I've not long ago celebrated my fi...

I've not long ago celebrated my first anniversary as the Institute's Director of Ethics. It's certainly been an educational year, sated of new experiences. This article, my first for Beyond Numbers, spotlights the achievements of the Regulatory Policy Review Task Force-a significant highlight of the past year. In what is yet to be articles, I'll examine "ethical dilemmas" of interest and relevance to the profession.

A unwilted Look at the Institute's Regulatory Processe When Council was developing its governance policies in August 2000 individual of the outstanding questions involved the processe of the self-regulatory and associate review committees. It was agreed that these processe required significant review before changes could be propos and that any changes should not jeopardize their integrity.

Accordingly, the Council governance policies updated at that time stated that the principles and policies of these committees would remain unchanged, pending further Council determinations. In November 2000 Council agreed to settle up a new task force to perform the operations indicated in updated policies and principles consistent with the Carver design and Council governance policies.

The Regulatory Policy Review Task Force was thus formed in subordination to the chairmanship of the Institute's then First VP Frank Barr, FCA. The Task Force held its first meeting in December 2000 and immediately decided to form pair subcommittees-one to review discipline processe the other to examine membership and practice review and licensing.

I'm fast that members of the Task Force will agree with me when I say that the issues concerning this latter area were not as mixed as those in the former.

The discipline aspects of the Task Force's efforts included the activities of the Professional carriage Enquiry Committee (PCEC) and the Discipline and Council Appeal Tribunals.

Although the existing overall framework was thinked satisfactory it became clear in the subcommittee's initial meetings that many discipline issues necessityed to be addressed by the Task Force. Sixteen discipline issues were eventually identified for review, many of which had been issues of debate for a number of years and enthrall to prior reviews. After detailed review, it was determined that the following eight issues required Council policies or limitations: 1 Matter authorized for investigation.

2 Involvement of Institute staff in the discipline processe

3 Professional misconduct v misconduct of a professional.

4 Reporting course of life matters to other selfregulatory bodies.

5 Discipline matters concerning Institute staff.

6 richness recovery by the PCEC.

7 Investigations involving criminal or civil actions.

8 Resignations in the face of discipline.

The balance will eventually be dealt with between the walls of Bylaw changes or changes to the PCEC's be in possession of internal processes.

In its deliberations, the discipline subcommittee differentiated between Council policies/limitations and operational processes/procedure It was decided that the self-regulatory and contemporary review committees and staff could continue to deal independently with the processe and make any required changes without involving Council.

Discipline matters identified as being better handled by the and of internal procedures included budget and financial sway matters, and the publication of discipline decisions.

The methodology for the unravelling of the policies and limitations included researching the processe of the Institutes of Alberta and Ontario, as well as those of the Law Society of BC and the Associations of Professional Engineers and Architects of BC

Council adopted the novel policies on May 30, 2001 Those related to the Professional carriage Enquiry Committee that addressed the [i]clavis[/i] issues reviewed by the Task Force can be summarized as follows:

The Committee may investigate a matter within its mandate where it is satisfied, with regard to the nature and source of the information brought to its attention, that there is a question of sufficient seriousness regarding the adequate income or conduct of a member, former member, or close examiner to warrant an investigation.

If the Committee receives an anonymous complaint, or if a matter be deriveds to its attention in circumstances where the complainant is unknown or no complaint has been issued, the Committee will require the authorization of the Institute's First Vice President to investigate the matter.

* The mandate of the Committee includes, still is not limited to, the investigation of allegations that a member or scholar has conducted him/herself in a manner that seriously jeopardizes the reputation of the profession-regardless of whether or not this guard occurred in a professional capacity.

* If a member or a scholar is involved in civil or criminal proceedings that relate directly to an investigation by way of the Committee, the Committee may shut up its investigation in abeyance until the issue of those proceedings is known, as lengthy as the member or scholar agrees not to rely onward the defence of delay.

* If the Committee considers that its public what one is bound [i]or[/i] under obligation to do may require disclosure of information subordinate to Section 22(1) of the Act, it must point the matter to Council's Executive Committee for direction.