• Home
  • In the News
  • About Katherina
    • Contact
  • Portfolio
    • List of Publications
      • Research
        • Dissertation Abstract
        • Gender Diversity in Engineering
    • Music, songs, creations
    • Speaking Events
    • EGBC Council
  • The Lokhorst Group Ventures

Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)

~ BASc, MBA, DSocSci, PastPresident Engineers and Geoscientists BC

Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)

Tag Archives: APEGBC

About CPD

15 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

APEGBC, council, engineer, engineering, geoscience

I recently received an anonymous comment to my July Candidate Statement post in which interesting points were made around continuous professional development, CPD. I think it is likely that others may have the same viewpoints, so I am addressing them here. The three points were:

  1. The Engineers and Geoscientists Act (which requires adherence to a Code of Ethics), in conjunction with the Code of Ethics, already creates a legal requirement to maintain competence, making the CPD bylaw redundant.
  2. Suggesting that there may be engineers or geoscientists who are not conducting sufficient professional development could be construed as violating the Code of Ethics.
  3. Very few, if any, engineers or geoscientists are completing insufficient CPD.

First, to clarify, in addition to requiring the development of and adherence to a Code of Ethics, the Act mentions professional development once, in reference to possible bylaws council can create “to assist in promoting and maintaining the competency and proficiency of members and licensees” (10.1.m.1). Previous members of the association created and updated the first Code of Ethics, which refers to CPD twice, in Principles Six and Ten. Principle Six states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice and provide opportunities for the professional development of their associates.

This principle is clearly about the requirement for professional development. Therefore, my anonymous commenter is correct: together, the Act and the Code of Ethics define the legal requirement for CPD. This, however, does not make the proposed bylaw redundant. Rather, we need the bylaw to operationalize the Act and regulate the activities of our members – this is the duty of APEGBC as a self-regulating body.

One simple way to officially uphold the Act has already been piloted for the past few years as a voluntary trial: a check-box on our membership renewal webpage. Unfortunately, I am aware that a number of our members do not click the check-box specifically because it is voluntary to do so, despite completing more than the annual development requirement. As a professional association, we need to demonstrate 100% member compliance so that legislators and public alike can be fully confident that all engineers and geoscientists are conducting sufficient professional development.

The second principle relating to professional development is Principle Ten, which states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and geoscience and protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

This is the second aspect of CPD: outreach to and education of the public. CPD protects the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding by requiring not only that each professional member is, in fact, increasing their own knowledge but that they are also helping to extend the public’s knowledge about engineering and geoscience. Many members are participating in school outreach programs, giving presentations and judging science fairs. Other members are participating in public presentations or mentoring junior engineers. These activities qualify for CPD hours, too.

Principle Ten is the principle that my anonymous commenter suggests is violated if someone suggests another member may not be CPD compliant, as if such an assertion casts aspersion on APEGBC. Yet this is nonsense: identifying members at fault is good for APEGBC because it means that we are paying attention to what each other is doing so that only qualified engineers, geoscientists and licensees are permitted to practice.  There are members who have been negligent — just take a look at the disciplinary page on the website.

On a technical level, Principle Ten refers only to educating the public about our professions so that neither members nor the public misrepresent APEGBC. It does not refer to member actions, unlike Principles Seven and Nine. These two principles directly relate to members misrepresenting other professional members, highlighting our obligations to support other professionals yet report them if they do something “hazardous, illegal or unethical”. Interestingly, these two principles actually support my view that we must have the freedom to challenge the few professional members who are completing insufficient CPD as determined by their peers: those members are misrepresenting their knowledge and expertise.

For reference, Principle Seven states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Conduct themselves with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment.

Principle Nine states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Report to their association or other appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by members, licensees or others.

It is worth noting that the majority of engineers and geoscientists have been maintaining their responsibilities by taking classes, attending workshops, reading relevant trade journals and sharing knowledge with other professionals. It is, however, somewhat naïve to believe this applies to us all. I have worked with hundreds of amazing professionals who more than uphold the APEGBC Code of Ethics. Yet, I regret to say that I know of a couple who just don’t make as much time for CPD as they should. These two individuals, less than 0.5% of my professional acquaintances, have the potential to destroy the incredible reputation we share as professionals by shirking their responsibilities in some way. When we call them to task about this lack, we strengthen our profession and we show others we believe this principle to be vital. This is how we further protect the public.

I am not sure if my anonymous commenter had an actual objection to mandatory CPD, or only wished to assert that he or she thinks it is redundant. Perhaps the real objection may be similar to one of those I have heard personally or read on the CPD microsite, such as: a concern that reporting CPD will take too much time (It won’t: it only takes a couple minutes), a concern that verifiable CPD activities are too expensive (Some are, but many of the activities conscientious engineers and geoscientists undergo are verifiable and free), a concern that non-professionals are dictating to members what qualifies for CPD (Not happening: we have around a thousand member volunteers, some of whom have informed the guidelines for development requirements within their own disciplines, member to member — as for the specific activities, we each have the responsibility to decide for ourselves), a concern that non-practicing members cannot meet the practice requirement (Irrelevant: non-practicing members do not have to complete CPD because they are not practicing as engineers or geoscientists), or a concern that the requirements are too high (Through consultation with over 4000 members, the number of hours has been lowered).

What is the downside of mandatory CPD? I cannot see one. Even if having a bylaw for mandatory CPD was redundant, which it is not, the worst outcome would be wasting a minute or two in checking the box on the renewal form.

What are the benefits? Self-regulation, increased public trust, increased education, increased relevance, increased participation and engagement of members, and enhanced engineering and geoscience practice.

There is nothing to lose and much to gain with mandatory CPD.

I urge all APEGBC members to review the CPD microsite and read the considered answers to member questions. Read the requirements of other professions in BC and other engineering and geoscience regulators across Canada. Consider your own development activities and see how many of them already align with the CPD requirements. Mandatory CPD is an easy way to uphold our Act and, more importantly, public safety.

I hope this helps you make your decision as you vote on the new bylaw.

APEGBC Releases Position Paper on Climate Change

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in General

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

APEGBC, engineering, information

APEGBC has published a position paper on climate change as it relates to the professional practice of engineering and geoscience. The position paper, developed by APEGBC’s Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG) outlines the association’s position on the changing climate in BC, as well as the implications for practicing professionals. APEGBC members play a key role in providing guidance and advice to decision makers on how to respond to climate change, given their technical expertise and commitment to public safety.

APEGBC’s position statement on climate change is as follows: Continue reading →

Voting for the Council Election and Bylaw Ratification Now Open

06 Friday Sep 2013

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

APEGBC, council, vote

The 2013/2014 Council election and bylaw ratification vote is now open. Voting information and candidate statements have been circulated to eligible members and licensees by e-mail. The information is also available online.

Information for online voting

Engineering Policy in the US

28 Friday Jun 2013

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

APEGBC, engineer, news, policy

The following summary was distributed by the American Association of Engineering Educators’ aggregator today. The US often experiences common issues a few years ahead…this may be worth the analysis.

Engineering and Public Policy

H-1B Visas Divisive Element In Immigration Reform Bill.
The Washington Post Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/28, Lakshmi) reports that H-1B visas, which “allow highly trained professionals to work on specific projects in the United States” is becoming a divisive part of immigration reform legislation passed by the Senate. The bill will increase the annual cap on the visas from 65,000 to 180,000. Critics argue that the visas, utilized frequently for IT engineers from India, steal American jobs and can often be legally extended beyond their maximum three years. Tech companies assert that the visas are needed for them to remain competitive at a time of engineer shortages in the United States. The legislation would also install new restrictions on heavy visa-issuing companies. Visa interviews have become more strenuous in recent years because of issues in the files of engineers’ employment statuses within certain consulting firms.
        The New York Times Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/28, Sengupta, Subscription Publication) reports that the labor lobby feels the tech industry’s real agenda with H-1B visas is to have a lower-priced, temporary and more pliant foreign workforce. They believe a real engineer shortage would lead to higher salaries and want companies to be mandated to “offer jobs to equally qualified Americans before hiring foreigners” Harvard business professor William R. Kerr indicates his research determined hiring immigrants does not help or hinder American employment. Entry-level position account for a majority of H-1B visa holders.
        Senate Approves Historic Immigration Reform Bill 68-32. CBS Evening News (6/27, lead story, 2:35, Pelley) reported that “a nation of immigrants tonight is one step closer to creating a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants…living here illegally.” CBS News reported that 14 GOP Senators “joined every Democrat in voting ‘yes.’”
        NBC Nightly News (6/27, story 2, 2:40) correspondent Kelly O’Donnell reported that “Republican opponents label [the Senate bill] amnesty” and warn that “it could drive down wages here.” Sen. Jeff Sessions: “Don’t we need to consider the impact that this policy could have on working Americans?”
        ABC World News (6/27, lead story, 2:20, Sawyer), the Washington Post Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/27, O’Keefe), Politico Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/28, Kim), theWashington Times Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/28, Dinan), the Washington Post Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/27, O’Keefe), the AP Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/27, Espo, Werner), the Los Angeles Times Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/27, Mascaro, Bennett), USA Today Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/27, Gomez, Davis), the Wall Street Journal Share to FacebookShare to Twitter (6/28, Connect, Subscription Publication) and other media sources also cover the story.

Member Engagement

24 Monday Jun 2013

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC, General

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

APEGBC, BC, engineer, outreach, Victoria

One of the outreach objectives of the Association is to increase the level of participation of  members in association activities.  Our new president mentions in his blog that the Association appreciates when “members take the initiative” to connect (http://michaelbapty.ca/apegbc/member-engagement/), and I think that is exactly right:  we have an obligation to do what we can to reach out to other members within the Association and to our communities at large.

Here in the Victoria Branch, we are making efforts to connect with each other and the public through a variety of interesting and intriguing dinner meeting activities.  A few of our great successes this past year included tours of innovative companies such as

  • Starfish Medical (http://starfishmedical.com),
  • Viking Air (http://www.vikingair.com/), and, most recently,
  • the Centre of the Universe who hosted our AGM (http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/outreach/cu/).

We have seen great improvements in the breadth of member participation during these dinner meetings as well as increasing numbers of the public coming to join the tours:  Lots of new faces!

Thanks for your support, Victoria!

Candidate for Council, APEGBC 2013 elections

21 Friday Jun 2013

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

APEGBC, BC, engineering, equality, fairness, gender, public, reputation, Victoria

Thank you for nominating me for the 2013 APEGBC Council. I look forward with anticipation to this natural next step in my service to British Columbia and to the engineering and geoscience professions.

As I become more involved in professional community outreach, I am increasingly aware that the engineering reputation (fortunately, not so much geoscience) is having a negative impact on our youth and their parents and counsellors regarding entering the profession. I believe that, for the long-term success of engineering and geoscience in the global community, we must encourage our members to model what we hope to see as the future of our profession: gender balance and diversity.

These two topics consistently resonate with APEGBC and community members when we discuss our vision of the future, revealing a fundamental concern: fairness for all.  I have heard this from professionals in small and medium enterprises and from professionals in very large corporations, from men and from women.

I believe in fairness and the inclusion of all voices at all levels.  If elected to council, I will ensure all voices and needs are heard.

Governance experience to date:

  • Outreach Coordinator, APEGBC-Victoria Branch (13 years on executive)
  • Camosun College Board of Governors (3 years)
  • Academic Governance Council of British Columbia (3 years)
  • Education Council, Camosun College (6 years)

For more information about me, please view my LinkedIn profile at: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kathytarnailokhorst

Recent Posts

  • CWL planning to use tech! September 24, 2021
  • Inclusion Research Opportunity September 24, 2021
  • Inclusive presentations made easy-ish March 3, 2021
  • Pandemic May 10, 2020
  • Remembering… December 8, 2019

Archives

Follow Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon) on WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • CWL planning to use tech!
  • Inclusion Research Opportunity
  • Inclusive presentations made easy-ish
  • Pandemic
  • Remembering…

Recent Comments

Louise on Presidential updates for …
Kathy Tarnai-Lokhors… on APEGBC 2017 VP Nominee
Sarah Campden on APEGBC 2017 VP Nominee
Sarah Campden on Councillor (not VP…yet…
Sarah Campden on New Members, Life Members

Archives

  • September 2021
  • March 2021
  • May 2020
  • December 2019
  • January 2019
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • January 2018
  • June 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • February 2015
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013

Categories

  • APEGBC
  • Balancing gender
  • Events
  • General
  • Inclusion
  • Outreach Ideas

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)
    • Join 30 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar