Innovation Winter 2024.25

LET TERS Registrant feedback reduced by early deadline for AGM motions Dear Editor,

miss in persisting with this practice – a formal record of feedback, perspective, and engagement. We lose feedback on how initiatives, policies, and practices are received by registrants. The registrant lens is critical to understand the success of implementation, the effectiveness of communication, and the peer review of decisions – a fundamental of good practice. We miss the opportunity to consider ideas, perspectives, and initiatives from registrants who may benefit regulation of the professions and efficient operation. Here we can reflect on some motions in the past, and action that was taken in response; this includes the regulator’s review of the TRCs 94 calls to action, sustainability and climate change commitments, and the formation of the new BCSEG. We undermine registrant engagement. Self-regulation thrives when there is an engaged registrant population who

are willing to commit their time and expertise; the regulator must take every opportunity possible to engage registrants in their work as a primary means of delivering future professional volunteers who are fundamental to self-regulation. It is too late for 2024. In the absence of a formal AGM motion, I encourage the Board to reconsider the process ahead of the 2025 AGM. What information is available ahead of the deadline, how motions are submitted, and the timing between submission and the meeting should be interrogated and considered in the context of engagement, perspective, and the risk of losing access to the exceptional capacity of the entire

The deadline for submitting motions for the 2024 AGM was 32 days before the meeting. And while engineers and geoscientists tend to be forward- looking and organized, for most of us, submitting a motion more than four weeks before a meeting is unlikely. It is also worth noting that the Annual Report – the primary source of information about policy, performance, and engagement – is not released until after the deadline has passed. This out-of-phase timeline means that motions cannot I understand why Engineers and Geoscientists BC wish motions to be submitted in advance. In fact, I was on Council when the decision to require early submission was first discussed and enacted. However, I can’t help but think about what we reference the most recent performance report from the organization.

registrant population. Caroline Andrewes P.Eng., CPA, CMA, FEC, FGC (Hon.)

IN MEMORIAM Engineers and Geoscientists BC announces with regret the passing of the following registrants:

Mr. Wilfred Morley, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Mr. Robert Alexander Provan, P.Eng. (Retired) Mr. Howard Gordon Wright, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Mr. Robert George Paterson, P.Eng. (Retired) Mr. Anthony Gerald Leanza, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Mr. John Norman Ostrom, P.Geo. Mr. Donald Beattie Crowson, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Mr. Donald Kennedy Mustard, P.Eng. (Retired) Mr. Roy Kenneth MacMillan, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Mr. Lawren Michael Wagar, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Ms. Amy Rachelle Goodbrand, P.Geo. (Non-Practising)

Dr. Benjamin Douglas Plumb, P.Eng. Mr. Svien Bjordal, P.Eng. (Retired) Dr. Mostafa Ahmed Fkirin Helal, P.Eng. (Retired) Mr. Patrick Kai Yu Cheng, P.Eng., FEC Mr. Gary Owen Woodhouse, P.Eng. (Retired) Mr. James Michael Pearce, P.Eng. (Retired) Mr. Ian Noboru Miki, P.Eng. Mr. Andrew Julian Marshall, P.Eng. Mr. Erik Frederick Biesenthal, P.Eng. (Non-Practising) Mr. Justin McColl Thomson, EIT

38

Winter 2024/25

Innovation