image description

Facebook     LinkedIn     Twitter     Email

Bob Dony:   2012-2014 PEO Councillor-at-Large


Thank You!

March 12, 2012

Thank you for all your support in the 2012 PEO Council elections. I look forward to serving the profession over the next two years. I'd also like to pass on my utmost respect for my opponents Michael Monette and Roger Jones. Both have dedicated countless hours serving the profession in the past and I look forward to their continuing contributions in the future.

Do keep emailing me with your issues and concerns for the profession. I'll try to keep this space updated with the latest goings on at Council and the profession.



Relevancy

February 6, 2012

How can we have a self-regulated profession if the member-licensees do not become active participants in the profession? I hear a lot of talk about how we must increase the uptake of graduates into the profession. And I also hear talk of the "benefits" of holding a license. Sadly, many people seem to think of PEO as a "club" and base their decision to "join" on what "member benefits" they get from being a member. I'm really tired of all this talk about "membership." In the Province of Ontario, if you are practicing engineering, you require a license under the Professional Engineers Act. As I mentioned in the all candidates webcast earlier, with the industrial exception rule in the past, many (if not most) people had the option of becoming a licensee-member - it was a choice. Now, with that exception being removed, I hope we move to an environment where obtaining a license is simply what you do: you get your engineering degree, you get your license, you practice engineering.

The relevancy issue then becomes one of how active we all are in the organization and how we participate in the self-regulatory nature of our profession (e.g. will you vote in this election?). So, even if we do get 100 % uptake from graduates, if they don't get involved in the profession, even through the simple act of voting, we may as well close up shop, and turn over the profession to some government bureaucrat who will use a computer program to issue licenses. It would certainly be more efficient! And, I do know that there are those who would much prefer this option. Is this what we want for our profession? From my experience on the ARC with foreign trained engineers, this is a common method of "governing" the profession. Do we think the ultimate peer review where the member-licensees have the final say is worth preserving? If you do (I certainly do!), get your colleagues to vote, get them out to the chapter AGMs, email the candidates, your Councillors, the President, the Registrar with their thoughts and concerns - especially the younger members of the profession. As I said in my platform, if we are not relevant to the new generation of engineers, we will cease to be relevant, period.



What I'll Bring to Council

February 2, 2012

All candidates have some outline of a platform for this election (see mine below). These are an important consideration in deciding who to vote for. But, to me, they only tell part of the story. During the duration of the term, issues must be dealt with by Councillors on behalf of the member-licensees which are beyond the scope of any platform. Do the Candidates have the broad perspective to make informed, educated decisions for the profession, or are they focused on one or two single issues?

A bit about my background and the breadth of experience I can bring to Council:



Peer Review

January 31, 2012

Changes to the Professional Engineers Act via Bill 68 will increase Council's authority over fee increases, by-law changes and other governance matters, eliminating member ratification of such changes at an AGM. I am troubled by the view of some Councillors that such decisions should be taken out of the hands of the member-licensees. We are a self-regulatory profession under the laws of the province. One of the cornerstones of our profession is the concept of peer review. As professionals, we welcome peer review. Even when we are confident of our calculations and design considerations, we recognize that we are only human - we can make mistakes. Review by our colleagues provides that second check. However, the real value in peer review is not error checking, it is enabling a second set of fresh eyes to look at the problem. A colleague may see the problem from a perspective we hadn't considered. As a result, peer review provides an opportunity to improve the design - and as engineers, we should welcome that opportunity.

When Council makes major decision affecting fundamental issues such as governance, it too should welcome peer review. What is the ultimate peer review for the profession? - ratification by the member-licensees. If the decisions are based on careful consideration and sound reasoning, ratification should be a straight-forward "error checking" exercise. However, Council should recognize that it is made up of only a small number individuals. It may be possible that not all views were considered. Peer review provides the opportunity to have other views considered resulting in a better decision making process. It is not an issue of "democracy" - it is simply professional peer review.



All Candidate Webcasts

January 28, 2012

For the first time, PEO held a series of webcasted all-candidates meetings. In the past, I was always frustrated at the lack of information about the various candidates - it was so little to base my vote on. You had the platforms published in Dimensions or with the ballot mail-out, the odd Chapter event with some candidates, and possibly a personal connection from other PEO work - but that was about it. No wonder there was such a low voter turn-out!

Things are changing though. The PEO has the official 2012 PEO Council Elections website with links to the platform ads, candidtates' websites, and email "blasts." As well, the Ottawa Chapter has a questionaire for candidates and OSPE also has a questionaire. And, of course the webcasts.

I applaud the PEO for taking the initiative to run the webcasts. Being right in the thick of this campaign, I took time to view a number of the webcasts. They did help me to form a better idea of the views of the different candidates. It's one thing to read the carefully crafted platforms, it's another to hear their attitudes on various issues "live." Personally, as much as the platforms are an important consideration, I think it is just as important, if not more so, the attitude the person would bring to the position. We need a Council that is not "dysfunctional." This means that while a diversity of opinion should be brought to the table, Councillors must be able to work together, in a respectful manner, on the numerous issues facing the profession today. I felt after watching some of the webcasts, I'm in a better position to judge this.

While it is an important first step, I do think some improvements can be made. Because of the timing, I understand most of the questions were "seeded." If there was more lead time, maybe more questions from members themselves could be included. Also, since the questions were available on the submission site before the webcast, some candidates prepared stock answers ahead of time - a more spontaneous exchange of ideas would have been more informative. It will be interesting to see the numbers of those who watched live and those who watched later in the campaign. I've set up a quick poll in the PEO Professional Engineers Ontario group in LinkedIn.

But, as much as this extra accessibility through the web provides members with greater access to the candidates' views, there is nothing like a face-to-face exchange. I'd like to thank the Scarborough Chapter for hosting an all-candidates meeting last Saturday. It was great to meet so many members of the chapter and answer their questions. The Chapter system plays such an important role in PEO and a healthy profession needs the voices of the "grass roots" to be heard at head office.

As always, email me your thoughts at bob.dony@gmail.com.



OSPE Act

January 12, 2012

I'm not sure who all got this, but I received an email from PEO over the weekend about Bill 15, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers Act, 2011. The bill itself can be read at http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2551. The email included a link to a survey which, I assume, was designed by the PEO Joint Relations Committee. If you didn't get it, click here for a copy of the survey questions.

Am I the only one who thinks the wording of the survey is somewhat biased? The issue of "advocacy" vs "regulation" is not as clear-cut as some of the statements found in the survey make it out to be. Instead, I see the issue more as whether we have a proactive profession or a reactive profession. I get the feeling that those who support a purely advocacy role for PEO lean towards a reactive view. I completely disagree. In order to be relevant, we must as a profession be proactive
otherwise we will cease to be relevant.

So, where do we go from here? One thing for certain is that we must be fully engaged in a relevant, proactive profession. All our other sister associations and ordre have no difficultyIf we are not relevant to the new generation of engineers, we will cease to be relevant, period. dealing with all aspects of the profession internally, including both regulatory responsibilities and advocacy to ensure a strong profession that serves the public. On the other hand, we are constantly reminded that the legal and medical professions have been very successful at cleanly separating the advocacy and regulatory aspects of their professions. Could there be some middle ground between these two extremes? What are your thoughts? Email me at bob.dony@gmail.com.



Platform

January 7, 2012

Email me your comments, follow me on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook


I ask for your vote, but more importantly, I ask you to vote.