Down to the Short Strokes

Not only are the Olympics winding up, we are entering the last week of PEO elections. 

Licencees now have all three eBlast, access to the recorded all candidates meetings, had the opportunity to review the additional material provided by the candidates and had the opportunity to contact candidates with outstanding questions and concerns.  I hope you’ll now take a few moments to vote at www.peovote.ca

Voting couldn’t be easier, it takes less than one minute.

I also want to ask you to please ask all the professional engineers that you know to also vote. 

With less than a 10% voter turnout last year, I find it difficult to consider ourselves a selfregulated profession.  We can only do that together.

Below, I’ve reproduced my three eBlasts.

eBlast #1

Andrew Carnegie, the great Scottish industrialist and philanthropist summed up the importance of the PEO elections thus “As I grow older, I pay less attention to what people say and I look at what they do”.   Those of you who believe in improving our organisation by casting a vote, should do the same.

Fellow engineers, hindsight is always 20-20.  Past council mistakes have hurt our organization and slowed our growth, but we now stand on the threshold of many great opportunities.  How do we begin?  By working together, by leading our council to be fiscally realistic and sensible in the spending of licence holder’s money, by striving to be relevant and by attracting our future – young engineers with fresh ideas and enthusiasm. 

My two years on council as Northern Region Councillor and past year as Appointed Vice President have been true learning experiences.  I have participated in chapter events across Northern Region, been active on the Regional Councillors Committee (RCC) and the Executive Committee, and contributed to the significant positive steps forward that PEO Council has made in the last 2 years.

Teamwork is still a work in progress at council; team building is a strength I bring to council.

eBlast #2

Isaac Bashevis Singer must have been reading my opponents misleading election materials when he said “If you keep saying things are going to be bad, you have a good chance of being a prophet”.  Looking at the election material that is circulating, I really do think that if half of this were true, we certainly don’t deserve to be a self-regulated profession!  We hear the same criticisms of council and the PEO loudly repeated by the same group of people – you know who these critics are.  Dig deeply into their criticisms.  PEO does not need leadership that thrives on criticism, and they certainly do not need individuals who don’t understand our political and financial environment. 

Let’s focus on the strengths and significant accomplishments of our hardworking and dedicated council, staff and countless volunteers.  Together as a team we do great things.  Leadership builds on the strengths and skills of each individual contributing to our great organization and profession creating a team that will carry us into a successful future.  Mistakes are only true mistakes if we do not learn from them and improve.

I believe we face real challenges, including attracting and retaining young engineers not only to the profession but to full participation in our association.  Let us create a welcoming and diverse profession that reflects our society in the 21st century.   

Let’s ask ourselves: are we prepared to move into the 21st century of self-regulation?  Or are we going to remain the self-regulator of 1922?  Only you through your ballot can make that decision.

eBlast #3

“I have voted for the very first time in a PEO election.  Good luck lady!”  These words of support came this week in the form of an email from someone who has held a licence for over 10 years.  I’m hoping that this election will inspire 10,000 more members to vote for the first time!

In the most recent eBlast we read much about the direct “attacks” to our self-regulated profession.  I’m concerned about our ability to call ourselves a self-regulator when less than 10% of our licencee’s vote.  Our direction, future and how we respond to challenges is not in the hands of 77,000 members, it is in the hands of barely 7,000 members. 

Did you participate in the membership survey?  Of those that responded, two of the top 5 reasons given for not voting are #1 “There have been no pressing issues which inspired me to vote” and #5 “PEO elections are not relevant to me”.   We are not effectively communicating to our members.  Why are the most recent headlines about challenges to our profession not of major concern to all licencees? 

We must demonstrate leadership on challenges with PEO solutions for Ontario engineers.  Challenges such as the potential imposition of continuous professional development resulting out of the Elliot Lake inquiry; the ongoing work to repeal the industrial exception; Bill 141 - Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2013 - that requires architects to be involved in the preparation of a design for the construction of defined infrastructure projects, but not engineers; and the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s challenge to our reasonable requirement of one year of Canadian experience for licensure.

My Voice on Council

I admit I’m not one of those councillors that must say something to every agenda item or even every motion that comes before council.  Between the elected councillors (13), vice president (1) and presidents (3) along with the appointed councillors (12) there are up to 29 people around the council table at any given meeting of council.  Anyone can speak to an agenda item or motion with a 3 minute time limit – sometimes councillors speak more than once on a topic.  If everyone were to speak to an item, that could be 1 ½ hours or more per agenda item!  So, unless I feel that I have something new or unique to contribute to a discussion, I prefer to listen and think about what is being presented, the various positions and the implications of the motions.

I’ll provide an example of an occasion at which I did speak up.  At the 486^th Meeting of Council on 10 June 2013, a member motion was brought to council to “Reinstate constraints on candidacy for President-Elect and Vice-President”. You can view the motion and provisions of agenda item C-486.3.4 (pg 21 of 171) at http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/26114/la_id/1.htm  The presented provisions existed prior to 2007 and were contained in legislation (O. Reg. 941).  One of the provisions was to prevent the Past-President from running again for any officer position for at least two years.  Another stated that no member be eligible for election as President-Elect unless that member had served at least two full years as a member of the Council prior to which the member would take office as President-Elect.  Similarly for the position of Vice-President, the requirement would be for one full year on council.

These provisions are reflected in the opinions expressed during the membership survey.  You can view the survey results in the agenda of the 487^th Meeting of Council held 26 September 2013 http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27094/la_id/1.htm With respect to the period of time between the end of a president’s term and eligibility to run again – 66% of respondents agreed that there should be a period of time between the two (page 9 of 294).  There was also a question about a minimum service requirement on Council before eligibility to run for President-Elect or Vice-President (pg 11 of 294) – 80% of members supported this concept in the survey (pg 100 of 294).

So let’s go back to the motion in front of council.  You can listen to the discussion of agenda item 3.4 starting at minute 36:11 at http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27183/la_id/1.htm We decided to sever the motions to address the issues separately.  The minutes around this can be viewed at minute 11255 through the following link starting on page 6 of 17 http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27183/la_id/1.htm. Council supported the motion regarding the minimum time between Past-President and eligibility to run for President again.  Members have been quite vocal about this. 

The second part, regarding terms on council prior to being eligible to run for council was more thought provoking.   One of the early points that was raised was that this would discount the significant accomplishments of several of  our accomplished presidents that had no experience prior to their election to the position of president, for example our current President Annette Bergeron.  Catherine Karakatsanis also had no prior experience on council and made significant contributions.  These two women were elected by significant majorities – so I find the survey results interesting in which 80% of members that participated in the survey prefer the President-Elect to have experience on council.

During the discussion around the motion, I spent a few moments thinking about the implications of the motions in front of us.  In principle, I initially thought to myself that having executive with council experience was a good thing.  But what about the profession as a whole?  Being a women, the first thing that jumped into my mind was “How many women would be eligible to run for president in 2014 if the second part of the motion carried?”  Annette and I were the only two women on council.  Annette would not be eligible to run yet since she would become the Past-President.  So of the current council, I would be the only eligible woman.  Say we go back 5 years, how about all those women that served on council?  Well, there only two other women that served on council during that period – Diane Freeman and Catherine Karakatansis – and they have moved on in their careers and would not likely run again for president.  Hmmmm….  This is a significant burden to carry for any woman who was thinking of running for council.  You can hear my comments at about minute 47:06. 

The motion was defeated, but the issue has not gone away since it was raised in the membership survey as something that members feel strongly about.  Council will need to address again.

I’d like to know your thoughts on this, so please share.

Questions and answers...

During the videotaped all-candidates meetings, members had the opportunity to post and vote for their priority questions on-line.  The moderator then selected the questions he would ask the candidates or ask questions of his own devising. 

I noticed on the last night of the meetings, that a question was posted asking about a more spontaneous form of questioning in which the candidates didn’t know what the questions were ahead of time so that they couldn’t prepare responses.  Candidates have one minute to respond to questions, which is a very short time to formulate and articulate an opinion, particularly under glaring lights in front of cameras.  I would prefer a platform where the candidates could initially respond with their prepared response, followed by a short facilitated back-and-forth debate based on the question and responses. 

Over the next few days I’ll be posting my one-minute responses to a variety of questions that you, the members posted. 

What are the lessons learned from Elliot Lake?

Immediately after the collapse, our profession was criticized and blame was placed upon us as a regulator.  In response to the collapse, we established a top-notch team of councillors that are structural engineers in addition to our three presidents.  We responded quickly and openly to requests from the enquiry.  In the end we were complemented on our well thought out contributions.  Kudos to the committee! 

What are the lessons learned?  That responding quickly and transparently is paramount.  Also, we can no longer hide behind self-regulation and our professional engineers stamp as our only qualification of expertise and quality work.  Since continuous professional development has been raised at the inquiry, we need to confront CPD and come up with a made in Ontario by engineers for engineers’ solution.  Additionally, moving forward we must act proactively to weed out and discipline engineers that are not providing services against measureable standards.   

What are your thoughts on the repeal of the industrial exception?  Should PEO continue in its efforts?
With the province officially putting the industrial exception on the shelf, I believe this is an opportunity to sit back and reflect on a new approach.  We are the only province that has an exception such as this – in the future; this may be an obstacle to the mobility of our engineers across provincial boundaries.  I believe the repeal is important, but we still have homework to do.  I have spoken to several professional engineers who are convinced that this is a cash grab by the PEO to gain more members and dollars – so one of our jobs is to reach out to convince our licencees.  Once convinced, they can help us lobby.  Why do they feel this way?  Because I don’t believe we have the evidence we need to demonstrate that the repeal would impact the number of injured workers or workplace related deaths in Ontario.  We need to continue to work with the Ministry of Labour, Unions, and other organizations to collect this important data and build a truly solid foundation to gain acceptance for the repeal. 

We also need to continue to build relationships with our friends in government and leaders in the manufacturing sector.

Truth, honesty and democracy on council.

It is with purpose that I quoted Isaac Bashevis Singer this week in my eBlast.  “If you keep saying things are going to be bad, you have a good chance of being a prophet”.

Earlier today I responded to an email from a P.Eng. asking if I was “running with any panel and if so, who am I running with?”  An interesting question…

There are no “parties” on council.  To my knowledge all of the candidates, including myself, are running as “independents” except those that are fronted by the "Engineers for Democracy on Council" (OEDC).  We “independents” are running for council to represent you, the licence holders.  By now, you will all have heard of the OEDC and seen their logo on some candidate pages.  Perhaps you’ve even visited their web page filled with bold statements that are meant to grab your attention.

Of the 19 candidates in this year’s election (this includes the two positions that have been acclaimed), 8 are “fronted” by the OEDC.  Did you know that these candidates are “forbidden” from supporting any of the other non-OEDC candidates?  This is democracy OEDC style. 

You will note that neither of the women running for council are present on the OEDC web page.  We were not contacted by the OEDC for our thoughts about “democracy” on council.  Are you interested in knowing more about what some of the "participants" behind OEDC thinks about women on council or women engineers in general? 


Please note that  because of a settlement between the PEO and several parties I, as a councillor of the PEO, have been requested not to reference the legal action and remove links (which are no longer active on the PEO website) to legal documents that were until recently in the public domain.  The documents included text from emails that specifically referenced women engineers and women on council in far from flattering terminology.  Hence a major section of this post has been removed.




I do recognize that not all the "participants" in the OEDC likely feel the way of these individuals, however, ...

I must admit that I often wonder whether we're still in 1922 when it comes to the profession of engineering in Ontario. 

Much fanfare is, at times, made by the OEDC itself, and by their candidates about “conspiracies”, “factions” on council and “block” voting.  The only group that I have noted during my two years on council that displays these characteristics is the OEDC itself and their candidates.

What kind of honesty do you expect from your councillors? 

What kind of democracy do you want on your council?

Only you through your vote can help make that decision.  Please become informed and cast your ballot before 4pm February 28^th.

Election All-Candidate Meetings

Did you find some time this week to view the 2014 PEO Election all-candidates meetings?  I watched most of them on Monday and Tuesday and I had the opportunity to be in front of the camera on the evening of January 29th for the Vice President all-candidate broadcast.  The president's all-candidates meetings were also broadcast and taped on the same evening. 

Today the videos were posted on the PEO website at: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/index.php  It's a little confusing to find the actual videos... you need to click on the arrow beside the position you're interested in.  Alternatively, here are the direct links:

President: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/player_flash_archive6.php
Vice President: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/player_flash_archive5.php
Councillor-at-large: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/player_flash_archive3.php
East Central Regional Councillor: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/player_flash_archive2.php
West Central Regional Councillor: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/player_flash_archive1.php
Eastern Regional Councillor: http://www.snwebcastcenter.com/custom_events/peo-2014/site/player_flash_archive4.php

What are your thoughts on the all-candidate meetings?  Have you viewed them?  Do you find them helpful in making your decision?

I'm personally most interested in the position of president - they are the individual that will lead our council when they take the seat of president.  The candidates responses to questions and their candidate statements provide a true insight into their personalities. We have a diverse set of candidates this year.  What characteristics do you look for in the leader of your council? 

I personally look for the following characteristics, experiences and personal qualities:
- honesty an integrity;
- excellent and healthy communication skills;
- a positive attitude and the ability to focus on the good in others and foster positive relationships;
- diverse experience with PEO and / or council or leadership of another board;
- respects those around them;
- the ability to inspire others;
- the ability to delegate and let others take ownership of what they are working on, building on the strengths of the individuals in the team;
... I'm sure I'll add more to the list as I think about this.

A little bit about me...

I’d like to spend a bit of time here sharing the skills, training and experience which I am bringing to the position of Vice President of PEO.

·       I have always held leadership positions – most recently as a supervisor and previously as a team / group leader.  I’ve also chaired numerous technical studies, committees and working groups including leading technical studies in remote areas of Canada, and chairing technical, policy and strategic working groups at both the workplace and national level. 

·       I am currently a supervisor of a team of regulatory inspection and compliance staff in the Ontario Public Service (OPS).  My other employment experiences include positions as a senior engineer with a large consulting firm; as a technical expert in the OPS; as a project manager and assistant manager in the OPS; and, as a research scientist at an international European research institute, an engineering faculty and a science faculty.  

·       I am currently one of the two elected PEO Northern Region Councillors as well as the Appointed Vice President.

·       I am a team and bridge builder and I am respected amongst my colleagues and peers as such.  When working with a group of people to accomplish a task, I draw on their strengths to accomplish the goals that are set out.

·       I use positive, constructive and creative approaches to get buy-in from team members and stakeholders.  I celebrate the successes of my individual team members and the team. 

·        I have strong interpersonal skills and a significant network across the province and Canada.

·        In the last 10 years, I have completed significant leadership training in conflict avoidance and management, emotional intelligence, building corporate culture, risk management, stakeholder relations, media relations, facilitation skills, and project management.  I participate in continuous learning opportunities several times a year.

·       I have been recognized for my leadership contributions.  I was nominated for a Ministry of the Environment Emerald Award and received an Ontario Public Service Amethyst Award for co-chairing a national working group.  I was also nominated for a Greater Toronto Area United Way Spirit Award for leading the Ministry of the Environment’s United Way campaign to its most successful year in 2009 – we beat every goal and our team has never been beaten.
If you have any questions about my experience or qualifications, please feel free to contact me at SandraAusmaPEng(at)yahoo.ca

"Our dues are too high!!"

Often when I engage engineers in discussions about PEO and the election, I hear “What happens to my dues?" or " I don’t get anything out of the PEO!" or "The dues are way too high for what I get in return!”

Where do your dues go? They contribute to the regulation of the profession.  According to the PEO web page (http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/1994/la_id/1.htm) “The annual fees from licensed practitioners enable PEO to take responsibility for the licensing and discipline of engineers and companies providing engineering services. As part of its mandate, PEO also establishes, maintains and develops:

-  standards of knowledge and skill;

-  standards of practice for the profession;
-  standards of professional ethics; and

-  promotes public awareness of its role.”

So what exactly does that encompass? Annual dues and other revenues help to provide the solid infrastructure to ensure that only qualified individuals earn the right to call themselves professional engineers; that appropriate action is taken against those that use the P.Eng. designation in an unauthorized fashion or taken when discipline action is required; that we defend the PEO to protect our position or when others take legal action against us; that we participate at a national level to ensure that Ontario is consistent with other jurisdictions and to help our engineers practice across the country; that we reach out to our licencees and future engineers; that we ensure accredited universities are periodically assessed; that we continue to build the profession; that we develop and modify regulations, policies and guidelines as needed; that we as a regulator, build relationships with politicians so we can get support for regulatory changes that we bring to Queen’s Park; and so on…

That's a long list and it is far from complete.

All of the above requires staff, physical infrastructure, consultants, capital equipment, lawyers, supplies, insurance, advertising, database software, mortgages, and the day-to-day expenses to support all of this.

The PEO does all of this on an annual budget of about $25 million. (If you are interested in viewing the draft 2014 operating budget, it is embedded in the agenda of the 487th Meeting of Council held on 26 September 2013 on page 152 http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27094/la_id/1.htm).

While you may not tangibly see the direct impact of much of this in your day to day life – it is what makes us all proud to be an engineer – a well respected and well regulated profession in Ontario.

Are our dues too high?  Ask any P.Geo. in Ontario their thoughts on whether our P.Eng. dues are too high - APGO 2013 practicing member dues were $420.  Or how about Chartered Professional Accountant Ontario dues - $1084 in 2013.   PEO dues are the lowest professional engineering association fees in Canada and they have been frozen at $248 per year for at least 5 years in a row.  There is currently no plan to raise them this year.

I’m not going to agree with you that our dues are too high - because I don’t believe that.  I sit here and wonder how we can do so much with the dues we pay.  I was speaking to a fellow councillor last fall and he asked if I knew that in the 1970s, discipline decisions were written up by staff.  For those of you who are unaware, discipline decisions are now written up by volunteers.  I believe our ability to keep our dues where they are has a lot to do with our growing army of almost 900 volunteers who freely donate thousands of hours of their personal time to PEO activities and business every year. 

Let’s all take a moment to thank our volunteers for their time and dedication! 

I must confess...

…that I am a lifelong learner.  I expect that as engineers, many of you are the same.  We all upgrade our skills, share what we learn or accomplish, and teach others as our careers progress.  What we learn and how we learn changes over our careers.  For myself, my continuous learning plan has evolved from one of primarily technical learning early in my career to my present focus on developing a broader skill set in leadership, communications and political acuity that benefits my career as I progress into management.  I have always documented my education and accomplishments, included it in my resume and discussed it with potential employers during job interviews – I expect that most of you do the same.  I have never expected the simple fact that I am professional engineer to fully qualify me for any job or position – it is the sum of my learning and employment experiences that qualify me.  I embrace continuous professional development.

I was very excited a few days ago when election materials were posted on the PEO web site and the first of 3 eBlasts was sent out to licence holders.  Before I had a chance to even review all the candidates’ material and positions, I received several emails of support and an email posing a question “What is your position on continuing professional development (CPD)?” 

Upon reviewing the election material, I was interested to see that the election “issue” this week appears to be CPD.  I found it surprising, to say the least, that according to some candidates PEO and your council is apparently implementing “mandatory” CPD that will cost licence holders thousands… hmmmm… I must have missed that council meeting!  In today’s blog post, I’d like to express my views on CPD and to provide you with the information and links you need to make an informed decision about CPD and what is happening at council with respect CPD.

You may or may not be aware that the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) prepared a report in 2013 entitled “Continuing Professional Development – Maintaining and Enhancing our Engineering Capability” http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27324/la_id/1.htm  This report was presented to council in a motion at the 487^th Meeting of Council on September 26, 2013 (C-487-3.5) http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27094/la_id/1.htm .  You can listen to the discussion around the council table at http://www1.peo.on.ca/AUDIO/2013/487Council/September2.MP3 starting at minute 22:14.  The following motion was carried unanimously (pg. 9 of the minutes of the 487th Meeting of Council held September 26, 2013 http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27370/la_id/1.htm ):

 

That Council, in principle, support the implementation of a Continuing Professional Development program. To initiate this, the report of OSPE’s Continuing Education Working Group, Continuing Professional Development, Maintaining and Enhancing Our Engineering Capability, dated June 19, 2013, be referred to the Professional Standards Committee for comment, with the direction that it solicit written and verbal comments from the PEO membership during its review, and report its findings and proposed plan of action at the February 2014 Council meeting.

While I do not agree with everything in the OSPE report, I do find Table 1 in the report particularly noteworthy in that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in which some sort of formalized CPD program has not been implemented.  

Another significant event in 2013, which will continue into 2014, is the outcome of the Belanger Commission otherwise known as the Elliot Lake Inquiry.  As part of the inquiry, two sets of policy roundtables were held http://www.elliotlakeinquiry.ca/roundtables/index.html.  If you take a look at the material, you will note in the submissions that respondents were asked to comment on training for structural engineers “including specific training and mandatory continuing professional education components for engineers practicing and holding themselves out to the public as “structural engineers””.  The reality is that PEO, and consequently licence holders, may not have a choice regarding CPD, it may be imposed by the commission.  You will note  the comments of Councillor Chris Roney at minute 11286 of the September 26, 2013 Meeting of Council (http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/27370/la_id/1.htm) “it is possible that the Elliot Lake Algo Mall inquiry will recommend enhanced professional development, PEO should be seen to be proactive on this issue. It should be noted that PEO is the only Canadian engineering association without a formal continuing professional development program.”

For those of you who are interested in my positions, I support:
    -     The motion presented to council at the September 26^th, 2013 meeting of council.

-   Our association being modern and proactive and coming up with possible solutions to the concerns raised about CPD in various forums rather than waiting for another body to impose a solution upon us.
 

-   The implementation of well thought out flexible CPD program that meets the needs of our licence holders and addresses public safety concerns. 

I do not support:

-   The arbitrary implementation of a mandatory CPD program that will annually cost licence holders thousands of dollars and significant lost hours at work with no measureable outcome to the individual or their career.

What will CPD look like in Ontario?  I envision something that ranges between a voluntary program for everyone to a mandatory reporting program for practicing engineers whose decisions affect public safety.

 

Introduction

Welcome to my blog!  I’ll be using this blog to present my thoughts, opinions and responses to questions while I run for Vice president of Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) in the elections that will open early in 2014.  I’m hoping to touch on a variety of election, engineering and philosophical topics that arise in the coming weeks and months.  I'd love to hear from you about your thoughts and questions about the engineering profession, particularly in Ontario.

 Who am I?  I'm currently the elected Northern Regional Councillor and the Vice President (Appointed) on PEO Council.  I was first elected in the 2012 elections and am coming to the end of my first term on council.  My undergrad degree is in chemical engineering and I have a Master’s in food engineering and a PhD in land resource science.  I currently work for the Ontario Public Service as a supervisor of a team of compliance officers. During my 25 plus year career, I have held a variety of engineering, research, policy and technical positions in academics, consulting and government.