March 2007 ISSUE
READERS' FORUM
Board of Examiners Member
Supports Regulatory Proposal
We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions. Send them to George Lee, glee@apegga.org. Keep them to 300 words or less. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to edit or reject any letter.
Re: one Act, two Associations.
I am quite happy with the proposals coming forward.
Council has made great efforts to keep the membership informed about this issue over the last three presidencies, including the term of President David Chalcroft, P.Eng. In addition, the Board of Examiners has been briefed several times on the background and the proposals being discussed and ultimately proposed. Several board members served on ad-hoc committees working on the issue.
This has come a long way since the inclusivity debacle. Past President Larry Staples, P.Eng., and Mr. Chalcroft have put a huge effort into this, not only in dealing with ASET and the provincial government but also in soliciting and really listening to feedback from the membership.
The important final result of having technologists and engineers (and geoscience types) all under one roof has obviously required some compromise. I believe this was a worthy goal and I am satisfied that this can be done without jeopardizing our responsibility to protect the public interest.
The major benefit as I see it is the change from an adversarial position
between APEGGA and ASET into a cooperative one. The former benefits no one, and
the latter at least allows people to seek mutually acceptable solutions. Those
processes are well laid out in the discussion document.
One thing that we, as APEGGA professional members, have given up is our use of
the adjective “professional,” since the proposal includes the creation
of the designation of Professional Technologist.
However, I am willing to go this route since it is really the term “engineer” for which we have exclusive title through the legislation. The P-word is so overused now in day-to-day life (as “professional hairdresser,” “professional musician”) that I don’t believe it has much force on the public mind anyway.
I do not believe that this model will cause misunderstanding about the technical capability or responsibility of the user. Rather, it will help to identify individuals who are properly qualified for the work being asked of them.
Ultimately what matters is that the person holding the designation (P.Tech. or P.Eng.) is willing to stand up and say: “I will take responsibility for what I do.”
Furthermore, having watched the Board of Examiners review applicants for Registered Professional Technologist status for the past several years, I am quite comfortable with that process continuing. These people really are highly qualified and with tons of experience that allows them to practice independently within a defined scope. Given the care that APEGGA uses to grant R.P.T. status, I do not anticipate serious problems with the process for granting the P.Tech. designation. These applicants will have a much tighter scope defined for them, one that is consistent with their demonstrated competence (training plus experience).
The main issues here will be monitoring, practice review and compliance.
I plan on supporting the joint APEGGA-ASET proposal.
Dr. Roger Toogood, P.Eng.
APEGGA Board of Examiners
Past President is Proud
As a past president of APEGGA who has been active with the Association and followed the evolution of our relationship with ASET for 20 years, I feel compelled to write to express a few thoughts and feelings after attending the APEGGA-ASET Joint Town Hall Meeting.
I have never been more proud to be a member of APEGGA than I am now. I sincerely congratulate you and the other members of the discussion team, both the APEGGA and ASET members, for having accomplished what many considered could not be done. The framework of the agreement that was presented meets the win-win-win objective that was set for this discussion, and more.
Knowing firsthand how difficult and delicate this problem has been for all of us, I consider this to be a momentous accomplishment. It is clearly a win for APEGGA and our members, for ASET and its members, and for the government and people of Alberta - all of whom will be better served and protected by this one Act, two Associations model of professional governance.
I heartily and strongly endorse this proposal. Judging by the response of members of both organizations in attendance, and my own evaluation of the details I heard, the rocky path to this resolution was worth every step.
Technologists who so desire will now be able to take responsibility for the routine application of a specific code or standard that they have the training and experience to apply. This is an idea that is long overdue for implementation.
Our last step on this path, prior to drafting the legislation, is ratification by our respective memberships. I agree with Council’s approach to put the question to our members in a mail ballot, rather than submitting this to the limited attendance at our Annual General Meeting.
Again, I offer my congratulations to the Discussion Team, to Council, and to the ASET and APEGGA staff who have all worked very hard over many years to craft a wonderfully simple and creative solution. It is one that will enhance the regulation of our professions in Alberta.
Mike Smyth, P.Eng.
Past President
APEGGA