4 minute read
The important role of public appointees in regulatory governance
By Bernard Savage | The Registrar
Wil Hedges may be the biggest fan of social workers in the legal profession. He grew up among social workers, and he encounters social workers every day in his legal work in family law and child protection. He recently completed two terms as a member of the Board of the Manitoba College of Social Workers.
Wil believes social workers are members of “a self-deprecating profession,” inherently modest about the impact of their work and the depth of their expertise. He’s also a fan of one of the fundamental principles of virtually all professional regulation in Canada and beyond: governing bodies comprised of both registrants and those from outside the profession.
“Let’s face it, there’s always a risk of any group becoming too homogenous in its thinking,” he says. “I think it’s really important to have outsiders at the table.”
A few thousand miles east of Winnipeg, Susan Harley of Saint John, New Brunswick reached a similar conclusion about a different profession. Susan describes herself as a “serial volunteer.” Even before her retirement a few years ago, she was involved in professional regulation and community service. She recently completed a term as a public appointee to the Council of the New Brunswick College of Pharmacy.
“Pharmacists are caring professionals determined to get the details right,” she says. “They want to meet changing consumer demand while maintaining extremely high professional standards.”
Like Wil Hedges, Susan believes the participation of those outside the profession in regulation has big benefits. In addition to her pharmacy role, Susan made a similar contribution to the governance of New Brunswick’s Law Society. “We bring balance,” she says. “We bring external points of view that cause us to pause and consider all points of view.”
There are practical benefits to having non-registrants involved in governance, Susan says. Professions don’t necessarily have diverse skill sets. “My experience in business, communications and public relations complemented the skill set pharmacists brought to the table.” Susan is convinced that the outcomes are better because they’re the product of different perspectives.
Across the country, the regulation of the professions is a hot topic. Among the legislative and regulatory changes are reducing the size of governing councils, selecting professional members by skill set rather than election, and restricting mandates to their public protection roles (as opposed to also advocating for professional interests). But the concept of governance by both members and non-members seems to be well-entrenched, and a key public-policy mechanism for supporting accountability to the public.
Like Wil and Susan, I have personal experience as a public representative in the governance of a profession. Just last month, I completed a term as a public appointee to the Council of the College of Early Childhood Educators of Ontario. Just like Wil and Susan, I have learned a great deal about the profession, and my appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of registrants has grown. I share their experience of being warmly welcomed by my professional colleagues on Council. I also agree with them that the combination of professional expertise and external perspective leads to better decision-making.
There’s no perfect governance model. Based on my experience, I can understand the argument for smaller governing bodies. I’m sympathetic to those who advocate for a greater emphasis on skill-based review and recruitment of professional members, rather than elections. Greater attention to the distinct roles of institutional governance and professional regulation is required.
But in speaking to other public appointees of other regulatory bodies, I’m reassured that the combination of professional and public representation on governing bodies works well. Wil, Susan, and I were all greeted warmly by the members of the profession on the governing bodies. We all served on councils with a significant degree of cohesion. Even more reassuring is this common experience: each of us noted that professional peers—those with the most to lose if professional standards are compromised—are those applying the greatest rigour to the protection of those standards.
In other words, none of us was called upon to explicitly remind our colleagues from within the profession of the imperative of public accountability. Perhaps that’s evidence of hybrid governance working well.
