Docstoc

Stakeholder Engagement Review Layout

Document Sample
Stakeholder Engagement Review Layout Powered By Docstoc
					     Electrical Safety Authority
Stakeholder Engagement Review
             February, 2009
Table of Contents

      Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................1

      1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................3
             1.1 Definitions..........................................................................................................................................................................4

      2. Stakeholder Engagement Review Process............................................................................................................................5

      3. Current Situation.............................................................................................................................................................................6
            3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................6
            3.2 Who are ESA’s Stakeholders?......................................................................................................................................7
            3.3 Existing Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms and Processes....................................................................7
            3.4 Summary of Stakeholder Feedback .........................................................................................................................9
            3.5 Summary of ESA Feedback ......................................................................................................................................12

      4. Stakeholder Engagement Best Practice ..............................................................................................................................13

      5. Stakeholder Engagement Recommendations ..................................................................................................................15
            5.1 ESA’s Stakeholder Engagement Structure ...........................................................................................................15
            5.2 Stakeholder Engagement Principles ......................................................................................................................17
            5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Planning........................................................................................................................18
            5.4 Stakeholder Engagement Resourcing ...................................................................................................................20
            5.5 Stakeholder Advisory Council Operating Procedures......................................................................................20
                   5.5.1 Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................................................20
                   5.5.2 Composition and Appointment of Advisory Committee Members ........................................21
                   5.5.3 Advisory Committee Membership Terms..........................................................................................21
                   5.5.4 Polling Members for Views vs. Traditional Voting...........................................................................22
                   5.5.5 Participant Funding ....................................................................................................................................22
                   5.5.6 Advisory Council Leadership and Chairing Meetings....................................................................23
            5.6 Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................................................23

      6. Specific Recommendations regarding ECRA and CoAC ...............................................................................................24
            6.1 Contractor Advisory Council .....................................................................................................................................24
            6.2 Electrical Contractor Registration Agency Board ...............................................................................................26


      Appendix          A: ESA Regulations .......................................................................................................................................................29
      Appendix          B: Interview List .............................................................................................................................................................31
      Appendix          C: Overview of ESA Advisory Councils and ECRA Board...............................................................................32
      Appendix          D: Stakeholder Engagement Best Practices........................................................................................................38
      Appendix          E: Generic ESA Advisory Council Terms of Reference....................................................................................39


      Figure 1: Levels of Stakeholder Engagement .........................................................................................................................4
      Figure 2: ESA Existing Stakeholder Engagement Structure ................................................................................................8
      Figure 3: ESA Advisory Council Composition ...........................................................................................................................9




Singer & Watts Ltd.           February 12, 2009               DRAFT REPORT              • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
Executive Summary
      The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) operates as a Delegated Administrative Authority responsible for the
      administration and enforcement of the Electricity Act, 1998 and associated regulations. ESA’s mission is to
      improve electrical safety for the well being of the people of Ontario and its long term vision is “an Ontario
      free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss”.
      Stakeholder engagement is embedded in ESA’s culture as part of the values, behaviours and norms of the
      organization. ESA recognizes that without effective stakeholder engagement, it cannot realize its long term
      vision; therefore a conscious decision was made by ESA’s Board of Directors to review its current stakeholder
      engagement practices.
      In September, 2008, Singer & Watts was engaged by ESA’s Board of Directors to conduct an independent
      review of ESA’s stakeholder engagement processes and mechanisms with the aim of making recommendations
      to improve them based on an assessment of a number of key factors including:

            • the needs and experiences of stakeholders;
            • the needs of the organization now that it has expanded its mandate; and
            • stakeholder engagement best practices.

      The report is organized in six main sections:

            • Section 1 – provides an introduction and defines several terms and concepts.
            • Section 2 – describes the stakeholder engagement review process.
            • Section 3 – provides feedback from both stakeholders and ESA.
            • Section 4 – provides a summary of stakeholder engagement best practice.
            • Section 5 – presents recommendations to ESA regarding its stakeholder engagement practices.
            • Section 6 – provides specific recommendations regarding the Contractor Advisory Council and the
                          Electrical Contractors Registration Agency.

      Based on an assessment of the needs and experiences of stakeholders, the needs of the organization going
      forward, and stakeholder engagement best practice and our experience, the following recommendations are
      provided for ESA’s consideration:

      Recommendation 1:            It is recommended that ESA maintain its current stakeholder engagement structure
                                   based on standing Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board, augmented with
                                   customized issue-specific processes as required.
      Recommendation 2:            It is recommended that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Councils and the
                                   ECRA Board be invited to meet as a cross-sector group to discuss and provide ESA
                                   input on topics that cut across stakeholder interests.
      Recommendation 3:            It is recommended that ESA consider more proactive methods to engage the Ontario
                                   public in achieving its vision.
      Recommendation 4:            It is recommended that ESA adopt a clear set of stakeholder engagement principles
                                   and practices that are consistently applied across all of ESA’s Advisory Councils and
                                   the ECRA Board and stakeholder engagement activities.                                     1
      Recommendation 5:            It is recommended that ESA place increased emphasis on stakeholder engagement
                                   planning.
      Recommendation 6:            It is recommended that ESA create a new function to manage stakeholder engagement
                                   planning across the organization with sufficient resources to support these activities.
      Recommendation 7:            It is recommended that ESA adopt a much simplified terms of reference for each of
                                   the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board that are better aligned with best practices.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Recommendation 8:            It is recommended that the composition on the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board
                                   be the responsibility of an ESA selection committee either at the Board or
                                   Management level through an “expression of interest” process from both individuals
                                   and associations based on a set of criteria including experience, skills and expertise.
      Recommendation 9:            It is recommended that ESA adopt a two-year membership term for its Councils with
                                   the option to serve for a total of up to three consecutive terms. Membership terms
                                   would be staggered to provide continuity to the Council.
      Recommendation 10: It is recommended that ESA implement “polling” of member views rather than
                         continue to rely on traditional voting where a majority rules. As noted in the proposed
                         stakeholder engagement principles, views expressed should reflect those of the
                         member’s affiliation if he/she is representing an organization or be based on
                         experience/expertise if the member is not representing an organization.
      Recommendation 11: It is recommended that ESA develops guidelines for participant funding that
                         are grounded in removing any potential financial barriers to participation in ESA’s
                         stakeholder engagement processes.
      Recommendation 12: It is recommended that the Chair and Vice-Chair of ESA Advisory Councils and the
                         ECRA Board continue to be elected by Advisory Council members and continue with
                         their current roles and responsibilities regarding agenda setting and the chairing of
                         meetings. Optional training should be made available to Chairs to enhance meeting
                         management and facilitation skills.
      Recommendation 13: It is recommended that ESA develop mechanisms to address identified gaps in
                         stakeholder participation so as to support realizing ESA’s vision.


      With respect to addressing articulated concerns regarding the functioning of CoAC the following recommen-
      dations are provided for ESA’s consideration:
      Recommendation C1: It is recommended that ESA adopt the stakeholder engagement principles and prac-
                         tices already recommended to address many of the issues identified with CoAC.
      Recommendation C2: It is recommended that good communication practices be continued and actions
                         demonstrating that ESA takes contractor advice seriously into consideration be
                         implemented to rebuild trust between ESA and its stakeholders.
      Recommendation C3:           It is recommended that ESA Management take appropriate steps to effect the necessary
                                   changes so that trust is restored and the Council becomes effective. If issues are
                                   unable to be resolved, they should be escalated to the Regulatory Affairs Committee
                                   of the Board for consideration and resolution.


      With respect to addressing articulated concerns regarding the functioning of the ECRA Board, the following
      recommendations are provided for ESA’s consideration:
      Recommendation E1: It is recommended that ECRA Board members continue to provide their advice
                         directly to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Board.
      Recommendation E2: It is recommended that the Regulatory Affairs Committee (RAC) of the Board take
                         appropriate steps to effect the necessary changes so that trust is restored and ECRA
                         becomes an effective stakeholder engagement mechanism.                                              2
      Recommendation E3            It is recommended that the RAC, in consultation with ECRA members, explore best
                                   practice options for resolving issues such as engaging a qualified mediator to support
                                   the resolution of current issues, providing the Chair with the ability to engage an
                                   independent facilitator for expert support when needed to assist the group in
                                   constructively working through contentious issues, and other best practices.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
1. Introduction
      Ontario’s Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) operates as a stand-alone, not-for-profit corporation reporting to an
      independent Board of Directors and operates as a Delegated Administrative Authority responsible for the
      Electricity Act 1998. ESA’s authority derives from the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act and
      operates according to an Administrative Agreement with the Ministry of Small Business and Consumer
      Services. ESA’s mission is to improve electrical safety for the well being of the people of Ontario and its long
      term vision is “an Ontario free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss”. More specifically, ESA
      administers and enforces a number of provincial electrical safety related regulations including the Ontario
      Electrical Safety Code, Electrical Distribution Safety, Provincial Electrical Contractor Licensing, and Product
      Safety (see Appendix A for Summary of ESA Regulations).
      In September, 2008, Singer & Watts was engaged by ESA’s Board of Directors to conduct an independent
      review of ESA’s stakeholder engagement processes and mechanisms with the aim of making recommendations
      to improve them based on an assessment of a number of key factors including:

            • the needs and experiences of stakeholders;
            • the needs of the organization now that it has expanded its mandate; and
            • stakeholder engagement best practices.

      Stakeholder engagement is embedded in ESA’s culture as part of the values, behaviours and norms of the
      organization. ESA recognizes that without effective stakeholder engagement, it cannot realize its long term
      vision; therefore a conscious decision was made by ESA’s Board of Directors to review its current stakeholder
      engagement practices. It clearly understands that the issues associated with electrical safety are varied,
      complex and cut across the mandate of many organizations, industries, and jurisdictional boundaries thereby
      requiring a concerted approach and strategic partnerships in order to tackle specific identified concerns.
      However, stakeholder engagement in ESA is complicated by the fact that it is both a regulator and a safety
      organization that wants to partner with the organizations it regulates and others to further the goal of
      electrical safety. To enable these effective partnerships, the principles and the rules of engagement must be
      more fully developed and clearly understood by both staff and stakeholders.
      Two of ESA’s stakeholder engagement mechanisms (the Contractor Advisory Council and the Electrical
      Contractor Registration Agency) have been identified by stakeholders and ESA as not functioning effectively.
      ESA is committed to resolving these challenges in partnership with stakeholders if possible and have
      requested that this report provide guidance and options to assist ESA and its stakeholders to constructively
      move forward. The report will provide recommendations regarding these issues for ESA’s consideration;
      however, these recommendations have been separated in the report so as not to overshadow the overall
      recommendations regarding ESA’s stakeholder engagement practices.
      The report that follows is organized in six main sections. This section provides an introduction to the report
      and defines a number of stakeholder engagement terms and concepts. Section 2 of the report describes the
      stakeholder engagement review process. Section 3 provides a snapshot of the current stakeholder
      engagement situation including feedback from both stakeholders and ESA obtained through telephone
      interviews. Section 4 of the report provides a summary of stakeholder engagement best practice. Section 5
      presents our recommendations to ESA on actions for consideration to improve stakeholder engagement
      processes, mechanisms, and practices within the organization. Section 6 of the report provides specific
      recommendations regarding potential resolutions for the current stakeholder concerns.                                  3

      We would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all stakeholders and ESA staff for their time
      in providing input into the review process and we believe that their contributions have resulted in a
      comprehensive set of stakeholder engagement recommendations. In particular we would like to thank
      those stakeholders who provided their candid views regarding the Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC)
      and the Electrical Contractor Registration Agency (ECRA) Board. The determination and thoughtfulness of
      all those involved demonstrates a desire to resolve outstanding issues and move forward to advance
      electrical safety in the province.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      We also look forward to further stakeholder feedback on the draft report. The draft report represents our best
      thinking based on best practice, our experience, and the information available at the time of writing the report
      but further stakeholder input will lead to a more thoughtful and fully considered set of final recommendations.
      In terms of next steps, this document will be circulated for broad stakeholder comment that will be considered
      in advance of finalizing the report and submitting it to the Board of Directors for their consideration. An explanation
      for all stakeholder comments not reflected in the final document will be provided and will also be presented
      to the Board of Directors for their review. The Board of Directors has also committed to communicating any
      change to ESA’s current stakeholder engagement practices prior to their implementation.


      1.1 Definitions
      Stakeholder engagement, stakeholder involvement, and public participation are all general terms for activities
      aimed at seeking stakeholder input to aid decision making. More specifically, stakeholder engagement is the
      process through which those affected by or interested in a decision, and who have a stake in the outcome,
      are provided the opportunity to provide input to the decision before it is made. Stakeholder engagement is
      an aid to decision making and not a replacement for it. There are considerable benefits to be gained from
      involving stakeholders in decision making and while the process may not necessarily reconcile competing
      interests or lead to agreement among all stakeholders all the time, it is almost certain to yield more informed
      decisions, greater stakeholder acceptance overall, and more enduring solutions.
      Stakeholder engagement encompasses a wide spectrum of informal and formal activities aimed at soliciting
      stakeholder advice. These activities can be categorized by the level of engagement and the degree of influence
      stakeholders have in decision making. This categorization approach was first developed by Arnstein (1969),
      later modified by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), and often described as the
      “ladder of citizen participation” and is illustrated as Figure 1 below.




                                                                                                                                4




                                          Figure 1: Levels of Stakeholder Engagement




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      The bottom rung of the ladder (education and information) provides the least level of influence in decision
      making, and the top rung on the ladder (stakeholder control) provides the highest degree of stakeholder
      influence and the individual levels can be defined as follows:

            • Education/Information: The organization provides “information out” primarily to inform and
              educate stakeholders about its activities. The education/information level is always a part of higher
              level stakeholder engagement levels but can also be used as a stand alone engagement approach.
            • Feedback: The organization formally (through surveys, focus groups, white papers for comment,
              etc.) or informally (through day to day business) solicits feedback from stakeholders for decision
              making. This stakeholder engagement level normally requires a relatively low level of stakeholder
              effort and is a discrete (as opposed to an ongoing) activity.
            • Consultation: The organization seeks advice on a relative complex topic (usually involving the
              requirement of ongoing stakeholder time and energy through participation in workshops, advisory
              committees, etc.) with the commitment by the organization to explain how the input was used
              (or why it was not used) in decision-making.
            • Collaboration/consensus: The organization purposefully strives for agreement among all engaged
              parties usually taking an extended period of time.
            • Stakeholder Control: The organization delegates its decision making authority to stakeholders.

      Typically, the level of stakeholder engagement increases with the complexity, scope, and level of stakeholder
      interest in a decision and the anticipated level of impact the decision will have on stakeholders. For example,
      for relatively straightforward decisions where stakeholder interest is not high and the overall impact of the
      decision will be low, a short survey to inform and seek feedback on a topic may be appropriate. When there
      is an elevated level of interest and stakeholder impact or a coordinated approach among several stakeholders
      is required, a higher level of engagement (consultation or collaboration) is likely more appropriate.
      In general, all of the above levels of stakeholder engagement are legitimate stakeholder engagement
      approaches for different purposes. However, we cannot envision a situation where ESA would or could delegate
      its decision making authority as ESA does not have the statutory authority to do so, it would be contrary to
      good public regulatory decision making principles (i.e., independence, fairness, accountability, etc.), and
      would be in conflict with the Delegated Administrative Authority model the provincial government has
      adopted. All of the other stakeholder engagement levels however, (i.e., information/education, feedback,
      consultation, and collaboration/consensus), are appropriate for ESA to adopt depending on the decisions it
      needs to make, and there are numerous examples where ESA has successfully employed these approaches
      historically (i.e., the utility regulation consultation process and the product safety guideline development
      process). Both ESA internal staff and external stakeholders have commented on the success of these initiatives
      and the mutual benefit that has resulted for all involved.



2. Stakeholder Engagement Review Process
      The stakeholder engagement review process began in September, 2008 and has moved forward in four
      interrelated phases set out below.

      Phase 1                                                                                                           5

      The first phase of the assignment involved conducting the necessary background research to help scope and
      frame subsequent project phases including:

            • Identifying and reviewing the legal framework for making decisions within ESA that impact stake-
              holder engagement; and
            • Conducting a review of ESA’s formal and informal stakeholder engagement activities.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Phase 2
      The second phase of the assignment involved:

            • Conducting interviews with a number of ESA’s stakeholders and ESA staff to solicit input on:
                  – what was working well;
                  – what was not working well; and
                  – what improvements, interviewees would recommend.

      A total of 6 staff and 23 stakeholders were interviewed. Stakeholders represented a wide cross section of
      participants from across Stakeholder Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board and individuals from across the
      broader safety system (see Appendix B for list of interviewees); and

            • Scanning the external environment to identify relevant stakeholder engagement best practices and
              the stakeholder engagement practices of similar organizations to ESA.


      Phase 3
      The third phase of the assignment involved preparing a set of recommendations based on the information
      collected in phases 1 and 2 and on our stakeholder engagement experience as well as consolidating the
      material in draft report for submission to ESA.

      Phase 4
      The final phase of the process will involve distributing the draft report to stakeholders and posting the draft
      report on ESA’s web site for stakeholder review and written feedback. We will also be presenting the draft
      recommendations to all of ESA’s Boards and Councils for their consideration. This feedback will be reviewed
      by Singer & Watts and incorporated into the final report as appropriate along with the rationale associated
      with why/why not stakeholder views were adopted in the report. Feedback will be reviewed with an explicit
      intent to ensure consistency with stakeholder engagement best practices. The final report, rationale for
      adopting/not adopting stakeholder comments, and all stakeholder comments, will then be submitted to
      ESA’s Board of Directors for review and decision making. The decisions of the Board will be communicated
      back to stakeholders in advance of implementing the recommendations.
      In an effort to ensure transparency and avoid raising stakeholder expectations unrealistically, it is important to
      note that the scope of our work has included a review of ESA’s stakeholder engagement processes and mechanisms
      within the current legislative/regulatory framework set by the provincial government. ESA, as a Delegated
      Administrative Authority, does not have the authority to make changes to the regulatory framework; that respon-
      sibility lies with the provincial government. Given this reality, recommendations that require statutory or regulatory
      amendments to be implemented are outside the scope of this report. However, we understand that stakeholder
      feedback regarding the DAA model will be shared with the Ministry of Small Business and Consumer Services.



3. Current Situation

                                                                                                                               6
      3.1 Introduction
      ESA’s mission is to improve electrical safety for the well being of the people of Ontario and its long term
      vision is “an Ontario free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss”. To achieve this vision, ESA
      has adopted an objective of achieving excellent stakeholder relationships and ensuring stakeholder satisfaction
      is over 80%. This section of the report provides a snapshot of the current stakeholder engagement situation
      in ESA. It begins with a definition of who ESA’s stakeholders are, describes ESA’s current stakeholder engage-
      ment mechanisms and processes, and provides feedback from both stakeholders and staff on what is
      working well/not so well in stakeholder engagement at ESA.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      3.2 Who are ESA’s Stakeholders?
      ESA’s stakeholders are individuals or groups that are affected, may be affected, or feel that they are affected
      by ESA’s work, and therefore have a stake in, or are an influencer in, realizing ESA’s mission and vision. These
      individuals and groups include:

            • Individuals who perform electrical work and/or the organizations that represent them
              (e.g., electrical contractors);
            • Individuals who are clients of those that perform electrical work and/or organizations that represent
              them (e.g., consumers , industry, designers of electrical installations, etc.);
            • Organizations that produce and deliver electricity and/or the organizations that represent them
              (e.g., local distribution companies);
            • Organizations that produce electrical equipment and/or the organizations that represent them;
            • Organizations that distribute electrical products or are part of the supply chain;
            • Organizations that certify or test electrical products;
            • Individuals that have an interest in electrical safety and/or the organizations that represent them;
            • Government ministries and agencies with a mandate related to electrical safety (federal, provincial,
              and municipal);
            • Workers that encounter electrical safety hazards and organizations that represent them;
            • Individuals that use electricity or electrical products and/or depend on ESA to ensure electrical safety
              on behalf of the provincial government; and
            • Other interests in electrical safety (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Insurance Industry, etc.).

      In addition, it’s important to note that there are some stakeholders who do not fall within ESA’s regulatory
      mandate but are stakeholders nonetheless given their influence on achieving ESA’s vision (e.g., First Nations,
      mining industry, federal installations, etc.)
      In some cases, the above segments will have a direct interest in ESA’s decision making and want to partici-
      pate as fully as possible, in other cases they may have an indirect interest and may want to participate in a
      more limited way, and still other cases, they may just wish to be kept informed of ESA activities.


      3.3 Existing Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms and Processes
      To support ESA decision making, ESA has created several mechanisms to engage stakeholders and solicit
      their input, including standing Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board, committees or boards in addition to
      ad hoc consultation processes and regional stakeholder meetings.
      The standing committee structure is comprised of 5 Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board:

            • The Consumers Advisory Council (CAC)
            • The Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC)
            • The Industry Advisory Council (IAC)
            • The Utility Advisory Council (UAC)
            • The Ontario Provincial Code Committee (OPCC)                                                               7

      Most recently, the Electrical Contractor Registration Agency (ECRA) Board has been added to ESA’s stakeholder
      engagement structure. The current structure is illustrated as Figure 2 below. Appendix C provides an overview
      of the Terms of Reference for each of these bodies.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
                                  Figure 2: ESA Existing Stakeholder Engagement Structure



      The Consumers, Contractors and Industry Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board are single interest based;
      comprised of consumer interests, contractor interests and industry interests respectively. These Councils
      provide input directly to ESA’s CEO and senior management on a range of ESA’s decisions (products, serv-
      ices, regulatory issues, policy, etc.), which flows through to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of ESA’s Board
      of Directors and ultimately to the Board of Directors (represented on the diagram above by the blue arrows).
      The Utility Advisory Council and Ontario Provincial Code Committees, unlike the CoAC, IAC, and CAC, reflect
      a broader cross-section of interests and their recommendations focus primarily on Electrical Distribution
      Safety Regulation and the Ontario Electrical Safety Code, respectively. These Councils were created to address
      matters associated with the underlying regulations and they provide policy (strategic) advice in addition to
      more operational (tactical) feedback associated with the implementation of the regulations. The recommen-
      dations from these Councils, as represented on the diagram above by the green arrows, flow through ESA
      Management, the RAC and Board of Directors and ultimately flow through to the Ministry of Small Business
      and Consumer Services as decision making authority for electrical safety regulation is the responsibility of the
      provincial government.
      Since these Councils report directly to ESA Management, the responsibility and accountability for ensuring
      the effectiveness of these Councils (including addressing any issues that may result in an ineffective stakeholder
                                                                                                                           8
      relationship) is the responsibility of ESA management and ultimately the CEO.
      Similar to the UAC and the OPCC, the ECRA Board reflects a cross-section of interests and its focus is on
      regulations associated with province-wide licensing of electrical contractors and master electricians. Unlike the
      other Councils, ECRA’s advice flows directly to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of ESA’s Board of Directors,
      and any recommendations related to changes in regulation would flow through to the Ministry of Small
      Business and Consumer Services. The ECRA Board, as defined in its terms of reference, is tasked with
      providing policy advice regarding the regulations and providing feedback regarding the implementation of the
      contractor licensing regime.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Given that ECRA reports directly to RAC, it becomes the responsibility of the RAC Chair and the RAC
      Committee members to attempt to resolve any issues that would prohibit ECRA from functioning as a fully
      effective organizational structure for delivering on its stated mandate. Although the responsibility lies with the
      RAC Committee, ESA Management is also involved in working towards effective resolution any issues that
      may arise.
      The composition of each of ESA’s Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board is illustrated as Figure 3 below.




                              Figure 3: ESA Advisory Council and the ECRA Board Composition



      The standing Advisory Council structure is augmented with customized “issue-based” stakeholder engage-
      ment processes when appropriate. For example, prior to proceeding with significant new regulatory initiatives
      (e.g., utility regulation, contractor licensing, product safety regulation, etc.), specific consultation processes are
      employed beyond ESA’s standing Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board. These initiatives involve all identi-
      fied affected stakeholders to ensure that all affected interests are considered in ESA’s decision making
      processes and provided to the Ministry for their consideration. Further, other methods to seek stakeholder input,
      such as survey research, focus groups, regional contractor meetings, and others are employed on a regular basis.
      Historically, ‘ad hoc’ stakeholder engagement processes have been formalized into standing committees as
      necessary to provide ESA Management with ongoing stakeholder feedback and advice once a new regula-
      tion is implemented. It is reasonable to expect that additional standing committees would be created as the
      need arises. For example, the consultation on product safety has resulted in a recommendation from stake-
      holders (some of whom did not interact with ESA until now) impacted by Ontario’s new product safety regu-                9
      lation to establish a Product Safety Advisory Council.


      3.4 Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
      A broad cross-section of ESA stakeholders from Stakeholder Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board, stakeholders
      involved in ad hoc consultation processes and other electrical safety interests were interviewed to seek their
      views on what was working well and not so well with ESA’s stakeholder engagement processes (see
      Appendix B for list of interviewees). A summary of key themes from these discussions are included below.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Feedback specifically related to the functioning of ECRA and CoAC, as noted previously, is presented and
      discussed later in Section 6 of the report with options for resolving identified concerns.
      A high level summary of feedback received from external stakeholders is as follows:

            • What is working well in ESA’s current stakeholder Councils?
                  In response to questions on what is working well, participants provided the following feedback:
                      – Those interviewed felt that the Utility, Industry, Consumers and Provincial Code Advistory
                        Councils and the ECRA Board are all working well (e.g., agendas and support material are
                        received in advance, good dialogue at meetings, input is considered by ESA, etc.).
                      – Interviewees felt in general, ESA does a very good job at involving its stakeholders in
                        decision making, ESA does listen, and staff are very reasonable to work with.
                      – Those interviewed that participated in the Product Safety initiative felt it was an excellent
                        and open process characterized by great communications and multiple stakeholders.
                      – Contractors interviewed felt that the contractor regional meetings are an effective way
                        of both keeping contractors informed and seeking input at the local level and should
                        be continued.

            • What is not working as well as it could in ESA’s current stakeholder Councils?
                  In response to questions on what is not working so well, participants primarily focused on the
                  identified issues associated with the functioning of the ECRA Board and the Contractor Advisory
                  Council. These concerns will be discussed in section six of the report. More generally, in response
                  to questions on what is not working so well, participants provided the following feedback:
                      – Several members stated that issues stay on the agenda too long; Councils need
                        to make decisions and move forward;
                      – ESA needs to do a better job explaining the rationale for decisions;
                      – ESA is listening but decisions seldom go in the contractor’s favor;
                      – ESA is not open and transparent and does not explain well enough why decisions
                        are made;
                      – More focus needs to be put on building meaningful agendas;
                      – There is never enough data to work with. Unlike other Councils, the Consumers
                        Advisory Council membership background is not technical in nature and we need
                        more background information on which to base our views and advice.

            • What would you recommend for improving the overall effectiveness of ESA’s Advisory Councils?
                  In response to questions related to improving Advisory Council effectiveness:
                      − Some interviewees believe that voting on the Councils creates a false expectation that
                        the Council has decision making authority (i.e., if there was a unanimous view on the
                        Council that it was incumbent on ESA to also adopt the motion). All interviewees
                        believed, however, that a mechanism needs to be in place to ensure participants have
                        the opportunity to have their views recorded.
                  − Although interviewees believe that face-to-face meetings are the most effective way to provide
                    input, opportunities should be in place for participants to effectively take part in meetings       10
                    remotely (e.g., “gotomeeting”, “webex”, conference calling, etc.) given the size of the province
                    and the need for geographic representation.
                  − It was suggested that ESA could do more to make it easier to participate in Council meetings,
                    such as “covering” long documents with a one page summary (similar to what is provided
                    to Boards of Directors). In this way, participant time could be put to best use.
                  − It was suggested that some specific items stay on the agenda for too long and ESA needs
                    to seek input, make decisions, and then move on to the next important issue.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
                  − It was suggested by a few interviewees that Council meetings should be held only when
                    necessary as some Council meetings seemed to be held just because they were scheduled
                    (i.e. ESA was not seeking input on anything be merely providing information that could be
                    communicated in other ways than meetings).
                  – It was suggested that ESA could use its Consumer Advisory Council to solicit input on
                    policy issues.
                  – It was suggested that given ESA’s broad mandate that there should be more emphasis
                    placed on the general public/consumers and less on contractors and electricians.
                  – It was suggested that ESA could make a better link between its strategic planning exercise
                    and the role of the Councils and the ECRA Board.
                  – It was suggested that ESA could provide stakeholders with more information on what is going
                    on in the other Councils. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand the specific issues at the
                    Council level without this broader ESA context and the ECRA Board.
                  – It was suggested that ESA could do a better job in working with Advisory Council Chairs
                    on agenda planning.

            • Do you believe the nature of the Council to be advisory or decision making and to whom do you
              believe this Council reports?
                  In response to questions related to the advisory nature of the Councils and reporting to
                  CEO/Senior Management;
                      – Most interviewees believe the role of the Councils is advisory although importantly,
                        some felt their Council had decision making authority.
                      – Most interviewees understood that Council advice went to ESA’s CEO and Senior
                        Management.
                      – Some interviewees did not know that their advice was provided to the CEO but had
                        no concerns as they believed that their input was being heard by ESA.
                      – Many expressed confidence in the structure because the CEO and senior management
                        were present at the Council meetings.

            • How do you feel about the current composition of the Council in which you participate?
                  In response to questions related to the composition of Advisory Councils, the following feedback
                  was provided:
                      – The Utility Advisory Council (UAC) has a good balance of stakeholders.
                      – The Industrial Advisory Council (IAC) has well balanced representation although it was
                        difficult to get all sectors fully engaged (e.g., insurance sector).
                      – The Consumers Advisory Council (CAC) has a well rounded composition although it could
                        be expanded to ensure that the full diversity of Ontario consumers is reflected.
                      – There were a range of views expressed on the composition of the Contractors Advisory Council:
                      – Some felt that the composition was fine.
                      – Some felt that all views were not represented (e.g. independent contractors).
                      – Some felt that the Council needed better geographic representation.                               11
                      – Some felt that membership needed to reflect the fact that the majority of the work is performed
                        in the GTA and this balance should be maintained if membership was to increase.

            • Who should decide who is represented and sits on Councils?
                  In response to questions related to who should decide who is represented and sits on Councils,
                  most believed that ESA should choose given ESA is seeking the input and is in the best position
                  to decide the interests it needs input from. Some thought there should be a “team” approach to
                  who decides, and some expressed the view that nominations from associations is working well.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
            • Do you believe ESA is open and transparent in communicating its decision making to stakeholders?
                  In response to questions focusing on openness and transparency in decision making, interviewees
                  generally believe ESA is doing a good job although some believe that ESA could improve. Areas
                  identified for improvement included doing a better job at “closing the loop” with stakeholders
                  when decisions are made to provide the rationale for decisions and ensuring the decision making
                  process is traceable.

            • Is ESA doing enough to engage its stakeholders?
                  In response to questions about whether ESA is doing enough to engage its stakeholders, most
                  believe that ESA is doing a very good job, has struck a good balance with its Councils, and are
                  proud of their work on the Councils. Interviewees also believe that ESA is doing a very good job
                  in making it easy for them to participate. A view was also expressed that ESA could do more to
                  strive to ensure all relevant interests are engaged.


      3.5 Summary of ESA Feedback
      A number of individuals from ESA’s management team were interviewed to solicit their views on what is
      working well/not so well with stakeholder engagement within ESA. The following key themes emerged from
      these discussions:

            • Interviewees believed that stakeholder engagement definitely improves ESA decision making and
              this is particularly important as ESA undergoes considerable change both to forge new working
              relationships and to learn from stakeholders.
            • Many interviewees believed ESA could do more to improve/adopt better stakeholder engagement
              practices in general (e.g., do a better job in ensuring consistency and coordination across all its
              Stakeholder Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board and generally plan and execute its stakeholder
              engagement activities in a more effective manner ).
            • There is a strong recognition among interviewees that ESA needs to be open and transparent
              given its regulatory role although more could be done to ensure that this occurs consistently.
            • There was general agreement that the current stakeholder engagement structure of Stakeholder
              Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board complimented by “issue specific” processes when required
              (e.g., product safety, utility regulations, street lighting consultation processes) has served ESA well
              and should continue
              to serve ESA well in the future.
            • Some interviewees believed that the terms of reference for the Councils needed to be reviewed
              from the perspectives of operating effectiveness and consistency.
            • The challenges associated with effectively and efficiently making use of valuable stakeholder time
              was raised by all and some expressed the view that too much Advisory Council time is taken up
              by ESA informing stakeholders about its work instead of asking for their input on specific issues that
              ESA needs to address.
            • With the exception of the Contractor Advisory Council and ECRA, most interviewees believed the
              Councils are generally operating effectively.
            • The composition of stakeholders on each of the Councils is generally felt to be correct with the          12
              exception of the Contractor Advisory Council where some believed that the Council does not adequately
              reflect all contractor interests in the province (e.g., geography, non-represented contractors, etc.).
            • Some also identified the need to begin reaching out to broader stakeholders in the integrated
              electrical safety system if ESA’s vision is to be realized.
            • Some interviewees identified they experienced challenges associated with reaching out to new
              stakeholders to realize ESA’s vision.
            • Some interviewees believed that the role of stakeholders in ESA’s decision making needed to be


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
                 more clearly understood both within the organization and among stakeholders (i.e. stakeholders
                 have an important role in providing ESA with advice and guidance but that ESA has the statutory
                 role to make final decisions in the interest of electrical safety in the province).
            • The view was expressed by some that ESA needs to do more to not only identify but to understand
              stakeholder issues through such mechanisms as focus groups (general surveys are not enough).
            • If the existing Council structure is to remain the same, interviewees felt additional stakeholder
              engagement tactics need to be used to ensure that all interests are represented. This is particularly
              the case for new initiatives or changes to existing practice.
            • Many believed that much more effort needs to be put into stakeholder engagement planning. ESA
              needs to prioritize issues (including addressing stakeholder issues), develop a 5 year stakeholder
              engagement strategy, and execute against the strategy in a coordinated manner. The strategy would
              include the identification of objectives, tactics, stakeholders, and success measures. ESA also needs
              to do a better job at planning for and across the Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board and tie this
              planning to the decisions that need to be made.
            • Many expressed support for the need for stakeholder engagement resources to support ESA’s
              stakeholder engagement efforts although there are a number of views on the nature and level
              of support needed. There was a recognition that a significant amount of time and effort was
              required to plan and execute stakeholder engagement programs and to realize the full potential
              of stakeholder relationships.




4. Stakeholder Engagement Best Practice
      At its core, stakeholder engagement is about building mutually beneficial and sustainable relationships to aid
      decision making. Stakeholder engagement involves both formal and informal ways of staying connected to
      the individuals and organizations that have an actual or potential interest in, and effect on, ESA’s mandate—
      an Ontario free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss. Stakeholder engagement implies first
      identifying stakeholder views, then understanding them, and finally considering them to drive better decision
      making. As discussed previously, stakeholder engagement spans a continuum of interaction from information/
      education to collaboration/consensus depending on the level of stakeholder interest and the
      scope/complexity of the decision.
      Although there are many “guides” to stakeholder engagement/involvement, there is no widely accepted
      agreement, even among practitioners, on the goals of stakeholder involvement or their relative importance
      (should the aim be to inform stakeholders? build consensus? legitimize decision-making? build trust? produce
      better decisions? stakeholder empowerment? all of the above?). Nevertheless, there are a number of practices
      common to stakeholder engagement guides and literature (e.g. CSA Guidelines for Public Involvement, etc.),
      and based on our experience, adopting these practices lead to more positive stakeholder engagement
      outcomes from the organizations that practice them. More specifically, these top 10 characteristics and
      practices are:

                  1.     The adoption and publication of stakeholder engagement principles to guide organization
                         and
                         participant behaviours and clearly establish external expectations.                              13
            2.    The creation of stakeholder engagement plans that set out:
                         a) Clearly defined stakeholder engagement goals and objectives;
                         b) Clear links to when and how decisions are to be made;
                         c) Identification of all relevant interests related to the decision;
                         d) The level of stakeholder engagement (information/education, feedback, consultation,
                            consensus/collaboration) and the rationale for the level based on an assessment of
                            complexity, scope, and stakeholder interest in a decision and the anticipated level of


Singer & Watts Ltd.    February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
                             impact the decision will have on stakeholders;
                        e) Appropriate methods for engaging stakeholders given the level of stakeholder
                           engagement adopted (Advisory Committees, Workshops, Round Table Meetings,
                           Focus Groups, Workshops, etc.);
                        f)   Appropriate measures, including human and financial resources, to support the
                             implementation of the plan;
                        g) A description of how information will be made available to stakeholders in a timely
                           manner;
                        h) A description of roles and responsibilities of all parties in the process;
                        i)   A reasonable and clear time-frame for the process to be implemented that take into
                             account stakeholder needs;
                        j)   The results of the process are communicated and implemented; and
                        k) A process to allow stakeholders to review the stakeholder engagement plan in
                           advance of it being finalized.
            3.    Transparency and openness both in decision making and in access to information.
            4.    Policies and procedures to remove barriers (informational, financial, and cultural) to stakeholder
                  participation.
            5.    The use of mechanisms, such as the web, to publicly demonstrate openness and transparency.
            6.    Human resources in place to support stakeholder engagement planning and implementation.
            7.    The use of a range of tactics (both informal and formal) to reach out to stakeholders and build
                  relationships.
            8.    Strong and demonstrated public support for the value of stakeholder engagement from senior
                  management and policies and procedures in place to ensure principles are adopted at all levels
                  of the organization.
            9.    The ability to track, audit, and measure performance.
            10. Regular public reporting of that performance.

      A number of ESA’s existing stakeholder engagement activities exhibit many of the above best practice
      characteristics (e.g., the recent product safety stakeholder engagement program) while others exhibit some.
      These best practice elements listed above have been incorporated into the recommendations contained later
      in this report.
      We have also compiled a list of organizations, both public and private, that exhibit many or some of these
      characteristics, and they are listed in Appendix D.
      We also attempted to identify organizations with similar goals to ESA (the enforcement of safety regulations)
      and examined their stakeholder engagement practices. Two organizations in Canada, the Technical Standards
      and Safety Authority (TSSA) and the BC Safety Authority, were identified. Both of these organizations are very
      similar in terms of their broad safety mandate (e.g., Boiler and Pressure Vessels, Elevating Technology, Gas,
      Amusement Rides, etc.), but have adopted different stakeholder engagement models.
      BC Safety Authority’s stakeholder engagement model is technical in nature and built around 6 Technology
      Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board (Amusement Rides, Boiler, Electrical, Gas, Elevating, and Railway).
      The Councils are not decision making bodies and their role is to advise the CEO on issues related to tech-        14
      nical safety, regulatory operations, and service delivery. Members are selected by the CEO on the basis of
      their technical knowledge and personal attributes rather than on membership in or representation of any
      particular organization and an “expression of interest” process is used to determine membership. These
      standing committees are supplemented by the establishment of ad hoc issue groups and other outreach
      methods (surveys, newsletters, subject specific meetings, etc.). BC Safety’s stakeholder engagement
      programs are supported by a full time Coordinator, administrative resource, and most recently, a VP of
      Stakeholder Relations. The recent addition of the Stakeholder Relations function is a recognition by the organ-
      ization that broader policy advice is important in achieving its mandate.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      TSSA’s stakeholder engagement model is similar in nature to ESA’s and built around 10 Industry Advistory
      Councils and the ECRA Board (Amusement, Boilers and Pressure Vessels, Consumers, Elevating, Natural Gas,
      Liquid Fuels, Propane, Operating Engineers, Ski Lifts, and Upholstered and Stuffed Articles) and a Consumer
      Advisory Council. Industry Advisory Council membership is intended to represent all sectors of an industry
      and members are selected for their ability to represent a significant portion of the overall spectrum of views
      impacting safety in their industries. A full time Coordinator supports the work of the Advisory Council.



5. Stakeholder Engagement Recommendations
      This section of the report provides a series of recommendations for ESA’s Board of Director’s consideration
      based on feedback received from ESA stakeholders and staff summarized previously, best practice, and our
      experience. A discussion of options is provided when appropriate.


      5.1 ESA’s Stakeholder Engagement Structure

            Recommendation 1:
            It is recommended that ESA maintain its current stakeholder engagement structure based on standing
            Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board, augmented with customized issue-specific processes as required.


      ESA’s Advisory Council and the ECRA Board structure has been given high marks by stakeholders in annual
      feedback surveys against a number of evaluation criteria. Our interviews with both stakeholders and ESA
      confirm this view, with the notable exceptions of the Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC) and the Electrical
      Contractor Registration Agency (ECRA) Board (to be discussed later).
      The general benefits of standing stakeholder advisory committees are many. They are an efficient means to
      solicit stakeholder advice in an ongoing way as the membership is organized, the rules of engagement (i.e.
      terms of reference) are in place, and participants working together over an extended period of time normally
      develop strong and effective working relationships. Standing committees also allow for the full range of stakeholder
      engagement levels depending on the issue being considered. For some issues, ESA may only require some
      quick feedback to ensure they are on the right track. For other issues, ESA may need more ongoing and in
      depth consultation and the Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board provide a ready mechanism for this to occur.
      One of the key drawbacks of standing committees is membership may not always fully reflect the interests
      of the sector as a whole as the needs of the organization change. However, this can be addressed by regularly
      assessing the composition of the councils and augmenting membership as required. It can also be addressed
      by reaching out to members of the broader sector to seek their views on an as needed basis and ESA has
      already adopted this practice through such activities as regional contractor meetings and broader based
      consultations on significant regulatory initiatives.


            Recommendation 2:
            It is recommended that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board                    15
            be invited to meet as a cross-sector group to discuss and provide ESA input on topics that cut
            across stakeholder interests.


      A number of ESA’s Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board are sector (as opposed to multi-sector) based. The
      key benefit of sector-based models is that they most effectively utilize valuable stakeholder time as participants
      are allowed to focus almost exclusively on matters that directly affect them (avoiding the frustration of sitting
      through meetings where only part of the agenda is of direct interest). The key disadvantage of sector-based
      approaches is that stakeholders are not provided the benefit of hearing the views of other sectors on topics that

Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      cut cross sector lines and opportunities for consensus building across the sectors is limited. In addition, there is
      a risk that the agenda may become dominated by day-to-day issues that are most appropriately addressed
      through existing business channels instead of focusing on future decisions of a strategic or policy nature.
      Overall, ESA’s standing advisory council model, augmented with customized issue-specific processes as
      required, is a robust stakeholder engagement structure. However, if ESA is to realize its long term vision of
      “an Ontario free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss”, additional opportunities will need
      to be created to bring sectors together to collaborate and build consensus around plans to achieve the vision.
      This could be achieved in a number of ways. Options include:

            • Creating a permanent cross-sector advisory committee comprised of all stakeholder sectors (contractors,
              industry, utilities, consumers, manufacturers, retailers/distributors, certification bodies/field evaluation
              agencies, designers, professional engineers, workplace safety, broader safety interests, etc.). Such a
              forum would enable ongoing opportunities for consensus building across sector lines and provide all
              sectors the opportunity to hear and come to a better understanding of different points of view;
            • On a pilot basis, bringing the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board
              together to provide advice on key topics that cut across stakeholder interests. As experience is
              gained, the group could become a formal part of ESA’s stakeholder engagement structure (similar
              to the option above);
            • Creating a new multi-stakeholder group, in partnership with others, with the explicit aim of identifying
              and removing the barriers associated with achieving an Ontario free of electrical fatalities, serious
              injuries, damage, or harm. This method, referred to as a “Collaborative” in stakeholder engagement
              practice, is a time-limited consensus process through which stakeholders who see or own different
              aspects of a problem (e.g., contractors, consumers, manufacturers, utilities, insurance industry,
              educators, governments, etc.) are brought together to constructively explore their differences and
              search for (and implement) solutions that go beyond their limited vision and authority of what is
              possible. Collaboratives have demonstrated their value in identifying and overcoming barriers to
              reach end goals in many different areas and are becoming common in the areas of energy
              efficiency, health care, community initiatives, education, and environmental issues.

      Initially, we are recommending that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board
      be invited to meet as a cross-sector group to discuss and provide ESA input on topics that cut across stakeholder
      interests. This new Council could be augmented with additional members representing broader stakeholders
      and meetings could be structured to facilitate the overall functioning of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA
      Board by providing more strategic policy advice to ESA Management and acting as an overall coordinating
      committee for all of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board. This approach could be assessed after a
      reasonable period of time to determine its effectiveness and if appropriate, be adopted as a permanent structure.
      One of the topics that could be considered by the new group is the value, and more importantly the level
      of interest and commitment in, launching an Ontario Electrical Safety Collaborative. While Collaboratives have
      demonstrated their value in Ontario and elsewhere in North America, organizing and implementing such a
      group is not without its significant costs and requires significant commitment from all stakeholder sectors.


            Recommendation 3:
            It is recommended that ESA consider more proactive methods to engage the Ontario public in
            achieving its vision.                                                                                            16



      In addition, ESA could consider more proactive methods to engage the Ontario public in achieving its vision.
      This could include holding regional round table meetings with local opinion leaders, community leaders, business
      leaders, educators, and consumers to promote electrical safety and seek local input on ways to further
      advance electrical safety in the province.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      5.2. Stakeholder Engagement Principles

            Recommendation 4:
            It is recommended that ESA adopt a clear set of stakeholder engagement principles and practices
            that are consistently applied across all of ESA’s Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board and stakeholder
            engagement activities.


      In accordance with best practice, we have proposed a relatively comprehensive set of draft stakeholder
      engagement principles for ESA’s consideration. An organization’s stakeholder engagement principles act to
      guide its stakeholder engagement planning and implementation, promote consistency across the organization,
      and articulate expectations and norms for both the organization and participants involved in stakeholder
      engagement processes. Although the proposed stakeholder engagement principles below are grounded in our
      understanding of the purposes of the organization and aligned with good regulatory decision making principles—
      independence, transparency, openness, accountability, traceability, fairness and respect— they should be fully
      considered and modified as appropriate to ensure they are fully aligned with organizational values.

      Decision Making
            a) Stakeholder engagement will be an essential element of the Electrical Safety Authority’s decision
               making in order to improve the overall quality and effectiveness of decisions.
            b) The Electrical Safety Authority will provide meaningful and timely opportunities for stakeholders
               to provide input into decision making including its Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board and
               additional stakeholder engagement methods.
            c) The Electrical Safety Authority will provide varying levels of stakeholder engagement for its
               decisions (information/education, feedback, consultation, and collaboration/consensus) based
               on stakeholder interest and impact, complexity/scope, and the significance of the issue to
               electrical safety in Ontario.
            d) The Electrical Safety Authority decision making processes will be transparent, open, and traceable.
            e) Stakeholder views, including dissenting views, will be fully communicated to decision makers
               prior to decisions being taken.
            f)    The Electrical Safety Authority will strive to achieve consensus where possible. If consensus is
                  not possible, the outcome will be shared understanding of issues amongst all stakeholders.
            g) The Electrical Safety Authority will strive to achieve an equitable and effective balance among
               stakeholder interests, recognizing the diversity of stakeholder resources and the varying degree
               of impact on stakeholders.
            h) The Electrical Safety Authority decisions, and the rationale for decisions, will be communicated to
               stakeholders along with an explanation of how their input was taken into account in the decision.
            i)    The Electrical Safety Authority will strive to be clear regarding expected outcomes so as properly
                  manage stakeholder expectations.


      Participation and Process                                                                                        17
            a) The role of the Electrical Safety Authority’s Stakeholder Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board is
               to identify and advise the Electrical Safety Authority’s CEO on safety issues pertinent to the
               Authority’s mandate. Stakeholder Advisory Committees are not decision-making bodies.
            b) The Electrical Safety Authority’s stakeholder engagement processes will be inclusive, providing the
               opportunity for all stakeholders with a material interest in an issue to participate.
            c) Stakeholders will participate in the process voluntarily and seek to build mutual understanding,
               trust, and respect among participants.



Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
            d) The Electrical Safety Authority will actively encourage all stakeholder sectors with a material interest
               in a decision to participate in the process and will define expectations and expected outcomes
               from the Councils for all participants.
            e) Participants in the ESA’s stakeholder engagement activities will normally consist of both individuals
               and organizations. Participants who are individuals have a commitment to provide input based
               on their valuable experience and expertise. Participants representing organizations will have the
               authority and commitment to represent their organization’s views and to keep their host organizations
               informed about the process.
            f)    Both the Electrical Safety Authority and stakeholders will work to ensure that stakeholder engagement
                  processes operate as efficiently as possible to keep resource costs to a minimum.
            g) The Electrical Safety Authority will use stakeholder input to develop options that attempt to facilitate
               resolution of differing points of view where possible.


      Information Exchange
            a) Stakeholders will be informed of the Electrical Safety Authority’s plans, the status of issues,
               and decisions in a timely manner.
            b) The Electrical Safety Authority will strive to ensure stakeholders have timely, accessible, and
               accurate information sufficient to understand the implications of alternative courses of action.
            c) The Electrical Safety Authority and participants will strive to become as well informed as possible
               about all the facts relevant to the process, to communicate their views fully, openly, and respectfully,
               and to support others in doing the same.


      Implementation and Continuous Improvement
            a) The Electrical Safety Authority will use advanced stakeholder engagement tactics and techniques
               to identify and gather stakeholder views in an effective and efficient manner being mindful of
               stakeholder costs.
            b) The Electrical Safety Authority will regularly measure the effectiveness of its stakeholder engagement
               processes and mechanisms to improve performance.

      Of particular importance, given ESA’s regulatory and enforcement role, are principles related to openness,
      traceability of decisions, and transparency. Organizations that exhibit best practice in this area use the web extensively
      to thoroughly and methodically publish stakeholder engagement plans, meeting and agenda notices, supporting
      material, meeting minutes and written input from stakeholders, final decisions, and importantly, the rationale for
      decisions. While a few of ESA’s Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board have partially adopted this practice, we recom-
      mend that these practices be consistently applied across all Councils and stakeholder engagement activities.


      5.3 Stakeholder Engagement Planning

            Recommendation 5:
            It is recommended that ESA place increased emphasis on stakeholder engagement planning.                                18


      A key characteristic of stakeholder engagement best practice is planning and a number of stakeholders
      and staff identified planning related topics as an area for potential improvement (e.g., agenda planning,
      coordination between Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board, etc.).
      We are recommending a significantly increased emphasis be placed on stakeholder engagement planning to
      ensure both the needs of stakeholders and the organization are effectively and efficiently addressed in the
      stakeholder engagement process.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      There are several important reasons for placing increased emphasis on planning from a best practice
      perspective:

            • Systematic Analysis: The planning process requires careful analysis of how stakeholder engagement
              fits into the decision making process, which stakeholders are likely to be interested, and how their
              input can be most effectively solicited. Since this analysis is crucial to effective stakeholder engagement,
              preparation of a plan is simply preparation for doing a good job and a way of ensuring you have
              designed a stakeholder engagement program adequate for the particular issue.

            • Integration into Decision Making: One of the most important characteristics of effective stakeholder
              engagement is that it is an integrated part of the decision making process. The planning process
              used in preparing the plan is designed to ensure that this integration occurs.

            • Internal Coordination: Implementation of effective stakeholder engagement requires a variety
              of staff from different departments within ESA. In addition to the program departments directly
              involved with the issue, stakeholder engagement may also involve communications staff,
              legal/regulatory compliance staff, and technical staff. The value of the stakeholder engagement
              plan is that it clarifies who needs to do what by when. And more than this, the preparation of the
              plan provides an opportunity for different parts of the organization to discuss the expectations as
              to what level and approach of stakeholder engagement is needed.

            • Management Review: The plan provides a document for management review of the proposed
              stakeholder engagement program. The plan gives management the information it needs to
              understand the potential significance of the issue and establish any problem indicators from
              the beginning. It ensures that the chances of management being taken by surprise are greatly
              reduced and gives staff a mechanism for alerting management of issues.

            • Stakeholder Review: Giving ESA’s stakeholders the opportunity to review plans is an important
              check on the adequacy of plans. If stakeholders do not believe the plan is adequate, it also
              provides the opportunity to adjust accordingly.

            • Documentation: The existence of a documented plan supports the principles of openness
              and transparency.

      From a best practice perspective, the stakeholder engagement planning process can be broken down into
      five discrete but interrelated phases:

            • Phase 1—Initial Scoping: Early reconnaissance is required to determine the major stakeholder
              issues which could be raised by the decision, the likely level of stakeholder interest, and the most
              likely participants.

            • Phase 2—Initial Planning: Five preparatory steps lead to the development of a stakeholder
              engagement plan. These steps are: identifying the decision making process, identifying the
              stakeholders, identifying and assessing any specific special characteristics of the situation,
              identifying the level of stakeholder engagement and specific objectives of the program, and
              determining information exchange requirements.

            • Phase 3—Development of an Action Plan: Action Planning begins with the choice of specific                      19
              stakeholder engagement mechanisms keyed to the work performed in phases 1 and 2. The action
              plan includes the commitment of resources and the scheduling of activities essential to conducting
              the stakeholder engagement mechanisms selected.

            • Phase 4—Implementation and Evaluation: Evaluation of the stakeholder engagement program
              proceeds in parallel with the process. Evaluation of the results should emphasize both participant
              satisfaction with the process and project staff satisfaction.



Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
            • Phase 5—Post Decision Stakeholder Engagement: The final step in stakeholder engagement
              planning is to ensure that decisions are communicated (with rationale) and provisions are put in
              place, as required, to continue the process if implementation issues need to be addressed.

      Stakeholder engagement plans can vary in length from a page to many depending on the complexity of the
      program. The criteria which can be used to determine the adequacy of detail of a plan are:

            • It should be sufficiently detailed to permit development of budget, staff, and schedule estimates;
            • It should allow management and stakeholders to assess the adequacy of activities planned in
              relation to the level of stakeholder interest; and
            • It should provide sufficient information so that it is intelligible to any stakeholders who may review
              the plan.


      5.4 Stakeholder Engagement Resourcing

            Recommendation 6:
            It is recommended that ESA create a new function to manage stakeholder engagement planning
            across the organization with sufficient resources to support these activities.


      A significant level of effort and expertise is required to successfully plan, manage, implement, and measure
      the effectiveness of multiple stakeholder engagement programs within an organization. We are recommending
      that a new function be created to perform this work within ESA given the extent of ESA’s stakeholder engagement
      activities and their importance to the organization.
      Organizations with similar levels of stakeholder engagement activities to ESA have at least 1 or more full time
      equivalent staff to implement their work programs and some organizations have more. This new function
      would be the focal point for stakeholder engagement in ESA and work with each of the line organizations to
      meet their stakeholder engagement needs. The function would also work to meet the needs of stakeholders
      involved in ESA’s stakeholder engagement processes.
      The function should be robust enough to provide secretariat functions for each of the Advisory Councils and
      the ECRA Board as well as implementing customized issue-specific stakeholder engagement programs. An
      initial assessment of the resourcing level required would indicate that the function include both a qualified
      manager/subject matter expert responsible for planning, managing, and coordinating the work across the
      organization and a skilled senior administrator to support the work. At times, it may also be necessary to bring
      in qualified contract staff to help manage any significant peaks in work load and this is a common practice
      in many organizations where stakeholder engagement is central to decision making.


      5.5 Stakeholder Advisory Council Operating Procedures
            5.5.1 Terms of Reference

                                                                                                                          20
            Recommendation 7:
            It is recommended that ESA adopt a much simplified terms of reference for each of the Advisory
            Councils and the ECRA Board that are better aligned with best practices.


      The Terms of Reference for each of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board are the ground rules on which
      the Councils and board operate. Both stakeholders and ESA staff identified areas for improvement related to these
      ground rules. Our review of the terms of reference also identified areas for improvement. We are proposing


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      a much simplified terms of reference for each of the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board that are better
      aligned with best practice, reflect the proposed stakeholder engagement principles, and address some of the
      issues raised by both stakeholders and ESA through the interview process. The proposed terms of reference
      are provided in Appendix E and the key issues addressed in the new terms of reference are discussed below.


            5.5.2 Composition and Appointment of Advisory Committee Members

            Recommendation 8:
            It is recommended that the composition on the Advisory Councils and the ECRA Board be the
            responsibility of an ESA selection committee either at the Board or Management level through an
            “expression of interest” process from both individuals and associations based on a set of criteria
            including experience, skills and expertise.


      The composition and appointment of Advisory Council members requires greater clarity in the Advisory
      Committee terms of reference.
      The member composition on the Advisory Council’s (the number, segmentation, geographical representation,
      etc.) should be the responsibility of ESA. As highlighted by a number of stakeholders in the interview process,
      ESA should ultimately be responsible for establishing the makeup of the Councils given the purpose of the
      Councils is to provide advice to ESA. It would be good practice, however, for ESA to seek feedback from
      stakeholders when changes to the composition are being considered.
      There are a number of options for appointing Advisory Council members and they include appointment of
      individuals by the stakeholder sector (if organized); appointment of individuals by ESA through an “expression
      of interest” process; or through a hybrid approach. We are recommending a hybrid approach be adopted
      where ESA seeks nominees through an “expression of interest” process from both individuals and associations
      and an ESA Selection Committee be struck to appoint members from the list of nominees. This approach
      would help to ensure that the required expertise and balance is represented on the Councils and provides
      stakeholders with input into the process.


            5.5.3 Advisory Committee Membership Terms

            Recommendation 9:
            It is recommended that ESA adopt a two-year membership term for its Councils and or Board with the
            option to serve for a total of up to three consecutive terms. Membership terms would be staggered to
            provide continuity to the Council.


      The establishment of time periods regarding individual Advisory Council membership varies across organizations.
      Although a review of similar organizational practices indicate that two or three year terms are the norm with
      the option to renew for one term, membership terms should be based on the goals of the organization and
      stakeholder engagement requirements.                                                                              21
      Organizations that seek continuous and rapid innovation might seek shorter membership terms as continuity
      is not a significant issue. Organizations that seek to address more complex longer term issues based would
      opt for longer terms so as to ensure continuity and expertise is continually maintained.
      We are recommending that ESA adopt a two-year membership term for its Councils and the ECRA Board
      with the option to serve for a total of up to three consecutive terms. Membership terms would be staggered
      to provide continuity to the Council and the ECRA Board. We believe that a two year term both provides
      members the opportunity to make a valuable contribution over a reasonable period of time while also
      providing sufficient turnover to provide other interested individuals the opportunity to participate.

Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
            5.5.4 Polling Members for Views vs. Traditional Voting

            Recommendation 10:
            It is recommended that ESA implement a “polling” of Advisory Committee member views rather than
            traditional voting where a “majority rules”. And as noted in the proposed stakeholder engagement
            principles, views expressed should reflect those of the member’s affiliation (if he/she is representing
            an organization or association) or be based on individual experience/expertise (if he/she is participating
            as an individual and not representing an organization).


      The existing terms of reference for each Advisory Council call for traditional voting (where motions are
      adopted or defeated based on a majority). We are recommending that this approach be replaced with a
      “polling” approach, where members formally register their positions and supporting rationale as they do
      today (verbally with minutes taken) but without actually tallying the votes and formally “carrying” a motion.
      In our view, the polling approach more appropriately reflects the advisory nature of the Councils and more
      appropriately places emphasis on member views as opposed to “majority rules”. It also addresses the issue
      raised earlier that voting may create a false expectation that Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board have
      decision making authority (i.e., if there was a unanimous view on the Council that it was incumbent on ESA
      to adopt the motion). Further, traditional voting, where motions are carried or defeated, may result in sectors
      with greater representation continuously overshadowing sectors with less representation on a Council solely
      due to the structure of the Council.


            5.5.5 Participant Funding

            Recommendation 11:
            It is recommended that ESA develop guidelines for participant funding that are grounded in removing
            any potential financial barriers to participation in ESA’s stakeholder engagement processes.


      It has become more and more common, in the case of significant stakeholder engagement processes, for
      organizations to underwrite, with no demands or conditions, the cost of participation for stakeholders who
      would otherwise not consider being involved in a stakeholder engagement process. While ESA does provide
      funding now in some cases, it has no formal policy or guidelines in place for such funding. Participant funding
      should be addressed openly and fairly and we are recommending that ESA develop guidelines for participant
      funding that are grounded in removing any potential financial barriers to participation in ESA’s stakeholder
      engagement processes. More specifically, we are recommending:

            • All participants, with the exception of associations representing an industry segment, qualify for
              reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for travel. Compensation for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
              for volunteers is a fairly standard practice and recognizes, particularly in Ontario, the significant
              expense associated with travel over significant distances. Guidelines and procedures currently in
              place to reimburse employees for travel costs could be leveraged for this purpose.
            • All participants with the exception of associations representing an industry segment, qualify for a        22
              reasonable honorarium for their time that partially recognizes income forgone as a result of their
              preparation and participation in ESA stakeholder engagement processes
            • Members may waive their entitlement to recover these expenses.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
            5.5.6 Advisory Council Leadership and Chairing Meetings

            Recommendation 12:
            It is recommended that the Chair and Vice-Chair of ESA Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board
            continue to be elected by Advisory Council members and continue with their current roles and
            responsibilities regarding agenda setting and the chairing of meetings. Training should be made
            available to Chairs if desired to enhance meeting management and facilitation skills.


      There are two specific leadership roles on the Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board, the Chair and the Vice
      Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair are currently elected by Advisory Council members and their role is to both
      chair/facilitate meetings and to set agendas and Council direction in consultation with ESA.
      There are a number of benefits to Council self leadership, most importantly; helping to ensure the process
      is neutral and unbiased. Despite the positive aspects of Council self leadership however, there are also
      pitfalls—particularly with respect to meeting management when issues are contentious and views are strongly
      held. In such cases, despite best efforts, even the most experienced chairs may run into difficulties in effectively
      facilitating discussions.
      Despite the afore mentioned concerns, we are recommending that the Chair and Vice-Chairs continue to be
      elected by Advisory Council members and we are also recommending that their role continue to focus on
      Council agenda development and direction setting in addition to chairing/facilitating meetings. As a best practice,
      one option for ESA’s consideration is to make training available to all elected Chairs to hone their meeting
      management and facilitation skills. In this manner, Council agenda setting and leadership would continue to
      be aligned with stakeholder interests and Chairs would have the benefit of enhanced meeting management skills.


      5.6 Stakeholders

            Recommendation 13:
            It is recommended that ESA develop mechanisms to address identified gaps in stakeholder participation
            so as to support realizing ESA’s vision.


      As identified previously, ESA has a broad range of direct and indirect stakeholders that it engages to support
      its decision making. Interviewees and our review identified a few gaps that should be considered to support
      realizing ESA’s vision:

            • There appears to be no mechanism to engage vulnerable or other groups (i.e., aboriginal peoples, other
              cultures, and new immigrants) where there may be barriers (financial, cultural, linguistic, institutional,
              geographic, etc.) to participation including remote communities, different ethnicities, and groups
              representing low-income people and groups that do not currently fall within ESA’s mandate. As a
              first step to addressing this issue, ESA should investigate the legal and other implications of reaching
              out to these groups. Not engaging these groups may leave a gap in achieving ESA’s vision and
              needs to be explored further.                                                                                  23

            • ESA has begun to reach out to broader safety and related interests both in its day-to-day business
              and its formal stakeholder engagement mechanisms. In interviews with stakeholders representing
              broader safety interests, interviewees suggest that ESA appears to be doing a good job in this area.
              Our initial observations are that retailers that sell electrical products to consumers are not represented
              although this is likely covered through ESA’s normal day-to-day business and it is our understanding
              that the Retail Council of Canada has recently agreed to be a member of the Industry Advisory
              Council. The challenge in engaging groups with broader safety interests is that they may not view
              themselves as a directly affected stakeholder and therefore choose not to participate given

Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
               numerous competing interests for their time. In such cases, ESA needs to do more to demonstrate
               the value of participating in ESA decision making and/or ESA may need to be an active participant
               in the stakeholder engagement activities of these organizations.

            • The contractor community is a direct and important stakeholder of ESA. As identified by many
              contractors, their livelihoods are directly affected by electrical safety regulation, and the permits
              taken out by contractors account for a significant component of ESA’s revenue. Therefore, it is
              important to ensure that all relevant contractor interests are represented in ESA’s stakeholder
              engagement processes. Interviewees have identified two gaps in this area: 1) Independent electrical
              contractors that are not represented by either the Ontario Electrical League or Electrical Contractor
              Association of Ontario; and 2) The need to ensure contractors in different regions in the province
              are appropriately involved in ESA decision making.

            • Consumers are a direct and important stakeholder of ESA. Some interviewees expressed the view
              that the main focus of the Consumers Advisory Council historically had been on marketing and
              communications and there was a need to ensure that the Council also has the opportunity to
              provide input on strategy and more substantive policy issues.




6. Specific Recommendations Regarding the Contractor
   Advisory Council (CoAC) and the Electrical Contractor
   Registration Agency (ECRA)
      The focus of this section of the report is on the Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC) and the Electrical
      Contractor Registration Agency (ECRA). Several interviewees, as noted below, expressed significant concerns
      regarding the functioning of ECRA and CoAC. The fact that some CoAC and ECRA members have resigned
      or stopped attending meetings is obviously a strong indication that the stakeholder engagement process has
      broken down for some stakeholders and this is concerning for both ESA and members of these Councils.
      However, despite this breakdown, we believe there is no fundamental reason why these stakeholder
      engagement mechanisms could not be transformed back into effective, functional entities, similar to ESA’s
      other Councils. With the requisite desire to move forward and appropriate fundamentals in place, communication
      and trust could be restored. It is upon this basis that contractor views and issues are identified and
      recommendations offered.


      6.1 Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC)
      Electrical contractors are a direct stakeholder of ESA and their views and advice are solicited through a
      number of mechanisms including the Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC), customized “issue specific
      stakeholder engagement processes, focus groups, surveys, as well as other Stakeholder Advistory Councils
      and the ECRA Board (Provincial Code and Utility Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board).
      While feedback from electrical contractors through surveys about ESA’s performance in a number of service
      areas is positive (an overall satisfaction index score of 72 out of a maximum possible score of 100 in the
      most recent survey), feedback from some contractors interviewed about the Contractor Advisory Council is         24
      significantly less positive. In summary, in response to questions regarding what is not working well in CoAC,
      participants provided the following feedback:

            • The majority of those interviewed who were members of the CoAC felt the Council was not working
              well and that the meetings were not productive; some went so far as to describe it as ‘dysfunctional’.
            • Some interviewees expressed the view that there is an underlying cultural difference between
              contractors and regulators which is contributing to the lack of trust and respect both in the CoAC
              and the ECRA Board.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
            • Several members have suggested that the CoAC meetings are very frustrating and important things
              are not getting done therefore some members have resigned or stopped attending meetings;
            • Some interviewees have suggested that CoAC is not helping but is harming the contractor/ESA
              relationship.
            • A few contractors suggested that ESA has no contractor experience, does not respect contractor
              opinions, does not listen to their input, therefore they do not trust ESA.


            Recommendation C1:
            It is recommended that ESA adopt the stakeholder engagement principles and practices already
            recommended to address many of the issues identified with CoAC.


      We believe that much of the feedback provided above can be addressed through the adoption of many
      of the recommendations made previously in this report including:

            1.    Adopting and implementing the stakeholder engagement principles, particularly focusing on
                  openness, transparency, and systematically explaining the rationale for decisions, can go a long
                  way to addressing trust issues over time. It may be that the perception that ESA is not listening
                  is partially a function of not communicating back to stakeholders that while their advice was
                  seriously considered, an alternative decision needed to be taken (and why). A very good model
                  for communicating decisions can be found in the practices of regulators like the Ontario Energy
                  Board who present their decisions with reasons in writing, including a considered discussion
                  of the stakeholder views.
            2.    Adopting stakeholder engagement best practices, particularly around good planning, will also
                  address a number of issues identified above. Good planning will ensure that meaningful agendas
                  will be developed and stakeholders will be asked clear questions for advice. For example, in some
                  cases, all parts of a decision may be up for discussion, while in others, given ESA’s regulatory role,
                  input may be limited to parts of a decision.
            3.    As identified previously, there is a skill to chairing meetings, and these skills are particularly
                  necessary when views are passionate and strongly held. We have earlier recommended that
                  optional training be made available to all Council Chairs to sharpen there meeting management
                  and facilitation skills as required.
            4.    Adopting concise advisory council terms of reference that clearly articulate the roles of Advistory Councils
                  and the ECRA Board, the roles of advisory council members, and agreed to norms of behaviour.
            5.    Adopting recommendations on stakeholder engagement resourcing will help to ensure that the
                  necessary skills are in place to support best stakeholder engagement practices on the Councils.


            Recommendation C2:
            It is recommended that good communication practices be continued and actions demonstrating that
            ESA takes contractor advice seriously into consideration before decisions are made be implemented
            to begin to rebuild trust between ESA and its stakeholders
                                                                                                                                 25

      The issue of trust, however, is more fundamental as it is an essential element of any stakeholder relationship.
      In general, trust often becomes an issue in stakeholder engagement when parties don’t feel their counterparts
      are being honest or don’t have the other party’s best interest at heart. The trust issue in this case could be
      partly related and complicated by the fact that ESA is both a regulator and a safety organization that wants
      to partner with contractors (the organizations it regulates) to further the goal of electrical safety. In some
      cases, as a regulator, ESA must make decisions in the public interest that may be contrary to contractor interests.
      While in other cases, as an advocate of electrical public safety, ESA’s decisions may be directly aligned with
      contractor interests Regardless of the root cause of this lack of trust among some contractors, trust can

Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      only be regained by continued dialogue, good communication, and actions demonstrating that ESA takes
      contractor advice seriously into consideration when making its decisions.
      It is important to note that from an organizational and functional reporting perspective, there is nothing
      fundamentally wrong with CoAC's position in the organization given that there are four other Advistory
      Councils and the ECRA Board that are performing very effectively within the same construct. As a result, it
      would appear that the present reporting and accountability structure is appropriate.


            Recommendation C3:
            It is recommended that ESA Management take appropriate steps to effect the necessary changes so
            that trust is restored and the Council becomes effective. If issues are unable to be resolved, they should
            be escalated to the Regulatory Affairs Committee (RAC) of the Board for consideration and resolution.


      With respect to organization structure, since this Council reports directly to ESA Management, the responsibility
      and accountability for ensuring the effectiveness of the Council (including addressing any issues that may
      result in an ineffective stakeholder relationship) is the responsibility of ESA management and ultimately the
      CEO. If this or any Council is not performing effectively, then it becomes the responsibility of Management
      to effect the necessary changes so that trust is restored and the Council is transformed into an entity that
      provides effective advice to management, as well as successfully representing stakeholder interests.
      There are many ways to address and resolve identified concerns - direct action by the CEO or by an
      appointed representative of Management, use of a Task Force or Working Group (which could include
      representation by independent respected members of the stakeholder community, the engagement of a
      stakeholder relations expert or expert mediator, etc.). However, stakeholder engagement can only be
      successful if generally understood norms of behaviour are practiced by all participants and all participants are
      willing to work towards a mutually beneficial solution.
      If ESA Management, for whatever reason, is unable to resolve specific Council related issues in a timely
      manner or fails to undertake appropriate action to address identified concerns, issues should be escalated
      to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Board (RAC) as the RAC has responsibility for stakeholder engagement
      under ESA’s governance structure.


      6.2 Electrical Contractor Registration Agency (ECRA) Board
      The provincial government, through Bill 70, provided ESA with the authority to establish and enforce
      province-wide licensing of electrical contractors and master electricians. The ECRA Board forms part of the
      governance structure for this activity. ECRA’s mandate as defined in its Charter includes making recommen-
      dations on matters relating to the licensing of Contractors and Master Electricians and also for establishing
      the Master Examining Board and overseeing the administration of the Master Electrician License Examination.
      ECRA was structured following a balanced interest model, such that no one single interest group has a
      majority position. Its members include representatives from the electrical contracting industry, municipalities,
      consumers, utility contractors, and the Electrical Safety Authority. Unlike other ESA Advistory Councils and the
      ECRA Board whose advice and recommendations are provided to ESA’s CEO and senior management,
      ECRA’s recommendations are provided to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of ESA’s Board of Directors.
                                                                                                                          26
      When asked about what was not working so well in the current ECRA structure, those interviewed provided
      the following responses:

            • Most interviewees felt strongly that the ECRA Board is not working well.
            • Some electrical contractors interviewed believed that they were misled when province-wide electrical
              contractor licensing was introduced and moved under ESA. These interviewees believed that ECRA
              was to be established following a self-regulating model similar to the engineering profession. Further,




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
these interviewees believed that the ECRA Board must have decision making authority as opposed to being an
Advisory Council to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Board of Directors if province-wide licensing is to
move forward.
            • Some contractor and non-contractor interviewees, however, believed that the ECRA Board, reporting
              to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Board of Directors could work well. They explained that
              the contractor community was well represented on ECRA, the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the
              Board, and on ESA’s Board of Directors.
            • Still others suggested that certain factions within the Board should not be allowed to frustrate the
              important work of province-wide licensing and perhaps an independent Chair could help to advance
              the work of the group.
            • Some electrical contractors interviewed believed that ESA was not qualified to oversee contractor
              licensing as ESA management does not have electrical contracting expertise.

      In response to specific questions related to improving ECRA Board effectiveness:

            • Some contractor interviewees suggested that the work associated with province wide electrical
              contracting could not proceed until issues associated with the governance model were addressed.
            • Others felt that areas of disagreement with respect to governance needed to be put aside (and
              addressed separately) and suggested a Facilitator be engaged to Chair the ECRA Board meetings
              over the transition period so that the important work associated with province wide licensing can
              move forward.
            • It was suggested by some contractor interviewees that ESA needs to do much more in seeking
              advice from ECRA Board members on important decisions and a number of examples were
              provided (e.g., seeking input on criteria for the Registrar position)
            • It was suggested that one way to build trust between the contractors and ESA is to have an
              ombudsman or “go to” person made available. This might facilitate more relationship building
              and communication in between the formal meetings.

      Interviewees from the ECRA Board and contractor community expressed significant disagreement on the
      governance structure associated with province wide licensing. A number of interviewees expressed the view
      that they had supported and promoted province-wide licensing based on the understanding that it would be
      self-regulating as opposed to be regulated by ESA and the current advisory nature of the ECRA Board (as
      opposed to decision making) was untenable.
      Other interviewees expressed the view that the current governance structure provided the contractor community
      with adequate opportunity for input. The current governance structure, it was explained, includes contractor
      representatives on the ECRA Board, contractor representatives on the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the
      Board of Directors, and contractor representation on the ESA Board of Directors. Some interviewees
      expressed the view that while the governance issue was critically important, it should be addressed in parallel,
      allowing the important work of province-wide licensing to move forward for the benefit of electrical safety
      and contractors. All interviewees expressed the view that ECRA Board meetings are dysfunctional and change
      was required.
      As noted previously, the scope of this report is limited to ESA’s stakeholder engagement practice in the
      context of the existing regulatory framework and therefore we take as a given the existing province wide
      contractor licensing governance structure and our following recommendations focus on the stakeholder               27
      engagement dimension of this issue.


            Recommendation E1:
            It is recommended that ECRA Board members continue to provide their advice directly to the
            Regulatory Affairs Committee of the Board.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      First, unlike other ESA Advisory Councils, the ECRA Board provides its advice directly to the Regulatory Affairs
      Committee of the Board of Directors. Providing advice directly to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the
      Board of Directors (which includes contractors) provides an important check that the recommendations and
      advice of ECRA members will be carefully considered in decision making and this is prudent given the view
      of some ECRA contractor members that they do not trust ESA.


            Recommendation E2:
            It is recommended that the (RAC) of the Board take appropriate steps to effect the necessary changes
            so that trust is restored and ECRA becomes an effective stakeholder engagement mechanism.


      Second, with respect to organizational structure, there is no fundamental reason why ECRA, similar to other
      Advistory Councils and the ECRA Board, cannot function as an effective body. However, given that ECRA
      reports directly to RAC, if ECRA is experiencing insurmountable challenges of working effectively (which is the
      case today), it becomes the responsibility of the RAC Chair and Committee to assist in resolving the issues
      and to attempt to transform the Council into a fully effective organization for delivering its mandate.


            Recommendation E3
            It is recommended that the RAC, in consultation with ECRA members, explore best practice options
            for resolving issues such as engaging a qualified mediator to support the resolution of current issues,
            providing the Chair with the ability to engage an independent facilitator for expert support when
            needed to assist the group in constructively working through contentious issues, or other best practices.


      From a stakeholder engagement best practice perspective, and given the long-standing nature of this conflict
      and its resultant adverse effects on the work of ECRA, there are a number of options that the RAC could
      consider and explore with the ECRA members including:

            • Engaging a mediator to help the parties communicate, clarify positions, generate proposals, and
              actively work to find mutually acceptable resolution if possible. However, a mediator should only be
              engaged if there is ability and willingness to resolve issues of contention and it is our understanding
              that at least one of the issues of contention, self regulation, is outside of ESA’s decision making
              authority. Nevertheless, there may be other issues that are within ESA’s authority related to provincial
              licensing and these issues could be constructively explored with the support of mediation if the
              parties agree to this process.
            • Providing the Chair with the ability to engage the support of an independent qualified facilitator
              to help him/her work through any of the more contentious issues that may arise on ECRA from
              time-to-time going forward. An independent facilitator can help ensure the process focuses on the
              matter at hand, that members adhere to understood norms, and can unload the Chair of meeting
              management; freeing him or her up to more actively participate in the dialogue.




                                                                                                                         28




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
Appendix A: ESA Regulations

      I. Electricity Act, 1998
      The Electrical Safety Authority was introduced in Ontario following changes associated with the restructuring
      of the Ontario electrical industry. The restructuring of the provincial utility (Ontario Hydro) heightened the
      requirement to introduce a business that would be responsible for public electrical safety in Ontario.
      The Electrical Safety Authority administers public electrical safety, and the business operates as a stand-alone,
      not-for-profit corporation following the Ministry of Small Business and Consumer Services delegated admin-
      istrative authority model which transfers the administration of part VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998 and its
      regulations to ESA. ESA is responsible to an independent Board of Directors and operates as a Delegated
      Administrative Authority under the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 and an
      Administrative Agreement with the Ministry of Small Business and Consumer Services. Delegated responsi-
      bility includes enforcement of the Electricity Act 1998 and Regulations including the administration of the
      Ontario Electrical Safety Code (Reg. 164/99), Licensing of Electrical Contractors and Master Electricians
      (Reg. 570/05), Electrical Distribution Safety (Reg. 22/04), and Product Safety (Reg. 438/07).

      II. Ontario Regulation 164/99 (Ontario Electrical Safety Code)
      Ontario Regulation 164/99 adopts, by reference, the Canadian Electrical Code together with specific Ontario
      amendments and is referred to as the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC).
      Ontario residents and workers are protected from potential electrical hazards under Ontario Regulation
      164/99, the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC). This Code defines the standards for safe electrical products
      and installations in Ontario, and when followed protects the public, workers, contractors and business owners.
      The Ontario Electrical Safety Code is primarily a technical document and it is prescriptive in approach. The
      OESC describes the standards for electrical installations in detail.
      The OESC is based on the Canadian Electrical Code, which is developed through the efforts of a number of
      committees representing electrical expertise and knowledge from across Canada and the U.S. The Ontario
      Electrical Safety Code is law in Ontario, and as such defines the legal requirements for safe electrical
      installations and products/equipment in Ontario. To ensure that the Code reflects changes in technologies,
      and responds to reports of electrical incidents, the Code is updated every three years. Changes to the Code
      are documented on an ongoing basis and are captured in Ontario Electrical Safety Code Bulletins.
      ESA will be introducing the 24th Edition of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code in the spring of 2009. This
      edition of the OESC is the first update in 7 years, and introduces 255 changes to reflect changes from both
      the Canadian Electrical Code and the Ontario amendments.

      III. Ontario Regulation 22/04 (Electrical Distribution Safety)
      Ontario Regulation 22/04 - Electrical Distribution Safety establishes objective based electrical safety requirements
      for the design, construction, and maintenance of electrical distribution systems owned by licensed distributors.
      The Electrical Safety Authority worked with affected stakeholders and working group members to produce
      guidelines to facilitate implementation of the Electrical Distribution Safety Regulation. The guidelines provided
      clarification for local distribution companies and facilitated compliance with these requirements. ESA made a
                                                                                                                             29
      commitment to stakeholders that it would lcontinue to evaluate and revise the guidelines as required to help
      the industry maintain safety standards. The Utility Advisory Council was created to facilitate this process.

      IV. Ontario Regulation 570/05 (Provincial Electrical Contractor Licensing)
      Since 2001, ESA together with provincial and municipal government representatives worked in consultation
      with an Industry Steering Committee on Provincial Licensing of Electrical Contractors to develop a provincial
      licensing system to replace the inconsistent patchwork of municipal electrical contractor licensing requirements
      throughout the province with a uniform provincial system. The Steering Committee included representatives


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      from the Ontario Electrical League (OEL), the Electrical Contractor Association of Ontario (ECAO) and the
      ESA. The aim of the provincial regime was to replace a patchwork of municipal licensing.
      The provincial system was created to deal with the licensing of and enforcement for electrical contractors and
      master electricians. Under the new system, all electrical contractors were to be licensed with ESA by January
      1, 2007, and have at least one master electrician who would plan and supervise electrical work. The new
      system was to be administered by the ESA. In November, 2005 a uniform provincial system was established
      through Ontario Regulation 570/05 to license electrical contractors and master electricians. There was a one
      year transition period which started on January 1, 2006. On March 17, 2006, the Electrical Contractors
      Association of Ontario officially transferred The Electrical Contractor Registration Agency to ESA.
      ESA focuses its attention on managing the ongoing licensing effort, enforcing licensing requirements,
      introducing a province-wide public awareness campaign, and assessing opportunities to address licensing
      issues associated with un-served electrical markets (Annual Report).

      V. Ontario Regulation 438/08 (Product Safety)
      On August 1, 2007 the Ministry of Government Services filed Ontario Regulation 438/07 made under Part
      VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998 to improve the province’s ability to respond to unsafe electrical products in
      Ontario’s marketplace. This regulation streamlines the approval and revocation processes for electrical
      products and equipment, expands mandatory reporting requirements for electrical incidents and accidents,
      establishes a process for notifying customers and orders remedial action when a product is deemed
      hazardous. ESA and its stakeholders developed operational guidelines to support the regulation which was
      implemented in a phased approach.
      In addition to these regulations, the ESA also administers two appeals regulations: Ontario Regulation 3/05,
      Review and Appeals of Orders Issued by the Electrical Safety Authority, and Ontario Regulation 122/06,
      Appeal of Director’s Decision on Licences under Part VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998.




                                                                                                                        30




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
Appendix B: Interview List
      Ontario Provincial Code Council
      Eric Randsalu, Fire Protection Engineer E.I.T., Office of the Fire Marshal
      Brian Savaria, Eaton Electrical Canada

      Utility Advisory Council
      Neil Sandford, Chair of UAC, Vice President – Distribution Utility Services, AESI
      Brian McMillan, Vice President, Greater Sudbury Utilities
      John Mattinson, President, Orillia Power
      John Savage, Senior Policy Advisor, Ministry of Energy

      Consumers Advisory Council
      Dick Vosburgh
      Joan Pajunen

      Industry Advisory Council
      Joseph Neu – Chair of IAC, member of UAC, Vice President, Electro Federation Canada

      Contractor Advisory Council
      Richard Charron – Chair of COAC, Anew Electrical Contracting Ltd
      Sandy Ragno, Solo Electric
      Dave Ackison, President, Ackison Electric (Ontario Electrical League)
       *also representative on ECRA
      Mary Ingram-Haigh, President, Ontario Electrical League
       *also representative on ECRA
      Eryl Roberts, Executive Vice-President (ECAO)
       *also representative on ECRA

      Electrical Contractor Registration Agency Board
      Glenn Carr- ECRA Chair, Campbell and Kennedy Electric Ltd. (ECAO)
      Don Gosen – ECRA Vice Chair, President (Ontario Electrical League)/ Gosen Electric Limited
      Jamie Hinton, Manager, Business Licensing & Charity Gaming, City of Mississauga, AMCTO
      Namby Vithiananthan, Conelco
      John Buchanan, Consumer Representative

      Other Stakeholders
      Robert J Pollock , Director, Market & Conformity Surveillance, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
       *participated in product approvals stakeholder engagement process
      Harry Diemer, President & Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Safety Authority
      Scott McKayManager, Strategic Alliances, Industrial Accident Prevention Association (IAPA)
      Mike Reiser, Engineering Consultant, Ministry of Labour                                                          31

      ESA Staff
      Jenifer Robertson, General Manager – Utility Regulation
      Maria Iafano, Regulatory Affairs Analyst
      Scott Saint, VP and Chief Operating Officer
      Peter Marcucci, VP Regulatory Affairs
      Ron Schertzer, VP of Programs and Customer Service
      Ralph Vanhaeren, Region Manager – Central Region


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
Appendix C: Overview of ESA Advisory Councils and ECRA Board

      Industry Advisory Council
      Mandate and Role
      The mandate of the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) is to advise the Chief Executive Officer and division
      leaders on public electric policy and strategy. Specifically, the IAC is responsible for:

            • Identifying and proactively bringing forward safety issues;
            • Collaborating in the formulation of policy and strategy within the scope of regulations
              under the Electricity Act and assessing results; and
            • Providing feedback from and facilitating communications with industry.

      The IAC is encouraged to take into consideration all interests of the sector stakeholders and to seek a balance
      between the need to ensure continued protection of the public interest through maintaining public safety
      standards while supporting continued industrial expansion.

      Structure and Membership
      The membership of the IAC is outlined below:

      STAKEHOLDERS                                                                          Min                    Max
      Commercial (office, retail)                                                             1                        1
      Large Industrial                                                                        1                        2
      Rental/Owned – Multi-residential                                                        1                        1
      Single Family Residential (home builder)                                                1                        1
      Institutional (school, hospital)                                                        1                        1
      Municipal (street and traffic lighting)                                                 1                        1
      Design Engineers/Consultants                                                            1                        1
      Equipment Manufacturers                                                                 1                        1
      Electrical Wholesale Distributor                                                        1                        1
      Industrial Accident Prevention Association                                              1                        1
      Insurance                                                                               1                        1
      Certification Agencies                                                                  1                        1
      Utilities, Electricity Distributors Association                                         1                        2
      Contractor Representative                                                               1                        1


      IAC members are invited by the CEO to sit on the Council with advice of appropriate industry officials.
      Vacancies are to be filled by due process and the appropriate balance of interests is to be maintained. Terms
      of membership are for 3 years.                                                                                       32
      The IAC meets twice annually with additional meetings called at the discretion of the Chair or the CEO.

      Decision making
      IAC decision making is by consensus, giving appropriate consideration to ESA operating principles. Decisions
      are made by majority vote of the IAC. The votes are captured in the minutes and objections and abstentions
      are included if requested by council members.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      The CEO provides the link between the IAC and the Board and ensures that the IAC’s views are communicated
      for consideration by the Board in its decision making process.

      Ontario Provincial Code Council
      Mandate and Role
      The Ontario Provincial Code Council acts as an advisory body in making recommendations and for providing
      comment from the electrical industry on new proposal or revisions to the Electrical Safety Code. Specifically
      the Council will:

            • Consider all formal proposals or requests for revision of, or Amendment to, the Electrical Safety
              Code;
            • Recommend for or against the adoption of such revisions or amendments;
            • Comment and advise on the form and wording of such revisions or amendments; and
            • Comment and advise on the form and arrangement of the Code.

      The Council has no authority over the final adoption of any revision or amendment since this responsibility
      is vested with ESA and the Lieutenant governor in Council.

      Structure and Membership

      Stakeholder                                                                           Min                    Max
      Regulators/Utilities/Inspectors                                                         5                        7
      Owner/Operator/Producer                                                                 5                        9
      General Interest                                                                        5                        9


      Members are appointed for a term of up to three years and may serve additional terms if the association
      they represent reappoints the individual for another term. There is a minimum of one formal meeting each
      year with other meetings convened as required. The Council or Chair may appoint subcommittees as
      required for specific purposes. These subcommittees may include non-members of the Council.

      Decision making
      A motion is carried with 60% of the total voting membership.

      Utility Advisory Council
      Mandate and Role
      The Utility Advisory Council (UAC) acts as an advisory body in making recommendations to ESA and for
      providing comments from the electrical distribution industry and other stakeholders on new proposals or
      revisions to the Electrical Distribution Safety Regulation. Specifically, the UAC provides a forum:

            • To consider the framework for the implementation of the Electrical Safety Regulation;
            • To provide advice to ESA regarding the administration, development and amendment to the                      33
              Electrical Safety Regulation;
            • To facilitate and assist ESA in its efforts to communicate with the Electrical Distribution sector;
            • To advise ESA on its regulatory functions pertaining to electrical safety distribution and on ways
              it can improve its business services if offers to the electrical distribution industry;
            • To advise ESA in the formulation of policy and strategy and to assess results; and
            • To identify opportunities to improve electrical safety.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Structure and Membership
      The UAC has a balanced representation of industry stakeholders with half the members representing
      distribution companies and the balance representing general interests (i.e. manufacturers, contractors, labour
      and consumer groups) and regulatory interests:

      STAKEHOLDER                                                                           MIN                    MAX
      Licensed Distribution Companies/Owner/Operator                                          9                        13
      General Interest                                                                        6                        8
      Government / Regulatory                                                                 3                        5


      Nominations for membership will generally be obtained through appointments by the various provincial
      associations or other organizations that represent the viewpoints of parties affected by the Electrical
      Distribution Safety Regulations. The CEO may also invite individuals to stand for membership. UAC members
      will serve two year repeatable terms. The UAC will meet a minimum of three formal meetings per year and
      other meetings shall be convened as required.

      Decision making
      The UAC operates on a consensus-based process. A quorum consists of two-thirds of the voting membership.
      Recommendations that are voted on are recorded in the minutes. Objections and abstentions will be
      recorded at the request of Council members. The UAC may make recommendations by consensus or
      approved motion to ESA’s CEO or the appropriate VP for consideration or action; to be tabled at the next ESA
      Board meeting; or to be considered by other agencies or bodies ( e.g. government). The Board’s response
      or action is reported to the UAC at its next meeting.

      Contractor Advisory Council
      Mandate and Role
      The Contractor Advisory Council (CoAC) represents the interests of the electrical contracting industries it both
      regulates and serves. The role of the CoAC is to work in partnership with ESA to advise in the formulation of
      policy and strategy, to assess results and to advise ESA operating executive and the CEO. Specifically the
      CoAC provides a forum for the electrical contracting industry to provide:

            • advice to ESA regarding ways ESA can improve its contractor related business services;
            • advice to ESA regarding the way ESA carries on its regulatory functions pertaining to electrical
              contractors (including licensing and trade certification);
            • associations (and their members) an opportunity to communicate with ESA;
            • ESA with input around proposed ESA initiatives and to validate the effectiveness of existing services;
            • input into new ESA programs before they are implemented;
            • Input in order to identify and proactively bring forward safety issues;
            • collaboration in the formulation of policy and strategy within the scope of regulations under the Act;
            • feedback to assist ESA in assessing results;
                                                                                                                            34
            • feedback from the electrical contracting industry across Ontario and facilitate ongoing communications;
            • A forum to engage qualified electrical contractors in the delivery of public electrical safety in Ontario:
            • Identification of industry subject experts to fill ESA corporate and council positions; and
            • As required, identification of Code or technical issues or concerns for referral to the Ontario
              Provincial Code Council for consideration.




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Structure and Membership
      The CoAC tries to achieve a balance within the electrical contracting industry across association members,
      industry segment and geographic location.

      STAKEHOLDER                                                                                                  #
      Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, Executive VP                                                      1
      Ontario Electrical League, President                                                                             1
      Ontario Electrical League, Contractor Committee Chair                                                            1
      Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, Chair of Industry Standards                                       1
      Multi-Residential (high rise)                                                                                    1
      Single Family Residential (new construction)                                                                     2
      High Voltage/Utility                                                                                             1
      Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Maintenance                                                           4-5


      Contracting industry associations will nominate members to the CoAC. The CEO may nominate individuals outside
      of associations in consultation with the ECAO and the OEL. Members are selected for two year repeatable terms.
      The CoAC will generally meet a minimum of six times annually with additional meeting being convened as required.

      Decision making
      The CoAC operates on a consensus-based process. All Council members may vote on recommendations
      with the exception of the ECAO EVP and the OEL President. Recommendations can be made with a majority
      vote of the Council. All votes are recorded in the minutes and objections and abstentions may be included
      at the request of Council members. The CoAC may by consensus or approved motion make recommendations
      or resolutions to ESA’s CEO of the appropriate VP for consideration or action; to be tabled at the next Board
      meeting: or to be considered by other agencies or bodies (e.g. government). The Board’s response or action
      is to be reported to the CoAC by the next CoAC meeting.

      Consumer Advisory Council
      Mandate and Role
      The proposed terms of reference (September 17, 2008) for the Consumer Advisory Council is provided
      below. The mandate of the CAC is to represent the Ontario public by providing advice and guidance on
      matters of electrical safety to support Senior Management in achieving ESA’s mission and vision. CAC
      members are interested in making a notable impact on the successful development and implementation of
      ESA’s five year strategic direction by ensuring ESA receives the best possible advice and guidance at the front-
      end to enhance its safety impact in Ontario. Specifically, the Council objectives are:

            • To provide guidance and recommendation to ESA in meeting its public safety mandate.
            • To provide ESA with direct end-use (consumer) advice and guidance, and to recommend areas
              requiring additional consumer input.
            • To provide advice and guidance on any aspect of ESA’s business that impacts consumers of
                                                                                                                           35
              electricity, electrical products, other safety services/issues, including ESA’s processes that involve
              consumer presence.
            • To represent changing consumer interests linked to ESA’s strategic direction, and the modification
              of products/services.
            • To contribute a basic societal perspective to ESA decision-making (support for consumer likeliness
              related to cost-benefit).
            • To provide ongoing advice on how ESA can increase public awareness of electrical safety for
              consideration at ESA’s strategic planning session.


Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Structure and Membership
      Council members will be acquired from broader consumer, safety and public interest segments that use
      electricity, safety services, electrical products, etc. Council is to be comprised of 12 to 15 members with the
      following composition:

      Stakeholder                                                                                                  #
      Consumer interest and policy                                                                                3-4
      Consumer protection/legal                                                                                        1
      Human behaviour/psychology                                                                                       1
      Labour/worker safety                                                                                        2-3
      Municipal/community association                                                                             1-2
      Health (medical expertise) and safety                                                                            2
      Insurance industry                                                                                               1
      Education/training experts                                                                                       1


      CAC members serve for a 3 year term with an option to renew dictated by a peer review. The Council Chair
      will be selected through a Council voting process.

      Decision making
      Action items will be communicated with other business leaders through the VP-Programs and Customer
      Service of Director of Communications and will be brought forward for update at the next meeting or in the
      time requested by Council members.

      ECRA Board
      Mandate and Role
      The Electrical Contractor Registration Agency (ECRA Board) was reconstituted under the Electrical Safety
      Authority. Its mandate is to seek feedback, monitor, review and provide advice and recommendations to the
      ESA on matters relating to licensing, examination, registration and certification of persons or businesses for
      different types of electrical work throughout the province of Ontario. Specifically, the Board shall:

            • Monitor and review the application (Master Electrician or Electrical Contractor), implementation,
              enforcement of these requirements and qualifications;
            • Identify and make recommendations to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the ESA Board to
              address problems or issues encountered by the public, consumers, electrical contractors, Master
              Electricians, applicants, municipalities, government or other stakeholders associated with the
              implementation, application, enforcement of these requirements; and
            • Identify opportunities and make recommendations to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the ESA
              Board that would continue to improve the administration, application and enforcement of licensing,
              increase and improve safety and consumer protection, enhance the competitiveness and effectiveness
              of the industry and encourage industry to responsibly enhance electrical safety.
                                                                                                                           36




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      Structure and Membership
      The ECRA Board is structured with ten members from the following representative bodies:

      STAKEHOLDER                                                                           MIN                    MAX
      Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario                                                                    2
      Ontario Electrical league Contractors Committee                                                                  2
      Utility Contractors Association of Ontario                                                                       1
      Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario                                              2
      Electrical Safety Authority                                                                                      2
      Consumers Advisory Council, ESA                                                                                  1


      Members are appointed for a period of up to three years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms.
      As vacancies arise, the constituent representative body appoints the new respective members. The Chair of
      the Board must be a representative of a licensed Electrical Contractor. ECRA members represent the views
      of the “Representative Parties” they represent.

      Decision Making
      A quorum consists of a majority of ECRA Board members and must include at least 1 representative from
      the OEL, ECAO and the ESA. A motion is considered approved if at least two-thirds of the votes are affirmative.
      Dissenting Board members may request that their vote and rationale be recorded in the minutes.
      Recommendations go directly to the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the ESA Board.




                                                                                                                           37




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
Appendix D: Stakeholder Engagement Best Practices
      The following public and private organizations have been identified as demonstrating many of the characteristics
      of best practice as identified through stakeholder engagement guides and reference manuals.
      Conoco Phillips Canada
      www.conocophillips.ca

      Suncor
      www.suncor.com

      PJM Interconnection
      www.pjm.com/index.jsp

      Electrical Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
      www.ercot.com

      Ontario Energy Board
      http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca

      Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator
      www.ieso.com

      California Public Utilities Commission
      www.cpuc.ca.gov

      Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
      www.ferc.gov

      Ontario Power Authority
      www.powerauthority.on.ca

      Nuclear Waste Management Organization
      www.nwmo.ca




                                                                                                                         38




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
Appendix E: Generic ESA Advisory Council Terms of Reference

      Introduction
      The purpose of this document is to provide terms of reference for the ________ Advisory Council that will
      provide advice and recommendations to ESA’s CEO and senior management. Its intent is to provide
      pragmatic guidelines to members of the Council and ESA staff. However, during the course of fulfilling its
      mandate, the Council may encounter circumstances that are not covered in these terms of reference. In
      these instances, since this Council reports directly to ESA Management, the responsibility and accountability
      for addressing concerns and ensuring the effectiveness of the Council (including addressing any issues that
      may result in an ineffective stakeholder relationship) is the responsibility of ESA management and ultimately
      the CEO to consult with affected Council members and to use his or her best judgment as to how best to
      address such circumstances.

      Purpose of the Advisory Council:
      The Advisory Council is a forum for its members to be informed of ESA’s activities and to provide advice to
      ESA’s CEO and senior management on decisions that have a material affect on electrical safety in Ontario
      and any other electrical safety related matter of concern to stakeholders.

      Advisory Council Composition, Appointment, and Membership Term
      Council members will consist of representatives of organizations and individuals representing the following
      constituencies:

            − xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
            − The ESA will appoint one or more individuals from its senior management team to sit on the
              Advisory Council to ensure direct and ongoing liaison with Council members.

      Members of, or organizations representing, each constituency identified above may express interest and/or
      nominate qualified nominees from which an ESA Committee will appoint members. Council members will
      be selected on the basis of their knowledge and experience. Nominees should have a breadth of knowledge
      about both electrical safety and the constituency they represent. Council members will be appointed for two
      year terms and may serve up to three consecutive terms. Membership terms will be staggered to provide
      continuity to the Council. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the purpose of implementing staggered
      membership terms, the CEO may extend the term of current Council members.

      Leadership of the Stakeholder Advisory Council
      There are two specific leadership roles on the Council, the Chair and the Vice Chair. The primary roles of the
      Chair and Vice Chair are to work in consultation with ESA on agenda creation and finalization, be the primary
      liaison with ESA between Council meetings, support post meeting administration, and preside over Council
      meetings. Both the Chair and Vice Chair will be supported in their work by a Secretary to the Council
      appointed by the ESA. The Chair and Vice Chair will be elected by the Council for a term of one year. The
      role of the Secretary is to support the Chair, Vice Chair, in the coordination and administration of meetings
      and other activities of the Council and act as the liaison with the ESA in the event that the ESA Council
      member is absent from a meeting.
                                                                                                                       39
      Organization and Administration of Advisory Council Meetings
      A minimum of three meetings of the Council will be pre-scheduled for the calendar year and additional meetings
      may be called by the Chair as required. Should a meeting not be required, the Secretary will notify members
      in advance of the scheduled meeting. It is the responsibility of the Chair and Vice-Chair, together with the
      ESA Secretary and Council member, to set the agenda for each meeting at a minimum three weeks in
      advance of each meeting. Matters to be addressed at the Council meeting come primarily from the published




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review
      agenda although members may identify additional issues during the new business portion of the meeting
      agenda. The Council Secretary shall distribute meeting agendas and related support materials to Advisory
      Council members at a minimum 2 weeks in advance of each meeting. This information will also be posted
      on the ESA’s web site.

      Meeting Authority, Normal Order of Business, and Post Meeting Administration
      The Chair shall preside over all meetings and ensure that the process is being run fairly and efficiently,
      without advantage to a particular party or interest, maintaining focus on the matter at hand and adhering to
      the rules and understood meeting norms. Council meetings will be open to any individual wishing to attend
      the meeting but he or she may only address the meeting with the permission of the Chair.
      Advisory Council members do not vote or present motions that are “carried” or “defeated” in the traditional
      sense. Rather, individual members of the Council are formally “polled” on topics/issues as required to
      formally register their views on a topic together with the rationale for their views and in this manner individual
      members clearly communicate their input to ESA. Council members may also provide supplementary
      comments in writing to support their views. These written comments are to be provided to the Secretary with
      3 business days after the meeting in order that they can form part of the meeting record.
      The Council Secretary shall be responsible for capturing the meeting minutes and will work with the Chair
      and Vice Chair to ensure that draft minutes are completed and distributed to members within 2 weeks of
      the meeting along with any written submissions received from members. Members will have one week to
      review the minutes and submit any corrections to the Secretary. The Chair, and Vice Chair will finalize the
      minutes with the Secretary and the Secretary will provide the minutes and related submissions to the ESA’s
      CEO and senior management team and post the minutes on the ESA’s web site.

      Advisory Council Working Groups
      The Council may establish a Working Group comprised of some of its members for matters determined to
      require more detailed consideration and deliberation than can occur at a regular Council meeting. Working
      Groups will be supported by the ESA and ESA may appoint subject matter experts to support Working Groups
      as required. Meetings of Working Groups shall be open to any individual wishing to attend but members of
      the Working Group are limited to the Council. Members of the Working Group will report their progress to
      the Council and Working Group minutes and materials considered by the Working Group will be posted on
      the ESA web site.

      Advisory Council Member Expenses
      Members residing outside of the Greater Toronto Area may be reimbursed for reasonable travel and accom-
      modation expenses they may incur in attending meetings as outlined in ESA’s stakeholder expense policy.
      Members from the not-for-profit sector may be reimbursed for time as outlined in ESA’s stakeholder expense
      policy. Members may waive their entitlement to recover these expenses.




                                                                                                                           40




Singer & Watts Ltd.   February 12, 2009   DRAFT REPORT   • Electrical Safety Authority Stakeholder Engagement Review

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:152
posted:9/10/2010
language:English
pages:42
Description: Stakeholder Engagement Review Layout