CEO’s Message
APEGA
Strength in Governance — A Review of APEGA’s Improved Nominating Process
BY MARK FLINT, P.ENG. APEGA Chief Executive Officer
If you’ve been watching your Association over the past few years, you have observed change in its various stages of progress. Just over two years ago, APEGA’s Council completed one of those stages — a significant review of their governance model and supporting committees. Since then, there has been considerable focus on revamping the way APEGA approaches succession planning for Council. Now we jump ahead to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) last April. If you were there, you would probably recall a debate about some of the proposed changes to the nominating process. We had socialized the proposed changes through a series of communications and by consulting various groups. Still, there were concerns voiced at the AGM. You are likely aware that APEGA is perhaps more than ever an organization that consults with its stakeholders, especially its Members. A core value of this organization is Accountability (there are three others — Innovation, Service, and Integrity). I therefore feel duty-bound to revisit two of the concerns raised at the 2015 AGM. Please excuse a quick allusion to my last career: in the military, this is a process we called an after action review. Essentially, it’s my chance to report to you that: • I heard your concerns • we monitored them throughout the process • the results indicate that, valid though these concerns were, they did not come to fruition as problems Perhaps the most contentious issue raised surrounded the requirement that write-in nominees would now need to secure the support of 25 Members instead of the previous 10. This was predicted to be particularly difficult for potential nominees in rural areas, where the population density of Members is low. If the network of Professional Members you know personally is only 10 or 12, how will you possibly get 25 signatures? One candidate of 14 seeking a seat on Council or the Executive Committee did raise the issue during the process.
But the concern did not appear to be significant. What we saw in action during the nominating process is that Branches can be very helpful in assisting potential candidates connect with fellow Members. My assessment is that this change from 10 to 25 signatures for write-in candidates did not constitute a barrier to nomination.
SEQUENCING OF SELF-NOMINATIONS
The second contentious issue was one of sequencing and timing in the write-in process. A list of names and occupations of candidates used to be published in each year’s final edition of The PEG . Members could check out the names, then decide to accept the list recommended by the Nominating Committee or submit their own nomination to run for Council in the coming year. This election cycle, we required that Members interested in running for Council submit their nomination forms at the same time as the Nominating Committee submitted its list. This meant write-ins were considered for endorsement by the committee. It also created a more equitable evaluation process; for example, for the first time all candidates were actually interviewed. This ensured a fair assessment of individuals’ capabilities against a skills matrix that Council identified specifically for 2016. This matrix is extremely important, because the needs of Council change from year to year and Strategic Plan to Strategic Plan. In addition, candidates were all given feedback on their assessments. These changes are a significant, positive improvement to APEGA’s nominating process. As mentioned, in the past candidates selected by the Nominating Committee were advertised in The PEG prior to the submission date for write-ins. The change in the sequencing for write-in submissions ensures that the committee can continue to fulfill its mandate of presenting the most suitable nominees available. The committee assesses all Council candidates, presenting a list of those best suited to Council’s needs. These
6 | PEG SPRING 2016
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker