|
Anthonios Partheniou, P.Eng For Western Regional Councillor 2012 |
Anthonios Partheniou, P. Eng
Embedded Software Developer, Geotab Inc
http://electricalengineer.ca/apartheniou.html
Education
Employment
Professional Involvement
My dedication to the profession is demonstrated by nearly 4 years of commitment to the Hamilton-Burlington Chapter executive. Having recently acquired the P. Eng title, I am very familiar with the current licensure process and the obstacles potential members are facing.
While volunteering with the chapter I realized the chapter plays a very important role, especially with reaching out to new graduates and increasing the value of the profession. One of the main issues is new graduate licensing. There are several opportunities to solve this problem. We need to ensure that we educate new graduates on the benefits on becoming a P. Eng. The first step is to make it easier for anyone to report non-licensed individuals using the term “Engineer” in their title – for example a simple form on http://peo.on.ca with image upload to report misuse of the term. We also need to ensure that non-licensed individuals know that there will be a consequence to using the title incorrectly. I would also like to see PEO adopt a similar process to the medical field which allows an option to enroll in a rotation program as part of the licensing process. This would allow potential members to engage in a number of work experience rotations following university.
I strongly believe the PEO president should be elected by the members. We are a self-regulating profession. The members need to vote for the person they are most confident with. We should not leave this decision up to council. If the concern is that we have too few members voting, then we should address the root concern and try and make council elections more interesting. The candidates debate held at PEO head office in January 2012 is a step in the right direction.
PEO has invested a lot in the new building at 40 Sheppard Ave. According to the 2010 PEO financial statement, the building purchase cost was $22,575,000 with additional costs for maintenance and improvement. I think we should let the members choose how much additional funding should be invested in the building and where. To ensure that we dont incur extra costs with member surveys, the council could present an additional checkbox in a peo council elections ballot on whether to proceed with a substantial maintenance improvement for the new building.
It is important to find the root cause for the dispute between PEO and OSPE and plan for the future of the profession. One potential cause for the conflict between PEO and OSPE could be from the fact that, although it is mandatory to join the advocating body for the profession (PEO), it is not mandatory to join the advocating body for the professional engineer (OSPE). Personally, I wouldn’t mind paying a higher membership fee to PEO if the extra membership fee included an advocating body for the professional engineer and the fee increase could be justified. I believe that the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy (OCEPP) and the Government Liaison Program (GLP) activities mentioned in the dispute to terminate the PEO/OSPE agreement should remain under the PEO umbrella since PEO’s mandate is to regulate the profession.
I believe my professional involvement in the past 4 years has created a solid foundation to enable me to represent the members effectively on the council. I am eager to listen to any suggestions you have regarding PEO. Please email suggestions and comments to apartheniou@electricalengineer.ca and allow me to be your voice on next year’s council.