2012 Vote Results
The 2012 Council election and By-law proposal vote was the second to be conducted
online. The voter turnout was positive with 784 out of 5678 eligible members casting
at least one ballot online, and two members submitting paper ballot packages.
There were 760 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Eng. councillors for two year terms:
- Don Spangelo, P.Eng.
- Roger Rempel, P.Eng.
- Guenter Schaub, P.Eng.
- Howard Procyshyn, P.Eng.
There was no P.Geo. ballot in 2012.
- Rick Lemoine, P.Geo. (by acclamation)
There were 724 ballots submitted regarding the proposed By-law changes:
- Establishing a Members-In-Training representative to Council
PASS (For: 626, Against: 94, Abstain: 4)
- By-law 12.1.1 Certificate of Registration
PASS (For: 694, Against: 29, Abstain: 1)
- By-law 15.7 Appeal of Hearing Decisions and Orders
PASS (For: 702, Against: 19, Abstain: 3)
- By-law 15.8 Methods of Notification
PASS (For: 645, Against: 78, Abstain: 1)
- By-law 16.0 Requirements for Chapters
PASS (For: 628, Against: 93, Abstain: 3)
E-mail reminders were sent out on October 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 18th.
There was an opportunity for anonymous feedback after all the ballots were submitted:
- Too impersonal. In addition, would suggest a 2-minute podcast for each Council candidate to present their platform
verbally and visually. After all, most of the work on Council is all about communication, not about an individual's
- Format of names on ballot (in this case F.M.Lastname) should match names on platform statements
(in this case Firstname M. Lastname).
- There is still a problem with the By-law voting. One does not have an opportunity to propose an amendment and have it
considered before voting. The only options available to a member to vote against or to hold ones nose and vote in favour.
The wording of the By-law should first be vetted by the AGM and then voted upon on line. Dave Ennis
- Email is *not* a guaranteed delivery mechanism. For that matter, neither is Canada Post - which is why you have *Registered Mail*
- I don't think notification of investigation by email is such a good idea. Prefer the snail mail method.
- Advocacy is an important part of a professional association. It is our professional public duty and responsibility to
give professional advice to all levels of government and not be intimidated by conflicts of interest - eg. employment.
I am appalled that APEGM dropped the ball re Bipole III. Advocacy is an inherent part of other Professional bodies
that I have membership.
- Good format for voting. Please clarify how to decline voting for a candidate. i.e. leave entry blank, rather than assign a number.
- I voted against the motion to include MIT members on Council. I would have preferred that the ballot be split over the
two notions I am in favour of MITs being on Council but also think they should have the right to vote. With having no
vote they may as well not have membership on Council.
- Consider E-mail suitable if no other means of communication is available.
- pictures of the candidates would be nice... sometimes you may know the person to see them, but don't recognize the name.
- would be nice to have a leaders evening with presentations
- MIT Council position should be for a one year term, with a maximum of 3 terms permitted. If the position becomes vacant,
a call for nominations should be made. If the position is to promote participation by MITs, then every opportunity for
participation should be taken rather than having council appoint someone to the position.
- Sending an email to somebody does not constitute delivery or notice. The act of an email server accepting an email on
your behalf is not you accepting delivery.
- I am not sure what "notifcation" may be included in the bylaw change but if it is intended for something as serious as
notification of a complaint against a member I don't think that should be done by email. This type of notification
should not be done by something as insecure as email. Call me paranoid but I don't trust the security of email.
Presumably, normal mail is still secure.
- It is rather discouraging that most candidates are predominantly CE and mostly from ACEC Mb. Relevance of APEGM
to other disciplines and industries/employers may suffer as a result.
- There seems to be a hanging word "...who" in the new wording for the last bylaw
- The last word in the new Practice paragraph uses the word "practice". It should be deleted.
- Although mildly annoying, the repeating emails reminding me to vote were effective.
- It feels good to have a voice in my P.Eng organization. Thanks
- Provided that this remains anonymous, I just want to say: Disco Sucks!!!! :)
- I am in favour of reduced bureaucracy and my voting is based on this stance.
- It appears non-practicing members are being given the right to say they are qualified to practice.
- The voting method was very easy to use. One suggestion for getting more members to vote would be to give credit towards CPD.
- The last by-law amendment opens the gates to chapters based on color sex or creed.
- Excellent voting system.
- Very quick and easy voting process!
- Great job setting-up online voting. Thanks.
- This electronic ballot system works very well. Congratulations on its development.
- online voting is great
- Thanks for developing a friendly online process of voting.
- I have been using online voting in several jurisdictions, and this was one of the easiest to navigate. Also, allowing
access to the candidates platforms while on the voting part of the site is advantageous - in other cases I have had to
remember or jot down every candidates pros/cons once in the voting module. Well done!
- I really appreciate the ability to vote on-line.
- Great way to voye - fast and easy. Congrats.
- Online voting is a much better system.
- Wish the Best to the new authorities, and the online voting was perfect
- Online Ballots are a great idea over paper
- Voting was nice and easy.
- Works like a charm !!
- Good system, easy to use.
- Quick and easy procedure.
- I like it, quick and easy and no paper or postage.
- I would like to commend the designers of this web page and voting process on an excellent human machine interface
combining clear, concise instructions with an efficient voting process. Well done.
- Very nice system - excellent work. I will be voting again next year - something I have never done in the past because
of inconvenience. This was VERY convenient.
- Smooth and effcient voting process - excellent engineering
- Congratulations on the clearly organized web page - it took me no time to fulfil my duties as a voting member.
Keep up the good work.
- Website very efficient and easy to navigate....congratulations on making this a painless, but productive excercise!
- This web voting is handy and useful.
- Nothing, except that it worked quite well.
- Andrew did a great job in developing the on-line voting ballot platform.
- I found the online voting process to be well thought out.
- Good Process
- I wanted to give APEGM credit for a well designed online process that is both efficient and painless for the voting
for council members and by-law changes.
- I really like this voting format.
- It went easy and well, terrific good system.
- Excellent voting process. Thank you!
- I support voting on line. It is an good process
- I like online voting!!
- Online voting is a great idea - saves paper and is much easier to do! All platforms and background info are readily
available and make this the best choice. Thanks!
- Good and fast. Thank you!
- The system was easy to use.
- Good system. I like that you have included hyperlinks next to the names, as well as next to the by-laws. Easy to follow.
- The web page voting page worked well.
- The on-line was very easy. Congratulations to APEGM.
- Online voting worked well.
- Way to go with the on line balloting
- I love the ability to vote online. It is so quick, easy, saves paper and stamps - what's not to love?
- Awesome process. Well thought out and convenient.
- Prefer online voting!
- Online voting is a great idea.