2016 PIPSC AGM Minutes

THE PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
MINUTES OF THE 97^th ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 18-19, 2016
HILTON LAC LEAMY, GATINEAU, QC

The Chair, Marilyn Best, called the 97^th Annual General Meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. and welcomed all delegates and observers. She introduced the head table, namely Debi Daviau (President), Dan Jones (Parliamentarian) and Julie Gagnon (AGM Coordinator and Recording Secretary).

Friday, November 18, 2016

Several housekeeping announcements were made.

1. Observance of Moment of Silence

The meeting started with a minute of silence for members who passed away in 2016.

2. Approval of Agenda

Moved and seconded that the agenda be approved as presented. Carried

3. Approval of Rules of Procedures

Moved and seconded that the Rules of Procedures for the 2016 PIPSC Annual General Meeting be approved. Carried

4. Approval of Minutes

Moved and seconded that the minutes of the 96^th Annual General Meeting be adopted as presented. Carried

5. Matters Arising from the Minutes

There were no matters arising from the 2015 AGM minutes.

6. Report on Resolutions Adopted at the 2015 AGM

The report on resolutions adopted at the 2015 AGM was received by the 2016 AGM.

7. Disposition of the 2015 AGM Resolutions

Moved and seconded that the report on the disposition of the 2015 AGM resolutions be received by the 2016 AGM. Carried

8. The Honourable Scott Brison’s Address to the 2016 AGM

Treasury Board President Scott Brison addressed the delegates at the 2016 PIPSC Annual General Meeting. 

9. President’s Opening Address and Executive Report

President Daviau addressed the assembly at this time.

The floor was opened to questions from the assembly.

Q – Disappointment expressed that the dues increase was raised in the President’s speech and through a video.

A – It is important for members to hear from the elected President on such an important matter. It demonstrates the cohesive effort from the leadership around the dues increase and will enhance discussions on the issue when then resolution is presented.

Q – Is PIPSC ready to highlight the important work of members, collectively and individually?

A – As mentioned in the President’s speech, successes will continue to be celebrated through improved communications.

Q – Is there a plan to better manage all areas of the Institute to avoid future deficits?

A – A conscious decision was made in 2014 to invest in all efforts to eliminate the conservative government, which had positive results. We need to continue to “punch above our weight” and keep building capacity. We have been able to do so to some extent with the funds we have but if we want to really be successful, we need funds to do so.

Q – Would it be possible to have the entire AGM broadcasted for all members to see?

A – It was a strategic decision that the business of the AGM should not be broadcasted publically. The Institute is looking at the option of allowing the viewing of the AGM via a secure site but there is no intention to broadcast widely. Options can be discussed further with VP Hindle, as elected lead on the AGM team

10. Steward of the Year Presentations (NCR, QC, ATL)

The “Steward of the Year” award acknowledges those who have gone “above and beyond” their duties to assist members and who have made extraordinary contributions to the Institute. The Steward of the Year award was presented to the following Stewards:

Atlantic Region: Patricia “Pat” Loder (NRC-RO/RCO)
Québec Region: Martine Lacroix (SH) (in Ms. Lacroix absence, her award was accepted by Regional Director Yvon Brodeur)
National Capital Region: John Eng (NR)

A request was made at this time for 2015 AGM resolution P-4 (Regional Funding) to be discussed as some felt that there was no opportunity to raise questions on the Disposition Report of 2015 Resolution, when it was presented.

President Daviau clarified that “Better Together” funds have been segregated to other initiatives and that a detailed process was established on how to access that budget. Requests and/or recommendations go through Regional Directors and/or the mobilization unit, then are submitted to VP Aubry (as lead on this file), and processed accordingly. No requests have been refused, if they meet the criteria. The process was put in place to facilitate access to funds by Regions.

11. Proposed By-Law Amendments

Moved and seconded that,

14.1.1 Fiscal Year The fiscal year shall run from January 1 to December 31. AGM 2013.

14.1.1 New Fiscal Year (NEW) - Effective July 1, 2017, the fiscal year shall run from July 1 to June 30.

14.1.1.1 Stub Year (NEW) - For the transition period from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017, audited financial statements will be presented to the Annual General meeting in 2017.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Together with the Resolution sponsored by the Board of Directors on the Timing of the AGM, this amendment is meant to address the requirement of paragraph 160(1) (b) of the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, which requires that an annual general meeting be held no later than 15 months after the last preceding annual meeting but not later than 6 months after the end of the present financial year. After analysis, the Board of Directors was of the view that changing the financial year end proved to be the most effective way to achieve compliance.

The cost of a stub year audit in 2017 would be $37K. A stub year is defined as a partial period (usually less than 12 months) after the previous fiscal year-end date that now changes to the new date. Going forward, the fiscal year-end period will be the date of the stub-year. This entails that the external auditors will audit the Institute for the period ending December 31st, 2016 and will redo an audit as of June 30th, 2017. Thereafter, the fiscal year-end will always be June 30th of every year.

The NFP Act requires that the AGM be held within six months of the end of the fiscal year. Currently, the Institute is not abiding by the NFP Act and has been granted exceptions to allow it to operate in the current way. The date of the AGM could be changed, which would be highly problematic and costly therefore, after careful consideration, the Board felt that the change of fiscal year would be the best option for the organization.

Some spoke against the motion, stating that this option would cause complications and result in a significant amount of work for all constituent bodies. Working from the calendar year is much easier and making this change to the fiscal year is unnecessary. Some felt that the Institute should simply continue asking for exemptions. Concerns were also expressed with the impact this change would have on the budget.

The Chair clarified that if resolution B-1 carried, resolution B-2 would be considered out of order. There was a challenge to the Chair on this interpretation whereby if resolution B-1 carries and B-2 also carries, it would create another problem in terms of not complying with the NFP Act.

Clarification was sought on whether or not this would apply to all constituent bodies. It was clarified that the NFP Act applies to PIPSC as a national organization and to the Board of Directors. This would not be a requirement for constituent bodies and would not have an impact at that level.

A point of information was raised. When the exemption was granted, one of the requirements was that the Institute provides second quarter financial statements to the 2016 AGM.

President Daviau clarified that the Institute applied for and was granted an exemption based on the understanding that the issue would be fixed. The option of changing the date of the AGM to spring months would result in significant costs. Changing the fiscal year is simpler and less costly.

The question was called.

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (NFP) requires that the Annual General Meeting be held within six (6) months of the organization's financial year end; and

Whereas the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is taking every reasonable step to bring itself into compliance with the NFP Act; and

Whereas an extension of time has been granted by Industry Canada to allow the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada to hold the Annual General Meeting in November 2016 for the financial year ending December 31, 2015 subject to the following terms:

1. By June 30, 2016, the Corporation complies with Subsection 175 (1) of the NFP Act by sending a copy or summary of the documents referred to in Subsection 172 (1) of the NFP Act or a copy of a publication of the Corporation reproducing the information contained in the documents or summary to each member, other than a member who, in writing, declines to receive such documentation. If the Corporation sends a summary to a member, the Corporation shall also inform that member of the procedure for obtaining a copy of the documents free of charge; and

2. At or before the annual general meeting of members in 2016, the Corporation provides to members a copy of its unaudited quarterly financial statements up to an including the 2nd quarter for the particular ongoing financial year;

3. The Corporation's members support this exemption by way of passing a special resolution at its annual meeting in 2016; and

4. The Corporation informs its members of this exemption as soon as possible but not later than by June 30, 2016.

Whereas the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has complied with the terms imposed by Industry Canada;

Therefore be it resolved that members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada support the exemption order granted by Industry Canada in Decision No. D-007/16 dated June 7, 2016.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Together with the proposed By-Law amendment to BL 14.1 sponsored by the Board of Directors, this resolution is meant to ensure compliance with the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act requirements relating to the timing of the AGM in relation to the end of the fiscal year.

The motion carried.

12. Legacy Cup

Legacy Foundation Director Del Dickson reminded delegates of the Legacy Cup competition. At the 2014 AGM, the Institute launched a friendly competition among PIPSC Regions to see which Region could raise the most money per capita for scholarships. The winning Region earns the Legacy Cup and an extra scholarship to be awarded to a student in that Region. The Legacy Cup trophy is awarded each year at the PIPSC AGM.

Director Dickson shared a short light-hearted video in which Regional Directors boasted about the merits of their Regions and how they would surpass the others. He threw down the challenge that Regions would have 24 hours (until noon, Saturday, November 19, 2016) to add to their fundraising totals by encouraging members to donate online. The winning Region was to be announced on the Saturday afternoon of the AGM.

At this time, VP Bittman (BOD) addressed the assembly, requesting that the rules of procedure be suspended so that an emergency motion could be presented. VP Bittman explained that this was considered an emergency as there was a barrier for single parents attending the AGM, preventing them from fully participating as child care was not available. The emergency resolution would seek to put in place child care arrangements, including funding, to allow full participation by all delegates and avoid any discrimination on the basis of family status.

Moved and seconded that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow the AGM to deal with an emergency resolution dealing with child care. Defeated

13. Stewards of the Year (PRA/NWT, ON, BC/Yukon)

The Steward of the Year award was presented to the following Stewards:

Ontario Region: Judy Chow (CS)
Prairie/NWT Region: Stewart Wong (AFS)
B.C./Yukon Region: Tanya Evans (SP)

14. Proposed By-Law Amendments (Cont’d)

BY-LAW 22 – ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE INSTITUTE - By-Law 22.1 – Date of Election / Commencement of Office – Sponsor: AFS Group Executive

Whereas the Canada not for profit act requires an AGM within 6 months of the fiscal year end; and

Whereas PIPSC spent significant effort and expense in moving to a Dec 31 Fiscal year end just a few years ago; and

Whereas there would be significant cost and impact to the Institute and its constituent bodies by changing the fiscal year end;

Therefore be it resolved,

By-Law 13.2.2.1 (NEW) That commencing in 2018, the Annual General meeting shall be held in April or May of each year.

Be it further resolved that By-Law 22.1 be amended as follows;

By-Law 22.1 - Date of Election / Commencement of Office

Commencing in 2019, there shall be an election of Officers and Directors of the Institute every three (3) years. On or before the first (1st) day of January, the Board shall fix the date for the election of Officers and Directors, which shall take place at the Annual General Meeting. The newly-elected Officers and Directors shall take office on the first (1st) day of July, following the election.

Be it further resolved that By-Law 22.1.1 (new transitional language):

Terms of office for current Board Members will be extended to end of June 30, 2019.

Be it further resolved that the Board of Directors sponsor any consequential changes to the By-Laws that are necessarily required as a result of the change in AGM date.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Group AGMs and Regional Councils might potentially need to change dates to accommodate this change. See Annex A.

The motion was with withdrawn.

Moved and seconded that,

17.2.3.2 Mandate All proposed resolutions for the Annual General Meeting shall be submitted by the proposer(s) to the Resolutions Sub-Committee for examination. The Sub-Committee may make recommendations as to the validity, legality and clarity of the proposed resolutions to the proposer(s), to the Board and to the Annual General Meeting. Such recommendations are not binding on the proposer(s). The Resolutions Sub-Committee, in consultation with the proposer, may rewrite, combine, or substitute resolutions, prepare a composite resolution, or prepare a policy paper to cover the question at issue, so long as such modifications do not contradict the intent of the proposer.

However, if the Sub-Committee believes a resolution contravenes legislation, including but not limited to the Not-for-profit Corporations Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Institute Policy on Harassment or the Canadian Human Rights Act, the proposer(s) shall be given an opportunity to revise the resolution before recommending the Resolutions Sub-Committee recommends to the President that the resolution be rejected and the proposer(s) so informed.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

This proposed amendment seeks to improve the efficiency of the AGM by conferring onto the Resolutions Sub-Committee a broader and clearer mandate. Such a mandate is consistent with the process set out in similar organizations. A benchmarking exercise conducted in the spring of 2016 revealed the following:

Some felt that this would give too much authority and discretion to the Resolutions Sub-Committee (RSC) to change resolutions. Sponsors should maintain the responsibility to write sound resolutions.

The motion was amended to read:

17.2.3.2 Mandate All proposed resolutions for the Annual General Meeting shall be submitted by the proposer(s) to the Resolutions Sub-Committee for examination. The Sub-Committee may make recommendations as to the validity, legality and clarity of the proposed resolutions to the proposer(s), to the Board and to the Annual General Meeting. Such recommendations are not binding on the proposer(s). The Resolutions Sub-Committee, in consultation with the proposer, with the consent of the proposer, may rewrite, combine, or substitute resolutions, prepare a composite resolution, or prepare a policy paper to cover the question at issue, so long as such modifications do not contradict the intent of the proposer.

Some were unclear as to how the RSC would get the consent of Regional Councils, meaning that this could only apply to resolutions sponsored by constituent body executives and/or individuals. This is already the practice and is based on common sense therefore, there is no need to hard code it in By-Laws.

The amendment was defeated.

On the original motion,

The question was called,

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

13.1.4.3.2 Resolutions submitted contrary to the procedure outlined in these By-Laws may be dealt with by an Annual General Meeting only after all regularly submitted resolutions have been dealt with, except that an Annual General Meeting may accept a resolution as an emergency and deal with it immediately. The Resolutions Sub-Committee shall receive any late resolution and determine if it is of an emergency character. An emergency resolution shall first be placed before the delegates with a recommendation that the resolution be debated. If the recommendation is approved, the resolution shall be dealt with immediately.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Together with the proposed By-Law amendments to BL 17, sponsored by the Board of Directors, this proposed amendment seeks to improve the efficiency of the AGM and bring the Institute closer to how similar organizations handle late resolutions.

A benchmarking exercise conducted in the spring of 2016 revealed the following:

The current Regulations (R13.1.4.3.2) requires that late resolutions be: submitted one week before the AGM; deal with a matter having arisen less than 90 days from the start of the AGM; and that a majority of delegates consent to deal with it.

If this amendment is adopted, the Board of Directors is likely to be asked to rescind the current regulation. This would result in allowing the Resolutions Sub-Committee some latitude in determining if a late resolution is an emergency resolution. Only those late resolutions deemed to be emergency resolutions by the Resolutions Sub-Committee would be submitted to the delegates, who would ultimately decide whether or not to deal with the resolution.

This simply clarifies the current process in the By-Laws and would not prevent emergency resolutions from being presented at the AGM.

Some were of the view that the AGM should be determining what is considered an emergency – not the RSC. This would set a threshold too high for a late/emergency resolution to be heard, which some viewed as being anti-democratic. As written, late resolutions would not be heard unless they are deemed to be an emergency in nature.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

10.4.4.1 AC Director Only representatives of the Advisory Council shall be eligible to run for, vote for and hold the position of AC Director. The AC Director shall be elected in even numbered years as provided for in these By-Laws and Regulations 10. The AC Director shall have the right to vote at AC meetings.

10.4.4.2 AC Steering Committee (Except AC Director) Each year, there shall be an election of Officers of the Advisory Council. The newly elected Officers shall take office immediately following the meeting at which they were elected. The Chair, the Treasury Board representative and the Federal Government Agencies representative shall normally be elected in even-numbered years. The Vice-Chair and separate employers’ representative shall normally be elected in odd-numbered years.

10.4.4.3 10.4.4.2.1 (Renumbered) Notice of the election shall be included with the agenda for the meeting at which the election takes place. Nomination for election is not contingent upon attendance at the meeting, but candidates must indicate, in writing, a willingness to stand for election.

10.4.4.4 10.4.4.2.2 (Renumbered) The election shall be conducted by a member of the Advisory Council who is not a candidate in the election. The election shall be by secret ballot. The candidate who receives the plurality of legal votes shall be deemed elected. Following completion of the election, the ballots shall be destroyed.

R10.4.4.1.1 Timing of Election The AC Director shall be elected by secret ballot at the last regularly scheduled AC meeting in even years. BOD 2006 (e)

R10.4.4.1.2 Eligibility For the purposes of By-Law 10.4.4.1, the incumbent AC Director shall be considered a Group representative to the AC and shall be eligible to stand for reelection.

R10.4.4.1.3 Term of Office The AC Director shall serve for a 2 year term commencing on the January 1st immediately following his election. BOD 2006 (e)

R10.4.4.3 Nominations Nominations for the position of AC Director may be submitted in writing to the Chair of the AC or may be made from the floor. BOD 2006 (e)

22.1.2 Nominations Nominations must be in writing, signed by at least one hundred (100) members for candidates for the office of President, fifty (50) for the office of Vice-President, and twenty-five (25) for the position of Regional Director, and contain the consent of the nominees attested to by their signature. Such nominations must be received at the National Office not later than 5.00 p.m. on the day fixed for the close of nominations. Both original nomination forms and nominations submitted by facsimile transmission shall be accepted as official nominations. The date fixed for the close of nominations shall be not less than ten (10) weeks before the date fixed for the election.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: This By-Law amendment is meant to address the requirement that the election of Directors take place at an Annual General Meeting, pursuant to subsection 128 (3) of the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.

The intent of this proposed amendment is to line up the election of the AC Director with other Board members, adding it to the election cycle. The electorate for the AC Director will remain the same. This would also bring the process in line with the NFP Act. The intent is to correct the gap that currently exists; any minor administrative adjustments can be addressed at a later date.

Moved and seconded that Resolution B-5 (Election of AC Director) be referred to the Board of Directors.

The intent of the referral is to allow the BLPC to review all related By-Laws in preparation for the 2018 national election.

The motion to refer carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Be it resolved that By-Law 12.4 be amended as follows:

By-Law 12.4 - The following methods shall be used to recommend appointments of Stewards to the President.

Be it further resolved that By-Law 12.4.2.1 be amended as follows:

By-Law 12.4.2.1 - The authority to appoint a Steward rests exclusively with the President.

Be it further resolved that the following be added at By-Law 12.5:

By-Law 12.5 - The authority to renew a Steward’s term rests exclusively with the President.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The Board of Directors has accepted to implement changes to the Steward Policy which include an appeal process whereby any Steward application or renewal that is not approved by the President would be appealed to an independent Stewardship Roster. The Steward Policy can be found at Annex B.

Moved and seconded that the motion be tabled to later in the meeting to allow for the complete wording to be provided to delegates. Carried

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the AFS Group is the second largest group in PIPSC; and

Whereas Institute By-Law 13.6.2 allows for one (1) delegate for every two hundred (200) members; and

Whereas Institute By-Law 13.2.4 limits the size of the PIPSC AGM to four hundred (400) members; and

Whereas Institute By-Law 13.2.4 limits the number of AFS delegates to thirty eight (38) rather than fifty five (55); and

Whereas there are locations in Ottawa that can now house the intentional delegates;

Be it resolved that Institute By-Law 13.2.4 be removed from the Institute By-Laws.

13.2.4 Size of Annual General Meeting Should the total number of delegates initially determined under either By-Law 13.6.2 or By-Law 13.6.3 exceed two hundred (200), the reference to two hundred (200) in that By-Law shall be deemed to be a number such that the total number of delegates determined under that By-Law shall equal two hundred (200).

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Under the December 31st 2015 membership population by Group and Region, there would be 532 delegates versus the maximum of 400 presently authorized.

Salary replacement: 132 new delegates x $350 = $46,200

Food & Beverage: 132 x $327 = $43,164

Travel ($750/member), hotel ($190/member/night) and incidentals ($17.50/member/day x 3 days) = $280,170.

The incremental cost of adding 132 delegates is $370K. The cost does not include potential additional cost related to the Balancing Union Activities and Family Life.

It was noted that past restrictions were based on space limitations, which are no longer an issue. The Institute needs to consider the changing demographics of the past years which may not necessarily be represented under the current formula. In line with democracy, the AGM should be proportionally represented as it is the supreme governing body.

Although the intent may be good, the timing may not be the best to implement such a change, given the current state of finances. Making this change could result in the need for a higher dues increase. Institute funds are better spent on campaigns, representation and on bargaining efforts than on adding delegates to the AGM.

Some felt that this would give more weight to the larger Groups and diminish the minority or smaller Groups. It may be timely to review the appropriate representation for all constituent bodies at the AGM, which requires more thought and more work.

The question was called

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

Be it resolved that the Institute By-Law 13.1.4.3.2 be amended as follows:

13.1.4.3.2 Late Resolutions

Resolutions submitted contrary to the procedure outlined in these By-Laws may be dealt with by an Annual General Meeting only after all regularly submitted resolutions have been dealt with and are received by the Resolutions Sub-Committee no later than 10:30 a.m. on the final day of the Annual General Meeting, except that an Annual General Meeting may accept a resolution as an emergency and deal with it immediately.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The current regulation R13.1.4.3.2 requires that resolutions be submitted the week prior to the AGM.

13.1.4.3.2 Late Resolutions Resolutions submitted contrary to the procedure outlined in the By-Laws will be dealt with by an Annual General Meeting if:

(i) the matter arose less than ninety (90) days before the start of the Annual General Meeting;

(ii) the resolution has been received by the Institute by no later than 5 pm (Eastern time) on the Thursday, the week prior to the AGM; and

(iii) a majority of delegates consent. BOD – June 2016

AGM Rules of Procedures - Suspension of the rules At times it may be necessary in cases of urgency to suspend the rules for the purpose of enabling a particular motion to be made, but this procedure should not be encouraged. It may be moved at any time when no motion is pending or while a motion is pending provided it is for a purpose connected with the motion. The following rules govern: requires a seconder; is not debatable; cannot be amended; requires a two-third (2/3) majority vote; cannot be reconsidered; cannot interrupt a speaker.

The current Regulations (R13.1.4.3.2) requires that late resolutions be submitted one week before the AGM, deal with a matter having arisen less than 90 days from the start of the AGM and that a majority of delegates consent to deal with it.

A review of how other unions deal with late resolutions can be found in the notes to B-3.

This would allow late resolutions to be considered, as per previous practice. Late resolutions are critical to the democracy of the AGM and allow the flexibility to address issues if and when they arise during the AGM

The motion carried.

It was clarified that this is in effect immediately.

Moved and seconded that,

Be it resolved that the Institute By-Laws be amended as follows:

20.3 Acting Vice-President When a Vice-President is temporarily unable to carry out his duties, the Board shall, at its next regular meeting, designate an Acting Vice-President from amongst the serving members of the Board for the duration of such temporary absence. By-Law 20.2.1 is not applicable for the acting period.

20.4 If a position of Vice-President becomes vacant, the Board shall, at its next regular meeting, appoint an acting Vice-President from amongst the serving members of the Board to fulfill the duties of the position until the vacancy is filled by election. In this case, By-Law 20.2.1 is not applicable only for the acting period. A special election must be called if the duration of a term is greater than twelve (12) months following a declaration of vacancy.

BY-LAW 21 – DIRECTORS

21.5 Leave of Absence for Just Cause When an Elected Director is absent with just cause for a fixed period of more than two (2) months but will return to his position prior to the expiry of the term of office, the Board may, at its discretion and subject to the recommendation of the AC Steering Committee or the Regional Executive concerned, fill the position by appointment for the period during which the Elected Director is absent. By-Law 21.2.1 is not applicable during the absence of an elected director.

21.5.1 When a Director is absent with just cause for a fixed period of more than two (2) months and whose term of office will expire while on leave of absence, the Board may, at its discretion and subject to the recommendation of the AC Steering Committee or the Regional Executive concerned, fill the vacancy by appointment until expiry of the term of office, provided that the regular election is not scheduled to take place within three (3) months of such appointment. In this case, By-Law 20.2.1 is not applicable for the acting period. A special election must be called if the duration of a term is greater than twelve (12) months following a declaration of vacancy.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The motion carried.

15. Institute Awards

President Debi Daviau presented awards to four deserving Institute members for their exemplary and inspiring leadership, and thanked the members of the Award Selection Panel – Chair Bert Crossman, Ralph Herman, and Nita Saville – for reviewing the nominations and for recommending these laureates.

The Institute Service Award recognizes outstanding service over a significant period of time, above and beyond that which might be expected of any devoted member who has served on many constituent body executives. The 2016 recipients were Glen Schjerning (NCR – NR) and Harry Walker (BC/Yukon – AFS-CS).

The President’s Achievement Award recognizes members who have promoted professionalism by demonstrating innovative initiative and who have made an exceptional contribution under extraordinary circumstances. The 2016 recipient was Dr. Susan O'Donnell (NRC-RO/RCO).

The Life Membership Award recognizes outstanding service of enduring value to the Institute by a regular or retired member of the Institute who has demonstrated leadership for at least ten years. The 2016 recipient was Gordon Bulmer (NCR-CS).

(The AGM recessed at this time (3:35 p.m.) to reconvene on Saturday, November 19, at 8:30 a.m.)

16. Proposed By-Law Amendments (Cont’d)

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas PIPSC is a progressive union and whereas discrimination of any type runs contrary to the values of our union and a democratic, pluralistic society such as Canada,

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC should rename its Human Rights in the Workplace Committee to Human Rights and Diversity Committee and have it address multiple areas of discrimination and harassment that exist in our society as follows:

17.7 Human Rights and Diversity Committee

17.7.1 Composition - There shall be a Committee of the Board to be known as the Committee on Human Rights in the Workplace and Diversity consisting of five (5) to seven (7) members. Composition of the Committee should be representative of the diversity of the membership.

17.7.2 Mandate – The Committee on Human Rights in the Workplace and Diversity shall advise and make recommendations to the Board on how to address concerns or issues identified in the workplace relating to the human rights of members on human rights and diversity matters affecting our membership. To achieve its mandate, it will:

a) Monitor issues in the broad field of human rights and diversity, including employment equity and the contribution of members and the Institute to this field but not limited to issues such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, mental health and ageism;

b) Coordinate and distribute information on human rights Advocate, via sub-committees, for groups of people subject to discrimination and harassment, including but not limited to women, Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, the disabled and LGBTQ;

c) Provide an ongoing forum where human rights issues can be discussed and studied Coordinate and distribute information and recent developments in the field of human rights and diversity;

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The intent of the renaming of the committee is to help broaden the scope of the committee, allowing it to deal with issues faced by members. This change would be cost neutral.

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas, PIPSC has the following Committees of the Board of Directors

By-Laws and Policies Committee
Elections Committee
Elections Appeals Committee
Executive Composition Committee
Finance Committee
Human Rights in the Workplace Committee
Member Services Committee
Professional Recognition and Qualifications Committee
Science Advisory Committee
Information Technology Services and Projects Committee

Whereas the Pension Committee for the PIPSC Employee Pension Plan is not a standing Committee of the Board of Directors;

Whereas the PIPSC Employee Pension Plan was a $71 million fund at December 31 2014 and the PIPSC Employee Pension Expense in 2014 was $2.3 million;

Whereas this is a governance issue, the PIPSC Employee Pension Plan is enshrined in the collective bargaining process and the Pension Committee is not be able to make unilateral changes;

Whereas it is important that a Committee providing stewardship over a fund with $71 million be Committee of the Board;

Be it resolved, that the Pension Committee be enshrined in the By-Laws as a Standing Committee of the Board of Directors;

Be it further resolved that the Pension Committee membership be regionally based with a preference for those member who have an understanding of the complexity of Pension Plan issues;

Be it further resolved that the following By-Law changes be made:

17.XX Pension Committee

17.XX.1 Composition – There shall be a Committee of the Board to be known as the Pension Committee consisting of five (5) to seven (7) members. There will be a preference in selecting members of the Pension Committee be given to those who have an understanding of the complexity of Pension Plan issues.

17.XX.2 Mandate – The Pension Committee shall be responsible for all matters related to the PIPSC Employee Pension Plan and any PIPSC Employee Pension arrangement.

17.XX.3 Reports to the Board – The Pension Committee shall report at least quarterly to the Board

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The Board of Directors is the administrator of a pension plan that covers all employees of the Institute. There currently exists a pension committee, which acts as the Board’s agent in that regard. The legal duties incumbents upon a plan administrator are complex and highly regulated.

The existing committee is composed of: the President of the Institute, the Chair of the Finance Committee, two members of the Board of Directors, the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Secretary, the General Counsel and the Director, Corporate Services. The Committee oversees the day-to-day operations of the plan and provides advice and recommendations to the Board on key issues as they arise, for the Board’s decision.

A legal opinion was sought from Koskie Minsky in the spring of 2016, which highlighted the following:

a) The existing pension committee acts as an agent of the Board of Directors;

b) There are no specific composition requirement that apply to an agent utilized by the plan administrator;

c) Agents are subject to the same conflict of interest rules as administrators;

d) Eligibility to receive a benefit from the plan does not, in and of itself, give rise to a conflict of interest – so long as Committee members act in the best interest of the plan; in fact, the act contemplates that beneficiaries can act as administrators of the plan.

The opinion further highlighted that the type of arrangement currently in place is quite common in private plans and tend to foster responsible long-term decision-making and risk-management in which the perspective of both plan members and employers are brought to the table.

The proposed composition of the pension committee puts the Institute at risk of having appointed all new committee members with little to no specialized training or experience in discharging the legal duties of a plan administrator. The proposed resolution provides no insight on how the pension committee’s work may be impacted by ongoing collective bargaining with one of the Institute’s two staff unions;

The mandate proposed in the resolution goes beyond the role of the current pension committee by adding "any PIPSC Employee pension arrangement”. Any existing arrangements outside the registered pension plan are governed by individual employment contracts; the oversight of which currently rests with the Executive Compensation Committee.

Financial Implications:

Based on the current composition of the Pension Committee, the annual cost is approximately $18K.

The costing of the proposed resolution would be:

Salary Replacement: 7 members x 1.5 days x $350/day x 5 meetings = $18,375.

Travel: 7 members x 5 meetings x $750 = $26,250.

Accommodation, dinner and incidentals for all members except for one in NCR: 6 members x ($190/night + $96.30 + 96.30 for meals and incidentals) x 5 meetings = $11,478

Total estimated cost of proposed resolution: $56,100.

The mover spoke to this resolution, stating that the existing Pension Committee is an ad hoc committee, to be renewed every year. The intent of the resolution is to make the Pension Committee a standing committee of the Board. In his view, in terms of governance, it is preferable that the members of Pension Committee not be beneficiaries of the plan and it is not good practice to have administrators of the plan as members of the committee. The membership should be from members (accountants, actuaries, etc). The Institute has more than enough capacity to fill the committee with qualified individuals to manage the pension plan.

Some were of the view that this was over-governance of the business of the Institute. The pension plan is part of the staff bargaining process, which would become problematic if the pension plan was governed by members. As the ultimate governors of the plan, the Board ensures a sound pension plan is maintained. This would result in conflicting governance and does not belong to a political body. The current, effective process should be allowed to continue.

The question was called.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas, the Board of Directors interpreted the By-Laws in March 2016 to mean that non-members could file a complaint against a member under our By-Laws; and

Whereas an usual situation would arise, non-members could file complaints against members under the By-Laws, but members would not be able to file complaints against non-members; and

Whereas, this would allow the employer to file complaints under the PIPSC By-Laws against Stewards and other members; and

Whereas, allowing non-members, to file complaints against members could create a substantial financial liability for the Institute in terms of processing and administering the complaints; and

Whereas, an entire reading of the By-Laws and policies and would lead one to believe that the membership wishes that only Regular and Retired members have the right to participate in the affairs of the Institute unless otherwise provided for:

the fundamental aim of the Institute is to serve its members – By-Law 2.1

only Regular and Retired members have the right to...participate in the affairs of the Institute – By-Law 7.1

The Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy applies to …..The resolution of disputes between members

Whereas, there may be instances, where to uphold the image and reputation of PIPSC, a complaint against a member should proceed, based on information from non-members. And there is currently a mechanism for non-members, to file a complaint – any member, the Board of Directors or the President can file a complaint on their behalf; and

Whereas the membership has considered the right of staff to file a complaint against members and has chosen to restrict it to instances of Harassment. Under the Harassment Policy, if a member is alleged to have harassed a PIPSC employee, the Board of Directors, Executive Committee or the President will file a complaint on the employee’s behalf;

Therefore be it resolved that the following new By-Law be added:

24.1.2 (NEW) That only regular or retired members, or the Board acting on behalf of the Institute, can bring forward a complaint of misconduct against a member of the Institute, pursuant to By-law 24.1 and the Institute’s Dispute Resolution and Discipline policy.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The Resolutions Sub-Committee raised a concern with the accuracy the last “whereas” statement, which misstates the Institute Harassment Policy. Members of the Board do not currently file harassment complaints on behalf of employees.

The current Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy (DRDP) allows for a complaint to be filed by anyone and such interpretation was confirmed by the Board of Directors in a special meeting of March 22, 2016. In addition, complaints are screened by the Office of the General Counsel so as to allow for the dismissal in a summary fashion of complaints that are frivolous, vexatious or without merit. By way of reference, about 1/3 of complaints received are dismissed summarily.

The existing Harassment Policy (effective August 11, 2007) provides that harassment complaints shall be filed in accordance with the DRDP; it does not make any reference to the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee or the President filing complaints on behalf of employees.

As an employer, through its Management Committee, PIPSC has a duty to provide a harassment-free workplace. On at least one occasion, the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Secretary has had to use the DRDP to address allegations of harassment made by a member and an employee against a member, which resulted in disciplinary measures against the member.

UNIFOR Local 3011 and PIREC Collective Agreements contain established processes for a harassment- free workplace for Institute staff. A resolution adopted to modify this process would render existing Institute staff collective agreement processes meaningless and would likely constitute a violation of existing Collective Agreements.

The intent of the resolution is to create awareness and enshrine in By-Laws that only members can file complaints against members.

Some spoke against the motion, stating that there needs to be an internal recourse mechanism to allow for complaints to be addressed. This being said, the Institute should not isolate itself from possible complaints coming from outside the Institute. It was noted that if this resolution passed, this would violate the contracts the Institute has with its staff in terms of providing a harassment-free workplace.

VP Bittman clarified that the intent of the resolution would not prevent complaints to be filed. The motion is saying that if a complaint comes from outside or from staff, the deciding body on intake would be the entire Board of Directors. This would ensure a proper “check and balance” is in place to ensure the complaint is warranted. It was further clarified that staff will not be impacted by this as this would apply to external individuals and/or Rands filing complaints against members.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas there is a Committee of the Board that is known as the Member Services Committee; and

Whereas the primary mandate of the Member Services Committee is the education and training of Institute stewards; and

Whereas members of the Member Services Committee are Regional Training Committee Chairs; and

Whereas questions from members regarding members services are referred to the Member Services Division of the Institute and not the Member Services Committee causing confusion to the membership;

Therefore be it resolved that the Member Services Committee be renamed to the Training and Education Committee; and

Be it further resolved that the following Institute bylaws be amended as follows:

17.8 Member Services Training and Education Committee

17.8.1 Composition There shall be a Committee of the Board to be known as the Training and Education Committee consisting of five (5) to seven (7) members. The Chair of each Region’s Training Committee shall be the designated member to this committee. Each Region shall designate an alternate, should the Chair of the Training Committee be unable to attend.

17.8.2 Mandate The Member Services Training and Education Committee shall be responsible for advising and making recommendations and/or providing advice to the Board on any issue relating to the provision of services to individual members recruitment, training and education of Stewards/members and for providing advice to the Board concerning activities such as the Institute training program and the recruitment and training of Stewards.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The intent of the resolution is to clarify the mandate of the Member Services Committee and the way it currently functions. The name of the Committee should properly reflect its work.

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the finding of fault or the imposition of discipline can have serious and far reaching effects on an individual’s reputation and career; and

Whereas disciplinary decisions are often varied on an appeal; and

Whereas the legitimacy of the complaint process is predicated on its integrity and fairness; and

Whereas the principles of fundamental justice require that until such time as internal appeal mechanism are exhausted, that the respondent be afforded confidentiality, and that there is a presumption of innocence;

Therefore be it resolved,

24.2 Appeals

24.2 Appeals A decision to remove from office, or suspend or expel from membership can be appealed by the member being disciplined in accordance with the Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy.

A member may appeal any disciplinary decision in which discipline is meted out in accordance with the Institutes Dispute Resolution and Discipline policy.

24.2.1 Appeals (NEW)

Disciplinary actions shall not be implemented or communicated by the Institute until the later of the date for filing an appeal has passed pursuant to the Institutes policy, or the disciplinary decision has been upheld on Appeal.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Right of appeal (24.2): Currently, a right of appeal exists under Part E of the Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy (DRDP) in relation to disciplinary decisions where the member has been removed from elected and/or appointed office or suspended or expulsed from membership. The DRDP requires that such appeals be conducted by third party neutrals.

Since the implementation of the current DRDP in 2014, 67 complaints have been filed; 5 gave rise to appeal rights; 3 were in fact appealed. The average cost of retaining a third party neutral to dispose of appeals is approximately $6,000.

The proposed amendment would require a consequential amendment to Part E of the DRDP.

Implementation and communication of disciplinary decision (24.2.1): Under the current DRDP, disciplinary decisions take effect immediately upon the decision of the Panel of Peers. The decision is immediately communicated only on a need-to-know basis (membership section, affected constituent bodies and Board of Directors) until an appeal is filed or the time to do so has passed. After that time, summary is posted on the web (without identifying information).

The immediate effect of a decision and its continuance pending an appeal is consistent with other disciplinary bodies and is intended to prevent risk to other members and to the organization where misconduct has been established. For example, medical professionals, accountants, lawyers, and engineers are all subject to immediate implementation of disciplinary decisions, even where appeals are commenced. Similarly, tribunal decisions and court orders take effect immediately, even where appeals are launched.

The mover stated that the intent behind this motion was to ensure an additional level of protection for members and would avoid embarrassment and possible repercussions in their workplace. As it stands currently, discipline is invoked immediately once the decision is made. This would ensure that the implementation, communication and discipline are delayed until such time as the members exercise their appeal rights (through a third party neutral). If external complaints are allowed to be filed, there needs to be a mechanism in place to protect members.

It was noted that members of the Institute Member Conduct Roster had concerns with this proposed change and with allowing members to remain in their position pending appeal, which could result in further issues. If individuals have displayed examples of harassment or demeaning the name of PIPSC in their actions, the behavior must be stopped as soon as possible and not be delayed by this process. It was also pointed out that the first part of the proposed change (allowing appeals on decisions) could result in significant costs.

It was clarified that there have been successful appeals, the results of which were a reduction of the discipline. In no case was the discipline been completely overturned and in no case has it been struck from the record.

The mover closed off the debate by stating that this would not cause a significant delay as there would be a two week appeal period and the Institute would then be required to hire a third party neutral expeditiously to deal with the issue. The control remains within the Institute to ensure the process is followed as quickly as possible. There needs to be a fair process that follows natural justice for all members.

The motion carried.

Whereas the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (the Institute) is incorporated under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (CNFPCA); and

Whereas the Institute’s By-Laws must be compliant with the CNFPCA;

Therefore be it resolved that By-Law 22.2 be amended as follows:

By-Law 22.2 Eligibility - Any member, except as limited by these By-Laws and subject to s126 of the CNFPCA, shall be eligible for election as a member of the Board.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The proposed amendment is unnecessary as the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act already sets out that a corporation is required to comply at all times with the Act and its articles of continuance. It is well established in law that By-Laws cannot trump legislation and that any interpretation of those By-Laws must be done in light of the governing legislation and articles of continuance.

Subsection 126(1) of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNFPA) sets out the qualifications a person must have in order to hold a position of director in a corporation; it does not speak to eligibility to run for office. It states:

Qualifications of directors

126 (1) The following persons are disqualified from being a director of a corporation:

(a) anyone who is less than 18 years of age;

(b) anyone who has been declared incapable by a court in Canada or in another country;

(c) a person who is not an individual; and

(d) a person who has the status of a bankrupt.

The Institute is currently subject to subsection 126(1) of the CNFPA, even if these requirements are not repeated in the By-Laws. Bankruptcy searches are conducted in relation to members of the Board of Directors upon election and at least annually thereafter.

There was no mover for this resolution.

Whereas the Institute is a member-funded organization and the membership is entitled to know the financial probity and prudence of funds administration; and

Whereas the Institute should maintain transparency in all financial matters, in respect to the membership; and

Whereas the Institute has avoided financial disclosure, up to and including avoiding accountability to the Supreme Governing Body (AGM) by dismissing financial questions on the basis of employment confidentiality;

Therefore be it resolved that:

By-Law 14.1.11 (New) Financial Disclosure - The total compensation for any and all staff and elected officials, earning more than $100,000, be posted to the Institute’s financial portal, except for any staff member who has a confidentiality clause in his / her contract, in which case, only the name shall be posted.

By-Law 14.1.11.1 (New) Henceforth, the Institute shall not negotiate any employment contract which contains a confidentiality clause, or consider any employment contract which otherwise hides or disguises the terms and conditions of employment.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Salary ranges are already posted inside the finance portal. Salaries and terms and conditions of employment of full-time elected officials are also published as part of the call for nominations.

The RSC raised a concern regarding the accuracy of the last “whereas” statement, noting the difference between avoiding financial disclosure and respecting standard, accepted employment practices regarding privacy and confidentiality of employee contracts.

There was no mover for this resolution.

Whereas the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (the Institute) is incorporated under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (CNFPCA); and

Whereas the Institute’s By-Laws and policies must be compliant with the CNFPCA;

Therefore be it resolved:

By-Law 3.3 (NEW) - Whenever / wherever ambiguity may arise between the By-Laws and / or policies of the Institute in relation to CNFPCA requirements, or whenever / wherever the Institute By-Laws and/ or policies may be silent or run contrary to CNFPCA requirements, the provisions of the CNFPCA shall prevail in all circumstances and without exception.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act already sets out that a corporation is required to comply at all times with the Act and its articles of continuance. It is well established in law that By-Laws cannot trump legislation and that any interpretation of those By-Laws must be done in light of the governing legislation and articles of continuance.

There was no mover for this resolution.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas: The Board of Directors places significant reliance on the recommendations of the standing committees of the Board; and

Whereas: The Institute is facing a financial crunch, having realized a loss of $3.9 M in 2015, and forecasted deficits of $1.5 M in 2016 and $3.6 M in 2017; and

Whereas: The Finance Committee provides a level of independent review of Institute operations and Board actions and expenditures; and

Whereas: It is critical that individuals on the Finance Committee have a solid understanding of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, in order to be in a position to provide sound financial recommendations to the Board; and

Therefore be it resolved:

17.6.1 Composition - There shall be a Committee of the Board to be known as the Finance Committee consisting of five (5) to seven (7) members. The composition of the Committee should normally be comprised of individuals with a degree from a recognized post secondary institution with acceptable specialization in accounting, business administration, commerce or finance or eligibility for a recognized accounting designation. The Chair shall not be a signing officer at the Institute

Be it further resolved:

17.6.2.1 (New) The Finance Committee shall be provided with the source documents that it deems necessary for it to discharge their mandate, including but not limited to the summary trial balance, lead sheets and grouping schedules reconciled to the financial statement line items.

17.6.2.2 (New) Quarterly financial statements shall be made available for the Finance Committee's review and Board approval within six (6) weeks of the end of each quarter.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Proposed By-Law 17.6.2.1 (New) would require hiring additional resources in the Finance Section for the extra work required. Estimated cost for new G3 level employee + benefits estimated at $88,400.

The By-Law amendment would generally restrict the participation of members of the Finance Committee to one occupational group.

Some were of the view that the Finance Committee should be comprised of members with a fundamental understanding and knowledge of accounting principles and financial affairs to ensure the Institute is served adequately.

Some spoke against the motion, stating that broad knowledge and common sense can be brought to the Finance Committee even if it is not completely related to accounting and financial principles. There are many educated and talented members at PIPSC who should not be excluded from participating and contributing to the Finance Committee.

The assembly voted in favour of going to the vote at this time. An objection was raised as some felt that the second part of the resolution had not been debated. The Chair stated that, as the assembly voted to proceed with the vote on the motion, the vote would proceed.

The challenge was ruled out of order. The vote proceeded on B-18.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the incumbent to an election is almost always re-elected; and

Whereas it is critical that the composition of the Board of Directors is reflective of our members so that it is representing the issues of the entire membership; and

Whereas it is critical that the BOD refreshes itself, so that new ideas may be capitalized on; and

Whereas it is critical for succession planning that our Stewards feel that there are opportunities at the highest levels within PIPSC, in order to ensure that our best and brightest stewards are encouraged to strive for leadership positions within PIPSC;

Be it resolved that:

19.1.1 (New) The maximum term for the President shall be three (3) full consecutive terms of office.

20.1.1 (New) The maximum term for the Vice-Presidents shall be three (3) full consecutive terms of office.

21.1.2 (New) The maximum term for Directors shall be three (3) full consecutive terms of office.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The intent of the resolution is to encourage new participation and new ideas, which would be beneficial to ensure turnover. This would not prevent members from running again in the future – just not after three consecutive terms. This would possibly make space for equity seeking groups.

Some felt that the membership should be trusted to determine if and when an elected official should leave (or stay) through the election process.

The motion was defeated.

12.1 Definition A Steward shall be an official representative of the Institute when appointed by the Institute. The employer shall be notified of the appointment by the Institute. Only a Regular member may be a Steward.

12.2 Duties and Responsibilities The duties and responsibilities of a Steward shall be as defined in the Regulations.

12.3 Term Stewards shall be appointed for a term as specified in the Regulations.

12.4 Methods of Selection Stewards shall be selected as follows The following methods shall be used to recommend appointments of Stewards to the President:

12.4.1 By Election By virtue of being elected by members in his area of jurisdiction.

12.4.2 By Appointment The authority to appoint a steward rests exclusively with the President.

12.4.2.1 Sub-Group, Branch and Regional Executives may recommend Steward appointments to the appropriate Group Executive which, in turn, may recommend the appointment to the President.

12.4.2.2 A Group Executive may recommend Steward appointments to the President.

12.4.3 Board of Directors By virtue of being a Regular Member who is member of the Board. AGM 2005 (e)

12.5 Re-Appointment of Stewardship The authority to renew a Steward’s term rests exclusively with the President. Upon expiry of the term of Stewardship, a Steward may be re-appointed as follows:

12.5.1 By Re-Election Upon being re-elected by members in his area of jurisdiction.

12.5.2 By Renewal Subject to the recommendation of the appropriate Group Executive, by choosing to renew his term of office, unless the member loses an election for the position of Steward.

An amendment was proposed to replace all references to “President” with “Board of Directors”, as follows:

12.4 Methods of Selection Stewards shall be selected as follows The following methods shall be used to recommend appointments of Stewards to the President Board of Directors:

12.4.2 By Appointment The authority to appoint a steward rests exclusively with the President Board of Directors.

12.5 Re-Appointment of Stewardship The authority to renew a Steward’s term rests exclusively with the President Board of Directors. Upon expiry of the term of Stewardship, a Steward may be re-appointed as follows:

The mover of the amendment stated that the intent of the proposed change was to alleviate the President’s responsibilities regarding the Steward renewal process. The Board would be better positioned to do so.

President Daviau clarified that there is not a significant of time spent on this process as most are not problematic. As the President receives all complaints, she has the information required to make a determination on renewals. This resolution is simply clarifying and codifying the current process in the By-Laws. The By-Laws are clear in stating that the President has sole authority to appoint Stewards but needed more clarity in terms of renewals of Stewards. The President needs to maintain the authority as the accountability and the responsibility for the entire organization rest at that level. The Board of Directors, comprised of Regional Directors, is already part of the process therefore the final authority should remain with the President. There are still mechanisms in place in terms of appealing the President’s decision.

Some were of the view that this should be ruled out of order as it would have an impact on other By-Laws and By-Law amendments need to be submitted in advance. The Chair disagreed with that view and allowed the debate to continue.

It was noted that, to the extent that there would be an appeal, the President should not be reviewing her own decisions. The appropriate body should be the Board of Directors.

The question was called on the amendment.

The amendment was defeated.

On the original motion,

Some felt that only one person should be signing off on stewardships and holding that accountability. The President makes decisions in consultation with Regional Directors and with the input of constituent bodies at all levels - not arbitrarily, on her own. This resolution respects the structure of the Institute. It was noted that there are few instances in which the President has to go against the constituent bodies’ recommendation and is not a common occurrence.

Some were opposed to the change, giving the President ultimate power and overriding the Groups’ recommendation. Past practice allowed for input from Branch and Sub-Group Presidents on Stewards renewals – a practice that has now stopped and should be reinstated.

The motion carried.

17. From 11 am to noon, an exclusive panel on “Precarious Work in the Public Service” was held, moderated by renowned Globe and Mail reporter Gloria Galloway. President Daviau was joined by panellists Trish Hennessy, founding Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' (CCPA) Ontario office, and former Member of Parliament Andrew Cash, co-founder of the Urban Worker Project. They engaged in a lively discussion on the public services Canadians rely on, on how federal public servants are faced with increasing privatization and outsourcing, and on the impact of precarious public service jobs on workers. The panel was broadcasted live on the PIPSC Web site and was also recorded for viewing on pipsc.ca.

Moved and seconded that the remaining motions on By-Laws be tabled until all financial resolutions have been dealt with. Carried

18. Financial Resolutions

The Chair of the Finance Committee and the Director of Corporate Services joined the head table to address the financial resolutions.

Moved and seconded that,

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM receive the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Be it resolved that BDO Canada be appointed as auditors of PIPSC and its related entities, for the 2017 fiscal years.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve the budget for the period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

Moved and seconded that resolution F-3 (Budget) be tabled to end of budgetary resolutions.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

Since the AGM approved the change to the fiscal year, clarification was sought on whether or not the budget should be for the period ending June 30, 2017.

It was clarified that the stub year can occur at either the beginning or the end and not wanting to assume the decision of the AGM, it was decided that the stub year would be handled at the end, with a half year budget.

The motion to table carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas members’ dues have not kept pace with inflation; and

Whereas PIPSC’s operating deficit will exhaust the Institute’s reserves by the end of 2017; and

Whereas PIPSC members’ dues are below the average paid by other NJC union members; and

Whereas a fair dues increase is essential to ensuring the Institute’s sustainability and maintaining existing services, initiatives and campaigns; and

Whereas PIPSC needs to invest in strategic areas such as government relations, communications and mobilization; and

Whereas PIPSC, as the leading voice for professionalism in the federal public service, has the goal of representing our members to the highest standards possible and Programming for Success;

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Additional information on this resolution can be found at ANNEX A.

Moved and seconded that this motion be tabled to the end of all budgetary resolutions (before F-3). Carried

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas Resolution F-5 Funding of Constituent Bodies in Remote Regions was carried at the 2015 PIPSC AGM; and

Whereas Resolution F-5 only addresses the territories of Nunavut, Yukon and North West Territories and not all northern and remote areas in Canada; and

Whereas section 110.7 (1) of the Canadian Income Tax Act recognizes all northern and remote areas in Canada;

Be it resolved that the annual allocation for constituent bodies in defined remote areas under section 110.7(1) of the Canadian Income Tax Act and the NJC Directive on Isolated Posts, be increased as follows to reflect the cost differences in remote regions:

All areas not recognized under resolution F-5 of the 2015 PIPSC AGM: 120%

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Impacted constituent bodies

Lake Melville (NFLD) Branch – 14 members
14 X $2 (an additional 20% of $10) = $28

NRC-RO-RCO Atlantic Region Sub Group – 107 members
107 X $2 (an additional 20% of $10) = $214

Northern Manitoba – Health Canada Branch – 196 members
196 X $2 (an additional 20% of $10) = $388

Northeastern Alberta Branch – 48 members
48 X $2 (an additional 20% of $10) = $96

Northern BC Branch – 79 members
79 X $2 (an additional 20% of $10) = $158

Northern Ontario AV Sub Group – 40 members
40 X $2 (an additional 20% of $10) = $80

Total incremental cost $28 + $214 + $388 + $96 + $158 + 80

The cost of implementing this resolution would be $964

It was noted that as the 2015 AGM resolution did not cover all remote areas in the country, this resolution seeks to rectify that gap. It was clarified that this would also cover the Sioux Lookout Branch.

The motion carried.

Whereas the Institute’s mobilization policy is based on ongoing cooperation with its constituent bodies and activist network;

Whereas the strategy stresses “active participation,” mainly with regard to the “Better Together” campaign;

Whereas better communication practices are needed between the Institute’s structures in order for this active participation to be effective; and

Whereas the Policy on Institute Regions already provides for an annual meeting of Branch Presidents;

Be it resolved that the Policy on Institute Regions be amended to allow the Regions to hold two annual meetings of Branch Presidents, immediately prior to the Regional Council and Stewards Council.

Be it further resolved that this policy change come into effect once it is adopted at the Annual General Meeting.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The incremental cost to hold two annual meetings of Branch Presidents would be $65K per meeting.

The motion was withdrawn.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas, the e-store contract was set to end in October 2016; and

Whereas, the e-store contract was renewed for in July 2016 for another year and will now expire in October 2017; and

Whereas, there has been general dissatisfaction with the selection, quality, price and availability of merchandise at the e-store;

Therefore be it resolved that the current e-store contract not be renewed when it next comes up for renewal.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The e-store contract was extended for one year to allow time for a comprehensive review, including internal consultation as well as a Request for Proposal from other qualified providers. The e-store complies with the Institute Policy on Purchases of Promotional and Visibility Items by respecting the Institute’s purchasing guidelines established by the 2011 Annual General Meeting being:

• Union made in Canada;
• Made in Canada;
• Union made; or
• Certified fair trade products, where possible.

Prices of promotional items that meet these criteria are higher than other sources of non-union and offshore suppliers without regard for fair trade practices.

The intent of this resolution is to give constituent bodies the flexibility to outsource their own promotional items as being limited to the PIPSC e-store can sometimes result in higher costs, which prevents constituent bodies from purchasing visibility items. It was pointed out that although the current supplier is unionized, some of the products are made in third world countries. Some also felt that PIPSC should be more inclusive and not be sourcing with only one company.

Some spoke against the motion, stating that some constituent bodies have had no issues with the e-store, which provides a good service to the membership. The Institute needs to support union and Canadian made products. The e-store supplier is also an aboriginal company, which should be supported by the Institute.

The question was called.

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the Executives, and particularly the Presidents and Treasurers of constituent bodies including Branches, Regional Councils, Groups and Committees, are obligated to be fiscally responsible and transparent in how they administer and spend the share of Member’s fees allocated to them; and

Whereas PIPSC has developed financial record keeping tools and practices; and

Whereas PIPSC has the capacity to provide training to constituent body executive members;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC make enhanced training on financial reporting available for all Presidents and Treasurers of constituent bodies within a maximum period of 12 months of their taking office.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The cost will vary depending on the method of delivery for the 720 members (360 constituent bodies x 2 members). Potential methods are 1) Webex, 2) On-Line and 3) in-person. All three methods would require the development of the training which would be approximately $30K.

1) Webex: No salary replacement, 6 Webex training sessions: $40K (including the cost developing the training module);

2) On-Line: Administration of users will add additional workload internally, possible overtime: $40K (including the cost developing the training module);

3) In-Person: Historically, about 30% of Constituent Body Executives change every year. Therefore, it is estimated that 108 in-person trip are required (i.e. 30% of 360 constituent bodies).

Total estimated cost of proposed resolution if given in-person: $111,920 plus cost of conference rooms and audio visual equipment (if applicable).

It was noted that a one-day executive training has been developed by the Québec Region. Once tested and if successful, it could be shared with other constituent bodies across the country, at no cost. The NCR training package is also being tested and could be rolled out across the country.

It was pointed out that it is sometimes difficult for new members and new constituent bodies to get information and resources, hence the reason for putting this resolution forward.

Moved and seconded that this resolution be referred to the Board of Directors.

It was stated that the AGM should not be deferring this decision and should be making a decision now.

The motion to refer was defeated.

On the original motion,

The intent is not to impose training on anyone but to make the training available to those who want and need it. Training will be made available and rolled out once the plan is finalized. Some expressed concern with approving this resolution at a cost when it has already been done at no cost in other Regions.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas women's full participation in society and the workplace and at PIPSC is limited by the lack of reliable and affordable childcare; and

Whereas women are under-represented at PIPSC events, including AGMs, councils, and meetings; and

Whereas the PIPSC policy on child care allows only $75 a day which is not in line with current market costs;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC increase the allowance for child dependent care and associated cost to (up to) $125 per day; and

Be it further resolved that PIPSC put in place cost effective, on-site childcare at PIPSC events, including AGMs, councils, and meetings.

Be it further resolved that PIPSC pilot on-site daycare at appropriate PIPSC events in 2017/18 fiscal year.

Be it further resolved that PIPSC put in place cost effective, on-site childcare at PIPSC events, including AGMs, Councils and meetings held on weekends.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The RSC conducted a benchmarking study of daycare costs in several cities across Canada and determined that an average cost is approximately $45.97 per day. See ANNEX B.

The incremental cost to increase the allowance for child care up to $125 (from $75) would represent at least $50K, based on current reimbursement for child care expenses.

Internal data indicates that the Institute convenes approximately 1,000 meetings per year.

The Institute would be required to hire professional care givers at an approximate cost of $300 per meeting. Therefore the cost of implementing this resolution would be approximately $300K. This costing does not include the cost of food and beverage for the care provides and for the children, nor the cost of renting facilities to host the daycare and cost of insurance for these services.

It was noted that this resolution is more than about cost. It is a message of being an all-inclusive organization and allowing/facilitating the participation of the younger generation in Institute affairs. It is about human rights and accommodation, which is what PIPSC advocates for and supports.

Some were of the view that the NJC policy should continue to be followed as it has demonstrated as providing a sufficient amount for childcare.

This could become a financial burden for some constituent bodies who would now be required to provide childcare services at their events.

Clarification was provided on the cost analysis, which was based on 1,000 “PIPSC events” that take place each year and the $300 cost of professional child care services.

As the debate was balanced, the Chair called the vote.

An amendment was proposed to split the resolution.

The Chair was challenged on her decision to proceed with the vote on the main motion immediately.

The decision of the Chair carried. The assembly proceeded to the vote on the main motion. The amendment to split the motion was not recognized.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas only delegates physically present at the PIPSC Annual General Meeting are currently eligible to vote on resolutions; and

Whereas discussion on those resolutions is now available to all members via the virtual binder ahead of the AGM; and

Whereas union engagement could be further improved by inviting more direct participation in the decision-making process affecting all members; and

Whereas modern electronic voting systems can be secure and accessible; and

Whereas other PIPSC elections, such as those for the National Executive, are held virtually by electronic means;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC investigate the potential to conduct electronic voting virtually on resolutions by all members or by a representative selection of members, not limited to delegates physically present at the national PIPSC AGM.

And be it further resolved that PIPSC report on its findings at the 2017 National Annual General Meeting.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The cost to investigate virtual voting for all members would be minimal.

There was no mover for this resolution.

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the development, discussion and adoption of resolutions are integral to the ongoing evolution and improvement of an organization; and

Whereas well written, thoughtful and strategic resolutions can trigger debate, engage members and stimulate positive changes in an organization; and

Whereas PIPSC constituent bodies such as Branches, Groups, and Regional Councils do not take full advantage of the opportunity to bring resolutions to their annual general meetings or to the PIPSC National Annual General Meeting;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC undertake to provide training to constituent bodies on how to prepare and present resolutions; and

Be it further resolved that PIPSC actively encourage the development of thoughtful, relevant resolutions by constituent bodies at all levels.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The cost to develop a training module would be approximately $30K. Delivery of training would be considerably more expensive, depending on the platform for delivering the training and the number of members per constituent bodies, attending. The Institute currently has 360 constituent bodies.

The mover stated that training on writing resolutions would help members with writing clear and concise resolutions, it would also help the Resolutions Sub-Committee in its work in preparation for AGMs and it could also encourage new members to participate in Institute affairs.

It was noted that the “Write that Resolution” booklet is available to members in hard copy and on the Web site as a tool to assist in the writing of resolutions. Members are also encouraged to consult with colleagues who are more experienced with writing resolutions. Some were of the view that there would be no need to spend money on this type of training or it could be done as a “lunch and learn”, at a lower cost.

The motion was defeated.

Moved and seconded that resolution F-4 (Dues Increase), be untabled. Carried

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas members’ dues have not kept pace with inflation; and

Whereas PIPSC’s operating deficit will exhaust the Institute’s reserves by the end of 2017; and

Whereas PIPSC members’ dues are below the average paid by other NJC union members; and

Whereas a fair dues increase is essential to ensuring the Institute’s sustainability and maintaining existing services, initiatives and campaigns; and

Whereas PIPSC needs to invest in strategic areas such as government relations, communications and mobilization; and

Whereas PIPSC, as the leading voice for professionalism in the federal public service, has the goal of representing our members to the highest standards possible and Programming for Success;

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

An amendment was proposed,

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 $6 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

Some were of the view that the $10 increase was over-estimated and some were unclear on what the Board was planning to do with the significant surplus that the $10 increase would represent. A $6 increase would cover the deficit and provide a small surplus to work with.

A sub-amendment was proposed:

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 $6 $6.50 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

It was noted that members can contribute to the deficit but would expect the Board to reduce spending and make decisions to make cuts in expenses.

Some of the expenses in the budget seem to be over-inflated, meaning that the proposed $10 dues increase may be over-inflated as well.

It was clarified that the $10 increase would help build up reserves and avoid having to come back to the AGM for another dues increase next year. It was further clarified that the retired members’ dues would also go up as they pay a percentage of regular member dues.

The sub-amendment was defeated.

On the original amendment (from $10 to $6),

Some were of the view that the original amount of $10 is appropriate, which, after taxes, would be approximately $6.

Some supported the amendment, taking into consideration part-time and casual members, for whom it would be financially difficult to absorb a $10 dues increase.

A sub-amendment was proposed:

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a dues increase per member as follows: a $10 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

$6 per month effective January 1, 2017, an additional $2 per month, effective January 1, 2018 and an additional $2 per month, effective January 1, 2019.

This would achieve the Board’s goal and would be easier for the members to absorb and accept. It would be a good compromise between the original request of $10 and the need for the Institute to be properly funded.

Some felt that the 2017 and 2018 AGM can address the need for further increases at that time; there is no need to do so this year.

It was noted that based on the proposed formula, it would not be possible for the Institute to make any future investments or replenish reserves. It would simply get the Institute out of deficit.

The question was called on the sub-amendment,

The sub-amendment was defeated.

On the original amendment (from $10 to $6),

It was noted that the true issue is the immediate cost to the organization and the necessity of starting to replenish reserves funds. The AGM needs to debate the Board’s motion, recommended by the Finance Committee, for the original amount of a $10 dues increase.

Another sub-amendment was proposed,

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 $6 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 $6 per member per month dues increase for 2017 effective January 1, 2017 plus a 2.5% increase in dues each year effective January 1, 2018.

Some were of the view that this sub-amendment was the same as the sub-amendment previously defeated and should be ruled out of order.

It was clarified that the difference is the concept of indexation into the dues increase, which ties into the cost of doing business and is in line with the cost of living, which is a notion familiar to members. It would avoid debates on dues every other year. Some felt that it would be difficult to sell the notion of paying debts and paying the building, to the membership.

It was reiterated that PIPSC needs to be strong financially and have strong reserves, not only to get by but to be able to face the challenges ahead.

The question was called on the sub-amendment.

The sub-amendment was defeated.

On the original amendment ($10 to $6),

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve a $10 $6 per member per month dues increase effective January 1, 2017.

The Finance Committee worked hard to come up with the recommendation of a $10 dues increase, which was deemed necessary for the Institute to continue fighting to preserve the rights of its members. The 2016 AGM should be dealing with an appropriate dues increase this year and avoid future debates on the need for additional increases.

The question was called on the amendment.

The amendment was defeated.

On the original motion ($10 dues increase),

Some were of the view that the business of the Institute is to serve members, not to make profits. That being said, serving the members requires staff, offices across the country and a national office. There has been no increase since 2012. The Institute should not be “cutting corners” but needs to continue to support all services for all members.

An amendment was proposed,

Be it further resolved that books and records and all other source documents that support the consolidated line amounts noted in the financial statements and notes to financial statements be made available to the Finance Committee and interested PIPSC Directors and Group Presidents for review.

As the proposed amendment was not germane to the motion, it was ruled out of order.

The Chair was challenged on this ruling. The assembly supported the Chair’s ruling.

On the original motion,

Some spoke against the motion, stating that a $10 dues increase represents a 15% increase in dues while the federal government is currently offering a 0.5% in pay raise. This increase is too much to absorb for some members who are not receiving high wages and haven’t received a decent raise in years.

Those speaking in favour of the $10 increase stressed the importance of building up reserves and providing that value to members. The overriding concern of members is to ensure that the organization has the ability to represent them in the workplace and to be able to prepare for significant changes and challenges (such as the last federal election). The only way to do so is to support the dues increase. The impact of a $10 dues increase is a legitimate concern for some members, which needs to be considered moving forward however, the increase is needed at this time to replenish depleted reserves.

Some were of the view that the Institute and the Board need to manage expenses better and make the necessary decisions to cut costs and minimize deficits. There have been no answers provided by the Finance Committee, from the Board or at the financial forum on how the $10 was arrived at and what plans are in place in terms of what will be done with the surplus.

The question was called.

Some objected to calling the question at this time as not enough debate was heard from delegates who were against the resolution. The Chair ruled on allowing the debate to continue.

The Chair’s decision to allow debate to continue was challenged.

The Chair’s decision to allow the debate to continue was not supported by the assembly. The assembly voted in favour of voting immediately on the main motion.

The original motion carried. (218 – 155)

Moved and seconded that resolution F-3 be untabled.

Be it resolved that the 2016 AGM approve the budget for the period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

It was clarified that if this resolution passed, financial statements will be prepared on the basis of January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017. This will form the basis of audited financial statements which will be presented to the 2017 AGM, along with the audited financial statements of fiscal year 2016. The remainder of the budget for the period from July 1, 2017 to the end of December 2017 will provide guidance to the Board of Directors in spending during that period and in preparation for the budget for the period of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, which will be presented to the 2017 AGM. This budget is a guideline for the next 12-month period.

It was noted that a budget is not a guide and it is needed for the organization to operate properly. The Institute should have been ready to prepare a budget for the stub year. There was concern raised with contravening By-Law 14.1.9.1.

It was clarified that the By-Law will be respected in that both budgets will be presented to the 2017 AGM and will be posted and available to delegates within 16 weeks prior to the AGM.

The question was called.

The motion carried.

19. Election Results – Advisory Council Director

The President announced that Glenn Maxwell was acclaimed in his bid to continue as Advisory Council Director on the Institute Board of Directors. The Advisory Council, made up of all Group Presidents and Consultation Team Chairs, works to alleviate concerns and provides advice on matters referred to it by the AGM, the Board, Group Executives, and Consultation Teams.

20. Legacy Cup

PIPSC President and Legacy Foundation Chair Debi Daviau thanked the members in all the Regions for their fundraising efforts and contributions to the Legacy Foundation.

At the 2014 AGM, the Institute launched a friendly competition among PIPSC Regions to see which Region could raise the most money per capita for scholarships during the year. The winning Region would earn the “Legacy Cup” plus an extra scholarship for a student in their Region. Thanks to the members in all of the Regions for stepping up and contributing generously to this worthy cause. President Daviau and Director Del Dickson presented the Legacy Cup to Rob MacDonald, Director of the BC/Yukon Region.

On behalf of the BC/Yukon Region, Rob MacDonald challenged the other Regions to try to raise enough money to take the cup away from the BC/Yukon Region at the 2017 PIPSC AGM.

Moved and seconded that B-20 (Mandate of the Finance Committee), B-21 (Consultation Teams) and B-22 (Board of Directors Eligibility) be untabled. Carried

(There was still quorum at this time – 5:40 p.m.)

21. Proposed By-Law Amendments (Cont’d)

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas By-Law 2.3 stipulates that the Institute shall endeavour to manage the organization in an efficient and effective manner; and

Whereas the membership has expressed a desire that PIPSC be run on a cost effective basis; and

Whereas in 2015 PIPSC had a loss of $3,917,415; and

Whereas in 2016 PIPSC has budgeted for a loss of $1,496,280; and

Whereas in 2017 PIPSC is budgeting for a loss of $2,845,440; and

Whereas the members have a reasonable expectation that the Finance Committee is reviewing all financial expenditures at the Institute; and

Whereas in many similar organizations, the Finance Committee performs an internal audit function, to ensure money is well spent; and

Whereas the By-Laws already a review function for the Finance Committee;

19.3.2 Expenses - The President is entitled to draw reasonable sums from the Institute for documented expenses incurred in connection with the position. Such expense accounts, submitted monthly, are subject to review by the Finance Committee, under the authority of the Board

Be it resolved that to help achieve the goal of PIPSC being run on a cost effective basis and that money is well spent, By-Law 17.6.2 be amended as follows:

17.6.2 Mandate - The Finance Committee shall be responsible to review budgets, financial statements, the management of Institute assets, financial policies, perform an internal audit function to ensure money is well spent and other financial matters of the Institute and shall make recommendations to the Board of Directors.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The resolution proposes that the Finance Committee take on the functions of an Audit Committee to perform Value for Money audits. Assumptions are that it will require at least three days of additional meetings in a year for Committee members. The cost of including Value for Money audits in the mandate of the Finance Committee is estimated at $30K/year for the additional member participation in the committee. The cost of internal and external professional support would be approximately $90K. Additional cost would also be incurred for salary replacement and related expenses for members participating in activities the committee chooses to examine in a Value for Money audit.

Total direct and indirect cost of resolution is estimated at $120K per year.

The mover spoke to this resolution, stating that the intent is to have cost containment and allow the Finance Committee to work with the Institute finance staff to identify efficiencies and cost savings. With the additional dues, there should be additional oversight on Institute finances. There would be no cost to this practice and there could be potential savings.

Some disagreed that this would be cost neutral and felt that since the budget was already approved, the AGM should not be dealing with this matter at this time, given the potential costs involved. There are already oversight processes in place through policies and the Board and the AGM are the ultimate oversight bodies. There is no need to conduct an internal audit and no need to repeat the VFM exercise, which was costly and produced little results.

Some felt that as worded, the resolution was too vague and too broad and not in line with the mandate of the Finance Committee. Furthermore, this is not in line with good governance practices and could add an element of conflict.

The question was called.

The motion was defeated.

Whereas it is critical that decisions that are made at the Board of Directors are in the best interests of the membership as a whole, which in some cases might be detrimental to a particular Consultation Team or consultation, as a whole, at PIPSC;

Whereas Board of Directors responsibilities take priority over all other matters and can consume any and all time available to them;

Whereas the role Consultation Presidents play in the Institute is crucial and can require an enormous amount of time;

Whereas serving as a Board of Director and Consultation Team President can put the individual in a conflict of interest

Be it resolved that:

By-Law 22.2.2.2 - A member of a Consultation Team, Group, Sub-Group, Region or Branch Executive is eligible for election as a member of the Board; however, upon election must immediately resign their position(s) in accordance with By-Laws 19.2.1.1, 20.2.1, 21.2.1

By-Law 20.2.1 - Vice-Presidents shall not be a member of a Consultation Team, Group, Sub-Group, Region or Branch Executive.

By-Law 21.2.1 – A Regional Director shall not be a member of a Consultation Team, Group, Sub-Group, or Branch Executive.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

The motion was withdrawn.

Whereas the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (the Institute) is a labour union and as such the Board of Directors should reflect labour;

Whereas the priorities of Retired Members may be in conflict with those of Regular Members

Therefore be it resolved:

XX Eligibility (NEW)

XX.1 - A member of the Board of Directors who retires while in office shall be allowed to complete their term but shall not be eligible for re-election.

XX.2 Notwithstanding By-Law 7.1, only Regular Members have the right to be candidates for the positions of Director, Vice-President, or President of the Institute and subject to By-Law 21.2.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Since By-Law amendments do not have a retroactive effect, this amendment, if carried, would impact eligibility for the next election.

The motion was withdrawn.

Whereas ​it is critical that the Board of Directors is representative of its membership; and

Whereas ​ the composition of the Board provides for Regional representation, but there are no measures in place to encourage and to require representation by equity seeking Groups; and

Whereas ​the Federal government took unprecedented steps to ensure gender parity in staffing key positions; and

Whereas ​ the Institute demands that the Employer respect its obligations under employment equity; and

Whereas ​ the National Capital Region (NCR) has 4 Regional Directors, 2 Full­time Vice Presidents, and the President; and

Whereas ​ Part­-time Vice-­Presidents may also be elected from the National Capital Region, which necessarily creates an imbalance at the Board, as well as a disproportionate amount of resources allocated to the NCR;

Therefore be it ​resolved:

21.2 Distribution

Effective January 1st, 2019, the complement of members of the Board of Directors shall be four (4) two (2) from the National Capital Region, one (1) elected Director from each of the Regions outside the National Capital Region, two (2) Directors from outside the National Capital Region from the equity seeking groups, one of which shall be a woman, and one (1) elected Director shall be elected by the Advisory Council.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The two Directors from the equity seeking groups should be elected by the entire electorate.

There was no mover for this resolution.

20. Policy Resolutions

Moved and seconded that,

Whereas the Treasury Board’s Workplace Day Care Centres Policy succeeded for many years to help build and sustain 12 centres throughout federal buildings

Whereas the previous federal government undermined the long term financial viability of workplace daycares by eliminating the fiscal envelope for departments to subsidize rents for workplace daycares

Whereas we have already seen the closure of the Tupper Tots Daycare in Ottawa and the threat to others workplace daycares in federal buildings

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC continues to work with other bargaining agents to ensure that the Treasury Board upholds their Workplace Day Care Centres Policy and that these vital daycares are maintained over the long term.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Funding for this initiative would fall within the current budget.

Policy statements such as this one need to be pushed in support and to encourage participation of younger members, which is in line with ensuring “la relève”.

The motion carried.

Moved and seconded that all remaining non-budgetary (policy) resolutions (P-3 to P-25) be referred to the Advisory Council (AC) for recommendations to the Board of Directors.

Some felt that until quorum was lost, the assembly should proceed with the business remaining on the agenda.

There was concern with referring the resolutions to the AC, who reports to the Board of Directors. Some felt that the resolutions should be referred to the Board, who would refer them to the appropriate body (ies). If not all, some of the resolutions should be referred to the Board of Directors, in terms of being addressed in a timely fashion.

The question was called.

The motion to refer carried.

21. Closing Remarks

President Daviau thanked the delegates for engaging in the debates and for being interested in the affairs of the Institute. The President also thanked AGM Chair Marilyn Best, who was ably assisted by Sean O’Reilly, Chair of the By-Laws and Policies Committee and the Parliamentarians, Dan Jones, John Purdie, and Robert Trudeau. The President also acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the staff who contributed so much to the success of the event.

22. Adjournment

The AGM adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

The following resolutions were referred to the Advisory Council by the 2016 AGM:

Whereas the legitimacy of an advanced democracy’s tax system is predicated on its integrity and fairness; and

Whereas the Government of Canada’s Budget 2016 announced new spending expected to yield more than $12 in revenue for every $10 invested in the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); and

Whereas restoring public faith in the integrity of tax system demands investing in the staff and structure needed at the CRA to catch international tax cheats and provide much-needed revenue for federal government programs;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC calls on the federal government to:

• Establish a world-class tax fairness initiative with a $600 million investment to recoup $6 billion in revenue
• Investigate complex cases and prosecute offenders
• Target corporate tax cheats

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Funding for this initiative would fall within the current budget or come from a separate business case proposal to the Board of Directors.

Whereas public science requires rebuilding after nearly 10 years of muzzling and cuts by the previous federal government

Whereas there exist a significant shortage in the number of scientists, engineers and researchers to meet the ongoing research and regulatory needs of the Government of Canada

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC engages the current government to support public science by investing in innovation and science at the federal level

Be it further resolved that PIPSC calls on the federal government to hire additional federal scientist to reverse the impact of dangerous cuts over the previous 10 years and increase funding for conference attendance, and

Be it further resolved that PIPSC campaign vigorously to enshrine scientific integrity into collective agreements in order to ensure no future government can muzzle federal scientists again.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Funding for this initiative would fall within the current budget or come from a separate business case proposal to the Board of Directors.

Whereas the contract between public employees and the federal government is breaking down as more and more services are outsourced for longer and longer periods of time; and

Whereas outsourcing government services does not ensure Canadians get the best expertise available when it’s needed, more efficiently or at a lower cost; and

Whereas the federal government currently spends $10 billion a year on outsourced services, more than the budgets of several large federal departments combined;

Therefore be it further resolved that we call on the federal government to reduce reliance on outside IT and other professional services and reinvest a portion of the savings into training to enhance the government’s internal capacity; and

Be it further resolved that the Institute build a multi-pronged campaign to raise member and public awareness of the harms of contracting out/outsourcing and continue to lobby the federal government to reverse the trend towards an over-reliance on private sector solutions.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Funding for this initiative would fall within the current budget or come from a separate business case proposal to the Board of Directors.

Whereas the mission of PIPSC is to represent members collectively and individually; and

Whereas PIPSC represents the rights of its members; and

Whereas representation includes the submission of grievances; and

Whereas the current grievance tracking system is not being utilized to record or track all grievances in a manner that allows relevant reports on grievances to be searched as needed for bargaining support or to track the status of important grievances;

Be it resolved that PIPSC adopt a grievance tracking system that can easily be used by staff and that can be searched as needed for bargaining support or to track the status of important grievances; and

Be it further resolved that reports about grievances be provided to Groups and Regions as requested.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The current tracking system allows for a certain level of tracking of grievances, including trends identifications for bargaining purposes. However, the production of reports is limited by confidentiality and privacy considerations. The system is hampered by the non-reporting of grievances and complaints filed by members and Stewards which are therefore not captured in the grievance tracking system.

Whereas it is extremely time consuming to get a reservation for travel and accommodation through BCD Travel; and

Whereas PIPSC does not receive any volume discount from BCD Travel; and

Whereas we (PIPSC) do not receive the benefit of seat sales by airlines and hotel accommodations from BCD Travel; and

Whereas BCD Travel is only available 8 am - 5 pm EST;

Be it resolved that the Institute be directed to investigate ways to reduce time delays by moving to an on-line travel application or an alternate full service provider of Travel Booking Services, implement and report back at the 2017 AGM

Be it resolved that the Institute be directed to investigate ways to be more efficient internally and externally on travel booking services reduce time delays by moving to an on-line travel application or an alternate full service provider of Travel Booking Services, implement and report back at the 2017 AGM to the 2017 AGM.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: PIPSC benefits from volume discounts from the corporate contracts with BCD Travel applicable to the use of air, rail, car and hotel. A travel program review is currently being conducted including a review of online booking services.

BCD Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST. Outside of these hours, there is access to service at all times through the “after hours” emergency call centre.

Whereas the PIPSC member travel approval management system to obtain a TAN is cumbersome and affects member volunteer time and often consumes up to two weeks to obtain;

Be it resolved that the Group President be authorized to approve and issue TANs for NR members.

Be it resolved that the Group Presidents be authorized to approve and issue TANs for their group executive NR members.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: All meeting requests that follow policy are approved within 48 hours of their submission. Meetings outside of policy are re-routed to the Executive Committee for further review. Moving the meetings approval process to Group Presidents would breach the internal control protocols approved by the external auditors.

This task would require Group Presidents to perform budget and contract analysis currently performed by the Finance Section. It could also expose the Institute to risk if a Group President does not have the necessary knowledge of the travel policy and financial processes.

Whereas the mission of PIPSC is to represent members collectively and individually; and

Whereas PIPSC represents the rights of its members; and

Whereas representation includes the submission of grievances;

Whereas the current grievance tracking system is not being utilized to record or track all grievances in a manner that allows relevant reports on grievances to be searched as needed for bargaining support or to track the status of grievances;

Be it resolved that PIPSC review the capabilities of the current "tracking system for grievances", and determine further requirements through consultation with the Advisory Council, to ensure the system can easily be used by staff and that the data can easily be searched for bargaining support or to track the status of grievances; and.

Be it further resolved that reports about grievances be provided to Groups, Regions and Consultation Teams as requested.

Be it further resolved that this grievance tracking system be put in place before September 1, 2017.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The current tracking system allows for a certain level of tracking of grievances, including trends identifications for bargaining purposes. However, the production of reports is limited by confidentiality and privacy considerations. The system is hampered by the non-reporting of grievances and complaints filed by members and Stewards which are therefore not captured in the grievance tracking system.

Whereas the national and regional committees must make decisions based on the funds allocated to them through the Annual General Meeting;

Whereas treasurers and chairs of national and regional committees do not have access to the details of financial transactions affecting the committees for which they are responsible; and

Whereas detailed financial reports are critical to the sound management of national and regional committees;

Be it resolved that treasurers and chairs of national and regional committees have quarterly access to the details of financial transactions as well as the detailed financial statements of the committees for which they are responsible.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The Finance Section currently provides detailed financial information as requested by Constituent Body Executives and Board Committees. Some committees request this information prior to each meeting, which Finance provides. Furthermore, quarterly financial information for Board Committees, Group and Regional Executives is already being provided in the internal financial statements. These statements are posted on the Finance Portal.

Whereas our union represents more than 50,000 members;

Whereas the labour movement has been facing all-out assaults for years;

Whereas each work environment requires adherence to specific missions and values;

Whereas the values of the labour movement are substantially different than the values that can be found in other work environments; and

Whereas the Institute’s values are attainable and well known, and include respect, integrity, cooperation and accountability;

Be it resolved that the hiring processes for the Institute’s employees include a thorough, systematic assessment of the applicants’ adherence to our organization’s union values;

Be it further resolved that adherence to these union values be a top priority in the assessment of the applications received.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Institute hiring practices and processes are based on the identification of the most meritorious candidates, which already includes the promotion of union values. In assessing merit, the Institute considers factors such as experience, aptitude, linguistic abililty and ability to fit in a union environment.

Whereas it is important for the union to ensure its sustainability;

Whereas, in the next few years, a generation of members will be retiring;

Whereas it is vital to prepare the next generation of leaders;

Whereas the Québec Youth Committee is proving successful; and

Whereas similar initiatives within the Institute should be considered;

Be it resolved that each of the Regional Directors consider the appropriateness of identifying one or more young activists in their respective region, thereby encouraging the creation of a Regional Youth Committee.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: The cost of regional committees would come out of regional funds. There would be no additional cost to PIPSC.

Whereas the Institute’s By-Law 27 establishes the principle of equality of both official languages; and

Whereas the Institute’s AGM is usually chaired by a unilingual Anglophone person;

Be it resolved that, starting with the 2017 AGM, the Institute’s AGM will be chaired by a bilingual person.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

Whereas virtually all members of PIPSC currently own personal cell phones and have home internet; and

Whereas virtually all members of PIPSC have cell phone and home internet contracts that provide more than adequate service allowing use of personal cell phones and home internet for union activities at no extra cost;

Be it resolved that reimbursement to members of executives of constituent bodies for personal cell phones be limited to provable incremental costs associated with union activities; and

Be it further resolved that reimbursement to members of executives of constituent bodies for home internet be limited to provable incremental costs associated with union activities.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: Without a detailed policy, it would be difficult to identify the cost savings.

Whereas the introduction to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report states that:

For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.”

Whereas the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has made comprehensive recommendations to address the devastating legacy of the residential school system and the need for reconciliation; and

Whereas government actions are required to promote education about the residential school system across Canada; to increase funding for Indigenous education and health and social services; to transform child welfare services for Indigenous children and families; and to ensure cultural sensitivity and increased control by Indigenous families and communities; and

Whereas all governments in Canada should ensure the international human rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous treaty rights, language rights and self-governance;

Be it resolved that the Institute call upon governments in Canada to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in consultation with Indigenous Peoples; educate our members on the residential school system and the attempted cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Canada; Support Indigenous organizations and grassroots activism in efforts to promote healing and reconciliation; and encourage the CLC and other labour bodies to do the same.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

Whereas Constituent bodies have the freedom to purchase visibility items and promotional items for distribution to members and others; and

Whereas visibility and promotional items can be useful in building awareness of PIPSC, identifying Stewards and activists in the workplace; and

Whereas visibility and promotional items can be costly;

Therefore be it resolved that the purchase of visibility and promotional items should meet minimum criteria for:

a) return on investment in building the visibility of PIPSC in the public sphere; or

b) return on investment in enhancing the visibility of PIPSC and Stewards in the workplace; or

c) return on investment in demonstrations of solidarity within PIPSC in alignment with PIPSC values.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

Whereas constituent bodies must be responsible fiscal managers; and

Whereas members are entitled to full information on how their membership dues are allocated;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC constituent bodies, including Regional Councils, Branches, Groups and Committees, report at their Annual General Meetings on their finances using standard accounting practices including a balance sheet, a full statement of income and expenses, and detailed information on expenses, including those costs paid by the PIPSC central office on behalf of the constituent body.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The Policy on Constituent Body Finances, under the heading “Financial Governance and Reporting”, currently states:

Financial Governance and Reporting

”Budgets and financial statements shall be prepared and presented to the Constituent Body’s Annual General Meeting (or Regional Council) for approval. Financial statements shall normally be prepared in the format approved by the Institute. Constituent Bodies are permitted to use their own format provided it contains the basic information required by the Institute.”

Whereas PIPSC is facing critical challenges in its defense of member's rights; and

Whereas PIPSC needs innovation and creativity to meet these challenges; and

Whereas change and growth are integral to the ongoing evolution of PIPSC and its ability to meet new and unique challenges;

Therefore be it resolved that the terms of executive members of constituent bodies be limited to no more than three consecutive terms in the same position.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: This could be accomplished by changing the Policies on Groups, Regions, Branches and Sub-Groups. This would also require changes to constituent body constitutions.

Whereas the proportion of women on PIPSC boards and committees is less than the proportion of women in our membership; and

Whereas women are under-represented in position of influence in government, business and academia; and

Whereas PIPSC strives to represent their members in a fair and equitable manner;

Therefore be it resolved that the Board of Directors, the National and Regional Executives, the Committees of the Board and the Executives of constituent bodies (Branches, Groups, Sub-Groups, Councils, Retired Members’ Guild), strive to achieve gender parity on those committees and boards.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: No comment

Whereas the representation of the views of all members in decision making is critical to the democratic functioning of PIPSC; and

Whereas the membership of PIPSC is unequally distributed between bargaining groups of various sizes; and

Whereas the executives of Constituent Bodies should represent members from all bargaining groups as much as possible; and

Whereas the delegates at annual general meetings and regional council meetings should represent all bargaining groups in a fair and equitable manner;

Therefore be it resolved that Regional Council executives be made up of a selection of members from all bargaining groups proportional to their membership in the Region; and

Be it further resolved that Branch executives be made up of a selection of members from all bargaining groups proportional to their membership in the Branch; and

Be it further resolved that the number of delegate representatives at regional council meetings be proportional to the membership of each bargaining group in the region; and

Be it further resolved that the number of delegate representatives at annual general meetings be proportional to the membership of each bargaining group.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: This would require a change to the Policies on Branches and Regions and would also require changes to constituent body constitutions.

Whereas the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada is one of the widest of all the developed countries; and

Whereas the rate of increase of income inequality in Canada is also increasing at the one of the fastest rates among developed countries; and

Whereas wide scale income inequality causes social and economic instability; and

Whereas most other major unions have adopted an indexed fee schedule; and

Whereas PIPSC and other unions are leaders in social change for the betterment of their members and of Canadians; and

Whereas a demonstration of new policy can be effective in supporting similar changes on a larger scale;

Therefore be it resolved that PIPSC do its part to reduce income inequality by putting in place indexed membership fees so that members with lower income pay slightly lower fees and members with higher income pay slightly higher fees.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment: If supported, this resolution would require a formula to be presented at a future Annual General Meeting.

Whereas human rights, values and dignities are to be safeguarded and protected in all matters pertaining to PIPSC; and

Whereas PIPSC has approved a Dispute Resolution & Discipline Policy (DRDP) to assist with accommodating these safeguards and protections; and

Whereas the DRDP may invariably utilize Third Party Contractors to accommodate the resolution process; and

Whereas the outcomes from Third Party Contractors could have ultimate and final impact on the parties involved; and

Whereas there is no transparency (even to the point of secrecy from the Board) in the development of selection criteria for Third Party Contractors, the selection process for Third Party Contractor inventory lists, or the awarding of Third Party Contracts from the standing inventory list;

Therefore be it resolved that there be full and complete transparency surrounding the administration of Third Party Contracts, including:

The preparation and submission of a Third Party Contractor Policy, for AGM approval. The Policy is to include, but not limited to: The selection process / criteria for the development of standing list(s) for Third Party Contractors; The eligible period / renewal period for any given standing list of Third Party Contractors (so there is no imbued right in perpetuity); The selection process for work assignments from the standing list of Third Party Contractors

The perpetual web posting of the Third Party Contractor process, including the approved policy, to be updated as required and as any modification to the process or to the standing list of Third Party Contractors, is undertaken. The web posting is to include the up-to-date number of work assignments to individual Third Party Contractors, as well as the dollar value of awards to Third Party Contractors;

An approval process which gives credence to the governance authority of the Board of Directors. The Board should have approval authority and responsibility for the formulation of Third Party Contractor standing inventory lists. The Board review process is to include whatever information the Board deems it requires to support the review process.

As Third Party Contractor assignments are awarded under DRDP, all parties have a right to know the Terms of Reference for the engagement and to question the full parameters of the work scope.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Currently, any party to a DRDP process who has requested a copy of the mandate or terms of reference issued to the third-party neutral by the Office of the General Counsel has been provided with such.

Rates for professional services are not normally published, for the sole purpose of securing commercial advantages: service providers will not necessarily offer their best rates if it means all other potential or other clients will hold them to the same rate, regardless of volume or consistency of contracts.

The selection of third-party neutrals for the purposes of DRDP administration is done while taking into account various factors such as: expertise, availability, language, region, past experience and fees. Various other professionals and associations are consulted in arriving at an acceptable list.

While the preamble relates to concerns raised around DRDP service providers, the resolution is broadly drafted so as to encompass all service providers retained by PIPSC in the conduct of its business. The cost of establishing the proposed process is undetermined but could require additional staff.

The Institute currently has an established practice for dealing with procurement of goods and services that requires different levels of approvals depending on the amounts involved.

Whereas the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (the Institute) is incorporated under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (CNFPCA); and

Whereas the Institute’s By-Laws must be compliant with the CNFPCA, including the CNFPCA requirement that General Counsel for the Institute be an Officer of the Institute; and

Whereas an Officer of the Institute has a fiduciary duty to the Institute, including the duty of loyalty and the duty of care; and

Whereas an Officer’s duties and loyalties are best served through a direct reporting relationship to the Board of Directors, which is charged with exercising the authority of the Institute between Annual general Meetings; and

Whereas the current Institute structure has General Counsel reporting directly to the Chief Operating Officer, himself an Officer of the Institute and the only employee reporting directly to the Board in the capacity of Executive Secretary; and

Whereas such a structure as that which currently exists, results in an officer of the Institute not reporting directly to the Board of Directors, which by consequence, results in indirect loyalty, if not in fact, divided loyalty;

Therefore be it resolved that the Institute’s policy on the Board of Directors be amended as follows:

Authority of the Board

The authority of the Board is as defined in the Institute’s By-Laws. The Board may exercise its authority through direction given to the Executive Committee, the President, the General Counsel, and the Executive Secretary of the Institute

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

General Counsel is included as an Officer under the definition section (ss. 2(1)) of the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. This has been the case under all previous versions of the legislation.

While the Officer designation does entail a fiduciary duty to the organization, there is no requirement under legislation for all officers to report to the Board of Directors. The reporting relationship of the General Counsel is a question of governance and regardless of the structure in place, the duties associated with the position remain the same. There are no divided loyalties in that the Institute remains at all times the employer, regardless of which position or body the General Counsel reports to.

The Institute’s interests are further protected by the fact that, as a lawyer, the General Counsel is regulated by professional obligations and standards of professional conduct that govern its relationship with its client: the Institute.

Whereas there has been a disturbing increase in the number of formal complaints filed by Institute officials at the highest level;

Whereas there is a lack of consistency in regards to the Investigation process and procedures, including the determination of whether a complaint should proceed to investigation or not;

Whereas there is a significant number of complainants and respondents (and others) who feel that the Institute’s complaint process lacked procedural fairness;

Whereas it is critical that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness be adhered to in matters where discipline may be warranted;

Whereas the legitimacy of a complaint process is predicated on its integrity and fairness;

Whereas the Institute may become liable for significant legal and financial exposure relating to decisions rendered that are determined to be arbitrary, discriminatory or made in bad faith

Therefore, be it resolved that Part D and E of the Institutes Dispute Resolution and Discipline policy, be amended as follows:

Part D – Allegations of Misconduct

Formal allegations of misconduct warranting discipline as set out in Bylaw 24 must be submitted in writing to the Office of the General Counsel, clearly stating the allegations(s). Where the General Counsel determines the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious or without merit, the General Counsel may dismiss the complaint summarily.

Allegations relating to events having occurred more than 2 years prior to the allegations being made will generally be dismissed summarily, unless the allegations establish that the respondent(s) has engaged in a pattern of misconduct or harassment, or there is a direct connection to the current allegations.

If the complaint is determined to have merit, the General Counsel shall convene a Panel of Peers.

In some cases, the appropriate course of action decided by the Panel of Peers may be limited to remedial action, or some form of alternate dispute resolution. If the Panel of Peers determines that the alleged misconduct should be investigated, an Investigator shall be selected from a standing list of Investigators established and administered by the Board of Directors. The Institute will bear the costs of retaining the Investigator.

No member shall be suspended or expulsed from office or membership unless an investigation has been conducted.

A copy of the Investigator’s preliminary report will be provided to all complainants and respondents, who will be given an opportunity to comment in writing to the Investigator’s report. The complainant and the Respondent shall be provided with a copy of the Final Investigator’s report, at the same time as it is provided to the Panel of Peers. If discipline is being contemplated, the respondents shall have 14 days to provide representations in regards to the proposed disciplinary action, which will normally include an opportunity to respond verbally to the Panel of Peers

The investigation process including the conduct of the Panel of Peers shall be in accordance with Regulation 24.3 and 24.4

Part E – Appeals

Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any decision of the designated Panel of Peers imposing discipline, the disciplined member(s) may appeal by written submission to the Board of Directors. Such submissions shall be limited to no more than five (5) pages double spaced.

Upon receipt of appeal submissions, the Board or its designate shall mandate a third party neutral to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible The third-party shall be selected from a standing list of neutrals established and administered by the Board of Directors. The Institute will bear the costs of retaining the third party neutral.

The third-party neutral will establish the process to be followed in each case, while ensuring procedural fairness and a review of the facts and all arguments made by the parties. For example, the third-party neural may elect to determine the appeal on the basis of written submissions, hear arguments or testimony via tele/video-conference, or hear viva voice testimony.

The Institute will not be responsible for costs incurred by a member in relation to such appeal.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

Part D

The current policy provides that allegations that relate to events that occurred more than two years prior to the date of the complaint will normally be dismissed summarily. This is already an unusually lengthy period and the proposed amendment expands the situations where such events could be considered. The older the complaint, the more difficult it is to obtain reliable evidence and ensure a fair process.

Investigators are currently selected by the Office of the General Counsel after considering expertise, language, location, availability, prior engagements and costs.

Parties currently have an opportunity to comment on a preliminary investigation report and are provided with the final report once the panel of peers has reached a decision, along with a letter of decision. There is no procedural fairness requiring that parties be provided with an opportunity to directly address the panel. It is acceptable for the decision-maker to rely on an investigation report (for example, this is the process used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission when it determines whether cases are referred to the Tribunal or not). There is further no procedural fairness right to be heard “verbally” by the decision-maker.

Regulation 24.4 (though numbered in the current consolidation only as R24) provides members who are facing a temporary suspension by the Board of Directors (or Executive Committee) with an opportunity to make submissions to the decision-maker. There is currently no Regulation 24.3.

Part E

Amendments to the Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy that took effect in 2014 were mostly fuelled by a desire to extract the politics from the process by removing it from the purview of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors.

Under the current Policy, appeals are received by the Office of the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Secretary, who administers the list of neutral third parties. Appellants are provided with a suggested “short list” of neutrals based primarily on region and language. Appellants are then asked to advise us the COO if they feel any of the proposed individuals may not, in their view, be able to dispose of their appeal in an unbiased manner and provide reasons for such. Only after that, is a neutral retained by the COO.

Since the current DRDP was implemented in 2014, 67 complaints have been filed; 5 decisions could have been the subject of appeals; 3 decisions were appealed. One appeal was dismissed entirely and the two others confirmed the findings of misconduct and varied the length of the suspensions from 3 years to 2 years.

Whereas there has been a disturbing increase in the number of formal complaints filed by Institute officials at the highest level;

Whereas there is a lack of consistency in regards to the Investigation process and procedures, including the determination of whether a complaint should proceed to investigation or not;

Whereas there is a significant number of complainants and respondents (and others) who feel that the Institute’s complaint process lacks procedural fairness;

Whereas it is critical that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness be adhered to in matters where discipline may be warranted;

Whereas the legitimacy of a complaint process is predicated on its integrity and fairness;

Whereas the Institute may become liable for significant legal and financial exposure relating to decisions rendered that are determined to be arbitrary, discriminatory or made in bad faith

Therefore, be it resolved that:

New Regulation 24.3

The following guidelines shall be followed in processing the allegations against individuals who may be subject to discipline, pursuant to the Institute`s Dispute Resolution and Discipline policy, in order to ensure procedural fairness:

1. Timeframes

The disciplinary process shall be completed in a timely and expeditious manner. As a general rule, complaints should be dealt with in their entirety within six months from the date when the General Counsel receives the initial allegations.

For any complaint that is not fully resolved after 12 weeks, or as soon as it becomes known that the complaint will not be resolved within 12 weeks, the General Counsel shall provide an update in writing to both the complainant(s) and the respondent(s) setting out the reasons for the delay. Similar advice is to be provided each subsequent 6 weeks.

2. The investigation process is comprised of five stages:

2.1 Intake of Complaint

The General Counsel shall normally assess the merits of the complaint, except where he is named as a respondent or otherwise in a conflict of interest, or it involves a member of the Board of Directors, in which case a third party neutral shall be retained by the Institute.

In those situations where a third party neutral is retained, the mandate and terms of reference shall be established by the Board of Directors, and shall be shared with both the complainant(s) and the respondent(s).

If the complaint is determined to be frivolous, vexatious, or without merit, the complaint may be summarily dismissed by General Counsel.

Reasons to support summarily dismissing the complaint must be provided in writing to the complainant, who may appeal the decision to the Board, within 14 days of receipt of same.

2.2 Striking of the Panel of Peers and Assessment of Complaint

If the complaint is determined to have merit, an independent Panel of Peers shall be struck by General Counsel, subject to the consideration, if any, of allegations of conflict of interest or apprehension of bias made by either the complainant or the respondent.

The Respondent(s) shall have an opportunity to provide a response to the allegations made against them within 10 days of receiving the complaint, (right to be heard) before the Panel of Peers makes a determination as to the most appropriate course of action.

The Panel of Peers shall in all cases consider whether the allegations of misconduct can be dealt with as a remedial matter, such as additional training and development, or through alternate dispute resolution.

In deciding whether to deal with an allegation by remedial action or as a disciplinary matter, the Panel of Peers shall make a preliminary assessment of the facts, including any representations made by the Respondent(s) and taking into account the seriousness and the nature of the allegations.

If an investigation is determined to be warranted, the terms of reference and the mandate of the Investigator shall be shared with both the complainant(s) and the respondent(s).

Preliminary objections must be responded to in writing by the Institute`s General Counsel, or designate, before the complaint matter proceeds to Investigation.

The Respondent may appeal to the independent ombudsman, comprised of 3 to 5 members of the Advisory Council at any stage in the Investigation process on issues related to the procedural fairness of the Investigation process.

2.3 Investigation, including preliminary report

All persons identified by the complainant or the respondent as witnesses shall be interviewed by the Investigator except that if the Investigator decides not to interview a particular person, reasons in writing shall be provided to the complainant or the respondent as soon as the determination is made.

A witness to the Investigation shall in all cases, be deemed to be in a conflict of interest.

Allegations shall not be considered or otherwise subject to Investigation unless the respondent has been provided with full disclosure thereto.

Witnesses shall be provided with a copy of the interview notes, and shall attest to the accuracy and completeness of the information contained therein. If the witness does not certify the interview notes, the Investigator shall not rely on any of the information obtained in either his preliminary or final report.

Both the complainant and the respondent shall have the opportunity to respond to the preliminary report and shall be provided with a certified copy of the witness statements, as well as any other correspondence provided to the Investigator by any source.

The Investigator shall not rely on additional representations or allegations following the issuance of the preliminary report, in making findings or recommendations contained in the final report, unless the respondent is given the opportunity to respond to the new information or allegations.

2.4 Final Investigators report

Both the complainant and the respondent shall be provided with a copy of the final report at the same time as it is provided to the Panel of Peers.

If discipline is recommended, the respondent shall be advised in writing within 7 days of the report being issued of the disciplinary action that is being contemplated.

The respondent shall have 14 days to provide representations in regards to the proposed disciplinary action, which will normally include an opportunity to respond verbally to the Panel of Peers.

In addition to the Investigator`s report, the Panel of Peers shall consider whether there are mitigating or extenuating circumstances, whether policy and guidelines applicable to the conduct were in place, were known, or were being followed, and whether it is the first instance of misconduct or there exists a pattern of misconduct.

The recommended discipline shall be relative to discipline meted out in similar circumstances, unless the discipline may reasonably be considered to be progressive.

2.5 Implementation of final decision

The final decision shall only be made after considering the submission of the respondent (oral or in writing).

In all cases where discipline is applied, the Respondent shall have the right to appeal pursuant to the Discipline and Dispute Resolution policy.

Resolutions Sub-Committee Comment:

The current DRDP is drafted in a manner to be flexible, in recognition of the fact that procedural fairness is not a static concept, while protecting the hallmarks of natural justice: the right to know the allegations made against oneself, the right to be heard, and the right to receive clear and cogent reasons for a decision.

Since the inception of the new DRDP in 2014, 67 Complaints have been filed; 5 have resulted in suspensions and 3 of those 5 were the subject of appeals pursuant to Part E of the Policy. All appeals upheld the panel’s findings of misconduct and two decisions out of the three varied the length of the suspensions, reducing them from 3 to 2 years. To date, not one of the decisions issued under the Policy has led to a complaint to the labour board.

The 3-year term of the Member Conduct Roster is coming to an end in early 2017; each of the Roster member’s has signaled their willingness to be considered for a further term. The DRDP process has recently been submitted to external counsel for review to ensure it meets the requirement of natural justice, including procedural fairness. The opinion was that the policy does meet those requirements. The only recommended improvement – to provide more fulsome reasons for disciplinary decisions – has already been implemented by the Roster.

Investigations conducted pursuant to the DRDP are currently subject to the Institute’s Guideline on Investigation Standards: http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/aboutinstitute/governance/conductroster/forms/061620161, which contains, for example, provisions to deal with witness statements and delays in the investigation.

1. Timeframes

Currently, every mandate entered into with a third party contains timeframes in which the various steps of the investigation must be met. The ability to actually meet those timeframes is dependent on the parties’ and witnesses’ availability; third party investigators often times have to strike a balance between proceeding quickly and demonstrating flexibility to the parties’ requests for extensions, as required by natural justice. Parties that make enquiries as to the status of their complaints are provided with timely responses.

2.1 Intake

Currently, the mandate and terms of reference for a third party to conduct an intake analysis is prepared by the Office of the General Counsel. Decisions to summarily dismiss are always accompanied by the neutral’s full reasons. This practice was developed willingly, at the suggestion of the Office of the General Counsel, to avoid any perception of bias or lack of impartiality. The proposed approach is inconsistent with the very reason the DRDP was overhauled in 2013, which was to depoliticize the process and free the Board of Directors from the time-consuming and divisive issues that arise under the policy. In addition to injecting politics in the process, this approach risks extending the process as the Board meets approximately 10 times a year with agendas that already overlap into subsequent meetings.

2.2 Striking of Panel and Assessment of complaint

The current practice is to request a response from respondents in writing and then provide it to the panel of peers before they decide on next steps, which may or may not include an investigation. When dealing with counter-complaints, respondents may be required to provide their response directly to the investigator so as to not slow down a process already under way. In either case, the ability to provide a response is always provided. This approach respects natural justice rights of the parties. Panels always consider all the circumstances when determining next steps and are focused on serving the best interests of the Institute.

Where parties raise issues around procedural fairness currently, those are referred to the panel of peers; Members of the Roster receive regular training relevant to conducting investigations; fact-findings and informal resolution of conflicts. They have, at their disposal, professional expertise through the Office of the General Counsel and access, through that office, to external expertise where required. The suggested approach to involve the Advisory Council in the process: 1) removes duties from panels of peers who have been selected and trained for these duties; 2) leaves decisions on natural justice in the hands of a group that has no training or expertise in the area and has no direct means to access such expertise; 3) unnecessarily broadcasts confidential matters to a large group of members; 4) injects politics into the process; and 5) risks increasing delays by adding decision-makers to the process.

There is no procedural fairness requirement that requires the creation of an appeal process of sorts in the middle of or prior to an investigation. These concerns are typically dealt with in the course of the investigation; in the parties’ comments to the preliminary report and, in all cases, are considered by the panels in arriving at a decision after receipt of the report. A further opportunity to cure exists in our policy where members are suspended or expulsed: they can appeal to a neutral third party.

2.3 Investigation, including preliminary report

The proposed approach regarding witnesses has to potential of increasing costs and time of investigations and it is not a requirement of natural justice to interview all witnesses put forward by the parties. Courts have recognized that it is properly within the investigator’s purview to determine if a witness identified by either the complainant or the respondent should be interviewed; investigators are also not required to issue reasons for those decisions.

Investigators must comply with the Investigation Guideline that is referenced above and this is included in each mandate since the guideline was developed. As part of this Guideline, witnesses must be given an opportunity to review their statement in writing and are required to sign off. Where the witness does not sign off on his statement, the Guideline provides that such statements are to be given little or no weight.

Complainants and respondents are given the opportunity to review the preliminary report and submit comments in writing for consideration by the investigator and the panel. Where those preliminary comments lead to any substantial change in the preliminary report, parties are given an opportunity to comment further.

2.4 Final investigator’s report

There is no procedural fairness requirement that a respondent be given an opportunity to make submissions directly to the decision-maker before a decision is reached; it is appropriate for the decision-maker to rely on a properly conducted investigation (see for example Bremsak v. PIPSC et al, 2013 PSRLB 22). The respondent can, through comments made on the preliminary report, make submissions that are considered by the panel.

In arriving at their decision, Panels are already considering the final report of the investigator, the seriousness of the allegations, the comments on the preliminary report, any aggravating or mitigating factors and precedents of the Institute in dealing with such matters. Once a decision is reached, it is communicated.

2.5. Implementation of final decision

See comments above, at 2.4.

Also, the recommended language of the regulation in terms of appeal rights is not consistent with Part E of the DRDP, which provides that appeals are available only in relation to decisions to suspend or expulse members.

 

 Debi Daviau
President

Edward Gillis
Chief Operating Officer & Executive Secretary