ABOUT

Council Election and By-law Change Results for 2014

The 2014 Council election and By-law proposal vote was the fourth to be conducted online. The voter turnout was positive with 1547 out of 6115 eligible members casting at least one ballot, with two members submitting paper ballot packages.

Council Election

P.Eng.

There were 1475 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Eng. councillors for two year terms:

Ruth Eden, P.Eng.
Roger Rempel, P.Eng.
Fred Cross, P.Eng.
Brett Todd, P.Eng.

P.Geo.

There were 1168 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Geo. councillor for a two year term:

Pamela Fulton-Regula, P.Geo.

MIT Representative

There was no MIT Representative vacancy in 2014.

By-law Proposals

There were 1453 ballots submitted regarding the proposed By-law changes:

By-laws 3.3.3, 4.3.7, 4.5.2 Executive Director title
Result: PASS (For: 1309, Against: 139, Abstain: 5)
By-law 7.1.3 Qualifications for Life Membership
Result: PASS (For: 1391, Against: 61, Abstain: 1)

E-mail reminders were sent out on October 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 16th.

Anonymous Feedback

There was an opportunity for anonymous feedback after all the ballots were submitted:

Having candidates respond to fixed questions allowed for better comparison of their responses/platforms and hence facilitated chosing. Please continue.
This was a very easy way to vote. I found the links very helpful to review each candidate and to view the specifics of the bylaw changes. Well Done!
Lots of candidate choices this year. Too many? Not sure. I hope everyone takes the time to make an informed selection. Answering 3 questions was ideal for comparing candidates. Good candidates and biios. Good job APEGM. Thanks.
It's challenging ranking so many candidates from 1-11. I would have prefered just ranking top 4.
It was great to see the large number of candidates put forward. Their commitments are appreciated. Voting was straightforward and well setup.
Many candidates have minimal APEGM committee experience - disappointing, especially when some don't even have much relevant experience in other engineering organisations.
Ranking each and every candidate seems like overkill
I see you have negative feedback on the system, but I like the progressive voting format. I think it is a fair approach.
The 3 pre-chosen topics do not tell us much about these candidates.
In my view, the majority of the candidates have good platforms illustrating they have a good grasp of today's issues and concerns both within the profession and that of the public perception.
It will be nice if the response of all candidates to each question appears in one page to make it easier for comparison.
The ranked voting makes sense when there are only a few candidates, but when the selection is 11 I'm essentially forced to arbitrarily assign values, while the impact of each choice is far greater.
It should just be a vote for the top 4 or however many positions instead of ranking them all.
11 candidates to fill four vacancies is excessive - 6 (or 7) candidates to fill four vacancies should be sufficient. A guideline that has been used in the past is 1.5 candidates per vacancy, rounded up to the next whole number if there is an odd number of vacancies to be filled.
I'm proud of our Association and the efficient balloting process you've created. I'm enthused for the health and strength of our Association, reading all the candidate platforms.
Should our Association members play an effective role in educating ourselves, our academic and political partners, and all students in addressing and managing environmental problems (such as global warming) with a 'geologic time' perspective.
I like the format of having the candidates respond to the three questions.
I would to commend all candidates for the council for their dedicated services.
Video profiles in addition to written platforms of the candidates helped me in the overall decision. I appreciate the reminder emails to vote.
I was very surprised to see eleven candidates for only four Engineer Council positions. Required a lot of time to review and compare their Platforms and Histories and one wonders why so many were nominated.
THANKS FOR THE VIDEOS OF THE CANDIDATES
Very onerous process. Need to review platforms separately from the ballot. When there are 11 candidates for one position, the back and forth via the website is very time consuming. need to print platforms of all candidates and review as a whole prior to balloting.
Good presentation of material for checking candadite
I like the rationality of the By - Law proposal on life time membership for APEGM. Retiring engineers have vast knowledge and skills which they could share with others rather than lose them into oblivion forever!
Voted against "Chief". Don't actually have a problem with the word Chief, I do have a problem with its use as an adjective for the titles Director or Officer for persons who are in the employ of a Council or subject to the decisions of a Board. Not just for the APEGM, but in general. CEO, in particular, has come to be interpreted as someone who has Carte Blanche with the control of for-profit organizations and I don't believe the APEGM should further that perception. That said, CEO gives a good intuitive sense of what the job entails. The next step on that road, however, leads to the titles Chairman and Vice-Chair instead of President and Vice President, terms borrowed from the business world. It's easy enough to search for appropriate names to be used for Association positions. Certainly these things change as time marches on. Myself, I'd prefer something along the lines of Director General, a combination of Director and General Manager. No epaulets or stars required however.
Life membership should be granted at 60yrs of age, even if they are still gainfully employed. After paying for 25yrs of member dues, it is certain the member should have the honor of life membership. This voting process was extremely efficient, however the platorms for each candidate appear a little too long. Can this be condensed for future elections.
The Association should be focused on its mission rather than debating job titles.
For life membership the association with APEGM should also be changed to 25 years instead of 30 years.
CEO? Really? To bring us in line with others? Geez, Engineers should be leading, not following! If other "not for profits" (and I question including APEGM in that category, based on our escalating costs of PD and membership rates) decided to jump off a bridge, would we be bound to do that too?
Revised bylaw proposal deleted the 'a)' before the 65 years of age, so either it needs to be added back in or the next point needs to be 'a)'
The bylaw changing the title to executive director is ridiculous.
I am not a fan of the preference voting system since a vote of non-confidence in a specific voter does not work the way it should. By and large, most of the candidate platforms are the same so people who are not distinguishable in a meaningful way (and are not platforms in the true sense of the word as very few presented potential solutions) should not be given any preference ranking. This is a vote not a census! You should be asking them what they plan to do to fix the perceived problem, built by census, so that we can evaluate their plan while on council, not their ability to regurgitate common knowledge.
Thanks for sending the Reminder to vote out!
Thank you for making the process easy. I also appreciate the "prodding" as I have lots on the go and need reminders.
stop the daily reminders to vote, we all have enough noise we're already dealing with in our professional lives
The email "reminders" were more like harassment...
The e-mail reminders about the voting, helped me to remember of this task.
Spammers!
I did not appreciate the daily spam emails from APEGM about voting. In my opinion sending spam emails to professionals reflects badly on the association administration. Sure, send one or two emails as a reminder and I appreciate that. Please don't fill up my inbox with junkmail.
Excellent process. Thanks for multiple reminders.
Thanks for the reminder
The daily reminders were great. However, I would suggest words like "3 days left", 2 days left", etc in the email banner. Helped to get my vote in.
Geoscientists participation on voting and or volunteering appears to be low as compared to the professional engineers. This needs improvement.
Thank you to all committee members of the APEGM for organizing and managing this and to all these fine people who gave of their time to run for council!! :)
question - may I apply for life membership if I am still gainfully employed but now not practicing engineering? Thank you. Paul E. Barritt-Flatt
Voted randomly, but I voted!
We should be able to Void our vote
platforms were very slot to open
Very easy to navigate through the selection process.
Much easier than by snail mail
Love the online voting!
The electronic ballot voting is very convenient. The connecting of candidates platform with the ballot is an excellent convenience. Thanks for making voting convenient.
n/a
Another flawless online vote. Good work!
Great job. Candidate selection is easy and straightforward.
Good system
Very well organized voting system. Congratulations and thank you!
Easy to use.
Good voting system
The technology works pretty well Andrew. Dave Ennis
No comments at this time. Proud to be a member of the APEGM
The forms are great - super easy to use. Thanks!
Excellent way to vote - really well done APEGM!
easy peasy
:) Thank you too! :)
Efficient!
Excellent!
Good process
On line voting is a great method.
Well done! Presentation was informative and I appreciated the videos in particular. The voting process was smooth and effective.
Great System- works well
voted on on-line systems before. This voting platform is very well done. It allows you to easily navigate between voting individuals and their platforms.
none
N/A
Easy processing. Thanks.
None.
Thank you.
website worked well
Very efficient voting process - thanks.
Nice simple process...well done !
well organized website; easy to follow; quick to complete
Simple and easy online system
Well done! I really like the inclusion of the issue/background/platform on the ballot. Very easy to do online voting! Thank you!
Voting was easy to do.
Process was easy with all information easily accessible
Wishing all candidates the best of luck.
I like the user friendly format of the voting system. Kudos to the folks who engineered that!
Thanks
nice website, makes it easy
Good website - easy to follow and saves a lot of time and paper.
None
-
none
Nicely organized for voting
Well organized web site. Candidate and By-law information was presented for efficient review. Information re PDH requirements was clear.
excellent platform on balloting
Great way to vote! Thanks
The on-line voting system worked impressively well this year. Congratulations!
This is better than voting by mail.
no
Great idea to do this virtually. I have enough mail that I can't get to in a timely manner
On-line votign system worked a bit quarky for me, but conceptually sound if the bugs can be dealt with.
None
none
Great system; who ever thought of it, give them a hand.
good work
Thank you for the hard work.
Thank you
Excellent balloting process! I approve!
Excellent process foe voting. Thank you.
A well functioning and easy to navigate webpage; thanks, and please sign up whomever the designer is for future work!
Video plus pdf platform worked well. No internet glitches. Thanks for the effort!
None
The voting format is very user friendly, only complaint would be the session timed out before I completed it on my first attempt.
none
NA
Thank you for the constant reminders to vote. It is really appreciated.
this online voting experience was well designed, and very useful. Did not notice any unnecessary frills. Well done.
Like this electronic balloting.
Thank you!
I like this method of online voting, especially with the platform links