LOGIN

ABOUT

Council Election and By-law Change Results for 2013

The 2013 Council election and By-law proposal vote was the third to be conducted online. The voter turnout was positive with 1490 out of 5878 eligible members casting at least one ballot online, and no members submitting paper ballot packages.

Council Election

P.Eng.

There were 1448 ballots submitted to elect the following P.Eng. councillors for two year terms:

  • David Grant, P.Eng.
  • Lesley McFarlane, P.Eng.
  • Jonathan Epp, P.Eng.
  • Warren Gendzelevich, P.Eng.

P.Geo.

There was no P.Geo. ballot in 2013.

  • Christopher Beaumont Smith, P.Geo. (by acclamation)

MIT Representative

There was no MIT Representative ballot in 2013.

  • Kaitlin Fritz, EIT (by acclamation)

By-law Proposals

There were 1351 ballots submitted regarding the proposed By-law change:

  • By-law 4.5.4 Public Interest Review Committee
    PASS (For: 1111, Against: 240, Abstain: 0)

[ballots per day]

E-mail reminders were sent out on October 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17th.

Anonymous Feedback

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

  • I see that the By-law change isn't necessary - I feel that the existing AGEGM council and committee's should be able to handle.
  • Public interest committee will benefit professional engineers and the public alike in clarifying grey areas that either party is not so sure. That's great. I have voted for it and hope more professional engineers will join me. Look forward to seeing its passing.
  • Public interest committee looks like something that global warming eco-fascists will hijack almost immediately, to use APEGM's credibility as sheep's clothing for their anti-scientific, anti-commerce ideology.
  • Anyone except [name redacted]. We don't need a public interest committee. It's just a bunch of old cranks with an axe to grind.
  • A public interest review committee seems a little redundant because it is the duty of every APEGM member to be a proper representative of engineering to the public, and so far I think we are doing an adequate job. I don't see a public interest review committee to be the way to make it better.
  • The Bylaw appears to be "make work" effort. Worst, a duplicate effort from what others are doing. Best to create an adhoc (defined duration) committee under an existing committee to address the issue (if in fact an issue has been identified). Many of the council candidates are exceptionally young. It is unfortunate more of the veterans are not stepping up, this is not an encouraging sign.
  • Anybody but [name redacted]... please.
  • Very limited crop of candidates to choose from. APEGM is a licensing body. Public interest activities should be by ACEC or other organizations.
  • Good diverse slate of candidates.
  • I would have liked an option to abstain for candidates. If there was an option, it was not clear how to use it. I didn't see any way to abstain on the by-laws vote either. I don't believe not-voting should be the only form of abstention. There should be for, against, and abstain.
  • I like the approach to voting: basing the selection on the candidate's platform appears to be a very comprehensive means for evaluation.
  • Assuming "...in order of preference 1,2,3,4..." means 1 pt for most preferred and 8 for least preferred, but you should state this explicitly.
  • I was very surprised to see that the vote for the councillors was a ranking from 1 to 8 versus a standard one vote for one person for one opening. I am not really in favour of this ranking system without giving prior notice as to this unusual system of voting. What happens if I only rank my top 4? or three? How is the result taken into effect across the board? Straight voting is pretty clear how it works. This ranking really can skew the results and makes it not so clear how to vote in my opinon.
  • Why would we rank all 8 when we are selecting only n4?
  • I was directed to vote for four councillors but the voting required that I vote for eight. Of the four I did not vote, I would have assigned each a zero valve, instead I had to assign them a value from 5 to 8 indicating that one was preferred over another.
  • Voting is very difficult when you do not know the candidates. You have made in worse by only allowing one bio to be open at a time. Printed material allowed comparison of platforms. You can do the equivalent by allowing each bio to be open in a separate window or by putting them all in the same window in parallel columns. I hope this is helpful for next year. All candidates seemed worthy.
  • I like being able to vote for candidates in order of preference. Wish voting for provincial / federal elections was similar.
  • I would rather have votes for a couple of councilors and not all. There was no facility to do that.
  • I read the platforms of all eight Engineers, then selected four. Once online, I was informed that it was a ranking exercise. It would have been nice to know this ahead of time (though I did make five selections!).
  • Are the names of the candidates randomized for every voters ballot, or do they appear in the same order for everyone? Just curious, because if everyone sees the same order, there may be some bias as to the voting.
  • The videos seem unnecessary. Some people had them, some didn't. Some used it to outline their resumes, some used it for their platforms. Some had one minute, some seemed to be given more time. It was a bit all over the place. If the video platforms are used again, a more structured system should be put in place to ensure fair and consistent products between candidates.
  • I like the way this voting was conducted, particularly the candidate platforms as links next to the names.
  • thx for the priviledge of voting, it would be good to have an all candidates evening
  • There is a forum for bylaws. Can we have a forum for candidates to allow us to ask questions of them?
  • nice having the backgound or reference document open in a new window
  • When I went from the ballot to the platform I could not get back to the ballot?????
  • Have one PDF file containing all candidates backgrounds/positions organized by last name in alphabetical order, the same as that on the ballet list. This will make it much easier to go back and forth between candidates positions and make better choices.
  • For those not well versed in committee work and association by-laws, a 9 page document outlining changes to by-laws is steeped in "legalese". It would be nice if there was some way, which does not contravene APEGM other by-laws, that APEGM could provide context to the by-law change at the time of voting. I know there have been discussions in the past--all those published documents should be available to members at time of voting, including meeting minutes documenting the discussions that took place.
  • Bylaw Proposal lacks any kind of explanation as to what the background is for it, to its purpose or value to the membership, or to its purpose or value to the public. Therefore, how can it be voted on? Suggest in future, that this information be provided with the Ballot.
  • I like the daily reminders - thanks!
  • Thanks for the reminder to vote, wasn't going to until I got it.
  • Simple, easy, I wouldn't have voted if it had not been electronic. Thanks for the reminder too....that spurred me to submit my votes.
  • I very much appreciate the web based approach to obtaining feedback from members. I am also gratful for the reminder emails. Thank you.
  • Good idea having a reminder system for busy people. If it weren't for your reminder emails I never would have voted.
  • Well organized, good short platform statements, much easier than other online voting I have tried. E-mail reminders helped. For busy people this is a
  • I do not appreciate the constant emails, in particular the threatening tone in the following statement: "To stop receiving these daily reminders from APEGM, please vote online now."
  • reminder emails served their purpose
  • Do not hound me by e-mail.
  • Kindly stop spamming this 'reminder' email; I have no intention of voting and do not appreciate seeing the same email every few days.
  • I'll stop receiving these reminders if you stop sending them. So please do.
  • I would like to voice my concern with these ongoing emails. I find them very unprofessional and request that they stop. I can understand one or two reminders, but this is ridiculous.
  • Please stop sending me these emails ? The decision to vote or not vote is mine to make and is frankly none of your business. I find these repeated reminders really annoying.
  • I should not be harassed daily until I am coerced into voting. Take me off this email list. I will vote if and when I choose.
  • The e-mail reminders were effective. I hope that APEGM will continue to use them for future elections.
  • If you want to keep sending me these notices, that is your prerogative. However, I have no intention of voting. Your ballot choices should include an option of ?No Vote?, so those persons such as myself will not be continuously bombarded by annoying reminders trying to pry a vote from us. If I choose not to vote for whatever reason, that is my prerogative.
  • I will not be voting. Please stop reminding me. I tried to vote, but I do not know the candidates or the issues. I am disappointed no geologists ran for elections.
  • I must mention that in the 40 years since graduation with my BScME73, I have never felt prouder, reading about the broad enthusiasm for promotion of our profession and mention that the experience of people like myself who helped build much of this nations infrastructure(17 years with Dominion Bridge) is such a valuable resource.
  • Thank you for the effort to participate in the election on line
  • In view of the serious shortage of experienced practicing engineers, I believe that council should review the requirements for those wishing to continue to be engaged in professional engineering practice during their retirement years. There is no benefit to anyone in having to jump through a lot of hoops in order to retain the professional status in the twilight years of ones professional life. Personally i would like to see all upgrading requirements waived for engineers with 40+ years of service who want to continue to practice. They are much more equipped to provide sound engineering services in their field of engineering than most up starts. Thanks for your consideration.
  • Be careful you aren't creating too many Committees - there may not be enough Council members to fill them.
  • Please stop wasting our money and time!
  • Glad to see 30-somethings running for council.
  • APEGM should take a closer look at all the cost accountants managing and directing engineering work in industry. There should be limits to the number of representatives from a single company on the APEGM council.
  • How could I get the email address of Ramon Cairo? Could APEGM share it with me? Thanks.
  • KCCO
  • no
  • All good in the hood G!!!
  • Thank you!
  • Thanks
  • No thank you.
  • none
  • Terribly complicated voting procedures that ought to be simplified.
  • Efficient logical voting system
  • I like the on line voting system
  • Love the online voting process! Very smooth and quick to do. Great job!
  • Very easy to use the on-line ballot!
  • Process was pretty efficient; background info readily available for review before making final decisions.
  • Awesome format, can't think of a way it could have been better.
  • Videos are a great addition. Good to see and hear as well as read positions from each candidate.
  • I like the website format. It facilitates a quick education on the platforms / bylaws. Nice work.
  • I love the online voting - so simple and easy!
  • Worked perfectly. Great job Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba!
  • online voting should increase participation.
  • Very easy to use system
  • Very impressed with e-voting platform.
  • I prefer the on-line voting method to the old mail-in ballot system.
  • GOOD PROCESS
  • It was efficient how links to the candidate platforms were right on the voting e-form.
  • great to be able to do this on line
  • Nice interface!
  • Very friendly set up
  • Thanks!
  • Nice and fast!
  • Thanks.
  • Great convenient system. I appreciated the video recordings as well
  • Well presented & simple Survey. Keep up with your good work!!
  • Good panel
  • A great voting system!! well done
  • good way to do voting!
  • Great format this year. Appreciate the opportunity to double check my selection before submission.
  • Good, easy system to use instead of paper. Welcome improvement.
  • this worked very well. sorry i was late voting. Out of Province
  • Easy to use process. It was good to have the background information and platform links easily available for review. Thank you
  • Excellent voting system!
  • Great setup for online voting! For sure it cuts down on the paper and procedural documents. Excellent work!
  • Electronic ballot-ing is greeatly appreciated.
  • Very good! Thank you
  • On-line voting much preferable to paper.
  • Great way to vote.
  • like what all of you are doing
  • Online ballot is a great way to vote. Thanks
  • very user friendly voting system.
  • The website information and voting page made it easy to vote, and it did not take more time than it should have taken. Good job on this.
  • Well done. Simple (even an engineer can figure it out!). Be interested to see the participation rate compared to other forms of voting. Regards,
  • voting is extremely important and I applaud APEGM for making it easier for out of province members to participate
  • Very efficient process now.
  • Thanks to the Elections committee for the excellent work. This year's strong candidate list made it hard to rank the choices. The electronic voting seems to be very efficient; I do not have any concerns about the security set in place to protect the voting process.