By Laws and Policies Committee Meeting
Monday, May 30, 2022
Delta Hotel, Chaudière Room
Present Stéphanie Fréchette (Chair), Tony Goddard (NCR), Mike Chow (BC/Yukon) (virtually), Scott McConaghy (ATL), Luc Denis (QC) (virtually), Fedora Kalenda-Mushiya (Staff Resource)
Regrets Jennifer Reay (PRA/NWT)
Guests John Purdie (Ontario Regional Director)
Nancy McCune (Observer)
Roundtable and Introductions
The meeting was delayed due to technical issues and was called to order at around 9:50 am. The Chair opened the meeting with a roundtable and introductions.
The Quebec representative advised that he had a day full of meetings and had to leave a little after 10:00 am.
Information on BLPC Processes
The Chair explained the strategic plan proposed at the previous BLPC meeting held on May 7, 2022, where a new way of assigning files was proposed. Essentially, the BLPC tasked the Staff Resource to create a master list of constituent bodies for each Region. The table will include the following information:
- 7 tabs (Regions and National Groups)
- Whether or not the constituent body has BLs in place
- If applicable, the latest date of ratification (AGM)
- If applicable, the latest date of Board approval
- If not, was the model proposed
- Comments
For due diligence, the Staff Resource was tasked to obtain constituent bodies’ data through Membership. The BLPC will work on the framework between now and the next meeting.
Action: All and Fedora
- Approval of the Agenda
The following item was added to the agenda
3 (r) Finance Terms of Reference
- Approval of the Minutes – Deferred
The May 7, 2022 minutes will be approved at the next BLPC meeting (September), along with May 30, 2022 minutes.
- Matters Arising from Previous Meeting
- Posting of Approved Constituent Body BL’s
Julie Gagnon followed up with the Translation Team Lead and an approximate timeline was provided. So far, only MAGE and WHRT BL’s are posted on PIPSC website.
- CP South Vancouver Island Sub-Group (Proposed)
There is no update at the moment. The BC Representative has yet to receive BLs and/or minutes from the SG. Further follow-ups will be made.
Action: M. Chow
- SH DND Québec Sub-Group (Proposed)
This new SG was created in October 2019 and held their AGM on May 4, 2022. The proposed BLs will be reviewed by the QC Representative and the BLPC Chair because they were submitted in French. This will be brought back at the next meeting.
Action: L. Denis / S. Fréchette
- AFS Saskatoon SG (Proposed)
There is currently insufficient information to proceed to the review. There is also a lack of information on the SG web page pertaining to the recent activities such as AGM notice, ratification dates etc.
This will be brought back for review at the next meeting. In the meantime, the Acting Prairies Representative will follow up with SG to seek further details.
Action: N. McCune
- AFS Regina Sub-Group (Proposed)
There is not enough information to proceed to the review particularly on ratification. The Acting Prairies Representative will send a reminder to SG to have their BL’s ratified. This will be brought back at the next meeting
Action: N. McCune
- WPEG Group
There is no update. The Acting Prairies Representative will follow up with the Group President.
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
Action: N. McCune
(The Quebec Representative left the meeting at 10:21 am.)
- 2019 AGM Resolution 2019 AGM Resolution – Amendment to BL 7 (Rights of Membership) Status Update
Excerpt from BLPC May 7 minutes:
“During the 2019 AGM, a resolution to BL 7 (Rights of Membership) was presented. The matter was referred to the BLPC with instructions to bring recommendations back to the 2020 AGM on how to limit contractors in elected offices at PIPSC however there was no update provided at the 2020 and 2021 AGMs on this matter.
7. Matters Arising from the Minutes
Item 14.4 – B-8 BY-LAW 7 – RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP – Sponsor: NCR Regional Council
Contractors limited to hold elected office – referred to the BLPC
The BLPC was tasked to bring recommendations back to the 2020 AGM on how to limit contractors in elected offices at PIPSC based on the following instructions:
– Develop a clear definition of contractor
– Seek a legal opinion
– Ensure the Board and AC are implicated
– Report back to the 2020 AGM
The delegate seeking a status update will be contacting the BLPC Chair directly.
The BLPC remains of the view that members’ rights cannot be restricted, as per this proposed BL amendment. The input from PIPSC legal was sought and remains pending.”
The BLPC will seek further legal advice and will ask the PIPSC General Legal Counsel to provide an official briefing note outlining the feasibility of this proposal.
During the discussion, further clarification was provided highlighting that this proposal would particularly affect members that are paid as contractors rather than employees (of a bargaining unit), e.g. retired members.
Action: N. McCune
- Proposed Policy on Gratuity (Policy on Constituent Body Allocations)
The Board of Directors (BOD) wanted a policy that would provide a reasonable cap on gratuities as part of hospitality claims.
The BOD had concerned that claims had been submitted where gratuities on hospitality amounts were excessive. There were instances quoted where gratuities were more than 40%.
The BOD also had concerned that excessive gratuities were not a proper use of Institute funds. By providing a reasonable limit, potential abuse would be eliminated. The BOD was aware that it was customary that for groups of six (6) or more, the current practice of some service providers was an 18% gratuity. Initially there was an opinion than a 20% gratuity would be reasonable.
The Policy
Gratuity – All constituent bodies and PIPSC members who include a gratuity as part of payment for services rendered shall be limited to a gratuity based upon the amount as determined annually by the Board of Directors (BOD) at their first meeting of the year. If a member or constituent body provides a gratuity more than the limit as determined by the BOD they shall not be reimbursed for the excess amount unless prior authorization is provided by the BOD.
Maximum gratuity limit of 20% of the tax included amount.
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance & BLPC Committees support the proposed policy on gratuity. This will be brought to the June Board’s meeting.
Action: S. Fréchette – Fedora – BOD
- Proposed Policy on Use of the Cell Phones (Policy on Board of Directors)
The Board of Directors (BOD) actioned a cell phone policy for its Directors and would like to extend the policy to constituent bodies.
The BOD provides cell phones or reimbursement of costs associated with PIPSC activities to their Directors. Past practice has proved that there has not been consistent application of a reimbursement of costs or use of an Institute supplied phone. The BOD adopted a policy that states: “The BOD establishes a maximum monthly cell phone allowance of the lesser of the cost of the cell phone plan or $85 for 2022.”
The BOD had concerns that this policy could allow for duplication of reimbursement of costs by a member from a different source. There was concern that centralizing the administration of the cost reimbursement would also allow proper monitoring of the use of a constituent body’s use of funds. By placing caps on the allowance, it would prevent abuse of the use of assets. Finally, restrictions could be put in place to limit the practice of supplying a cell phone in smaller constituent bodies where it may not be warranted. By structuring a policy consistent across the Institute would ensure an unbiased application.
The Policy on the Board of Directors – Paragraph 12 Cell phone
A PIPSC Board of Director who uses or is provided with a cell phone plan in performance of their duties shall be provided with a maximum monthly allowance as determined annually by the Board of Directors at their first meeting of the year.
The allowance will not exceed the amount as determined by the Board unless the excess is authorized by the Board.
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance & BLPC Committees do not support extending the policy of the Board to constituent bodies.
The BLPC is also of the view that this motion should be limited to the BOD for now for the same reasons described above. However it is suggested that the discussion be kept alive and reconsidered in the future.
Action: S. Fréchette – Fedora – BOD
- Proposed Policy on the Use of Internet (Policy on Board of Directors)
The Board of Directors (BOD) actioned an internet policy for its Directors and would like to extend the policy to constituent bodies.
The BOD adopted a policy that states: “The BOD establishes a maximum monthly internet limit of the lesser of 50% of the actual cost or $75 for 2022. The BOD in an effort to be consistent would like to extend the policy to constituent bodies.”
The considerations for the proposed amendment are similar to the ones of the Policy on Cell Phone Use. Similarly, the BOD had concerns that this policy could allow for duplication of reimbursement of costs by a member from a different source. There was the same concern that centralizing the administration of the cost reimbursement would also allow proper monitoring of the use of a constituent body’s use of funds.
The Policy on the Board of Directors – paragraph 13 Internet
“A PIPSC member who uses or is provided with an internet plan in performance of their duties shall be provided with a maximum monthly allowance as determined annually by the Board of Directors at their first meeting on the year. The policy will apply to members of the Board of Directors. The total reimbursement from all sources must not exceed the total maximum as determined by the Board.
Members must submit a copy of their monthly statement to PIPSC Finance Section for reimbursement in the prescribed form. Where the cost of the internet is part of a combined plan the member will apportion the cost of the internet using a cost allocation in accordance with the fair market value of grouped items within the plan.
The allowance will not exceed the amount as determined by the Board unless the excess is authorized by the Board.”
Motion of the Board as passed in 2022.
The BOD establishes a maximum monthly internet limit of the lesser of 50% of the actual cost or $75 for 2022.
There were discussions on the process and the admissibility of the policy. While some suggested to not include the amount in the policy and that the preamble be included as instructed by the BOD, others were of the view that the amount ought to be included and the preamble be removed. It was also suggested that the motion be amended to indicate the amount including taxes.
Amended Proposed Policy on the Use of Internet
“A PIPSC Board of Directors who uses or is provided with an internet plan in performance of their duties shall be provided with a maximum monthly allowance as determined annually by the Board of Directors at their first meeting on the year. The policy will apply to members of the Board of Directors. The total reimbursement from all sources must not exceed the total maximum as determined by the Board.
Members must submit a copy of their monthly statement to PIPSC Finance Section for reimbursement in the prescribed form. Where the cost of the internet is part of a combined plan the member will apportion the cost of the internet using a cost allocation in accordance with the fair market value of grouped items within the plan.
The allowance will not exceed the amount as determined by the Board unless the excess is authorized by the Board.”
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance & BLPC Committees do not support extending the policy of the Board to constituent bodies.
However, the BLPC recommends that the proposed Policy be brought for discussion at the next BOD meeting including BLPC members comments on whether or not the amount should be included in the policy.
Action: S. Fréchette – Fedora – BOD
- Proposed Appeal Policy (Policy on Financial Support for Member Participation)
The Finance Committee has identified a lack of language as it relates to procedure for member appeals under the policy.
A member filed an appeal of a denial of claim by the PIPSC Finance Section. Under the current practice, the Finance Section would present the details of the claim submission and support their determination of denial of amounts. They would forward information from the appellant of the initial claim. If a further appeal is made to the Board of Directors, the Finance Section would repeat the same role of presenting information to support their denial. There are no definable timelines for the process. The first level of appeal is subject to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Finance Committee. The final appeal would be subject to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Board and subject to the approved agenda.
The current process does not provide for natural justice or a timely arbitration of the appeal for the member’s benefit. The process does not honor the basic premise that a member should not be financially worse off for performing a role in service of the Institute. The member is not allowed to make a presentation to the Finance Committee or an opportunity to provide additional supporting documentation. Timelines for a member to recoup costs are lengthy, hence presenting a potential financial hardship for members.
As such the Finance & BLPC Committees recommend the policy be amended to include the following including the attached Appendix “B”
“Appeals – Should a member disagree with a reimbursement based on the interpretation of this policy, an appeal shall first be addressed to the Finance Committee. Any further appeal would then be to the Board of Directors. The procedure for the appeal process is as outlined in Appendix B.”
The Policy will be brought to the Board in June.
Action: All
- Proposed Policy on BoD Hospitality
The Board of Directors (BOD) and Executive Committee (EC) tasked the BLPC and Finance Committees with updating the amounts and criteria regarding BOD hospitality. Currently the PIPSC President has an annual limit of $40K, previously unlimited. The Vice- Presidents and Directors have annual limits of $9K.
Currently there is no formal document to reference the criteria for “hospitality” other than the general reference above.
The Board has made a motion that this year, everybody gets half of the amount because we’re coming midway of the fiscal year.
‘From time to time, there may be a benefit to the Institute to extend hospitality to Institute members or to outside parties with whom we work or wish to work. As with any other expenditure, hospitality expenditures must be for the purpose of advancing the Institute’s aims.
At the beginning of each calendar year, the Board will establish the maximum amount of hospitality expenses which will be reimbursed for the positions of President, Vice-Presidents, Regional Directors, and the Advisory Council Director.
Claims for reimbursement of hospitality expenses are submitted to the Finance Section for processing and will indicate the purpose of the expenditure and the names of the persons receiving the hospitality. Hospitality expenses are approved by the President and are subject to review by the Finance Committee.’
The Finance & BLPC Committees reviewed the current amounts and were of the opinion that the current amounts were applicable. Furthermore, they were of the opinion that the limits should be reviewed annually by the BOD.
There was no consensus on what items should or not be defined as “hospitality” other than the general provision quoted in the policy above.
The Policy will be brought for consideration to BOD in June.
Action: All
- Proposed Policy on Financial Support for Member Participation (Travel Outside the Region)
This policy intends to address the issue of members living in one Region and reporting to another. There have been instances where a member is listed as a Steward of a particular Region and reports to that Region but lives in a different Region. The member attends Steward and Regional Council in their particular Region and those costs are being borne by the particular Region.
PIPSC Bylaw 4.5 states that “A Member may be allowed to choose to be active in the region in which they reside or in the region in which they work or last worked, if retired. Any additional costs for a Member choosing to be active in a region where they do not reside will be borne by the Member.”
Based on this Bylaw, the member can be a member of a particular Region at the office they previously worked. That said however, the Bylaw clearly states that any additional costs would be borne by the member. When proposed at the 2015 PIPSC AGM, this bylaw was envisioned as an amendment to provide relief for members who retire and relocate to a different Region. The intent of the motion was not to address instances of remote reporting.
In order to be consistent, at the PIPSC 2015 AGM, Institute Bylaw 11.1.2 was established, which states that “A Member may choose to be active in the regional structures where they reside, work or last worked. No member shall have rights in more than one (1) Region.”
Bylaws 4.5 & 11.1.2 allow the member to choose to be active either in the particular or different Region.
The Policy on Financial Support for Member Participation, specifically in Section 2, defines the “Ordinary Workplace” as the location at, or from which a member, when acting as an employee of their normal employer, ordinarily performs the duties of their position and, in the case of a teleworker or an employee whose duties are of an itinerant nature, the employer’s premises to which the employee returns to prepare and/or submit reports, etc., and where other administrative matters pertaining to the employee’s employment are conducted.”
Based on the above, one interpretation may be;
- that the member is teleworking from a residence in a different Region and their ordinary workplace is a different Region.
- If the member was required to report to an office and that would be their last office in a particular Region, then their workplace is a particular Region.
Bylaw 4.5 is clear whereby a member can be part of a particular Region that they do not currently reside in however that is the choice made by that member. As such, the Institute should not bare any additional costs incurred as a result of that member’s choice. Currently, the interpretation of the Bylaw and the policy is based on the workplace location – not the place of residence. This will need to be revisited given the current reality around telework.
It was pointed out that this could have a significant impact on foreign services members (Branch 99) and the NCR Region.
The choice of “Regions” originally arose with retired members, as currently worded, Bylaw 11.1.2 applies to all members and there is no language to address changes between Regions. The current starting point for PIPSC in determining the workplace is as according to the employer and perhaps there should be a declaration from the member as to where they reside (primary and secondary residences).
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance and Bylaw Committees are of the opinion that the policy and Bylaws accurately identify where a member resides and how the bylaws and policy should be applied. It is the perception of the Committees that it is the administration of the policy and bylaws that need to be enforced.
The Policy will be brought for consideration to BOD in June.
Action: All
- Proposed Policy on Financial Support for Member Participation (Travel Policy on Meals)
The Finance Section is inundated with member complaints as it relates to forecasted versus actual drive time as it pertains to the entitlement of a meal allowance when on travel status. They are requesting a simplified process for the administration of the policy.
When a member starts their day while on travel status, the policy, under paragraph8, identifies specific times of departure and arrival as an entitlement to meals. The Finance Section, through the use of google maps and other application software, determines the time elapsed between the point of departure and arrival. The process does not take into effect the actual travel time. When there is a variance between the theoretical and actual drive time, this results in member appeals. The Finance Section acknowledges the limitations of the present procedure and would like to have a procedure that is “member friendly”, while making a more efficient procedure to administer.
The variance between theoretical and actual travel time is a common occurrence. It is a great source of frustration by members. It commonly results in an appeal being followed as the Finance Section is limited in their application of the policy. This issue is demanding significant resources from the Finance Section. The Finance Section is of the opinion that a definable drive time would simplify administration of the policy.
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance & BLPC Committee would propose the following amendment to the Policy under paragraph 8 (Meals);
On the day of return, members would ordinarily be entitled to breakfast if they return after 8:00 a.m., to lunch if they return after noon and to dinner if they return after 6:00 p.m.
On the day of return, members would ordinarily be entitled to breakfast, to lunch if their normal travel time is three (3) hours or longer, and to dinner if their normal travel time is seven (7) hours or longer.
The Policy will be brought for consideration to BOD in June.
Action: All
- CS Group and CS Sub-Groups – Change of Name to “IT” (T. Goddard)
The NCR Representative provided the list of CS (IT) Subgroup Bylaws that need their name change approved by the Board. He asked that the Chair of the BLPC present them to the Board along with the revisions for the CS Group bylaws.
CSIT Annapolis Valley
CSIT Eastern QuebecCSIT EdmontonCSIT FrederictonCSIT GatineauCSIT Global Affairs CanadaCSIT HullCSIT London/EssexCSIT MauricieCSIT Moncton
CSIT MontérégieCSIT Montréal MetroCSIT Ottawa-EastCSIT Ottawa-MetroCSIT Ottawa-WestCSIT Petawawa-CFBCSIT Québec CityCSIT QuinteCSIT Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean-Côte-NordCSIT Saskatoon & Prince AlbertCSIT Statistics CanadaCSIT Sudbury/North BayCSIT TorontoCSIT VancouverCSIT Vancouver IslandCSIT Winnipeg & Southern MB
Once the name change and revisions are approved by the BOD, the NCR Representative will forward the revised Bylaws to the Staff Resource who will communicate with PIPSC IT department for posting on PIPSC website.
Action: S. Fréchette / T. Goddard/ F. Mushiya
- Saguenay Lac-St-Jean et Côte-Nord Branch (Amended)
The SLSJCN BLs were ratified on May 10, 2022. The BLs will be brought to the Board for approval in June.
Action: S. Fréchette
- BLPC Term of Mandate (All)
The BLPC will maintain a current term of 1 year. No further action required.
- Finance and BLPC Terms of Reference
Deferred to allow BLPC members to review FC & BLPC TOR and provide comments by Monday June 6, 2022.
Action: All
- BLPC Schedule of Meetings (All)
- May 30, 2022 (at the Delta)
- September 17, 2022
- October 21-22, 2022 (proposing October 14-15 instead)
- December 2-3, 2022 (in conjunction with the Xmas dinner) – proposing December 9-10
The BLPC will confirm their availability for the newly proposed dates.
Action: All
- SH Group (Proposed Amendments) – deferred
- AFS Group (Proposed Amendments – Ratified)
The BLPC reviewed the proposed amendments ratified on October 30, 2021. The BLs will be brought to the Board despite the fact that the Group has suggested further amendments (article 7.3 – Eligibility to Hold Office). The Group will be holding its next AMG on June 7, 2022.
The proposed amendments need some editorial changes to reflect a full version of BLs with highlights on addition and deletion as per usual practice.
The BL will be brought to the Board in June.
Action: F. Mushiya / S. Fréchette/ J. Gagnon
- CFIA VM Group BLs (Amended) – approved in December
The CFIA VM Group BL amendments were approved by the Board on December 10, 2021. The issue is that these amendments allow a retired member to sit on the executive with no voting rights at executive meetings or at a Group AGM.
The former BLPC Chair (current Acting Prairies Representative) suggested that the Group President work with the BLPC to come up with some wording to fix these bylaw issues and bring forward any amendments at the Group’s next AGM.
In the meantime, the approved BLs shall be translated and posted.
Action: F. Mushiya
- NRC RO RCO Group (Proposed Amendments) – deferred
- Atlantic Region (Amended) – ratified by region at the ATL regional council
The BLPC reviewed and made a small vocabulary change to Article 5.9.1 (New) If a vacancy occurs before the 6th last scheduled meeting of the calendar year (Nov/Dec) the Regional Executive will normally fill the vacancy.
The BL will be brought to the Board for approval in June.