LOGIN

ABOUT

Council Election Results for 2015

The 2015 Council election was the fifth to be conducted online. The voter turnout was positive with 1783 out of 7768 eligible members casting at least one ballot, with one member submitting a paper ballot package.

This was the first election for the MIT Representative position. 366 voters out of 1391 eligible MITs cast a ballot. For the registered voters, 1416 out of 6377 eligible voters cast at least one ballot.

Council Election

P.Eng.

There were 1403 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Eng. councillors for two year terms:

  • Lindsay Melvin, P.Eng. FEC
  • John Guenther, P.Eng.
  • David Grant, P.Eng.
  • Jonathan Epp, P.Eng.

P.Geo.

There were 1185 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Geo. councillor for a two year term:

  • David Owens, P.Geo.

MIT Representative

There were 366 ballots submitted to elect the following MIT Representative for a two year term:

  • Christopher Trenholm, EIT

By-law Proposals

There were no proposed By-law changes in 2015.

[ballots per day]

E-mail reminders were sent out on October 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15th.

Anonymous Feedback

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

  • I think involving membership in more than just choosing councilors is an interesting idea. Perhaps including a question of what members feel is the most important issue in the profession in a space like this each year would also be a way to help give council feedback of what they should be working on.
  • 1-Unfortunately, none of the candidates did any campaign for their election. At least, they should have put up some efforts in this process to introduce themselves and canvassing to vote for them, even by emails. This could also help in increasing voter turn over. 2-Voting process is quite simple.
  • I like the platform of one candidate who said " we ( professional engineers and geoscientists) are more often questioned by decision makers with limited expertise and experience that hold little or no liability in the outcome of a decision. This increasing amount of bureaucracy is beginning to erode public perception of the engineering and geoscience professions in that we are being viewed less as a technical authority and more just a necessary resource. Professional engineers and geoscientists have received and continue to receive extensive education, training, and experience that allow us to make appropriate decisions and maintain public safety....."
  • It's time that APEGM played more of a role in limiting engineering work by non-engineers. As an example, at Manitoba Hydro accounting managers are placed directly in charge of engineers. In this role they have directed and at times interfered in engineering judgement. This issue has been informally raised to APEGM in the past, however APEGM's position was that they would not interfere unless they could guarantee a victory. APEGM needs to evaluate what steps it is willing to take to resolve this issue as part of its efforts to protect the practise of engineering in the province.
  • It would be nice to see candidates that aren't exclusively from Manitoba Hydro in the future, however, this is likely out of EGM's control.
  • I would add another question to candidates about interaction with members.
  • I encourage all APEGM members in good standing to vote but more important prior to voting is to review very carefully each candidate platform and historic.
  • My personal order of issues: 1. maintain self-regulation aginst all attempts to water it down or remove it entirely, 2. align with at least the "big two" associations in Canada (ON and AB) without compromising any of APEGM's power, 3. do what is reasonably neccessary to get women in the mix in APEGM and the two professions in general (Eng and Geologists) 4. Ditto aboriginals, which will probably be more difficult, more detailed but well worth doing. Regards, Ian
  • I am curious to know the best method to vote to most disadvantage a candidate I do not want to see on council; leave blank or put 9? If this does make a difference, the message that appears when leaving a blank implies an error that must be corrected, where in fact it is intentional on the part of the voter, and the system allows submitting the vote anyway. Perhaps the wording of the message can be changed to be more neutral, and not influence people to rank all candidates if they don't want to.
  • This proportional voting system is childish without providing all the results and implications to the membership online. Also, It seems that Manitoba Hydro is way over-represented.
  • Why rank when it is a vote????
  • Why ask to rank all candidates?
  • Can we have a simple voting system asking for four names rather than ranking all 9 candidates?
  • I should be able to just vote for people I like, not have to rank everyone.
  • For some reason I'm always surprised when I have to rank all of the candidates from 1 to n. It would be great if there was a more obvious reminder that I will need to do this, prior to reading the campaign platforms, so that I remembered to rank them all - not just pick my top favourites (up to the number of positions being filled). Then I wouldn't have to re-read the platforms, after openning the ballot(s).
  • In future a simplified description of how the ballots will be counted would be EXTREMELY valuable!
  • Doh! Please include a ranking order / preference legend on the ballot to allay my concerns: What ranking do I assign my highest preference? Is 1 my first choice or is it 9, because 9 is greater than 1! Yes, I realize that I should have paid more attention to the preamble.
  • Ordinal approach makes it pretty tough. I can choose the top 3 or 4 but after that its pretty messed up
  • I find the videos to be very unhelpful. If the candidates are just going to read their platforms out there is no point. We are all capable of reading.
  • The videos of each candidate are superfluous. I see little value in having the candidate regurgitate their written response in video form.
  • The videos were an excellent feature. Hopefully all candidates will be able to provide a video for the next election
  • Nominees who do not want/bother to make a video outlining their position are suggesting that (a) they don't appreciate public speaking, and (b) they don't want to put themselves 'on the line' for their beliefs, therefore, why should I vote for them to be a Councillor?
  • Let Linda know that her platform should not start with negatives, what she doesn't have. It should be positive promoting her benefits to the organization.
  • Very good process. However, with this technological advancement a video presentation from each candidate should be mandatory. It is a big decision with little knowledge of and input from the candidates. Further, selfish as we are, we are not prepared to give it much more time.
  • On-line voting was very convenient and helpful. Having all the candidates, their platform and videos helped solidify the voting process, thank you.
  • Good Job with having the candidates videos... I hope all candidates will have videos uploaded in the next election.
  • Photos would be nice of the participates. At many networking events you may have meet the members but don't remember their names, but their face.
  • None of the links to the videos worked. 2015 10 15.
  • I ranked the candidates the wrong way. brain fart
  • Too Many Candidates
  • good to have this many candidates for council APEGM
  • Look forward to getting involved with APEGM affairs on a regular basis
  • Thank you for the opportunity to explore and participate in the voting process.
  • Many good candidates this year.
  • Why aren't older engineers (over 40) better represented?
  • There are 9 candidates for the P.Eng and 2 for the P.Geo. A more balanced number of candidates for next election is more desired.
  • APEGM should find some good measures to encourage more qualified members to enter the competition for all those important positions.
  • In general, there seems to be a decline in the level of the candidates' previous APEGM committee involvement, compared to years past. Having experience outside APEGM is useful but not as much as having worked on "the inside".
  • Impressive list of candidates!
  • I thought there was to be voting for an MIT ?
  • It is mising the EIT Council Ballot.
  • What happened to the MIT's?
  • Would like to vote for Trenholm in the MIT election. If two positions exist, would like to vote for both candidates.
  • Unfortunately it was not communicated effectively that as an MIT I am entitled to only vote for an MIT representative. I spent time reviewing all the P.Eng representative platforms and rank them, then to realize I can't vote for them.
  • As a new P. Eng, it would have been nice to be able to vote for the MIT representative too, as that has been my experience for the last 4 years, excluding the most recent 6 months. It would be nice to take into account when a person has received their P. Eng, and if within the last 2 years, allow them to also vote for the MIT rep.
  • If there are no bylaw proposals to vote on, the messages should reflect this. e.g. "About Council Election and By-law Changes for 2015 Notification of candidate platforms and proposed By-law changes will be available below by Friday, September 18, 2015"
  • Funny how the list of candidates for voting is not in the same order their platforms were presented.
  • The electronic voting system with candidates platform easily accessible is great way to run elections efficiently.
  • I very much appreciate the internet based interaction on these matters. I particularly liked the fact that it notified me that I could vote for the Geoscientist slate.
  • The daily emails sure got me to vote, so I guess good job in wearing me down. I'll admit I really took no interest in it and found once I finally gave in and reviewed the candidates, I found myself having a strong preference about who I would want to elect, and was compelled to vote.
  • The system should provide a means to abstain from voting for a particular person.
  • The daily reminders to vote are very annoying. APEGM is the only association that I know uses this technique. It worked this time but not the next.
  • Daily pestering... that's aggressive.
  • I vote nearly every year. This year I felt bullied into voting by the endless email reminders. There will be many members that will only be voting to stop the emails. They will spend no time reading the platforms and will not be making informed decisions. Please do not do this again next year. If so, I will be changing my email account so that my EGM emails go straight to a spam folder.
  • very persistent reminders
  • Thank You for informing me.
  • Electronic reminder worked well, should encourage all candidates to prepare video presentation. Thank you for all who helped administrating this.
  • Voting process was very simple and user friendly. The package of information for each candidate provided enough details to make informed decisions.
  • I tried voting last week but the link in the email wasn't working. That might discuridge some people that are quite busy.
  • This was my first electronic voting. The system worked very well. I appreciated the updates and easy access to the candidate platforms.
  • Good user interface. Appreciate the 'order #' no longer being an option in the drop down once it's selected.
  • The online voting is so convenient. I really appreciate the links to the candidate's platforms being available in the voting screen. Great job!
  • I like how the website opens candidate platforms in a new window. A small detail but convenient and helpful.
  • The .pdf profile list was very useful.
  • One table that outlines the platform of all the candidates would be helpful- for easy comparison.
  • Was going to look at data for Geo's but couldn't get to it as a seperate restart. Please allow in future.
  • Since I am not a Geoscientist, I did not vote when I voted for the engineering representatives.
  • Related to Mr Balsillie's recent article [http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/parties-make-their-final-pitch-to-voters-1.3260296/jim-balsillie-deplores-colonial-policy-for-innovation-1.3260307] I think the association would benefit the public, province and country by explicitly addressing needs for software and technical innovation and the means necessary to export Manitoba's engineering ideas to the world.
  • Do not know both of them.
  • is this portal secure?
  • Like it matters. Council does whatever it wants.
  • Note that I am working most of the year in SE-Asia, and far from home and Manitoba - active in Environmental air-borne and satellite remote sensing
  • I wish I had the opportunity to practice engineering in Manitoba but instead I was blacklisted I'm Winnipeg by XXXX and YYYY and ZZZZ from BBBB and had to emigrate to Italy after five months of cold and hunger in 2013/2014 fighting off the field mice in my rental home on Lennox Ave.
  • Any member of APEGM should be a Citizen of Canada or Permanent Resident of Canada or a legal resident of Canada. The license should not be given to Professional Engineers who are citizens of other countries than Canada, since this conflict with public interest and holding them liable. We should be looking for providing jobs for Canadian engineers first and not to export engineering south of Canada to USA and Mexico and else where.
  • Yes, I want to remain anonymous. Thank you for the opportunity to remain anonymous.
  • N/A
  • none
  • None
  • none
  • No issues.
  • none
  • none
  • None
  • None
  • n/a
  • NA
  • none
  • none
  • .
  • pfft.
  • Thank you
  • Thank you.
  • Thanks
  • Thanks.
  • Goodluck!
  • I wish all the candidates best of luck
  • Well advertised and easy voting system.
  • Well-organized ballot.
  • YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD SYSTEM SET UP FOR BALLOTING.
  • It is an amazing quick process, will let every member to know the candidates and elect easily. Thank you APAEGM
  • Great process.
  • Voting process was great!
  • excellent process.
  • I like it.
  • I like the online voting - thanks for all the hard work to get this system implemented
  • Good system for voting.
  • Wish you all the best.
  • First time voting. I like how the voting is set up and is very quick and easy to do.
  • first time voter, liking the system
  • Online voting was easy and fast. Especially like the integration of the candidate's platform directly into the ballot program.
  • great website. works good
  • I like this system of voting. Very quick and easy.
  • Thanks for an easy voting process online.
  • good luck to all candidates
  • Nice process. Easy.
  • Nice and clean, straight-forward process. Love it.
  • Another excellent democratic experience!
  • Excellent process!
  • The online procedure is an awesome efficient system; good work!
  • EXCELLENT PROCESS
  • Great system for voting!
  • Quick and easy! Thanks
  • good design of the voting page
  • Everything worked well and was clearly laid out - good job!
  • Great process. Thank you for your effort.
  • Much easier than mailings
  • Great job guys
  • Thank You
  • APEGM has done a great job with their voting process
  • Thanks very much for the easy method to do this now!
  • Send example to government(s) as a sensible model to use in their elections. Well done!
  • :)
  • I like the only voting process. It is easier to get it done
  • I really like the videos they should be manditory for candidates
  • Good system
  • Thanks to APEGM