INNOVATION May-June 2016

l et ter s

need another program with additional rules, regulations, policies, procedures, monitors, sanctions, staff, meetings, and all that goes with a new initiative. However, continued attempts by our association’s executive and staff show they are determined to impose this requirement. In the past, the association has proven it is willing to overturn members’ wishes by obtaining legislative authority to impose rules and make decisions without membership approval. After the latest defeat of the CPD bylaw, I fear that this history is about to be repeated. On page 13 of the January/February issue of Innovation , an article describes how the association has already applied to government for a change in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act that would enable “… Council to pass bylaws, without member ratification, on matters related to professional practice and public safety. ” If this amendment is granted, I expect Council will quickly act to impose CPD requirements. Those of us who are opposed to the CPD program should let Council and staff know this is not acceptable. —Brian Weeks, P.Eng. Harrison Hot Springs, BC In an article titled “Amendment Requested to Safeguard Public Safety Mandate” in the January/February 2016 edition of Innovation , APEGBC attempts to justify the request to Government to amend the Engineers and Geoscientists Act to allow APEGBC Council to enact bylaws addressing public safety without formal approval by members. In the penultimate paragraph of the background section of the article, APEGBC states “Due to member concerns at the time, Council withdrew this request in 2012 to allow for further consideration.” This sentence is a gross simplification of the facts.

At the Fall 2011 APEGBC Annual General Meeting, a member’s motion asked Council to reconsider the amendment request; this motion was defeated (by the small proportion of members who attended the AGM). Immediately following the AGM, several members commenced gathering support for a vote of ALL members as provided by Section 12(7) of the Act . In January 2012, 70 members (including 19 Past-Presidents) requested that Council poll the members on the following motion: that Council withdraw the request for amendments that would allow Council to make changes to the Bylaws of the Association without the approval of 2/3 of the votes cast by ballot as required by the Act. A vote was held in April/May 2012, with the result of 69.8% Yes votes. More members voted for this motion than had voted in the previous election for Council! According to a report in the March/April 2012 edition of Innovation , Council withdrew the request to Government in late December 2011, presumably when Council became aware of the request for a vote of all members. The 2012 resounding vote of members opposed to Council’s actions demonstrates how the democratic process works; a democratic process that Council now has asked Government to take away from our members. —Ernest A. Portfors P.Eng. North Vancouver, BC Wow. What contempt for the professional judgement of APEGBC’s voting members. Should this coup succeed, who will protect the public from the consequences of Council’s dictatorial agenda? Checks and balances are important. Council’s arrogant conduct demeans all conscientious members of the association. —Keith Antonelli, P.Eng. Vancouver, BC

Mission: Innovation As APEGBC’s official publication, Innovation aims to publish information that is of interest and relevance to the professions, is balanced, objective and impartial, affects the conduct of members, and showcases innovative engineering and geoscience work of members. A secondary aim is to provide a forum for the exchange of views among APEGBC members through the publication of letters to the editor.

GIC Innovation Qtr Pg may12PRINT.pdf 1 2016-05-12 11:52 AM

6

M AY/J U N E 2 016

i n n o v a t i o n