late, been focused inwardly on governance and on “cosmetic” matters.  I believe it is time to refocus on PEO’s core regulatory agenda. 

PEO Council has articulated the goal of PEO achieving and maintaining the status of a model professional regulator. However, failure to keep PEO’s core business models up to date and to address key regulatory issues risks PEO’s credibility with its members, the government of Ontario, and the public at large.  Focusing on internal politics at the expense of PEO’s core business undermines our stature as a self-regulating profession.

PEO’s regulatory mandate consists of the following four main functions.  Work remains to be done in each to maintain the relevance of the profession in our changing world and to maintain PEO’s status as an exemplary regulator.

• Licensing and Registration

Major initiatives underway that need to be progressed in this area include:

-  implementation of competency-based assessments of experience;

-  expanding the scope and usefulness of the limited licence;

-  implementation of formal internships; and

-  pursuit of a national framework for licensure, leading to a national licence.

•  Professional Standards

In order for PEO members and the public to understand what is expected of licensees in certain work situations, especially within emerging disciplines, more practice guidelines and standards will be required.  Guidelines and standards help to promote uniformly high standards of practice and public protection, and can avoid ambiguity as to who is responsible for various aspects of complex projects.

•  Complaints and Discipline

Council recently accepted recommendations from a task force to improve PEO’s complaints and discipline process.  Implementation of these recommendations will require substantial work on the part of both volunteers and staff, which should be advanced as a priority.   

•  Enforcement of the Act

A common concern expressed by PEO members is the perceived lax enforcement of the Professional Engineers Act.  Changes to the Act and Regulations now in the works that, when completed, will effectively eliminate the so-called industrial exception to the requirement for licensure, together with newly defined scopes of engineering practice, magnify this concern.

In some cases, PEO needs to use its regulation making powers to implement its policy directions in law.  To this end, we believe PEO’s legislative capabilities need to be strengthened in terms of both volunteers and staff.

Focusing on PEO’s regulatory mandate does not mean that ancillary functions such as communications, chapters, government relations, and outreach aren’t important and don’t need to be strengthened as well.  However, I believe that priority for these functions should be to support the core regulatory functions, and that PEO should collaborate with OSPE, CEO,  Engineers Canada, and other stakeholders within the engineering community on activities like public policy engagement that are not PEO’s exclusive purview but belong to the profession as a whole.