Keith's advice on APEGBC elections

My criteria for candidates worth voting for:
- integrity (some Members do not have real integrity in my judgement, they may perform their professional work well but on Council were devious).
- thinking skills (to identify essentials and ensure all substantive factors are integrated into the decision-making process).
- time to do their homework.
- ability to avoid becoming so frustrated one is not effective.
- ability to communicate clearly (to persuade other Council members and government).
- support the principle that APEGBC is a member-based organization, of which proper governance is by Members.
- support focus on APEGBC's legal responsibilities.
- lead for quality performance from APEGBC staff and committees.

While many of those attributes may seem obvious, Council's performance in the past several years shows lack of them. They made factually incorrect statements, did not think of all factors and likely outcomes, and evaded the results of Member votes and petitions.

2016 Election Results for reform candidates:
Ed Casas elected vice-president, thus presumed president next year.
Brock Nanson elected Councillor.
Larry Spence elected Councillor.
Ross Rettie elected Councillor.

Condolences to:
Conrad Guelke who made a good showing
Richard Farbridge who made a very good showing against the presumed president (last year's vice-president).

The statement from the electronic voting service provider is sparse (PEO's is far better) and was communicated to the wrong person (according to APEGBC election policy).


(Beyond the criteria I provide above.)
A big problem to watch out for is candidates jumping on a bandwagon that they don’t really support. We’ve seen waves of claiming to support fiscal responsibility and good governance.

Now we see the scam of a candidate claiming to want to heal divisions, s/he who tried to smear Members who oppose mandatory CPD by saying that the only reason s/he could think of was they were afraid of being discovered. The candidate failed professional competence and ethics, as s/he did not offer evidence and in fact there were reasoned attempts in Innovation magazine to counter the CPD panacea.

Some will have a specific agenda that may be outside of the legitimate scope of APEGBC.

In 2016 "transparency" is in a surprising number of statements. (There have been motions and advocacy to reveal salaries and other actions.)

Promoting value of engineers and geoscientists is a frequent theme, perhaps even more so this year. That's good if done sensibly - profligate marketing is not wanted.

Fiscal responsibility has been a theme in recent years, almost absent this year (of course governance and CPD are major debates now, the new term "duality" is in statements by of several candidates nominated by APEGBC - a mis-representation of the actual debate).

Many candidates are vague, typically talking of qualifications they bring to the position but not identifying their principles for governance and programs.

Many candidate's statements take parsing to understand - a few separate points, perhaps the others need CPD in communication. (OK, bad joke today.)

My quick review of 2016 candidates:

Richard Farbrige

Observes that some people think dissenting members just need more explanation. Measured approach. On reform slate. Believes members are capable.

Bob Stewart

Generally vague, with buzzwords. Is for streamlining registration process and increasing fairness of it. Claims the Elliot Lake failure jusifies mandatory CPD but it was the result of ethical lapses including several government people - CPD not directly covered in his statement.

Ed Casas

Explicitly criticizes council for ignoring results of member votes and instead asking government to give it broad powers. Says staff should be neutral, not promoting their own beliefs. Well presented statement, is a thinker. On reform slate.

David Harvey

Very strong on mandatory CPD in his 2015 presentation in Victoria, but avoids it in his campaign statements. Does advocate pride in engineering and geoscience achievements. Claims APEGBC has good relationship with government. Statements are too vague.

Kathy Lockhorst

Claims to want to heal relationaship between council and members but she tried to smear opponents of CPD in the last election. Scare-mongering about government taking over regulation. Obviously against member governance.

Caroline Andrewes

Vague. Q&A briefly talks about balancing roles of regulator and advocate. Too much "motherhood" in Q&A.

Dan Campbell

Claims members do not understand the duality of APEGBC - regulator plus services to Members, I disagree. Says council does not always instruct staff to do the 'right' thing. Supports continuing to allow nominations to Council by 25 members (is someone suggesting changing that?). Advocates including Technologists in the Act. Prefers to let CPD question slide. His Q&A shows he is thinking, with innovative ideas such as giving each Member a vote in how 15% of their dues is spent, but odd statement about sniping, and his duality remarks trouble me as those are common among people who do not support member governance.

Catherine Fritter

"I have always felt strongly that being a professional engineer brought discernment and professional judgement, and so is deserving of respect and the freedom to practice our profession conscientiously with being overly prescribed, however our standards must be high." Q&A favours mandatory CPD.

Leon Gous

International experience. Does not identify his principles.

Conrad Guelke

Advocates an Association that is efficient, open, accountable to membership, consults, heeds the wishes of the membership. On reform slate.

Weslety Halarewicz

Does not do his homework, is imprecise with terminology.

Susan Hayes

Advocates "sustainability", which is an out of scope, a negative view of humans. Wants to communicate value of engineers.

Catherine Hickson

Vague, does not identify her principles.

Neil Kelly

Focussed on LNG, which seems out of scope. Wants to integrate foreign engineers efficiently.

Brock Nanson

Questions if CPD is the correct tool to ensure professional competence. Wants council to be more open about why it tried to destroy the democratic process. Wants to increase respect for engineers and geoscientists, in contrast to unsupported opinions now common in public arena. On reform slate.

Julius Pataky


Ross Rettie

Enumerates Council's failure to follow Member directives in votes and petitions. On reform slate.

Mukesh Sharma

Wants to provide more support to internationally trained engineers who are transitioning into the Canadian work force. Otherwise vague.

Albert Sommerfeld

Does not identify his core principles, beyond geographic diversity.

Larry Spence

Wants to increase trust within Association and increase engagment of members. Wants to imrove public perception of Members. On reform slate.

Kamran Tabarraee

Wants engagement, within profession especially younger engineers and with public, transparent administration and minimal bureaucracy.

Tom Tiedje

Wants to improve the voluntary CPD system Wants to update system of accreditation of university engineering programs. Talks of the duality thus I assume does not oppose Council's governance grabs.

Mathew Walton-Knight

Wants Association to be transparent, fair in fact and appearance, and of highest standards.

Members Are The Profession

Intellectual property on this site including its theme and headlines is of Keith Sketchley, or individual authors of some supporting stand-alone documents. IP of the web sites linked to is as defined by them. Links to APEGBC web pages on specific items are not endorsement of its position, they are provided only for information.

Version 2017.06.01

Please email webmaster if any links don't work or have become inappropriate - the Internet changes.

Email addresses are given with AT replacing the @ symbol, to reduce spam.

Webmaster email:
Paper mail c/o 1 Adams Pl, #16, Victoria BC V9B 6P6