2011 Vote Results
The 2011 Council election and By-law proposal vote was the first to be conducted
online. The voter turnout was positive with 1071 out of 5444 eligible members casting
at least one ballot online, and four members submitting paper ballot packages.
There were 1013 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Eng. councillors for two year terms:
- James Nicholson, P.Eng.
- Luis Escobar, P.Eng.
- Dawn Nedohin-Macek, P.Eng.
- Marcia Friesen, P.Eng.
There were 790 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Geo. councillor for a two year term:
- Chris Beaumont-Smith, P.Geo.
There were 997 ballots submitted regarding the proposed By-law changes:
- Continuing Professional Development Program
PASS (For: 551, Against: 441, Abstain: 5)
- Bylaw 6.4.1 Resigned in Good Standing
PASS (For: 953, Against: 28, Abstain: 16)
- Bylaw 9.2.8 Late Payment
PASS (For: 626, Against: 359, Abstain: 12)
- Bylaw 11.1.1 Professional Member's Seal
PASS (For: 959, Against: 24, Abstain: 14)
- Bylaw 12.2.2 Professional Member's Electronic Seal
PASS (For: 950, Against: 31, Abstain: 16)
- Bylaw 15.3.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution Process
PASS (For: 949, Against: 34, Abstain: 14)
- Bylaw 17.5.1 Letter Ballots
PASS (For: 938, Against: 44, Abstain: 15)
E-mail reminders were sent out on October 7, 12, 17, 18, and 20th.
There was an opportunity for anonymous feedback after all the ballots were submitted:
- I really like the online ballot concept, much better. The detail included in the by-law ballot seems excessive.
The wording / spelling change items could have all been lumped together in the larger document rather than requiring
- It seems like the proposed CPD program is too detailed. A simpler reporting method should be considered, without
separate categories and minimums and maximums.
- Nominees for council are weak. Suggest improving methods of council nominations.
- The process, once accessed, is excellent. The preamble, once in the electronic voting page, did nothing to clarify the
process. You have probably either received this a couple of times or not at all. When I clock mon the "Submit Feedback)
button, the page refresfes, but there is no indication the feedback was submitted (unlike the ballot submission).
- I am disapointed with the proposed CPD program for several reasons:
1) There is no random audit. To really protect
the public from 'bad' engineers, we should be auditing our members periodically to ensure their honesty, much like the CRA
does with our taxes. Simply filling out numbers on a page (which APEGM is not checking unless they 'fail to meet quota')
is NOT good enough to protect the public. 2) I question APEGMs ability to identify if a member is 'partaking in relevant
CPD activities' should they be audited. At the end of the day, our supervisors, mentors, and the industry know more about
our specialization than whoever is appointed to the APEGM CPD committee. This is unfortunate, but a single person, or even
a few, cannot know every detail about engineering. At the end of the day, it is the member's responsibility to identify if
they lack the knowledge to be technically qualified. Eg, an older engineer changes specializations after 30 years, from
designing HVAC systems, to designing vehicles. The two have little/nothing in common, and likely, for at least a year
(or more), the P Eng is NOT technically qualified to stamp any work. Who decides when he can stamp work? His supervisor,
and himself. Also, this same example also invalidates the previous 2 years of 'CPD' the member had practiced, unless he
can prove that the knowledge is transferrable! Ie, the CPD process as outlined is flawed in its current form. It does
not address the risks to the public from P Engs who drastically switch career paths, and it does not include random audits
to identify P Engs who may lie to avoid detection. 3) While volunteering is an admirable use of time, it should be done
'from the heart', not to meet some desired 'quota'.
On an unrelated note: I hope APEGM continues to work with CTTAM and
other organizations. For events like Engineering and Geoscience week, I think it would be EXCELLENT to join forces with
CTTAM, etc. If a student has difficulties with the math of engineering, we should be encouraging them into similar career
paths, such as Engineering Technology at Red River. Let's end the 'Im an engineer and your not' mentality that still exists
in much of the workplace.
- The Professional Development item should have been separated from the other changes to ByLaw details.
- - The proposed CPD is out of line with other professions, too much time, and for what real benefit? - 10 days is not enough
grace period. Electronic payment doesn't necessarily solve everything. Why not shorten to 1 month at first, then see how
it goes. 10 days is draconian measure.
- A mechanism whereby editorial(spelling etc.) proposals are dealt with administratively should be developed and put forth
for a future vote.
- Order for candidates platform and ballots should be consistant to minimise possible error. Had to return to the Home page
after login to my profile in order to access the ballots. Required and additional login to complete the voting.
- The proposed changes to the continuous professional development by law was a tad manipulative. One of the issues was creating
a continuous competency committee, and the other issues were how the By Law was worded. Voting on wording is straight forward.
Voting on the creation of the continuous competency committee is not a straight forward issue.
- Place copies of the ballots in the preamble. This would clarify the issues to be voted on before entering the voting area.
I went through the voting area twice to help me review the issues and then to vote.
- I do not agree with how the CDP issue was lumped in with minor grammar changes. Hiding it in the bottom of the PDF is
deceptive and the issue should have been on its own ballot. Having the majority of the ballots be about minor grammar and
changes to capitalization of words will only lead to increased levels of apathy among voting members (as it has in me).
- I think it is ridiculous and a waste of time to change tyhe bylaws simply because a word has an AMERICAN or whatever the
other spelling is. If both are accepted in the Webster or Oxford dictionary, then LEAVE IT ALONE AND SPEND MORE TIME OR
MORE WORTHWHILE ENDEAVORS. If you have a word specialist on the council then he/she should work for the language police
- Too many changes in one by-law regarding CPD may result in "against" votes by membership, even though I voted "for".
If this occurs, may want to consider seperating some of the conditions in the by-law for seperate vote if that's possible.
- I agree people should not be late in payment of dues but the end of the year is an awkward time. End of January would be
- have full names in the ballots. I reviewed the resumes/platforms, took down their first names and then when I got to the
ballot, just had first name and initials. was a pain to go back and review the list.
- The CPD program provides little value to a company that historically has little to no usage of a Professional Seal.
APEGM should work with those companies to obtain recognition of development programs to permit an exemption
- I recognize the need to have all APEGM members vote on changes to the bylaw, but textual changes to fix typos seem like
they should be dealt with in a better way.
- The amount of CPD hours have to be similar throughout Canada, there is no real reason for Manitoba to request more CPD hours
than any other province.
- Late payment can still be as it was or can be reduced to say at least 1 month. The reason for this is that APEGM members may
go for several weeks or even upto two months depending on where he/she is from. For example, I have visited my home country
two times so far and both visits were more than six weeks.
- The grace period for payment of dues was 2 months which is too long, but 10 days is too short. 15 to 21 days is realistic.
The CPD program has been approved by council, but you have not made it clear that it requires radification by the members.
- 10 days time is short for applying late payment fee. Suggest increasing to three weeks.
- RE Bylaw 9.2.8 Late Payment: While 2 months grace does not reflect todyas reality, 10 days is both too short and vague
("Calendar" or "business" days)especially given the time of year of the due date and that APRGM offcies are closed during
this period (if there are web site functional issues) I suggest 15 calendar days, effectively means Jan 15th.
- From 2 months to 10 days seems to move from the sublime to the ridiculous. Is there some middle ground?
- The late payment should have a 30 days grace period. The proposed 10 days is too short as the last date for payment of due
is during holidays, there is a high possibility to be missed by members due to the hectic work (deadlines), family etc
nature of the period between mid Decembers to mid January.
- Suggest late payment grace period be 15 days.
- Is it not possible to have a process for addressing English / editorial issues without engaging the entire membership?
If not, I highly recommend looking into it. In my field (aviation) it is a common practice for legal and technical documents
to be revised for such trivial matters, without utilizing more laborious processes.
- It would be better to have a shorter method of getting to the voting section. It seemed like I had to click through four or
five screens before I actually got to the voting section. Once there the voting system was really good, much prefered over
the paper ballots.
- I think that not capitalizing "Registrar" as a title is not logical. Then in the By-law for CPD under 7.1.2 you have then
capitalized "Registrar". I also think tha not capitalizing "council" is also not logical. It is a Title.
- With respect to the "late pyment" issue, not everyone is satisfied witht he security of on line payments by credit card.
Also. the change from 2 months to 10 days seems extreme. I pay on time so it is not an issue, but "pay on line with a
crdit card" is not a good enough reason.
- Each amended section of the By-law should have it's own vote. The section for by-law changes to the Professional
Development section had several revision, yet there was only an option to vote for/against all of them as a group.
- The ballots indicated some terms should not be capitalized to be consistent with the bylaws. The terms should be defined
in the bylaws and then can be capitalized.
- Dissappointed with APEGMs decision regarding Bipole 3 advocacy.
- This site is at best "confusing" to use bordering on "why am I doing this".
- Regarding CPD: Stop trying to hide the issue and mislead the members. Many engineers I talked to thought the CPD proposal
was a done deal based on your misleading promotion. Stop playing politics.
- Civil engineers who use their stamp all the time will have an easy time in CPD. Other engineers will have a tough time
making up the 150 hours unavailable through "professional" practise.
- Stop trying to ram REQUIRED professional development down our throats! Not everyone has access to events, and moreover,
not all employers provide assistance with costs and time off, etc. It's an uneven playing field!
- I have no further feedback to contribute.
- Anonymous my ass. Only if APEGM chooses not to look!
- From the ballet, it doesn't seem to take to the background of Electronic Seal By Law changes.
- I don't feel the least bit engaged in APEGM activities. I think the organization needs to ask members what issues
are important, and then do something about those issues. Until then, I will basically be a non-participant.
Sorry, but that is the truth.
- A lot of nitpicking on the bylaws, while much larger errors persist in the KP; I do not agree with these priorities.
- No feed back
- I do not approve of the APEGM approach to electronic stamp situation. I believe that the current setup is a cash grab for
the association and it is limiting the ability to move forward with technology. This should be reviewed instead of a small
technicality regarding a capital letter. Seriously. Other provinces do this without guaging members. thank you.
- No thanks
- I have heard rumblings of members trying to " organize the troops" to defeat the CPD vote as a NO vote. I do not
understand the continual denial or lack of beleif in the value of this motion to enhance our optics to clients, other
professionals and the public through increased involvemnet in community and simple tracking that process online with the
- Re the CPD proposal: Most of my training is on-line, or directly from vendors. Can I submit browser history to show
how I learn? I don't see myself or my colleagues a risk to the public. Our products are governed my industry and customer
safety standards. We already have systems in place to ensure one person's mistake will be caught before it leaves the door.
If we make a mistake it is a financial one. I understand there are some areas where the public needs protection, but in my
workplace we need less APEGM bureaucracy not more!
- 1. Lots of "clicking" required to get to the voting (not a big deal). 2. Excellent layout and format of the actual voting.
Having the link to the background info right there with the choice was excellent.
- None, thanks.
- As a Computer Engineer, I am not in favour of the proposed training requirements that are proposed. Most of my training is
on the job and informal. It would be difficult to formally acquire the number of hours of training being proposed.
- I agree that a minimum amount of professional development is important. However I do not agree with the mandated volunteer
- I am against awarding the P.Eng registration to non Canadian citizen or to an engineer how does not have legal resident ship
status in Canada. However, help for internationally educated engineers or American engineers should only be offered if they
are legally resident of Canada or Citizen of Canada.
- Good job APEGM. The online voting is great.
- The online forms were simple to use. Thank you!
- Online voting is a positive development.
- This was excellent.
- this is great feature, certainly make voting easier and promoting environment friendliness going paperless.
keep up the good works!
- Worked well!
- I found online voting very easy and convenient.
- Good job with online ballot system.
- Easy to use. Good job!!!!
- Voting was a breeze! Thanks for making this option possible!
- The online voting system is easy to use and a good option.
- Very impressed with all aspects of the on-line voting system. I get the impression that there has been a lot of debugging
of the system before its initial use.
- Process worked well
- Now this is the way to vote.
- I found it easy to vote electronically once I located my ID #. I look forward to voting this way in future.
- Voting online was easy and very quick.
- Nice work on the online voting system! It's a bit cumbersome on iPhone but doable with some backtracking & patience.
- The online voting was great. The links to platforms / bylaw change details was very convenient and easy to use.
Whomever was involved in setting this up did an awesome job.
- THANK YOU
- Very good and straightforward voting process!
- On-line voting worked well.
- This online voting process was very easy for me, despite having only scanned the considerable amount of text that was
presented on the preamble screens.
- Voting on line was quick and easy. Good job
- good job saving paper keep it up
- The new online voting system is easy to use and much appreciated.
- This system is easy to use and much appreciated. Nice to move into 21st century.
- I like the online voting system. Well done.
- Really like the online voting
- I like the online voting. Makes it easier to keep track of all the information.
- The electronic voting along with the associated information is well laid out and easy to use.
- great way to vote, I hope this proves to be successful
- Excellent process. Both the online part and the development of the changes to the bylaws. It is great to have the
initiative to fix up these little nuisances. Well dones.
- Very well done!
- The on-line voting system worked very well. Thank you!
- Extremely effective voting methods ! All documents available online for review, confirmation given on vote, no papers
- It wasn't as bad as I had convinced myself that it would be.
- The online voting was simple and easy. Thanks for making it available.
- A much better way to ballot. Congratulations!
- Excellent method!
- Thank you for making voting such an excellent experience. Congratulations!
- I liked the process!
- Excellent decision to move forward with online voting. Please ensure that these kind of advancements are continually
promoted and encouraged!
- Kinda cumbersome getting to the actual voting screen, but a good system overall - - sure beats pencil and paper!
- This is good process and more efficient thta mail out ballots
- Great to have the on-line voting.
- The online voting system worked well.
- I really like on line voting. Much easier and less likely for me to forget to vote. The implementation is excellent!
- System works well.
- Online voting is a great alternative! Well done.
- This is a lot easier than having to mail in a ballot.
- This is a great improvement over the old letter/envelope system. I hope it encourages better participation.
- This process seems to work well. Thank you to APEGM for being forward thinking and with the times. Save the trees.
- On-line voting is an excellent addition. This will save paper costs and mail. keep up the great work
- thanks for the system to vote on line
- please continue this process, very convenient.
- I appreciate this method of electronic voting which I found very convenient and easy to complete.
- I like the online voting format. It is convenient having the information accessible in one click.
- It was a breeze !!
- I approve of the on line voting system. It was time efficient and saved paper.
- Easy, quick, cheap and eco-friendly. Way to go.
- Voting system is efficient and a great step forward.
- Great web-based voting system. I like it a lot! Maybe you should work to making the webiste and these links a bit
"nicer"/modern with new web design features. Right now, it looks like a bit "amateurish",
half way bewteen DOS and Windows.....
- Nice, I like it.
- This method of voting, along with the reminders and readily accessible background information is greatly appreciated.
- Andrew-thx for assistance to get back onto my account!
- Voting is made Easy and Informative with this electronic method
- I sure like this new electronic ballot system. Simple and quick!
- Online voting is a good enhancement to encourage involvement.