Board Election

Under the Professional Governance Act, Registrant Board Member terms are three years, with the Board election on a three-year cycle in accordance with Bylaw 2.48. The Role of the Board can be found on the AIBC website, and Policy 2.3 provides information on Board Member responsibilities and benefits.

Nominees are asked to examine the demands of their time and energy, and to self-assess whether they will be, and can remain, contributing members of the Board. It is anticipated that Board Members be able to commit to the following Board events to enable efficient and meaningful functioning of the Institute, which depends upon having a sufficient number of well-prepared and fully participating Board Members.

• Meetings and Planning Sessions: 18–30 hours per year. Take place the second Tuesday of each month (none in December, July and August), each lasting approximately two hours. Review of materials prepared and distributed in advance requires one to two hours.
• Planning Retreat: Two consecutive days in late June, within two driving hours of Vancouver.
• Board Advisory Groups: Approximately 10 hours a year. Take place every two months, each lasting approximately two hours. Board Members are encouraged but not obligated to sit on a Board advisory group.

In keeping with AIBC Bylaws and Section 26 of the PGA, a nominee is eligible to stand for election or appointment if they are an Architect in Good Standing and are nominated by the Nomination Committee. To be eligible for nomination, nominees must attend an governance webinar. It is important to note that the number of nominees identified to stand for election is independent of the number of positions to be filled.

A Board Member may not be a member of a committee or panel established in respect of a regulatory body under the PGA, as per section 23(4) of the Professional Governance Act.

Incumbent nominees are eligible for nomination and are subject to the same considerations and evaluation in the nomination process as new nominees.

The taking of the Oath of Office by Board Members prior to taking office is required under section 28 of the PGA, and AIBC Bylaws 2.96 and 2.97. The Oath of Office in the PGA General Regulations is administered by the AIBC Registrar or Deputy Registrar.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Professional Governance General Regulation establish the authority and requirements for the processes described below.

Merit-based Competencies and Personal Attributes

The Board’s ability to meet its obligations, as a collective, requires a specific set of skills and competencies at an intermediate to advanced level.  The following information is provided to assist prospective Board Members in considering how their knowledge, skills, experience and competencies align with those sought in Board Members.

Knowledge of:

• The authority of the AIBC as a regulator and the Institute’s public interest and protection mandate, and the pillars of professional regulation, which include:
  • Authority to provide admission to the profession;
  • Authority to regulate all practitioners in the jurisdiction;
  • Authority to take disciplinary action;
  • Authority to implement and monitor continuing professional education;
  • Authority to take legal action against illegal practitioners; and
  • Supporting the public in understanding what to expect from registered professionals and accessing functions of the regulator.

• The Policy Governance role of the Board, including Board versus staff’s respective areas of responsibilities, and the fundamentals of a competent and high functioning Board.
• A Board Member’s fiduciary duty and, recognizing and declaring conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest. A fiduciary is someone who, because of their position, must act primarily for someone else’s benefit, rather than their own.

Experience and/or a working knowledge of:

• Risk management, budget and financial performance, and human resources including the ability to: identify the nature and extent of risks faced by the organization and provide insightful direction in the management of those risks; and, demonstrate a sound understanding of the budget and financial performance of the organization and meaningfully contribute to strategic financial deliberations; and, oversee a senior level executive, including executive performance monitoring and management, succession planning, and recruitment.
• Strategic thinking and orientation including the ability to: strategically evaluate direction and overall organizational results; and actively contribute to the development and review of policy to advance the long-term goals of the Institute.

Personal Attributes:

• Integrity, to perform and uphold the duties and functions of a Board Member with objectivity and honesty, and to act ethically and in accordance with the Board Code of Conduct, and the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
• Personal effectiveness including the ability to: communicate persuasively and logically; listens effectively to others’ ideas and viewpoints; and effectively express views that may be contrary and valuable to the discussion.
• Commitment to preparing for and attending Board meetings, planning sessions, planning retreat, and Institute signature events.

Part 3 of the PGA General Regulation requires a merit-based nominee selection process that is open, fair, accountable, transparent, and independent. Following the close of the call for nominations, the Nomination Committee will review all nominees according to the evaluation process, which includes an assessment of personal and professional competencies, and an interview component. The competencies sought include a combination of fiduciary and regulatory skills and experience. If the nominee meets these criteria, they may be nominated to stand for election. The Nomination Committee is committed to honouring every nominee’s desire to serve on the Board.

Interviews will take place in-person at the AIBC Office at 440 Cambie St and are expected to take 30–45 mins. Online interviews will be arranged only for candidates unable to attend in person. Telephone interviews are not available. Following the interview, each nominee will be evaluated confidentially and objectively by the committee to determine if they will be nominated to stand for election.

Nominees will be contacted by the Chair of the Nomination Committee to advise each of the outcome of the evaluation process. While the nomination and election process must be open and transparent, the deliberations of the Nomination Committee are confidential. The Chair will provide nominees with limited but specific reasons as to how the Nomination Committee arrived at its decision.

For a complete description of the Nomination Committee mandate and specific assignments, refer to the Nomination Committee Terms of Reference (PDF).

The AIBC’s regulatory mandate is broad, requiring a competency assessment of those running for governorship of the profession, in the public interest. A nominee’s professional conduct (complaint and/or discipline) history that identifies serious ethical and/or competency concerns, notably in relation to public safety, should be a relevant consideration for the Nomination Committee. Such assessment, however, must be fair, evenly applied, and as transparent as possible while maintaining confidentiality of non-public information. To that end, the Nomination Committee will be provided information about each nominee’s professional conduct history while registered with the AIBC.

The Director of Professional Conduct will prepare and provide to the committee a short, factual summary of each nominee’s professional conduct history for the committee’s review and will be available to the committee to answer questions or clarify information. The purpose of this information is to help ensure a full understanding of the seriousness or lesser status of a complaint, complaint history, or discipline history, and to ensure that complaint data are properly understood and assessed by the committee. The information will be used solely as part of the overall assessment of a nominee’s personal and professional attributes, as related to their suitability to govern. Following the committee’s confidential review, the information will be disposed of without further disclosure, within 30 days of its review.

A complaint or discipline history does not constitute automatic grounds for the Nomination Committee to refuse to nominate a nominee. The Nomination Committee is under written confidentiality obligations in relation to the professional conduct information received.