draft agenda - caslpotest.caslpo.com/sites/default/uploads/files/mtg_en... · draft agenda council...

Attachment Provided CASLPO•OAOO version 1

DRAFT AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING DATE Friday June 9, ‘17 SCHEDULED

TIME9:30am-3:45pm

LOCATION Meissner Fishbein Room, Suite 5055, CASLPO

FACE-TO-FACE

TELECONFERENCE* CONFERENCE ID

NOTE

No SUBJECT DOC ACTION

01 Adoption of Agenda Decision

02 Declaration of conflict of interest

03 Approval of Council Minutes of March 3, 2017 Decision

04 Business arising from minutes Discussion 05 President’s Remarks Discussion 05.1 Evaluation of March 3, 2017 Council Meeting Information

06 Registrar’s Report Information

06.1 Results of Council Professional Member Elections Districts 1 and 3 Information

06.2 Council Professional Member By-Election Schedule Decision

06.3 Professional Conduct Department Information

Break 10:45am – 11:00am

07 Strategic Plan 2015-18 Update Information

08 2nd Quarter 2016-17 Financial Report Information

09 Risk Management Report (Risk Register and Check-list; For Information Only) Decision

10 Proposed By-Law Revisions: Fee Changes Decision

10.1 Memo re Circulation Results of Proposed Amendments to By-Laws related to Fees for Council

10.2 1.1 Survey distributed to members and stakeholders

Attachment Provided CASLPO•OAOO version 1

10.3 1.2 Analysis of the survey responses by proposal for Council

10.4 1.3 Letter re CASLPO fee increases

10.5 1.4 CASLPO Response re proposed fee increase

10.6 1.5 Recommended revisions to the proposed amendments to the Fees By-Laws for Council

10.7 1.6 Financial Forecast based on revised proposals for Council

11 Registrar’s Performance Review: 2016-17 [In-Camera] Discussion

Lunch 12:00 – 1:00pm

12 Election of Officers and Executive Committee Decision

13 FHRCO Update Information

14 Bill 87 Update Information

15 CAASPR Update Information

16 Suitability to Register Decision

17 Council Education Session Discussion

18

Committee Reports a) Executive b) Registration c) Quality Assurance d) ICRC e) Discipline f) Finance g) SLP PAC h) AUD PAC**; i) Fitness To Practice*j) Patient Relations

* No Report **To Follow

Information

19

Next meeting: Wednesday September 27, 2017 (Council Education Day) Location: Ontario Bar Association (OBA); Dinner Following20 Toronto Street, Toronto ON; Details to follow Thursday September 28, 2017 (Council Meeting) Location: CASLPO Office Meissner Fishbein Room

Information

20 Other Business Information

21 Meeting Duration Information

22 Adjournment Decision

CASLPO Council Meeting – March 3, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes as at March 16, 2017; lg

MINUTES

COUNCIL MEETING DATE Friday March 3, 2017 TIME 9:30am – 3:35pm

LOCATION CASLPO - Meissner Fishbein Room

PARTICIPANTS

D. Zelisko, President & Chair; V. Papaioannou, Vice‐President, AUD, J. Rowlands, Vice‐President, SLP, J. Anderson, V. Bucci, T. D’Agnillo, E. Fitzpatrick, R. Fisher, S. Singh Johal, B. Kroll, J. Maur, D. Mooney, M. Moussa‐Elaraby, S. Singbeil, V. Vaillancourt, S. Wilson, Y. Wyndham

REGRETS

R. Penny

OBSERVERS:

Mary Cook, Ontario Association of Speech‐Language Pathologists and Audiologists (OSLA), Zoe Soper, Policy Analyst, Regulatory Policy Unit, Health Workforce Planning and Regulatory Affairs Division, MOH‐LTC

STAFF

B. O’Riordan, Registrar; C. Bock; A. Carling, R. Cimerman, C. Myrie, P. Singh, L. Gibson (Scribe)

No SUBJECT ACTION/MOTION

01 Adoption of Agenda Joining the meeting as an observer for agenda item 16, FHRCO Update – Bill 87 Response – Amendments to RHPA, will be Zoe Soper, Policy Analyst, Regulatory Policy Unit, Health Workforce Planning and Regulatory Affairs Division. The agenda will be adjusted if needed to accommodate this.

M: Approve the agenda as presented.

Moved T. D’Agnillo Seconded V. Vaillancourt Carried

02 Declaration of Conflict of Interest

The Registrar noted that a generic guideline considering conflict of interest will be shared at the next meeting.

A: Share with Council Conflict of Interest guideline.

None.

03 Approval of Council Minutes of December 9, 2016.

M: Approve the Council minutes of December 9, 2016 as presented.

Moved V. Papaioannou Seconded B. Kroll Carried

04 Business arising from minutes

None.


05 President’s Remarks

The President welcomed new Council members Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Academic Member and James Maur, Public Appointed Member.

05.1 Evaluation of December 9, 2016 Council Meeting.

The President shared the previous Council meeting’s feedback. Council was thanked for their thoughtful input. It was noted that in response, today’s meeting was balanced with heavy items throughout and with breaks incorporated in both the morning and afternoon. Consensus was to update the governance manual on an ongoing basis.

06 Registrar’s Report

The Registrar summarized report highlights. The increase to registration renewals was noted. The Quality Assurance team was congratulated on the successful support of the Self-Assessment Tool process. The Clinic Regulation Working Group, comprised of 12 Colleges including CASLPO, after examining ‘Clinic Regulation’ to address a regulatory gap, on February 17, 2017, sent a letter to Hon. Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care requesting that the report be referred to HPRAC. That letter is pending a response. The response letter received from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the hearing aid products situation was shared with CASLPO Audiologist members. Consensus was that CASLPO should continue communication with WSIB to enable input ahead of decision making where possible. A suggestion was made for the Registration Department to track member resignations in terms of professional designation. The Registrar reported that from a public protection perspective, the Professional Conduct Department additionally includes activity on Cease and Desist matters (e.g. addressing instances of unauthorized persons (UAP) using the restricted titles of Audiologist or Speech-Language Pathologist. This is a growing area of activity.

A: Registration resignations will be tracked by professional designation.

07 Updates Re SAT 2017 and Peer Assessment

A.Carling summarized the report. It was noted in light of Bill 87, members were asked to read the position statement on relationships and boundaries. The membership was praised for actively clicking on the position statement; metrics indicated nearly full

A: Explore collecting future SAT metrics reflecting more detail.


participation. It was further noted that a significant portion of membership completed the SAT by the deadline. Future reporting of the Clinical SAT Submission Data for Members will be reported by profession, where possible, within budget.

08 Strategic Plan 2015-18 Update

C. Bock summarized the report noting the three key Strategic Plan goals with specific projects identified under each goal. New and in-progress project updates were identified. The Registrar reported that we are at the half-way point in the three year Plan. The current goals were very strong and there will be opportunity to review those and shift accordingly for the next cycle, 2018-21. The Patient Relations Committee will meet shortly to plan Public Awareness initiatives for Year three. Council members praised the translation of the College brochure into eight languages.

09 Council Education Session

Council was reminded that the last session devoted to Council Education was in 2014. Considering new Council members recently joining and new initiatives by government, CAASPR, and FHRCO, consensus was to proceed with a one-day off-site education session. Council was asked to submit agenda topics for consideration along with staff input for agenda development. The President reiterated the importance of a Council Education Day. Cost effective options for the off-site venue including dinner were discussed.

A: Proceed to reserve off-site venue.

10 Registrar Performance Evaluation Process [In-Camera]

The President indicated that the RHPA allows for in-camera discussion of personnel matters and believes an in-camera discussion should now take place.

M: Move in-camera.

Moved B. Kroll Seconded V. Vaillancourt Carried

10 Registrar Performance Evaluation Process [In-Camera]

The committee reviewed aspects of the Performance Review Process.

M: That the committee rise from in-camera.

Moved S. Wilson Seconded T. D’Agnillo Carried

11

Registration Mentorship Program Changes C. Myrie summarized the mentorship policy changes outlined in the documentation provided.

M: Approve a policy change to CASLPO’s Initial Practice Period (IPP) Guidelines which would allow


initial practice registrants (IPR) who are employed at more than one location to have only a single mentorship contract.

Moved B. Kroll Seconded S. Singh Carried

12 Position Statement for Use of Support Personnel by SLPs

A.Carling thanked the current SLP-PAC Committee for all of their work. Council was reminded that the statement was first circulated for membership input. A. Carling shared that definitions including ‘what is a clinical task’ were established. Consideration was given to the vast array of clinical contexts within which SLPs work.

M: Approve for publication the Position Statement for the Use of Support Personnel by Speech Language Pathologists.

Moved B. Kroll Seconded V. Vaillancourt Carried

13

Committee Reports Council was reminded to come prepared with any questions arising from the reports distributed before the meeting. Terms of reference are noted at the beginning of each Committee report. The Committee reports were well received.

14 Proposed By-Law Revisions for Fee Changes

For the benefit of existing and new Council members, a review was given by R. Cimerman of the unusual financial circumstances CASLPO was in last year. Specifics were noted, including the decline in membership applications, duration of members in the mentorship program and how the College reacted to these factors including cost cutting measures. To mitigate a repeat of that situation, a fee adjustment was taken into consideration in addition to other factors such as inflation. The intention with this proposal is to produce a transparent set of information that will enable a modest annual increase in fees for four years. Consensus is to include the proposed 2% provision in the By-law 2011-3 at this time. There was some discussion on whether the fee escalator should be tied to an external measure such as the CPI, but members generally spoke in favour of a defined percentage being preferred.

M: Approve proposed amendments to By-laws related to fees for circulation to the membership.

Moved M. Moussa-Elaraby

Seconded D. Mooney Carried


15 1st Quarter (Oct.-Dec. 2016) Financial Report

R. Cimerman reported that we are in a very good position as of the end of December although we have seen a revenue decline in the results as of the end of January. The revenue status will be monitored monthly with a continued priority focus on commitments made in support of the existing three year strategic plan.

16

FHRCO Update – Bill 87 Response – Amendments to RHPA – Letter to Minister Hoskins The Registrar summarized the February 27, 2017 letter which is a collective College submission from FHRCO regarding Bill 87. Staff and FHRCO have been analyzing the Bill since its introduction in December. From CASLPO’s point of view, there were no College or Profession-specific items warranting our own separate submission. It was noted that there are many items in the Bill that will affect all Colleges, including CASLPO. The Appendix to the FHRCO response letter includes drafting suggestions from Richard Steinecke for amendments to the Act or to the Code addressing unintended consequences of the Bill. The Registrar shared that CASLPO’s Sexual Abuse Prevention program, revised three years ago, pre-dated this recent governmental focus on sexual abuse matters. It illustrates our respect and support for Sexual Abuse Prevention and Zero Tolerance for Sexual Abuse by health professionals. This is further reinforced by CASLPO’s new ‘Respect in the Workplace’ process and documentation developed and put in place this year. Though we understand the Ministry has concerns about the rising number of sexual abuse cases in some professions, the Minister’s proposed new regulation – making powers in 14 different areas is concerning from a self-regulatory perspective. It is hoped that the Minister will not need to intervene in many cases. Council consensus was that the FHRCO letter was well written and the division into four main areas was appreciated. Council members noted that media articles do not always convey the hard work of the regulatory Colleges to prevent sexual abuse. Public Member input to the Ministry would be of added value – as happened during the work of the government’s Task Force on Sexual Abuse. The Registrar noted that the government carefully constructed the composition of the individual College


Councils to ensure balanced representation of professional members and the public. In particular, public member participation in ICRC, and other Committees brings a healthy balance to decision-making. Currently, both our ICRC and Discipline Committees are chaired by a Public Member. A public member has chaired CASLPO’s ICRC since 2009. Bill 87 will go a long way toward providing better complaint process tools to the Colleges. We look forward to a successful legislative outcome with improvements to Bill 87 being made. The Registrar shared that staff will continue to keep the Commitees and Council apprised of this very important piece of legislation as it moves through the system. We look forward to seeing it implemented. He thanked P. Singh, Director of Professional Conduct, for her work with FHRCO contributing to drafting the letter to the Minister. Bill 87 will soon be referred to a Standing Committee of the Legislature and FHRCO will likely be making a submission during the review process.

17

Proposed Schedule for Professional Member Elections 2017 The election process was described in detail.

M: That the 2017 Proposed Election schedule dates be approved.

Moved S. Wilson Seconded J. Anderson Carried

18 Next Meeting Friday June 9, 2017 Location: CASLPO Office CASLPO, Meissner Fishbein Room Council was reminded that the Election Results will be in by the June 9th meeting and we will elect an Executive Committee at that time. Also, at that meeting, we will review the structure of the Council Education Day. The President, Deb Zelisko, thanked Council for all of their hard work over her years on Executive and as President.

19 Other Business – None.

20

Meeting Duration 9:30am –3:15 pm

21

Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:15 pm

M: That the meeting adjourn.

Moved T. A’gnillo Seconded S. Singbeil Carried

Q1 Members had the opportunity to activelyparticipate in discussions and decision

making processes.Answered: 12 Skipped: 0

# Responses Date

1 Yes 3/14/2017 8:21 AM

2 yes 3/13/2017 1:19 AM

3 yes 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 Yes 3/7/2017 10:57 PM

5 Most assuredly. 3/6/2017 6:25 AM

6 Yes. Although there wasn't that much to discuss. 3/5/2017 1:06 PM

7 Yes 3/4/2017 2:54 AM

8 yes 3/3/2017 9:38 AM

9 Yes, there was plenty of time for participation and members' comments were also invited and welcomed. 3/3/2017 9:20 AM

10 Yes 3/3/2017 8:52 AM

11 Yes 3/3/2017 7:12 AM

12 yes 3/3/2017 6:13 AM

Q2 The Council moved efficiently throughthe agenda.

Answered: 12 Skipped: 0

# Responses Date

1 Definitely 3/14/2017 8:21 AM

2 yes 3/13/2017 1:19 AM

3 yes (very) 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 We moved along even better than we usually do 3/7/2017 10:57 PM

5 We certainly did however we didn't rush our topics or discussions. 3/6/2017 6:25 AM

6 Very - as we finished early! 3/5/2017 1:06 PM

7 Yes 3/4/2017 2:54 AM

8 yes, very much so 3/3/2017 9:38 AM

9 Yes, very efficient meeting. 3/3/2017 9:20 AM

10 Yes ahead of schedule was good. 3/3/2017 8:52 AM

11 Yes 3/3/2017 7:12 AM

12 yes 3/3/2017 6:13 AM

Q3 Any additional comments regarding themeeting process?

1 / 4

Council Meeting Evaluation March 3, 2017

cbock

Typewritten Text

12 of 17 in attendance


# Responses Date

1 None 3/14/2017 8:21 AM

2 The agenda items were well organized and the meeting process ran very smoothly 3/13/2017 1:19 AM

3 I liked the change with being able to see the President. 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 No 3/7/2017 10:57 PM

5 Very efficiently organized by staff which really assisted Council members. 3/6/2017 6:25 AM

6 Excellent organization. 3/3/2017 9:20 AM

7 I felt a lot of information is reiterated many times. We have the information in writing, Brian reviews, then staff reviewand comment. Perhaps it could be planned ahead as to who will talk to the item and highlight certain points.

3/3/2017 8:52 AM

8 always a great meeting, transparent etc 3/3/2017 6:13 AM

Q4 Council acted with an emphasis onstrategic leadership rather than

administrative details.Answered: 12 Skipped: 0

# Responses Date

1 Yes 3/14/2017 8:21 AM

2 yes 3/13/2017 1:19 AM

3 yes 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 True 3/7/2017 10:57 PM

5 I concur 100% 3/6/2017 6:29 AM

6 Agree 3/5/2017 1:06 PM

7 Yes 3/4/2017 2:54 AM

8 yes 3/3/2017 9:39 AM

9 Yes 3/3/2017 9:20 AM

10 Yes 3/3/2017 8:53 AM

11 Yes 3/3/2017 7:13 AM

12 yes 3/3/2017 6:13 AM

Q5 The Council considered the strategicplan when making decisions regarding

policies and projects.Answered: 12 Skipped: 0

# Responses Date

1 Yes 3/14/2017 8:21 AM

2 Always 3/13/2017 1:19 AM

2 / 4


3 yes 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 True 3/7/2017 10:57 PM

5 I believe we certainly keep it in the forefront of our minds. 3/6/2017 6:29 AM

6 Agree 3/5/2017 1:06 PM

7 Yes 3/4/2017 2:54 AM

8 yes 3/3/2017 9:39 AM

9 Yes, I felt there was adequate reference to the strategic plan. 3/3/2017 9:20 AM

10 Yes 3/3/2017 8:53 AM

11 Yes 3/3/2017 7:13 AM

12 yes 3/3/2017 6:13 AM

Q6 Any additional comments regardinggovernance?Answered: 4 Skipped: 8

# Responses Date

1 None 3/14/2017 8:21 AM

2 none 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

3 No 3/7/2017 10:57 PM

4 Our President and our Staff are really stellar at gently keeping us on track should we zig-zag a little. Generally thoughwe don't require any prompts.

3/6/2017 6:29 AM

Q7 I communicated effectively andrespectfully.


# Responses Date

1 Yes 3/14/2017 8:22 AM

2 yes 3/13/2017 1:20 AM

3 yes 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 Yes 3/7/2017 10:58 PM

5 I concur. 3/6/2017 6:33 AM

6 I think I did. 3/5/2017 1:06 PM

7 Yes 3/4/2017 2:54 AM

8 yes 3/3/2017 9:39 AM

9 Yes 3/3/2017 9:21 AM

10 Yes 3/3/2017 8:55 AM

11 N/a 3/3/2017 7:13 AM

12 I listened 3/3/2017 6:14 AM

Q8 I was prepared for the meeting.3 / 4



# Responses Date

1 Yes 3/14/2017 8:22 AM

2 yes 3/13/2017 1:20 AM

3 yes 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 Yes 3/7/2017 10:58 PM

5 Absolutely. 3/6/2017 6:33 AM

6 Yes 3/5/2017 1:06 PM

7 Yes 3/4/2017 2:54 AM

8 yes 3/3/2017 9:39 AM

9 Yes 3/3/2017 9:21 AM

10 Yes 3/3/2017 8:55 AM

11 Yes 3/3/2017 7:13 AM

12 I could not find info on meeting...my fault ..I looked in wrong place 3/3/2017 6:14 AM

Q9 Any additional comments regarding mycontribution at Council meetings?


# Responses Date

1 No 3/14/2017 8:22 AM

2 I appreciated being acknowledged by the chair every time I had my hand up 3/13/2017 1:20 AM

3 none 3/13/2017 1:01 AM

4 No 3/7/2017 10:58 PM

5 Should there be instances I don't directly speak to at a meeting, I certainly have unlimited opportunities to do so.Sometimes, I reflect on the issues more so but I still contribute by registering my vote.

3/6/2017 6:33 AM

4 / 4


REPORT TO COUNCIL REGISTRAR’S REPORT: MARCH 3, 2017 -JUNE, 2017

BRIAN O’RIORDAN MEETING DATE June 9, 2017

REPORT DATE May 25, 2017

INTRODUCTION Since our last Council meeting on March 3, 2017, I have been focused primarily on:

Preparation of CASLPO Annual Report; CASLPO Elections – Districts 1 and 3; Proposed CASLPO Fee Increase; CAASPR Projects and Meetings; Response to Bill 87; Response to changes in WSIB hearing aid provision policy.

OPERATIONAL MATTERS

a) Current College membership statistics are attached to this report.

b) Directors Meeting held April 19, 2017

c) University Presentations: Laurentian (March 6), Western (March 8); University of

Toronto (June 23)

d) CASLPO Staff Lunch and Learns held (May 8 and 12)

e) Attended Managing Cultural Differences Seminar (May 15)

f) CASLPO E-Forum on Exernal Influences on the College (May 25)

g) CASLPO Forum, Brampton (June 14)

CASLPO COMMITTEE MEETINGS I attended meetings of the following Committees:

Executive Finance Patient Relations

Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) Registration

EXTERNAL MEETINGS: I represented the College at the following external meetings:

Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario (FHRCO): Board Meetings (May 3-4); Executive (March 27);

Canadian Alliance of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Regulators (CAASPR): Registrar Meetings (April 4, May 18, June 13); Board Meeting (April 24-25);

Meeting with PC Health Critic, Jeff Yurek, MPP (March 21) Meeting with OSLA re Scopes of Practice (March 22) Presentation to Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly re Bill 87 (April 12) Canadian Club Luncheon Speech by Patrick Brown, Leader of the Ontario PCs (May 17) Meeting of the Collaborative Rehab Group (May 16) 40 Year MPP anniversary, Hon. Jim Bradley (May 30) Meeting with Deanna Williams, Special Advisor to the Minister of Health & Long-Term

Care (June 7) Meeting with Allison Henry of the Ministry re CASLPO Regulations (May 9)

KUDOs

To Bob Kroll for becoming Chairman of the Speech and Stuttering Institute

As always, I invite any member of Council to contact me in between Council meetings with any questions, comments or concerns.

Thank You.

MEMBER STATUS COUNT BY DISTRICT

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS

Membership Status

Outside Ontario

District Total

1 2 3 4 5 Academic

General

Initial

Life

Non-Practicing

Suspended

Total

AUDIOLOGISTS

Membership Status

Outside Ontario

District Total

1 2 3 4 5 Academic

General

Initial

Life

Non-Practicing

Suspended

Total

Totals

May 23 2017 3:20PM

5 1 4 1 11

295 421 1,286 650 161 142 2,955

4 8 41 11 11 4 79

3 5 20 14 2 3 47

45 29 50 37 6 6 173

1 2 1 4

353 464 1,403 713 181 155 3,269

2 3 5

74 144 263 147 29 40 697

3 5 7 3 2 20

2 3 1 6

11 4 4 10 1 30

92 156 277 160 30 43 758

445 620 1,680 873 211 198 4,027

DISTRICTS 1. Eastern – includes: Ottawa, Peterborough, Kingston 2. Central – includes: GTA 3. Southwestern 4. Northwestern – includes: Bruce & Grey counties, Thunder Bay & Sudbury 5. Northeastern – includes: Haliburton, Simcoe & Muskoka, Cochrane, Nippising, Parry Sound & Timiskaming

CASLPO●OAOO Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM COUNCIL ELECTIONS – DISTRICT 1 (EASTERN) AND DISTRICT 3 (SOUTH-WEST) TO Council

FROM Brian O’Riordan

DATE May 30, 2017 MEETING DATE June 9, 2017

The College held an election for a Council seat within District 1 (Eastern) and District 3 (South-West) for election to a three-year term of office, beginning June 9, 2017.

The College requested members from District 1 (Eastern) and District 3 (South-West) to cast their electronic vote in this election for:

- One Audiologist Member and One Speech-Language Pathologist Member for

a three-year term of office

- The ballot was open for voting from April 24 to May 24, 2017, at noon.

Every member in District 1 and District 3 had the right to cast one vote for an audiologist and one speech-language pathologist.

The e-voting email was sent to members from an outsourced vendor called ‘Big-Pulse’. They specialize in secure, protected e-Voting needs. The email ‘From’ line appeared as if the message was being sent from Brian O’Riordan, Registrar and included the subject line: 2017 Elections for Members of Council.

Members were reminded that their vote strengthens the principle of self-regulation of the health professions in Ontario and is their chance to take advantage of the personally and professionally rewarding opportunity to participate in the self-regulation of the professions in the public interest.

The opportunity to electronically review the list of Candidates within both districts throughout the Election Process was provided by clicking a link.

A ballot and biographical material (prepared by the Candidates) could be accessed by every eligible voter.

RESULTS OF DISTRICTS 1 AND 3 CASLPO COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTION The electronic ballots have been counted for the election for both the seat in District 1 (Eastern) for one Audiologist Member, and the seat in District 3 for one Speech-Language Pathologist Member for a three-year term of office.


The College is pleased to announce the re-election of Véronique Vaillancourt (AUD) in District 1, and Tina D’Agnillo (SLP) in District 3. As at Poll close: Wednesday 24 May 2017 11:59AM EDT:

District 1 Percentage voted: 27%

Candidate Votes %

Véronique Vaillancourt 116 69.5

Robbie Davidson 51 30.5

District 3 Percentage Voted: 19%

Candidate Votes %

Tina D’Agnillo 111 66.5%

Diane Peterson 56 33.5%

There were no spoiled ballots recorded.

Both members can serve until the spring of June 2020. The College thanks all candidates for their participation in the democratic process and also expresses its thanks to all those members who took the time to cast a ballot.

DRAFT 2017 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER BY‐ELECTION PROCESS

DATE ACTION

Elections every year on

three year cycle

Election date for: District 1 (Eastern)

Judy Rowlands (SLP) (election; 3 yr. term) *not running for re‐election

District 3 (South‐West)

Deb Zelisko (AUD) (election; 3 yr. term) *not running for re‐election

Fri. June 9, 2017 Council sets election date for 2017 election as August 23

Fri. June 16, 2017 CASLPO – Notification of Election & Call for Nominations to Members

(75 days prior to Election Date)

Notification

1) Cover Letter from Registrar

2) Nomination Procedures

3) Nomination Form

4) Biographical Summary and Candidate Statements

Mon. July 17, 2017

Fri. July 21, 2017

MEMBERS – Nominations Close


1) Notification of Acceptance of Nominations

Wed. August 2, 2017 CASLPO ‐ List of Candidates and e‐Ballots sent to members


Enclosures

1) Cover Letter

2) Ballot

3) Candidates’ statements

Thurs. September 7, 2017 12:00 P.M. Deadline for casting of e‐Ballots

Thurs. September 7, 2017 Date of Election – Counting of e‐Ballots

Thurs. September 7, 2017 CASLPO ‐ Announce Results of Election of Members Registrar to send letter of congratulations to successful candidate

Registrar to phone/send email to unsuccessful candidates

Person elected takes office on day of election.

Wed. September 27, 2017 Person elected attends the Council meeting

* Eligible for re‐election. v3 June 5, 2017; 2:05pm

of 2

REPORT TO COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE June 9, 2017


The Professional Conduct Department is involved with a number of College matters in addition to the management of ICRC cases and discipline hearings. These include investigations of unauthorized persons, informal member inquiries, legislative changes and involvement with practice advice.

CEASE & DESIST MATTERS

The Professional Conduct Department investigates unauthorized persons (UAP) using the restricted titles (audiologist or SLP); holding themselves out as audiologists or SLPs; and/or practising illegally. We also address concerns regarding member conduct which has been brought to our attention. These are matters where there does not appear to be an imminent risk of harm to the public and an informal inquiry can usually achieve compliance with the legislation. Since the last council meeting, the Professional Conduct Department has reviewed ten (10) cases of UAP and concerns about members. Of these, five (5) matters have been closed where the individual has addressed the concerns identified by the College. Another five (5) matters are currently under review.

Breakdown of Cease & Desist Matters

Unauthorized persons 5

Audiology 4

Speech‐Language Pathology 1

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

Bill 87 (changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991) introduced in December 2016 was reviewed by the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. On April 12, 2017, CASLPO, led by Brian O’Riordan, Carol Bock and Preeya Singh made a submission on Bill 87 to the Committee, highlighting the importance of zero tolerance towards sexual abuse of patients and the ways CASLPO has endeavored to promote better access to College information for those facing a communication barrier. After completing a clause by clause review, the Standing Committee referred Bill 87 back to the Legislature for third reading on May 18, 2017. 24 amendments were made to the bill, including the expansion of the mandatory suspension powers of the Discipline Committee; clarification around the use of interim orders; and clarity respecting the definition of a patient and defining the one year time period to begin from the date the individual ceases to be the member’s patient. Of note, the expanded powers of the Minister through regulation remains in the Bill. These powers could impact statutory Committee structure and composition.

of 2

With respect to CASLPO’s Regulations, we patiently await the proclamation of the Advertising Regulation. The revisions to the Professional Misconduct Regulation have been suggested to the Ministry’s Regulatory Policy Unit, and Brian has recently received confirmation from the Ministry that they are working to approve our regulations.

ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Professional Conduct Department also provides feedback and suggestions on other matters overseen by the College, including practice advice on advertising and conflicts of interest. In light of the Sexual Abuse Task Force Report and Bill 87, the department is reviewing the College’s Sexual Abuse Prevention Program for possible changes and updates. The Department is also working on translating the Discipline Committee Rules of Procedure into French, to be posted on CASLPO’s website.

1 *See “CASLPO’s 2015‐2018 Strategic Plan: A Road Map for Success”

CASLPO STRATEGIC PLAN 2015‐2018*

Quarterly Report to Council June 9, 2017

Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date

On track: time, money, scope?

Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

Enhance the members’ quality of practice

Quality Assurance 1. Enhance the QA program by

measuring clinical reasoning (QAC) (Clinical Reasoning Tool‐CRT)

2014 Jan 2018 Yes Survey: Preliminary results from pre and post use of the CRT suggest

PAs and members rate CR as an important skill (4.9/5)

PAs and members shifted from a low‐positive to a high‐positive view that the CRT is a valid post administration of the CRT

Measure reliability:

Will record 2017 peer assessment (Clinical Reasoning part) and have scoring completed by 2nd PA

Also gathering additional data from PAs administering to colleagues

Further metrics following the QAC review of the data Pilot has commenced for all 50 members selected for 2017 peer assmt. NOTE: CASLPO will present on CRT at CLEAR Conference in September 2017.

2. Increase the # of peer assessments to 50 by 2017 (QAC)

Jan 2016 Jan 2017 Yes Track statistics regarding members “meeting the standard”

Compare to other health Colleges (% of membership)

35 were selected in 2016

50 will be selected 2017

Added peer assessors

Jan 2017 Jan 2018 Measure the “ripple effect” (how much did the member’s peer assessment affect their colleagues)

Will measure through member survey

= In progress = completed = needs attention


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

3. Develop process to include non‐clinical members in peer assessment (QAC)

Sept 2015 Jan 2019 Extended time

Resources applied to CRT

Track data regarding meeting standards

Member survey metrics

Completed feasibility study with volunteers across settings: all were able to identify evidence for indicators

2017 evidence collected from members and analyzed by PAs and the QAC

Have selected the non‐clinical members for pilot and peer assessors selected

4. Develop a jurisprudence tool for those who fall below the standard (QAC)

Spring 2016 Jan 2018 Yes Collecting background info, including examples from our counterparts. Staff will be bringing project options to next QAC meeting

Research phase Will develop project plan 2017

Practice Standards 1. Revise all standards so they are

structured to distinguish general from disorder specific competencies (Staff with Aud and SLP PAC)

2016 2018 Yes Survey metrics (from standard survey used when circulating new documents) together with focused survey Compare website hits pre and post

Developing Survey for members targeting circulation in early June 2017

2. Convert writing to a more accessible style (Staff)

2015 2018 Yes Member survey metrics (from the 2 documents that have completed circulation): 1. Guide Serv to Cultur. Diverse: 89‐94%

Yes clear 2. PSG on Hear. Aid Serv: 76‐100% yes

clear

Ongoing as we develop and/or revise documents Will have more staff who communicate to members attend course

3. Create a focus on interprofessional collaboration throughout the

2016 2018 yes Track whether all new documents contain a focus on IPC:


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

standards (Staff with Aud and SLP PAC)

Yes, 3 of the 3 new documents do (Guide Serv to Cultur. Diverse, Pos St on Use of Supp Person by SLPs and PSG on Hear. Aid Serv) Added to Clinical Reasoning Tool

4. Develop support materials for all new regulations:

a. Records b. Advertising c. Professional Misconduct

MOHLTC Approval not yet received Have input from MOHLTC for COI reg so will discuss direction with ICRC

Will measure uptake of FAQs through website hits

Gathering FAQs for records and advertising queries and will make that the basis of general support materials. Have developed a “records course” to address SCERP requirements, consequently a “learning module” as originally contemplated no longer required Also developed an e‐Forum for Records

5. Position statements a. 2nd opinion

(Aud and SLP PAC)

Fall 2015 2016

Fall 2017

Yes Member survey metrics:

Need for the standard established (38% of respondents are involved in 2nd Op in some manner)

Will do survey to determine have we met the need with circulation of draft

Developing 2nd draft Which will go to Aud PAC Circulation likely in spring fall 2017

c. Revisions in 2 position statements related to new hearing aid document

(Aud PAC)

Spring 2016 September 2016

Circulation not required as revisions do NOT involve any changes to or additions of policies


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

d. Revise PPG on Cerumen Management

(Aud PAC)

Spring 2017 Fall 2017 Yes This is the last document to be converted to “standards” This was added as a project out of necessity

Mentorship 1. Align mentorship process with SAT

online (Registration Committee) April 2017 TBD Staff

Resources

2. Enhance the evaluation of the Initial Practice Registrants (Registration Cmt)

To be determined

No earlier than 2018

Will complete the piloting within QA first May be carrier over to next strategic plan?

3. Provide training for the mentors (Registration Cmt)

To be determined

Dependent on Project #1 above

Increase Transparency, effectiveness and efficiency

1. Post more information regarding members on the public register

(Staff)

2014 Jan 2016 Yes Any of the additional information that arises as of January 1, 2016 will be posted

2. Develop Communicatively Accessible Materials (Staff)

Nov 2015 Summer 2016 4th document: late fall 2017

Yes Measures of accessibility for stroke survivors in spring 2016: Survey following review by stroke survivors with aphasia revealed 100% were able to answer content questions about the documents

Recently posted at http://www.caslpo.com/accessibility Will develop “How to Access the Register” next Timeline dependent on revisions to public register access

3. Develop and apply communication standards for all documents and materials (Staff)

2015 ongoing Yes Survey regarding circulated materials: see results above in item #2 under

Communication standards have been


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

developed for internal use

Increase the public’s awareness of the College and its members

Public Awareness Campaign (Staff with Patient Relations Cmt): 1. polling public

Dec 2015 Dec 2015 Yes Polling results of 800 polled:

Low awareness that SLPs and Auds are regulated

High awareness of what SLP and Aud do

Public’s main sources for health info: Dr.s and social networks

2. Develop materials and strategy

Feb 2016 Dec 2016 Yes

3. Distribute

a. May is Speech and Hearing Month (promote e‐Badge, videos, accessible materials through our members)

May 2 2016 May 30, 2016

Yes Email open rate: 46.1% (2 emails May Launch &

Reminder)

Clicks to the 3 resources: 22.9% clicks overall; 401

eBadge 307 clicks (55.5%)

videos 116 clicks (20.9%)

accessible 126 (22.7%) eBadge, videos and accessible materials

Compare to views, open and click rates after May

Sessions*: May 6,550 vs.

Sessions*: June 4,982 *Interaction given timeframe. Can contain multiple screen or page views.

Survey members: collecting data as of August, 2016:


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

72 Members Responded

13 of 59 used eBadge.

71%: instructions ok

35% Use of eBadge easy

46% agreed distributing CASLPOs video is an opportunity to increase public awareness and education

b. Social Media: Fifth Story Facebook post of videos

May 2 2016

Target views reached

Yes Compare video views before and after exposure through social media:

May 2‐19 Fifth Story Video: “May Is Speech and Hearing Month” Viewed: 94,243 Engagement: Reactions: 34 (32 likes & 2 loves) Shares and Comments: 15

Video: “Is Your Audiologist and Speech‐Language Pathologist Registered?” Viewed: 93,986 Reactions: 152

Repeat above Oct 3, 2016 Oct 31, 2016

Yes I. October 3‐31 Fifth Story Video: “Audiologists & Speech‐Language Pathologists are Regulated” Viewed: 81,250 Reactions: 49

I. October 3‐31 Fifth Story


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

Video: “Where to Find an Audiologist & Speech‐Language Pathologist” Viewed: 83,046 Reactions: 120

Cumulative: Impressions: Video Series in clinics: (Number of times target audience exposed to video) – just over 1 Million! Facebook Views; 4 Videos (min. 80,000 each x 2 for 2 months; just under 400,000 CASLPO Website: Spiked visitors at launch; sessions eg. May+1568 vs. June. Interaction at timeframe.

Repeat above (Social Media: Fifth Story Facebook post of videos

May 1, 2017

May 31, 2017

Yes

Compare video views before and after exposure through social media:

May 1‐31 Fifth Story Video: “May Is Speech and Hearing Month” Total Views: 78,175 (Some people might have seen the video more than once.) Total Reach: 76,642 (Number of people that saw the content.) Impressions: 158,343 (Total number of times video was displayed in target audience’s news feed.)


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

Repeat above (Social Media: Fifth Story Facebook post of videos

Sept. 1 2017

Sept.30 2017

Yes

Reactions: 28 (12 likes, 1 comment, 15 shares) (Likes, Loves, Comments, and Shares)

Video: “How to find regulated audiologists and speech‐language pathologists?” Total Views: 84,732 (Some people might have seen the video more than once.) Total Reach: 65,859 (Number of people that saw the content.) Impressions: 174,816 (Total number of times video was displayed in target audience’s news feed.)

Reactions: 19 (18 likes and 1 share) (Likes, Loves, Comments, and Shares) (at April 21, 2017; lg

All member group email Apr. 3, 2017 54.1% open

Accessibility: 27 clicks e‐Badge: 173 clicks videos: 53 clicks 228 clicks “We can help you with May Activity Resources” Brochure Requests: Total Members: 16


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

585 English 89 French

Total Public Use: 3 requests 50 English UofT Elderly Hearing Survey 50 English Baycrest 50 English Community Presentation

c. Social Media: Develop CASLPO’s own SM presence (e.g. facebook, twitter?)

Oct 2016 Oct 2017 Findings Presented April 18, 2017

d. Drs’ Offices: video only May 2, 2016 May 31, 2016

Compare to views/impressions after May

May Delivered: 544,385 Views (Contracted May 250,000). Overachieved +294,382; 217%

CASLPO YouTube Channel May: 110, 123, 142 Views 3 videos; July, August – No Activity

e. Drs’ Offices: video and brochure

Oct 3, 2016 Oct 31, 2016

Compare to impressions after May

October Delivered: 582,418 impressions

(Contracted Oct 250,000) Overachieved +332,418; 233% Count # of brochures taken:

Brochures inserted into stands will remain in display stands until all are picked up.

68 Waiting rooms stocked 50 brochures

Considering additional opportunities for distribution for 2017 Brochures: The network (CHMN) has moved to digital brochure distribution that enables capture of how many visitors look at or download the brochure.


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

Brochure Total: 3,400 NOTE:

Combined # of times target audience exposed to 2 videos over 2 months: 949,731 impressions!

f. Drs’ Offices: video May and Sept 2017

End of May and Sept, 2017

Yes Guaranteed impressions: 250,000 x 2 (for May and Sept)

Brochure distribution not available: See below (i)

g. Member distribution: I. offering brochures to

members

II. eblast to members regarding video resources

Nov 2016 Nov 2017 I. Brochures:

62 Members (36 SLPs/26 AUDs) signed up to receive 20 ea. hardcopy brochures in the mail.

Total: 1,240

16 clicks to brochure from website;

(11 unique visitors)

CASLPO YouTube Channel May to Oct: 461 views (3 videos combined)

Consider another phase of promotion in 2017

h. Brochure translation Measure website click rates: Group Email to all Members March 2, 2017: Sent: 4012 Opened: 2069 (52.3%) Email Clicks 375 (18.1%) Brochures; Unique clicks; All Languages: 469 Individual Brochure Unique Click‐Throughs via members resulting from group email

Added project based on PR cmt input


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

Arabic: 24 (5.1%) Chinese (Simplified): 22 (4.7%) English 319: (67.6%) French: 49 (10.4%) Hindi: 9 (1.9%) Italian: 13 (2.8%) Punjabi: 12 (2.6%) Spanish: 18 (3.8%) 472 Total Brochure Clicks Google Analytics: March 2‐April 20, 2017: Unique clicks via website per Brochure Arabic: 6 Chinese: 7 English: 114+6=118 (2 web locations) French: 9 Hindi: 3 Italian: 2 Punjabi: 7 Spanish: 2

i. Best Health magazine insert May 2017 September, 2017

20,000 brochures x 2 (total of 40K distributed in May and September)

New opportunity sought out given there wasn’t the possibility of distributing brochures through the Dr’s office in 2017. However, we are continuing to seek out alternate companies that may provide this service

4. CHCH “We Mean Business”: parsed into 8 separate videos

2017 Spring 2017 Hits measured: Currently on our Youtube channel


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

Youtube channel video Hits; Main Video 156 8 Short Videos: Collectively 114 views Breakdown: Answers to questions about Audiology and Speech‐Language Pathology Services: 156 views Why Would I go See an Audiologist or Speech‐Language Pathologist? 18 views Why Is It Important For Me To See A Regulated Professional? 15 views What Hearing Aid Funding Options Are Available To The Public? 23 views The Regulation of Audiologists and Speech‐Language Pathologists 17 views What Happens when CASLPO receives a Complaint? 9 views How Does the College Help Those with Disabilities Or Communication Barriers? 12 views

Will use as content once CASLPO has established a social media presence


Strategic Goal

Project

Start Date

Completion Date


Reason not on track

Metrics

Comments

Status

How Can you Help Me Find a Qualified Speech‐Language Pathologist or an Audiologist? 7 views Do I need a Referral when I want to see an Audiologist or Speech‐Language Pathologist? 13 views

2015-2016 2016-2017 Actual Budget Variance 1.

Total Revenue 2,876,200 2,997,900 1,474,390 1,501,746 (27,356)

ExpendituresSalaries and Benefits 1,328,000 1,434,900 650,672 686,150 35,478 Office and General 416,800 409,600 194,915 198,611 3,696 Council & Committees 193,000 197,000 52,597 54,450 1,853 Quality Assurance 83,200 109,600 27,085 25,410 (1,675) Registration 37,500 32,500 - - - Professional Fees and Consultants 151,700 162,900 76,381 74,312 (2,069) Member Education and Publications 27,000 25,600 10,291 12,420 2,129 Investigations and Hearings 351,800 416,000 76,425 82,054 5,629 Public Awareness 90,200 50,900 28,444 29,233 789 Depreciation and Amortization 27,000 30,900 13,442 15,450 2,009

Total Expenditures 2,706,200 2,869,900 1,130,253 1,178,090 47,837

Net Operating Profit (Deficit) 170,000 128,000 344,137 323,656 20,481

Budget To Date BalanceFurniture and equipment 3,000 1,526 1,474 Computer hardware 2,000 - 2,000 Computer software 7,200 - 7,200 Leasehold improvements - - -

12,200 1,526 10,674

NOTES:1. For Variances above, a negative variance (xx,xxx) indicates an unfavourable variance from budget;

a positive variance indicates a favourable variance from budget.

BIG PICTURE SUMMARY- Overall Net Operating Profit ahead of plan-

- Expenses are lower than budget mainly due to the delay in hiring an Audiology Advisor and Manager of Mentorship (budgeted to hire in October 2016 but began at the end of March 2017)

Revenue is falling short of budget due to higher than expected resignations at renewal and lower than expected number of IPRs converting to general members

CASLPO - FINANCIAL REPORTFor the 6 Months Ending March 31, 2017Budget

CASLPO - CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BUDGET2016-2017

Footnote explanations of significant variances, to March 31, 2017:Variances -

Budget Budget Budget Actual (over) / under2015/2016 2016/2017 To Mar 2017 to Mar 2017 Budget

RevenueMembership fees 2,738,200 2,879,900 1,442,830 1,408,864 (33,966) 1 1Registration fees 46,000 36,600 14,640 13,800 (840) Application fees 26,000 19,600 6,272 6,400 128 Other fees 19,000 14,800 14,504 20,203 5,699 Investment income 47,000 47,000 23,500 25,123 1,623 Total Revenue 2,876,200 2,997,900 1,501,746 1,474,390 (27,356)

Expenditures

Salaries and Benefits Salaries 1,101,500 1,193,800 573,024 529,122 43,902 2 2Employment insurance 15,700 17,800 10,502 8,387 2,115 Canada Pension Plan 29,200 32,600 18,908 17,557 1,351 Employee benefits 160,100 169,200 81,216 77,812 3,404 Temporary help 5,000 5,000 2,500 17,241 (14,741) 3 3Staff Development 16,500 16,500 - - - Recruitment - - - 554 (554)

1,328,000 1,434,900 686,150 650,672 35,478

Office and General Photocopier and fax 9,000 10,500 5,250 5,409 (159) Courier 1,000 1,000 500 153 347 Telephone 18,000 15,900 7,950 6,513 1,437 Insurance 9,000 8,300 4,150 3,964 186 Membership dues (Incl. FHRCO & CAASPR) 36,400 36,100 29,241 27,697 1,544 Office and sundry expenses 26,600 19,500 9,750 10,714 (964) Repairs and maintenance 3,000 2,000 1,000 140 860 Bank charges 57,000 63,000 15,120 16,420 (1,300) Internet services 6,600 4,000 2,000 1,094 906 Rent and operating costs 200,600 200,600 100,300 99,809 491 Travel (meetings, presentations, Forums) 26,600 16,700 8,350 5,093 3,257 CAASPR - 9,000 4,500 7,999 (3,499) 4 4Payroll services 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,570 (70) Conference Attendance 20,000 20,000 9,000 8,340 660

416,800 409,600 198,611 194,915 3,696

Council & Committees Professional members - Honoraria 103,000 108,000 33,480 32,849 631 Professional members - Expenses 75,000 64,000 14,720 13,773 947 Council development 15,000 25,000 6,250 5,975 275

193,000 197,000 54,450 52,597 1,853

Aud. & SLP Practice Committees Practice Standards 26,500 32,000 - - - Quality Assurance Peer assessment expenses 37,100 53,000 19,610 21,366 (1,756)

Self assessment expenses 13,600 11,600 5,800 5,537 263 CASLPO Forums 6,000 6,000 - 182 (182) Jurisprudence 7,000 - - -

83,200 109,600 25,410 27,085 (1,675)

Registration Mentorship program 36,000 31,000 - - -

Accreditation of university programs 1,500 1,500 - - - 37,500 32,500 - - -

Professional Fees and Consultants Legal - general 40,000 40,000 17,600 19,489 (1,889) 5 5Information technology 28,000 30,200 10,872 10,792 81 Other consultants 53,000 60,000 30,000 33,760 (3,760) 6 6Audit 29,000 31,000 15,500 12,273 3,228 Translation 1,700 1,700 340 68 272

151,700 162,900 74,312 76,381 (2,069)

Member Education and Publications Website maintenance 2,000 6,000 3,000 563 2,437 Outgoing communication 7,000 7,100 3,550 4,682 (1,132) Publications 12,500 8,500 1,870 1,766 104 Elections 5,500 4,000 4,000 3,280 720

27,000 25,600 12,420 10,291 2,129

Discipline Hearings Legal 277,800 311,000 43,540 43,333 207 Complaint Investigations Investigators 74,000 91,700 38,514 38,079 435

Hearing expenses 8,800 - - - SCERPS - 4,500 - (4,986) 4,986 7 7

351,800 416,000 82,054 76,425 5,629

Public Awareness Research 50,000 - - - - Production 25,200 4,800 4,800 7,257 (2,457) Distribution 15,000 46,100 24,433 21,188 3,246

90,200 50,900 29,233 28,444 789

Amortization and Depreciation 27,000 30,900 15,450 13,442 2,009

Total Expenditures 2,706,200 2,869,900 1,178,090 1,130,253 47,837

Net Operating Profit (Deficit) 170,000 128,000 323,656 344,137 20,481

International applications coordinator

SCERP repayment

CASLPO Operations - Details

Vacancy of full-time position - Audiology Advisor and Manager of Mentorship and restructuring of International applications coordinator to a contract position

Membership fees shortfall is primarily attributed to the higher than expected resignations at renewal and lower than expected number of IPRs converting to general members.

Legal advice sought for accomodation policy and PHIPA. As well, legal costs associated with preparation for a Registration HPARB hearing.External consultant to gather feedback for Registrar performance appraisal

CAASPR to reimburse $3.6K related to travel


MEMORANDUM RISK MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW TO Council

FROM Ruth Cimerman, Director of Finance and Operations


ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Risk Policy, Risk Tolerance Profile and risk mitigation priorities identified by the Finance Committee at their May 11, 2017 meeting and reviewed by the Executive Committee at their May 19, 2017 meeting.

BACKGROUND The Finance Committee met on May 11, 2017 to perform their annual review of CASLPO’s Risk Policy, Risk Tolerance Profile, Risk Register and Fraud Risk Reassessment Checklist.

The Committee reviewed the Risk Policy and Risk Tolerance Profile and did not recommend any changes. The Committee recommends that Council approve both documents.

The Committee determined that Council should focus their review on the areas of the Risk Register that pose the highest risk and require prioritized mitigation. The Committee also wanted to provide some examples of lower risk areas to help provide some context to the prioritization. These selected risks have been included in Appendix 1 of the Risk Tolerance Profile.

Although the Committee reviewed the Fraud Risk Reassessment Checklist and determined that there were no risk areas that needed to be prioritized, the Committee still wanted to provide Council with a couple of examples from the Checklist. These examples have been included in Appendix 2 of the Risk Tolerance Profile.

Complete copies of the Risk Register and Fraud Risk Reassessment Checklist have been provided only as reference documents for Council. Staff will only be focussing on the risk items in Appendix 1 and 2 included with the Risk Tolerance Profile for the Council meeting on June 9, 2017.

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

(CASLPO)

RISK POLICY Section 1 Introduction 1.1 An important aspect of governance and management best practices is to ensure that

organizational risks are identified, assessed and managed in a timely, efficient and effective manner. CASLPO believes this Risk Policy is an integral step in the continuing evolution of the strategic planning process for the organization.

Section 2 Risk Management Vision 2.1 CASLPO is committed to building and fostering an enterprise risk management culture that

clearly faces reality through the systematic process of risk identification, assessment and management and will affect this through its strategic planning process.

2.2 CASLPO’s values of serving and protecting the public interest, providing quality service,

accountability and transparency, acting with integrity, teamwork and collaboration are the foundation of the organizational risk culture and will guide our actions.

Section 3 Risk Management Policy 3.1 Overall Policy: To accomplish our Mission, CASLPO must pursue opportunities, provide

services and conduct activities which may pose degrees of external and/or internal risk. Accordingly, CASLPO’s policy is to apply an enterprise risk management framework with clear roles and responsibilities in the identification and management of risk, and to ensure that effective management of risk is an enterprise core competency. CASLPO will identify and manage risks relevant to the organization within the context of its three year strategic plan and annual business plan and work closely with the Council/Committees (particularly Finance and Executive) to identify and manage risks relevant to CASLPO itself and the professions of audiology and speech-language pathology as a whole.

3.2 Risk Tolerance: CASLPO accepts a level of risk in many of the activities it undertakes. As part

of its risk management process, CASLPO assesses its willingness to accept risk in various key operational elements. Guided by its vision, mission, mandate and values, CASLPO seeks to manage those risks to an acceptable level, otherwise referred to as its tolerance for risk.

CASLPO has developed a Risk Tolerance Profile, which will be updated annually to provide a high level view of the risk CASLPO is willing to accept related to CASLPO’s areas of responsibility. Specifically, the profile sets boundary conditions for risk tolerance, outlines the continuum of risk tolerances by which risks are assessed and provides CASLPO’s agreed level of risk tolerance for each element considered.

3.3 Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): is an integral part of strategic planning and ensures a uniform approach across the organization, including management and staff, council and committees for:

● risk identification ● risk assessment ● risk mitigation and management ● risk reporting and communications

ERM is not merely a defensive process to guard against “worst case” scenarios; it also:

● enables innovation and initiative in strategic planning ● serves to ensure successful implementation of strategic objectives ● enables proactive leadership focus and shaping of issues rather than reaction to events

3.4 Strategic and Business Planning: CASLPO’s Strategic Plan provides a perspective of the dynamic, continuous, multi-year planning processes. It ensures that the strategic direction is sound, provides linkage between strategies and provision of services, and establishes the basis of the annual operational commitments and related budgets.

It is through CASLPO’s strategic and budgeting processes that key risks affecting the organization as a whole will be identified and addressed going forward.

The ERM approach ensures systematic consideration of risk in the strategic and budgeting processes. It will also ensure that resource allocation explicitly takes into account risk mitigation efforts.

3.5 Roles and Responsibilities: 3.5.1 CASLPO Council: Council is responsible for the approval of CASLPO’s strategic plan

(every three years) and budget (annually), which will include CASLPO’s Risk Tolerance Profile. The Council, through the Finance and Executive Committees, will be responsible for oversight of ERM as it relates to CASLPO activities.

3.5.2 CASLPO Management: Management will provide operational leadership in the implementation of this risk policy in conjunction with its responsibilities for the strategic and budgeting processes, including resource allocation, budget development and recommendations. Their responsibilities include: ● Developing the risk tolerance profile as outlined above in Section 3.2. ● Identifying potential and emerging risks and assessing their likelihood/consequence as part

of the strategic and budgeting processes. ● Identifying those risks they determine are not acceptable and for which risk mitigation and

management strategies must be developed. ● Determining the right level of risk for each strategic initiative utilizing the risk tolerance

profile.

● Assigning responsibility to appropriate staff and committees to develop risk mitigation approaches/actions on an issue-specific basis.

● Explicitly identifying risk mitigation resource requirements and resultant resource allocation

to manage risks to an acceptable level.

● Identifying opportunities to seize the initiative in managing the uncertainties of potential and emerging risks and outcomes.

● Implementing a process for tracking and reporting risks.

3.6 CASLPO’s Risk Culture: Risk management will be achieved through the development of an

organizational culture where the common-sense consideration of risk is instinctive in normal day to day activities. Accordingly, ERM will be integrated into normal management processes, such as strategic and operations planning, project and operations management, and management reporting. Creating a reality-based ERM culture also requires an atmosphere that encourages clear and candid discussion of risks among and across all levels of the organization without fear of judgment or consequences. CASLPO is committed to fostering that kind of environment.

3.7 Risk Policy Review: This policy will be reviewed annually by CASLPO Council to ensure its completeness, continued relevance and effectiveness.

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

(CASLPO)

RISK TOLERANCE PROFILE

Section 1 Introduction CASLPO’s overall policy in relation to risk management is defined in the CASLPO Risk Policy:

To accomplish our Mission, CASLPO must pursue opportunities, provide services and conduct activities which may pose degrees of external and/or internal risk. Accordingly, CASLPO’s policy is to apply an enterprise risk management framework with clear roles and responsibilities in the identification and management of risk, and to ensure that effective management of risk is an enterprise core competency.

To that end, CASLPO will identify and manage risks relevant to the organization within the context of its annual budget plan and three year strategic plan. In general, the plans describe what projects an organization is planning to do on an annual basis, the planned objectives and resources necessary to meet those objectives, and metrics to measure the organization’s success against those objectives. The risks defined in this document were identified through consideration of the existing environment in light of CASLPO’s strategic plan objectives, budget and internal financial controls and policy development process. Some of the specific factors and potential obstacles in mitigating risks are within CASLPO’s span of control (delivery of services, planning, communication) but many are not (external events, member actions, regulatory initiatives by government or other Colleges). However, even these can be anticipated, monitored and influenced by CASLPO, to varying degrees.

Section 2 Purpose CASLPO’s Risk Tolerance Profile has been developed as an internal tool for use by the organization in setting, tracking, and reporting on its strategies and activities. The Risk Tolerance Profile identifies, organizes and explains the risks CASLPO faces and links these to the organization’s strategies and actions. The profile is an integral part of CASLPO’s annual strategic planning exercise. The areas of risk identified are reflected in two general categories:

• Enterprise Risk o Legal/ Regulatory o Core business o Supporting processes o Strategic

Key prioritized Enterprise Risks identified by the Finance Committee from the Risk Register are included in Appendix 1. • Fraud Risk

o Misappropriation of assets o Fraudulent financial reporting

Samples of Fraud Risks from the Fraud Risk Assessment Checklist are included in Appendix 2. Section 3 Integrated Accountability The model illustrated below integrates risk management, performance measurement, strategic planning, and the business planning/budgeting processes at CASLPO. The model also identifies the relationships between and among key governance and management processes. Risk assessment and any treatments identified helps to inform the business planning and budgeting process and subsequently operational performance objectives for the next year. Integration of performance indicators and metrics will also enable monitoring of progress in mitigating risks.

Strategic Planning

Execution of Budgets

Annually

Annual

Performance Scorecard

Enterprise

Risk Management

Governance

External Influences

Section 4 Reporting CASLPO’s Risk Policy sets forth the guidelines for formal reporting against these risks and how their mitigation relates to and supports CASLPO’s strategic objectives. Definitions of the likelihood, impact, and overall risk tolerance level are clarified below: Likelihood Qualitative Assessment

Assessment Relative to Frequency of Occurring Probability of Occurring

Rare (1) Extremely rare (once every 10 years). 0 -5%

Unlikely (2) Has happened rarely. 6 -33%

Moderate (3) Has happened periodically. 34-65%

Likely (4) Has happened previously and could reasonably occur again. 66-79%

Almost Certain (5) Extremely likely to occur; at least annually. 80-100%

Impact Dimension Insignificant

(1)

Minor

(2)

Moderate

(3)

Major

(4)

Catastrophic

(5)

Stakeholders (reputation)

One stakeholder raises concerns

Several members raise concerns

Several members and public stakeholders raise concerns

Many members and public stakeholders raise concerns

All stakeholders lose confidence in CASLPO and/or the professions in the long term

Other Business Objectives: Internal Processes & Enablers

Issue easily absorbed in day to day operations

Issue requires minor adjustment to day to day operating policies. Does not require immediate Council notification.

Moderate work needed to accommodate issues. Requires Council notification.

Council needs to approve budget adjustments to deal with the issue

CASLPO cannot recover operational capacity and ceases to operate

Financial Less than 0.5% of annual expense budget

(approx.<$15K)

1-19% of annual expense budget. (approx. $20K-400K)

20-40% of annual expense budget.

(approx. $500K-$1M)

50-100% of annual expense budget or Equivalent to operating reserves.

(approx.$1M -2M)

CASLPO is insolvent.

Note: The impact of a risk may affect multiple Dimensions. Therefore, professional judgement must be used to determine where the overall impact lies.

Overall Risk Tolerance Zero Risk Tolerance

A potential negative event, incident, circumstance, or outcome in which CASLPO would be unwilling to accept any risk of occurrence at all;

the Impact of which would be Catastrophic to the organization or the professions as a whole no matter what the Likelihood of occurrence.

Example: Loss of confidential information from our server due to a security breach. Low Risk Tolerance

Risks assessed to have a Moderate to Almost Certain Likelihood and Major to Catastrophic Impact are at the Low Risk Tolerance Level.

Such risks shall require in all circumstances, risk mitigation assignment by CASLPO to appropriate staff and/or committees, action plans and tracking.

The expected result of mitigation efforts is to reduce either the likelihood or the impact of risks initially assessed to be in this category.

Example: Registration standards do not always certify competent professionals Moderate Risk Tolerance

Risks assessed to have a Moderate to Almost certain Likelihood and Moderate Impact or Rare to Unlikely Likelihood and Major to Catastrophic Impact are at the Moderate Risk Tolerance Level.

Such risks shall selectively receive mitigation assignment by CASLPO, but all will be tracked.

Example: Inability to deliver reliable, relevant, accurate, accessible and timely information for members or public.

High Risk Tolerance

Risks assessed to have a Rare to Moderate Likelihood and Insignificant to Minor Impact are at the High Risk Tolerance Level.

Risks assessed by CASLPO to be in this category will be monitored, reviewed, and re-assessed annually by CASLPO.

Example: Failure to identity and incorporate technological advances.

of 4

APPENDIX 1CASLPO Risk RegisterMay 2017

Risk Tolerance

Zero

Low

Moderate

High1 C.

Supporting Processes

C.8Technology

Data security and integrity. BO/BF 1 5 Zero -Portal and email server is protected by firewalls and security certificates-Portal passwords are encrypted and a verification process exists for resetting passwords-External website is not connected to the internal domain-Data from local computers is backed to the server twice a day-If main server fails, the redundant server is a mirror image and will be enabled automatically. Offsite backups are performed twice daily.-External contractors service/maintain servers - maintain security patches, anti virus, user management, backup processes-Security updates for servers provided by Microsoft are up to date

*Server software is old and no longer supported by Microsoft. All software upgrades are part of the 2016-17 budget and will be completed by Fall 2017*By Fall 2017, a new policy will be instituted whereby staff will be required to change their passwords more regularly*By Fall 2017, user roles will be defined and assigned to all folders on the network to prevent unauthorized access, changes or deletions to documents

2 C. Supporting Processes

C.8Technology

Risk of major security failures leading to theft or loss of confidential data, embarrassing leaks or inability to meet statutory requirements, or misuse of member information.

BO/BF 1 5 Zero -See above re: data security and integrity mitigation (#1)-CASLPO secures personal information from unauthorized access, use or disclosure. CASLPO secures the personally identifiable information on computer servers in a controlled, secure environment, protected from unauthorized access, use or disclosure. When personal information is transmitted to other websites, it is protected through the use of encryption, such as the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocol, and transferred using an FTP site.-Member personal information is not transmitted to E-Health and HPDB. Non-identifying information (i.e. practice location, residential region and postal code and amalgamated statistical data) is transmitted

*If Budget permits in 2017-18, CASLPO will contract an external company to perform a security audit to review security policies and procedures, test security protocols and test susceptibility to security failures


C.8aBusiness Continuity Planning

Risk of major disaster (e.g. building fire etc.) and our ability to recover and maintain our operations.

BO/RC 1 5 Zero -Network files can be accessed externally through VPN if servers are intact-If servers are destroyed, internal data can be accessed from backup-Database can be accessed through an SQL server-Disaster Recovery Plan is currently being drafted and will be communicated to staff in Fall 2017

*See above (#1&2)

6 A. Legal/Regulatory

A.3Other Laws & Regulations

Increased standards and regulations to address public confidence.

^The timing of new standards and regulations are unpredictable

BO/CB 4 4 Low -Constantly stay abreast of activities throughout regulatory bodies, associations, government and stakeholders through meeting and conference attendance-Actively communicate and participate with FHRCO, CAASPR, OSLA, SAC and other regulated health colleges-Stay involved with current proposed changes and provide feedback to affect change - All papers circulated for comment by stakeholders, other regulated health colleges and the government are received by or forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (DR). The DR determines whether a response is warranted by CASLPO and who the appropriate staff member is to craft the response. This process ensures that CASLPO mitigates the risk of missing a proposed change in regulation that may affect our members and provides CASLPO with an opportunity to provide feedback with respect to the College's position on the proposed change-Developed a process to bring proposed changes in the Strategic Plan to Council based on competing external factors. The process involves identifying the scope of the project to address the external pressure, the risks of not completing the project, the cost and human resources necessary to complete the work and the work that will have to be deferred/reassigned in order to complete the new project. This approach ensures that Council has the ability to enact new standards and regulation with consideration to our Strategic Plan.

*Currently, CASLPO has 3 regulation changes that have been submitted to the Ministry but have not been approved. These proposals are: Advertising and Professional Misconduct (proposed in 2013) and Conflict of Interest (proposed in 1996). Additionally, OSLA has submitted a proposal for Changes in Scope of Practice for SLP's and AUD's.*Additionally, Bill 87 will likely be finalized in June 2017. In the Bill, the Minister has been awarded new powers to intervene in College operations. The future impacts of this power are unknown. Once the Bill is passed, CASLPO is aware that action must be taken with regard to Council and Staff training, changes to the Patient Relations Committee, securing funding to meet the obligations of the Bill and any other measures of compliance.*Due to the unpredictable timing of enactment, CASLPO has not budgeted for these activities. Rather, CASLPO will determine, at a high level, what activities need to be completed to operationalize the changes (determine who does what) once the proposals are enacted.

RiskCategory

RiskSector

Current Treatment/Link to Strategic Objectives and Mitigation Additional Treatment Necessary

Risk Rating

Likelihood: 1=Rare;

2=Unlikely; 3=Moderate;

4=Likely; 5=Almost

Certain

Impact: 1=Insignificant;

2=Minor; 3=Moderate;

4=Major; 5=Catastrophic

ResponsibleGroup/

DepartmentDescription of Risk Event/Situation/Outcome

of 4


Risk Tolerance

Zero

Low

Moderate

HighRisk

CategoryRisk

SectorCurrent Treatment/

Link to Strategic Objectives and Mitigation Additional Treatment Necessary

Risk Rating

Likelihood: 1=Rare;


4=Likely; 5=Almost

Certain




ResponsibleGroup/

DepartmentDescription of Risk Event/Situation/Outcome9 B. Core

Business Processes

B.2Certification

Failure to certify competent professionals.

^SLP Initial Practice Registrants (IPRs) are telling us that there is a shortage of jobs in the market. This delays the IPR from completing the required number of hours of patient care necessary to register.^Standard mentorship period should be 6 months in order to gain 500 hours of patient care. There is a possibility of extending it to 18 months if approved by the Registrar. In the current environment, with a job shortage, more SLP IPR's are only able to find part-time work which makes the achievement of 500 hours impossible within 6 months. Êmployers are reluctant to hire applicants who need a mentor.

BO/CM 3 4 Low Rigorous registration & certification process - applicants must have a Masters from an accredited university or must have verified sufficient coursework and practicum hours to meet core competencies (currently the split of Cdn vs Int'l applicants is 45/55) - prior to certification, applicants must go through a mentorship program or provide evidence of practise hours - Staff and Registration committee evaluate all applications which do not clearly meet the registration requirements

*In April 2017, a new resource was hired to enhance the Mentorship program. The Audiology Advisor and Manager of Mentorship will focus on the following identified areas of risk:-manual tracking - limits ability to provide sufficient oversight of Initial Practice Registrants (IPR) deadlines/due dates-difficulty of IPRs to find mentors - employer awareness of the program is low even through is required for certification-mentors are not formally trained-manual reporting limits the ability to mine data and address common weaknesses among IPRs

*The Clinical Reasoning Tool (CRT) will be added to the mentorship process in 2018-19 to strengthen the evaluation process of the mentee.*The registration committee want to test the necessity for the current requirement of 500 hours of patient care prior to registration. Once the mentorship process is brought online, it will be easier to capture the data necessary for the test.

11 B. Core Business Processes

B.4Professional Learning Development

Quality Assurance/ SAT / Peer Assessment is not an effective tool for educating members.

Ôn average, 17% of members who are peer assessed are not meeting the standards. In 2017, QA committee issued 3 SCERPS to address deficiencies in consent, supervision of support personnel and records. For the SCERPs, members were ordered to complete a number of activities ranging from reviewing the relevant guides related to their deficiencies, complete e-learning modules and complete a number of mentoring sessions.^When deficiencies are discovered, SCERPS are issued based on the risk of patient harm and number of infractions

BO/ACR 2 4 Low -Self-directed learning methodology is effective in adult learning and supported by research. The Self-Assessment Tool (SAT) is a reflective instrument designed to allow members to identify opportunities for growth and change.-SMART goal methodology required for SAT - Peer assessors review SMART goals with members-Members are required to have 15 hours/year of professional development that directly relate to their learning goals and field of practise-In 2017, CASLPO required all members to review a document through the completion of the SAT. The document related to Professional Relationships and Boundaries and was chosen to help reduce the risk of sexual abuse to patients.-Annually, 50 members are selected at random for Peer Assessment ( approx. <1% of total member population) . Research shows that the good effects from being peer assessed last longer than 5 years.-The number of Peer Assessments performed will be increasing over time to more closely align with other regulatory Colleges-Peer assessment is based on the SAT, so that members are objectively evaluated on the same standards that they used to assess themselves. Assessments provide objective feedback on member practices.-Peer assessors are required to have been previously peer assessed and go through rigorous training provided by the College-In 2016, the Clinical Reasoning Tool (CRT), an evaluation of clinical skills and clinical decision making, is being piloted through the peer assessment process. The CRT will be trialed in the 2017 peer assessment process and rolled out in 2018.-A non-clinical peer assessment will be piloted in 2017, trialed in 2018 and rolled out in 2019.

*Currently the number of peer assessments performed annually as a percentage of total members is the second lowest of all Regulatory Health Colleges. CASLPO intends to increase the annual number of peer assessments incrementally year over year. It is expected that the number of peer assessments will increase to 75 over the next two years.


B.6Self Regulatory Role

Complaints received regarding members are not resolved in a timely and satisfactory manner resulting in threats to self regulatory status.

Învestigations can be lengthy and unpredictable^The number of complaints and reports has increased year over year

BO/PS 3 4 Low -Legislation is in place and followed when a complaint is received-Documentation of key processes is provided to committee members-ICRC committee determines whether an investigation is necessary - Director of Professional Conduct monitors the investigation to ensure adequacy-Experienced investigators are used-Decisions can be appealed if is felt that the case was not dealt with in a satisfactory manner-Processes are in place to ensure that members comply to orders resulting from ICRC and Discipline (i.e. reimbursements of legal costs, mentorship for member)-Continuous professional development of committee members-Processes have been streamlined to ensure that intake of complaints is more efficient-ICRC meetings are held on a more frequent basis (monthly) to ensure that cases are dealt in a timely manner

*Committee process manuals remain out of date. Last updates were made in 2009 when legislation changed. A determination will have to be made whether the complete manual is updated. This would require a large amount of time (internally) or considerable resources (externally) to complete. Due to the fact that key processes are up to date and provided to the committee as stand alone documents, the risk of error is decreased.*Bill 87 is currently being reviewed in the legislature. Once the Bill is passed, there will be a need to update sections of the manual.

of 4


Risk Tolerance

Zero

Low

Moderate

HighRisk

CategoryRisk



Risk Rating

Likelihood: 1=Rare;


4=Likely; 5=Almost

Certain




ResponsibleGroup/

DepartmentDescription of Risk Event/Situation/Outcome18 A. Legal/

RegulatoryA.3Other Laws & Regulations

Legal obligations with respect to Labour Mobility public protections are not being fully addressed

^CAASPR has been in the process of harmonizing standards/regulation/processes for over 5 years without concrete results. The Ministry could contend that provinces are not in compliance with Labour Mobility legislation and Provincial Internal Trade agreements

BO/CB/CM 4 4 Low -Federal funding of over $1M was received in 2016 to complete all projects necessary for harmonization by 2019.-An experienced project manager is now in place to oversee the completion of all projects-Quarterly compliance reports must be submitted to the funding agency (ESDC)-Consultants for all major projects have been engaged through a tendering process-CASLPO is part of the board and ensuring that projects are moving along-Governance structure has been established with the Board-Currently all projects are on track

*Proposed harmonization with respect to the Academic Equivalency Framework will require a change in Regulation. Regulation changes are expensive and lengthy - they entail: -Consultations from Universities and Colleges, Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, and the Office of the Fairness Commissioner -Resources to write the regulation -Committee and Council consultations and approval -Proposal to change the regulation that is circulated to the membership


C.9Governance

Insufficient and/or inappropriate skills and competencies of governance members (Council and Executive Committee).

BO/CB 3 3 Moderate -All new Council members go through an orientation process. The orientation entails an introduction to CASLPO, the role of self-regulating Colleges, the mandated activities of the College, the finances of the College and any other areas specific to CASLPO-Staff provides development on an ongoing basis-Executive committee have a portion of each meeting agenda dedicated to governance issues-A governance manual is currently being completed for Council

*The Executive Committee is currently working on succession planning for Council and Committees. Some areas being considered for succession planning include: experience of members for specific committees, establishing a path for Council members who are interested in becoming President or Vice President, training for committee chairs.


B.6Self Regulatory Role

Timelines for ICRC cases are exceeding the mandated timelines

^If timelines are not met, the matter could be reported to HPARB and they could take over the case. This occurrence is rare and there has only been one instance where this occurred at another College.

BO/PS 4 2 High -The Registrar has the ability to grant an extension if reasonable-External delays are beyond our control-There are internal disruptions (i.e. staff turnover) that cannot be completely mitigated'-2016-17 marks the time in 5 years that processing timelines have been met

New Risks Identified in 201764 B. Core

Business Processes

B.5Standard Setting

A large portion of the peer assessor pool is two to three years away from retirement and peer assessors are difficult to recruit.

BO/ACR 5 3 Low -The Director of Professional Practise and Quality Assurance is recruiting peer assessors all year long-All members who receive satisfactory results on their peer assessment are vetted for a peer assessor position. -Currently, Peer assessors complete two to three peer assessments/year. Peer assessors have the capacity to take on more peer assessments if necessary.


B.2Certification

Other Colleges have identified that their members do not have sufficient insurance or proof of insurance

BO/CM 3 4 Low -During renewal, we have members answer a question regarding whether they have the required insurance to practice

*Test the extent of the risk by: -sending an email to the membership to indicate that members will be randomly selected for an audit of insurance - timing to be determined -perform an audit of insurance for a random selection of members - sample size and timing to be determined*Based on the result of the test, determine what course of action is necessary to mitigate the risk (i.e. annual random audits vs requiring all members to upload proof of insurance on an annual basis)

of 4


Risk Tolerance

Zero

Low

Moderate

HighRisk

CategoryRisk



Risk Rating

Likelihood: 1=Rare;


4=Likely; 5=Almost

Certain




ResponsibleGroup/

DepartmentDescription of Risk Event/Situation/Outcome66 A. Legal/

RegulatoryA.6Internal Policy

Difficulty attracting members to run for Council BO/CB 3 3 Moderate -Use Council members, non-council members and peer assessors to solicit interest from colleagues *Create a process to cultivate interest with Non-Council members with the goal of having them run for Council*Reach out to other Colleges to see if they have any innovative ideas with respect to attracting more interest from members

APPENDIX 2

What was the date of the last assessment? May 2016What is the date of the current assessment? May 2017

A. Fraudulent Financial Reporting

Change identified?

Yes / No

New risk(s) identified?

Yes / NoDescribe the new risk identified and what could go wrong OR document the previously assessed risk Mitigation action(s) Ref.

Incentives / PressuresHave there been any changes in economic, industry, or organization operating conditions?

Yes Yes New Risks-Revenue projections for membership fees are falling short of budgeted amounts due to the following factors:*Growth in the membership has slowed due to a decrease in applications and an increase in resignations*The job market for SLPs has worsened. Applicants are finding it difficult to find full-time work. Casual and part-time work is on the rise.-Programs may need to be cut to compensate for the revenue shortfalls

-Proposed Fee increases are currently being circulated to members. Council will review the feedback at their meeting in June 2017 and make a decision on the proposals.-Due to the volume of responses received and the negative content of the feedback, staff will present Council with alternatives to the proposals to address the members concerns regarding a worsening job market and financial instability

Consider conditions such as::• High degree of competition or market saturation, accompanied by declining margins.• High vulnerability to rapid changes, such as changes in technology, product obsolescence, or interest rates.• Significant declines in customer demand and increasing business failures in either the industry or overall economy.• Operating losses making the threat of bankruptcy, foreclosure, or hostile takeover imminent.• Recurring negative cash flows from operations or an inability to generate cash flows from operations while reporting earnings and earnings growth.• Rapid growth or unusual profitability especially compared to that of other companies in the same industry.• New accounting, statutory, or regulatory requirements.

Has the stability or complexity of the organization changed? Yes No Previously Assessed Risk-Staff turnover -Audiology Policy & Practice Advisor role was vacant from May 2016 and interest in the position was very low. Complaints against Audiologists are on the rise.

-The part-time Audiology Advisor role has been restructed to a full time Audiology Advisor and Manager of Mentorship role. The position was filled at the end of March 2017.

Consider observations such as:• Difficulty in determining the organization or individuals that have controlling interest in the entity.• Overly complex organizational structure involving unusual legal entities or managerial lines of authority.• High turnover of senior management, legal counsel, or those charged with governance.

Fraud Risk Assessment ChecklistFraudulent Financial Reporting and Misappropriation of Assets are types of intentional behaviours (fraud) which may cause an organization's financial statements to be materially misstated.

Management's process for assessing the risks to the Organization includes evaluating incentives, pressures, and opportunities for fraud within the Organization as well as evaluating the Organization's existing operations risk register and internal control system for new exposures (risks). New risk exposures may result from changes in the risk profile of the Organization's operations, changes in pressures and incentives for individuals to perpetrate fraud, and/or from changes in the Organization's operating processes.

Step 1 - Document the current system of internal controls and identified risks of material misstatement to the financial statementsStep 2 - Use this worksheet to identify circumstances and events which have changed since the date of the last assessment.Step 3 - Review the existing internal controls and identify means of overriding these controls (consider means, individuals involved, and mitigation)


MEMORANDUM CIRCULATION RESULTS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS RELATED TO FEES TO Council

FROM Ruth Cimerman, Director of Finance and Operations


ACTION REQUESTED To approve the revised proposal of amendments to the By-laws related to Fees (By-law 2011-3 and By-law 2011-5). BACKGROUND On the advice of the Finance and Executive Committees, on March 3, 2017 Council approved the circulation to the membership and stakeholders of the proposed amendments to By-laws related to fees. The amendments were proposed to improve the College’s ability to offset increasing costs of application and registration processes, build reserves to the required level, and to mitigate revenue risks.

A survey link was sent to the membership and stakeholders on March 28, 2017 using Survey Monkey. The survey solicited responses and feedback on the 8 proposed changes and provided rationale for each proposed change. The survey closed on May 26, 2017 after remaining in circulation for 60 days. A copy of the survey is attached.

In total, we received 1,222 responses through Survey Monkey (of which 76% (933) responses were received in the first week). Of the 1,222 responses, 623 (51%) provided comments within the survey tool comments section. Additionally, 74 members emailed a letter to the professional members of Council and copied the Registrar, OSLA and the Ministry. A copy of the letter is attached. CASLPO sent a comprehensive response to the 74 members on May 8, 2017 addressing all of the concerns raised in the letter. A copy of the response is attached.

In total, we have received a response from 30% of the membership which is the largest response we have received using the Survey Monkey tool. Unfortunately, when the previous proposed fee increases were circulated in 2014, Survey Monkey was not utilized. Therefore, comparison data regarding responses is not available. However, at the time of the $100 fee increase in General fees in 2014, approximately 10% of members and OSLA provided comments via email.

On May 19, 2017, the Executive Committee reviewed an analysis of the survey responses received as of May 8, 2017. The Committee reviewed the quantitative data from the responses as well as a representative sample of comments compiled by staff that were received through the comments section of the survey. The Registrar and myself read all 623 comments submitted. Given the number of comments, the Committee opted to accept


reviewing only the representative samples of comments. The Executive Committee passed a motion to recommend that Council approve a revision to the original proposals based on their review of the analysis of the survey responses and financial forecast.

Following the June 9th Council meeting, the membership will be informed of Council’s decisions and reasons via group email. The aggregate summary of input data will be made available on the College website and all 623 comments received will be posted, along with the email received from the 74 members and the College’s response to that email. The College’s analysis of the aggregate feedback summary data will also be posted for members. This is in keeping with the College’s consultation protocols, as posted, and to meet the need for open and transparent communication with the public, members and stakeholders.

INFORMATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION The following documents will provide you with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the proposed amendments to the By-laws related to Fees.

1. The survey distributed to members and stakeholders 2. Analysis of the survey responses, by proposal. Analysis includes:

• The proposed change • Response data • Aggregated summary of comments • A sample of comments • CASLPO’s response to the comments

3. The letter received from 74 CASLPO members 4. CASLPO’s response to the letter 5. Recommended revisions to the proposed amendments to the By-laws based on the

feedback received from members 6. Financial forecast based on revised proposals

The following survey seeks your feedback on proposed changes to CASLPO's fees. These changeswill affect the fees paid by Applicants, Initial members, Academic members, General members andNon-Practising members.

The survey allows you to comment on the proposed changes to the by-laws, the exact wording ofthe proposed by-laws and the rationale for the change.

The proposed changes are in the following areas:

1. Annual fees for Initial members

2. Registration fees

3. Annual fee adjustments

4. Proration of annual fees

5. Application fees

6. Schedule of fees

7. Member repayments

8. Professional Corporation fees

Note:

· Proposed new sections of by-laws are highlighted in red.

· Sections proposed to be removed from current by-laws are crossed out.

The survey is anonymous. The results will be collated and posted on the College website. A finalreview of the survey results will be completed by the College Council in June 2017.

The survey will close on May 26, 2017 at 11:59 p.m.

Thank you for actively participating in this valuable consultation process.

This Survey

Proposed Changes to Fees

1

The College Council is responsible for ensuring the College has sufficient funds to fulfill itsstatutory obligations to protect the public of Ontario through self-regulation of the profession. Atthe same time, Council recognizes it must ensure that the College carefully manages how thosefunds are used. After a thorough review of the College’s financial statements, financial projections,and an assessment of the College’s present and future obligations and risks, Council has approvedfor circulation to members, proposed by-law changes that will increase fees to provide the Collegewith sufficient financial resources to support both ongoing operating costs as well as newprograms for the future.

Summary


3

Proposed change to Annual fees for Initial members:

Annual fees for Initial members will be consistent with General and Academic members

Proposed by-Law changes to Annual fees for Initial members:

5.2 The annual fees are:

5.2.2 for a member holding an initial or non-practising certificate of registration: $350.00 for2014/25, $357.00 for 2015/16 and $364 for 2016/17;

1. Annual fees for Initial members


Rationale for proposed change:

Initial members are required to complete an Initial Practice Period (IPP). They are mentored by a Generalmember to help develop new professional and personal skills and receive support and guidance to facilitateintegration of College practice standards. Throughout the IPP, an Initial member is accountable for all thehealth care services he/she provides and is held to the same professional standards as General members. Furthermore, the proposed increase will fund enhancements to the mentorship program by providingmentors with greater tools and resources to perform their duties more effectively and efficiently andmotivate more General members to become mentors.

Yes No

1. Do you understand the reasons for the change?

4

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

2. Do you agree that this change is reasonable?

5

Proposed change to Registration fees:

Registration fees decrease to $50 from $200

Proposed by-Law changes to Registration fees:

4.1 After an applicant is notified by the College that the application for a certificate ofregistration has been approved, a separate registration fee of $200.00 and a prorated annual fee arepayable before the issuance of the first certificate of registration or the reinstatement of acertificate of registration after resignation or revocation.

2. Registration fees



To provide offsetting relief for the proposed annual fee increase for Initial members.

Yes No

3. Do you understand the reason for the change?



6

Proposed change to annual fee adjustments:

An incremental Annual fee increase of 2% per year over the next five years for members who hold acertificate of registration in the General, Academic, Initial and Non-Practising classes.

Proposed by-Law changes to annual fee adjustments:

10 FEE ADJUSTMENTS

10.1 Effective October 1, 2017, the annual fee shall be increased each and every year from theyear commencing October 1, 2017 to the year commencing October 1, 2021 by two percent of theannual fee payable for the previous year, rounded up to the nearest dollar. “Cost of Living Index”means an annual cost-of-living adjustment for inflation or deflation as measured by an index ofmovements in prices as indicated by the Consumer Price Index. or such other index as may beconsulted by the Council from time to time.

10.2 The Council may, at its discretion, adjust the amount of any fee set out in this By-law ineach year. In so doing the Council may consider the increases or decreases in the Cost of LivingIndex along with any other relevant budgetary considerations in setting fees.

3. Annual fee adjustments


7


The proposed changes to Annual fees reflect the rising costs of meeting the College’s regulatory mandateand strategic goals while addressing pressures from the external environment. The College Councilrecognized the challenges associated with increasing members’ fees, but also noted the following relevantfactors before approving the proposal for circulation:

1. The rate of membership growth in CASLPO has slowed over the last two years due to an increase inresignations, static number of applications and a shift in the job market for speech-language pathologistswhere casual and part-time work is on the rise.

2. The quantity and complexity of complaints and reports against members continue to rise. Legal,investigation and expert reporting costs have risen by 75% over the last two years and continues to trendupward in the current fiscal year.

3. Discipline costs have increased and their occurrence is becoming more frequent. Over the last twoyears, the College spent approximately $315,000 to complete two discipline cases compared to the$14,000 spent on eight discipline cases during the previous thirteen years. The College has one disciplinecase scheduled to begin late in 2017.

4. In addition to providing programs required by legislation, the College Council has committed $200,000over three years towards its strategic objective of increasing the public’s awareness of the College. TheCollege has produced videos and brochures to reach out to the public through social media, television,offices of health professionals and hospitals to raise awareness about the benefits of using a regulatedhealth professional.

5. Inflation is projected to hover around 2% over the next five years.

6. The College is in the process of rebuilding adequate reserves that comply with requirements set by theCanada Revenue Agency and mitigate the risk of unforeseen events.

Yes No




8

Proposed change to proration of annual fees:

The proration of Annual fees will be changed to quarterly from monthly

Proposed by-Law changes to proration of Annual fees:

5.3 The annual fee paid by a member in the year of the member’s first application shall beprorated according to the quarter portion of the year falling between the date the certificate ofregistration is issued and September 30th in the same registration year.

4. Proration of Annual fees



To ease the administrative service burden and streamline processes.

9

Yes No




10

Proposed change to Application fees:

Application fees will increase to $150 from $100

Proposed by-Law changes to Application fees:

3.1 A person, who submits an application for a first certificate of registration, or an applicationto change the class of a certificate of registration, or an application to reinstate a previously heldcertificate after resignation or revocation from the College, shall pay a non-refundable applicationfee of $100.00.

5. Application fees



The proposed fee increase will offset the increased costs associated with reviewing and processing allapplications. The quantity and complexity of domestic and international applications has increased overthe last twenty years with the rise in accredited university programs, the new regulations under the OntarioLabour Mobility Act, 2009 and the Federal government’s mandate to streamline foreign credentialrecognition for audiologist and speech-language pathologists (who were named as one of 10 new priorityoccupations in 2014). This is the first time this fee is being increased.

Yes No


11


10. Do you agree agree that this change is reasonable?

12

Proposed change to where fees are disclosed:

Specific fee amounts will be removed from within By-law 2011-3 and relocated to a schedulefollowing the By-law 2011-3.

Proposed by-Law changes to where fees are disclosed:

1.4 The College shall maintain, as a schedule to these By-laws, a list of all fees and penaltieswhich may be charged or imposed by the College. Schedule to By-law 2011-3

6. Schedule of fees


13


To improve the transparency of the fee schedule for all members.

Yes No




16

Proposed change to member repayments:

If any fee or penalty charged by the College is not paid by the member, the College will include itas part of the member’s next annual fee.

Proposed by-Law changes to member repayments:

2 PAYMENT OF FEES

2.1 The fees payable by a member or applicant for registration shall be those fees which areset out in the By-laws of the College, as amended from time to time. Where no fee or penalty hasbeen set out in the schedule, a member or person shall pay the College the fee or penalty set bythe College.

2.2 Where a person requests the Registrar to do anything that the Registrar is required orauthorized to do by statute or regulation, the person shall pay the prescribed fee.

2.3 A member’s obligation to pay a fee or penalty continues regardless of whether the memberfails to receive notice of a fee or penalty.

2.4 Any fee or penalty charged or imposed by the College not paid by a member shall beincluded as part of a member’s next annual membership fee.

2.5 If a member fails to pay a fee or penalty or part thereof:

(a) the Registrar must give the member notice if the College intends to suspend the member; and

(b) may suspend the member’s certificate of registration for failure to pay the fee or penalty within30 days after notice is given.


To provide the College with a course of action to collect unpaid fees or penalties.

7. Member repayments


Yes No


17



18

Proposed change to Professional Corporation fees:

To move the location of the by-law relating to Professional Corporation fees from Article 2 in By-law2011-5 to Article 9 in By-law 2011-3.

Proposed by-Law changes to Professional Corporation fees:

By-law 2011-3

9 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

9.1 The annual fee for a certificate of authorization for a professional corporation shall be paidon January 2nd each year.

9.2 A professional corporation or a member listed in the College’s records as a shareholder ofa professional corporation shall pay an administrative fee for each notice sent by the Registrar tothe corporation or member for failure of the corporation to renew its certificate of authorization ontime. The fee is due within thirty days of the notice being sent.

By-law 2011-5

2 FEES

2.2 The annual fee for a certificate of authorization for a professional corporation shall be paidon January 2nd each year.

2.3 A professional corporation or a member listed in the College’s records as a shareholder ofa professional corporation shall pay an administrative fee for each notice sent by the Registrar tothe corporation or member for failure of the corporation to renew its certificate of authorization ontime. The fee is due within thirty days of the notice being sent.


To centralize all by-laws related to fees into By-law 2011-3.

8. Professional Corporation fees


19

Yes No




20

Please provide us with any comments regarding the proposed changes to fees.

Comments


17. Comments

21

CASLPO thanks you for providing your valued opinion.


22

ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESPONSES BY PROPOSAL

Each proposal area includes:

• The proposed change • Response data • Aggregated comments • A sample of comments • CASLPO’s response to the comments

Proposal #1

Schedule of Fees and Penalties

All of the following fees are in Canadian funds

Type

Current Amount Proposed Amount

Effective October 1,

2017

Annual Fee

Initial $364.00 $728.00

Response Data: Do you understand the reasons for the change? Answer # of Responses % Yes 1048 86.40% No 165 13.60% 1213 100.00% Do you agree that this change is reasonable Answer # of Responses % Strongly Agree 96 7.95%

41.67%

Agree 407 33.72% Disagree 330 27.34%

58.33%

Strongly Disagree 374 30.99% 1207 100% 100%

Comments

101 out of 623 comments (16%) were received relating to Proposal #1.

Greatest Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Three Matters:

• Fees should not increase for IPRs. They are already burdened with student loans, difficulty finding consistent work, and a lower pay scale when work is found.

• Why is more money being directed to mentorship and what are the new tools/resources being added with the additional funds?

• This increase could further reduce applications and negatively affect the membership population.

Sample Comments

1. “First of all, having the "Initial Member" fee DOUBLE in one year is entirely unreasonable. As someone who graduated less than 5 years ago, it is in my experience awfully rare to graduate with extra money. It is not unusual for new graduates/initial members to not have jobs yet, or be hired on contracts and therefore may not be in a financial position to pay any extra amounts. They will already being paying other fees for registration, moving... I completely disagree with new graduates as having to take on a larger burden of the registration fees.”

2. “For new IPRs, many of them are leaving school with debt and do not acquire full-time work. Some institutions also pay them less than the lowest pay on the pay scale since they are not yet "general members". For them, paying double the amount to practice could be financially daunting.”

3. “I think that the fees associated with applying and initial practice year are too high for many young graduates getting started in the profession, particularly when they often cannot get consistent work. Mentoring a local Canadian SLP during their first year is fairly straightforward, since we know their qualifications and experience. The reporting and paperwork that are required of mentors should be kept to a minimum. I would like to know more details of the 'new tools and resources' that are going to be provided for mentors, to be confident that these are useful and that CASLPO is not wasting money in developing them.”

4. “I think that it is outrageous and unjust to expect initial applicants to pay the same fee as general members. These initial applicants have just completed a 2 year degree upwards of $20,000 in value and likely have student debt to repay to the bank or the government. These students have already completed 500+ hours of uncompensated work (unpaid internships) in order to complete their degrees. In addition, many organizations, in particular private practices, already believe it is acceptable to under-compensate clinicians in the 'initial practice period' due to the fact that mentoring a new grad is 'extra work and responsibility.' If there is no mandate to say that IPPs must be compensated at rate commensurate to that of a therapist with 1 year experience, there is no reason that these IPPs should be expected to pay the same membership fee as a clinician with 1 year experience. Unless mentors are going to be scrutinized in terms of how much support and professional development they provide, and unless IPPs are compensated for their time the at the same rate as a general CASLPO member, it is absolutely unacceptable to expect these individuals to pay the full membership fee in their first year.”

5. “Having noted that decline of CASLPO revenues is partly caused by today's employment climate of hiring temporary/casual/part-time professionals, increasing fees to these members only further burdens this group of the membership. This group (often new or nearly new grads) have cobbled

together bits and pieces of positions many of whom have assumed significant debt loads for their training. Further an even bigger issue is the stagnant employment environment in Ontario coupled with increasing program enrolments (Western increase from 37 to 50 per year) and new training programs (McMaster 27 students) universities are creating in order to line their own pockets without any regard for their graduates' expectations of obtaining full time employment in Ontario.”

CASLPO’s Response

The Initial Practice Period of a new member poses the highest risk of harm to the public due to the IPRs lack of experience and unfamiliarity with CASLPO’s standards of practice. To mitigate the risk, CASLPO requires that an IPR complete a mentorship period where the new professional has an opportunity to develop new professional and personal skills and receive support and guidance from their mentor to facilitate becoming familiar with College practice standards. Currently, the mentorship process is paper-based and lacks standardization across mentors. CASLPO, through its 3 year strategic plan, has identified the need to further mitigate this risk area by:

• Bringing the mentorship process online. The goals of creating an online process are to ease the administrative burden for mentors and staff, create the ability to aggregate data to address problem areas in the mentorship process, improve standardization of the IPR evaluation.

• Provide training to mentors. Training will allow CASLPO to standardize the work performed by mentors and ensure IPRs are evaluated in a consistent way.

The comments made by members in the survey are valid. IPRs are likely not in the best financial position to afford the full annual fee upon registration and if the fee increases it may further reduce the number of new applicants. However, the reality is that more funds need to be directed to the mentorship process. If these funds are not generated from the IPR fees, they will need to be generated from the pool of renewal fees from all members.

Note: Recent budgetary announcements by the government to increase funding for hospitals, long-term care facilities, home care and the implementation of the government’s Special Needs and Dementia Strategies, will likely increase job opportunities for SLPs.

Proposal #2



Type


Effective October 1, 2017

Registration Fee $200.00 $50.00

Response Data: Do you understand the reasons for the change?

Answer # of Responses % Yes 1098 92.04% No 95 7.96%

1193 100% Do you agree that this change is reasonable

Answer # of Responses % Strongly Agree 259 21.76%

75.96%

Agree 645 54.20% Disagree 167 14.04%

24.04%


Comments

There were no comments received specific to Proposal #2 since Proposal #2 works in conjunction with Proposal #1.

Proposal #3

Effective October 1, 2017, the annual fee shall be increased each and every year from the year commencing October 1, 2017 to the year commencing October 1, 2021 by two percent of the annual fee payable for the previous year, rounded up to the nearest dollar.



Type

Current Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount


2017-September

30, 2018


2018-September

30, 2019


2019-September

30, 2020


2020-September

30, 2021


2021-September

30, 2022

Annual Fee

General $728.00 $743.00 $758.00 $773.00 $788.00 $804.00

Academic $728.00 $743.00 $758.00 $773.00 $788.00 $804.00

Initial $364.00 $743.00 $758.00 $773.00 $788.00 $804.00

Non-Practising $364.00 $371.00 $378.00 $386.00 $394.00 $402.00

Life $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00


Answer # of

Responses % Yes 990 84.98% No 175 15.02% 1165 100% Do you agree that this change is reasonable?

Answer # of

Responses % Strongly Agree 24 2.06%

23.61%

Agree 251 21.55% Disagree 320 27.46%

76.39%


Comments

All 623 (100%) of the comments received addressed Proposal #3. Member comments are segmented and aggregated by the common themes expressed in their feedback.

Note: total number of comments below exceed 623 due to the fact members commented on multiple themes.

Fee to salary ratio (279 comments)

Greatest Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Four Matters:

• Members do not receive annual increases in their salary to keep pace with inflation or any other factor.

• Members in the public sector have not received any regular increases in their salary over the last 5-10 years.

• SLPs are earning less due to the difficulty in finding jobs and are working more casual and part-time hours. This makes it difficult to pay the current fee.

• CASLPO members pay a larger fee as a percentage of their salary compared to other professions.

Sample Comments

1. “I understand your rationale for changes, but generally don't agree! Yes SLPs tend to be working more casual and part-time hours. This means we don't make as much and can't afford the increase in fees. We want to work more, however there are no jobs. We go contract to contract hoping for something regular, permanent and full-time to come up. There is a new SLP class opening up in Hamilton - this will produce more SLPs who will fight for jobs. This will cause less jobs, but more registrants to pay your fees! If you want to focus your efforts on anything, focus on getting the

public sector to understand what we do and why they need SLPs, in the hopes that they will dedicate more funding. Waitlists are huge, and clients are underserved...however there is NO money to hire more SLPs. We are highly skilled and have zero job security. “

2. “The raising of annual fees is way too high. SLP salaries are not going up, jobs are scarce and the fact that the rate of growth is lower does not mean you are making less money off of your members. Many of my graduating class have had to move out of province to find work. There has been a huge increase in class size of SLP programs in Ontario in addition to the creation of a new program at McMaster. Instead of further taxing your members maybe instead take a look at how to streamline your costs. It is condescending to ask for input when I know I won't get a response from you and we need to pay you to practise anyway, so as if we have a choice.”

3. “I do my job well for the benefit of those I serve. I follow the rules and regulations. I am getting tired of paying higher and higher fees for those professionals who do not follow the rules and regulations. CASLPO fees are constantly going up! I have had my first pay increase in over 5 years. It was 1.5 percent. I do not anticipate getting a 2 percent pay increase every year over the next 5 years. I feel that it is unfair for me to be expected to pay higher CASLPO fees regularly when I do not regularly receive such similar increases in my pay even though my expenses are going up.”

4. “Having been a registered audiologist since the inception of CASLPO the fees have essentially tripled over that time. When you look at what we currently pay ($728) and with a median audiologist's salary being about $80,000 we pay $1.00 to the College for every $110.00 made. Colleague otolaryngologists pay $1,570 to their college and with a median salary of about $360,000 they pay $1.00 for every $206.00 they make. Colleague nurses a [sic] pay $175 fee and with a median salary of about $70,000 they pay $1.00 for every $399.00 they make. There are many other colleges but when compared to CASLPO most of them have lesser fees when compared to median salaries.”

5. “In working in the public sector, we do not receive raises yearly, and in fact have only received a 1% raise in two of the last 10 years. It is unreasonable to expect members to pay more fees when we are not being paid more ourselves. The rationale that fees need to increase "due to an increase in resignations, static number of applications and a shift in the job market for speech-language pathologists where casual and part-time work is on the rise" is not logical. The more you increase fees, the more SLPs are going to leave the profession. This is something I have seriously considered. I am only able to work part time and am not sure it is financially feasible to continue to work as an SLP.”

CASLPO’s Response

We hear you. The job market for many SLPs is precarious. Full time work is difficult to secure. Raises are few and far between.

We also understand that our role is to regulate SLPs and AUDs on behalf of the public. This role requires that we provide sufficient funding to meet the mandated activities of the College to:

• Register competent practitioners

• Provide assurance to the public that members are meeting professional standards set by the College

• Investigate any allegations of professional misconduct • Discipline members where there is proof of serious professional misconduct/incompetence

Although CASLPO continually looks for ways to improve processes, do things more efficiently and reduce costs, the reality is that costs related to our mandated activities continue to increase. Additionally, in response to Ministry direction, other costs related to public protection through transparency have been increased.

The fee increases were proposed to ensure that CASLPO meets the obligations of today and ensures fiscal responsibility for the future through our financial reserves.

Cut Costs (218 comments)


• Rather than increasing fees, CASLPO should look at cost cutting measures. • In the current environment, SLPs are doing more with less. CASLPO should do the same. • More burden is being placed on members through a fee increase when membership growth is

already an issue. CASLPO should bear the burden by cutting costs. • CASLPO offices should move outside of Toronto to a location with lower rent, and away from Yonge

and Bloor.

Sample Comments

1. “I found this survey to be very vague and lacking in specific examples and concrete plans. Nowhere in this [sic] documents does the College address their own plans/ideas/strategies of cost reductions within its system. For example, looking into moving the College from a Toronto address to a less expensive area. As SLPs we are constantly asked to look at our dwindling resources in order to provide quality service while following best practice guidelines. I was very saddened and frustrated to see that the College has considered these changes and not addressed the impact this will have on members who are already struggling.”

2. “There is no indication of consideration of cost containment at the College to offset the cost associated with obligations as outlined, for example, staff salary, staffing levels, location of offices. Was this considered at all? Mid-town Toronto is an expensive market for infrastructure. Relatedly, some administrative tasks have been simplified over the years (many tasks online, online database, e-payments etc) but these savings have not been reflected in fee reductions, lower staff ratios at the College.”

3. “SLPs are not getting wage increases. Not even cost of living in the past 6-8 years. I would like to see the College demonstrating strategies to cut costs, and find innovative cost saving strategies before raising fees. SLPs and Audiologists pose very low risk to the public (our lawyers and insurers tell us this) so why are we paying as much as other higher risk groups?”

4. “CASLPO, you need to tighten your belt just as those of us working [sic] the public health or education sector have been required to tighten our belts for years. Most of us do not even get a cost of living increase in our wages that amounts to 2%. We are constantly and chronically being asked to do more with less. CASLPO...do the same, be creative, move your office to a less expensive location, downsize your media campaigns on why the public should use regulated health professionals (SAC and OSLA have got this covered), and recognize the fact that the vast majority of us who do work in public health and education already do all of our own internal audits, meet accreditation standards, are accountable to a health or education institution's policies and procedures, peer review each other, answer to a wealth of regulatory practices, have performance reviews, educate ourselves continually and set our own goals, whether CASLPO is coming to visit or not!”

5. “We have not been informed of any attempts by CASLPO to cut costs. Typically, when corporations/businesses are facing tough times, they make attempts to save money to minimize the financial burden on employees. If retention of members is important to CASPLO, transparency surrounding attempts to cut costs should be presented. To date, what cost saving measures have been implemented by CASLPO? $250 000 in "office and other" costs seems high - has any thought been placed on relocating outside of downtown Toronto, given Toronto has the highest price of real estate in the province.”

CASLPO’s Response

CASLPO is constantly looking for ways to contain costs or achieve efficiencies. Over the last 3 years we’ve achieved the following:

• 41% ($9,200) reduction in telephone and teleconference expenses by switching to an IP phone system, renegotiating existing contracts and moving to a new teleconference service provider

• 64% ($4,500) reduction in internet costs by moving to a new service provider • Elimination of data entry costs as members complete their renewal online • Reduced the cost of manual processing of credit cards or cheques through increased use of

online credit card payments, including an $8,500 reduction in credit card fees through contract renegotiation

• A $64,000 in-year reduction in costs for 2016-17 due to an unexpected decrease in fees revenues

• A change in health insurance providers to reduce benefit costs • Mailing and printing costs reduced significantly through electronic distribution of meeting

materials and College newsletters and membership communications • Holding many College council Committee meetings electronically rather than in person. • Negotiation of an improved hotel accommodation discount for Council members and peer

assessors • Establishment of a new staff salary compensation grid, which is closely aligned with salary

levels of other Colleges of comparable size and budget, including annual salary restraint measures.

The College offices moved from Yonge and Bloor (downtown Toronto) to Yonge and Lawrence (north Toronto) in 2004, and a ten-year lease was secured. After a year of examining all options, CASLPO

renewed its lease at Yonge and Lawrence in 2014. All regulatory healthcare colleges have offices in Toronto. Most are located in downtown Toronto. After an exhaustive study, including advice from a real estate broker, CASLPO opted to stay in its current space. Travel costs for Council members and staff attending meetings in an office location outside of Toronto were found not to be economical. Any lease savings would be offset by this factor.

Rising costs of Complaints, Reports and Discipline (140 comments)

Greatest Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Five Areas:

• Why have costs for complaints, reports and discipline risen so significantly? • What evidence does CASLPO have to substantiate that these costs will continue to rise? • CASLPO needs to find efficiencies in the process rather than passing on the costs for complaints,

reports and discipline to its members. • There appears to be very few cases mentioned in the Annual report. How can these processes cost

so much money? • $315,000 spent on 2 discipline cases is excessive.

Sample Comments

1. “Costs for discipline cases, hearings and court costs have increased by 215% over the last two years--My question is WHY? Is the College looking into patterns and reasons for this increase and if so, what are the results? Is the College looking into ways to reduce these incidences? Costs for complaints, reports and appeals involving members and cease and desist orders against unauthorized practitioners have risen by 75% over the last two years-I'm not sure why practicing and authorized practitioners are responsible for these costs? These fees should come from the involving individuals.”

2. “While I understand the rationale for fee increases set forth in this survey, particularly the huge escalation in costs associated with disciplinary matters I question whether these costs are one time or not-is it even possible to predict? We have been given no information about the 2 cases that had these outstanding costs so it is impossible to evaluate. It may have been a bad spell of complex, but more routine sailing ahead.”

3. “What evidence do you have that disciplinary expenses are going to continue to increase, and that it is necessary to therefore increase membership fees. CASLPO has had some high profile complaints - which have been disputed by members - resulting in some extraordinary expenses. I would expect that the long term trend of minimal expenses will continue - thus it is not necessary to increase the fees in anticipation of continuing along a trajectory. This is a once in a decade incidence, and not a pattern necessitating an increased budget line.”

4. “I strongly disagree with the increase of our fees because CASLPO is unable to find efficiencies in the complaints and disciplinary departments. I am opposed to an increase in every member's fee in order to pay for complaints investigations and discipline hearings for a very small number of individual members. Also, I believe many complaints are frivolous and come from a public member

who is unhappy with the service, not the performance of the provider. The College should not be spending time and membership dues investigating unsubstantiated and frivolous complaints.”

5. “As a college, you must find ways to cut costs to avoid passing excess fees on to our members.

Across the health care system, we are all cost cutting and yet CASLPO continues to increase our fees for no true reason. In reading the Annual report, there are very few disciplinary actions, very few complaints and yet our fees continue to rise. You have plenty of money to do what needs to be done and a diligent group of SLPs and AUDs who are compliant and see this as important. Please find a way to use our money more wisely. You are taking advantage of the fact that we MUST join to avoid being accountable to the members that pay your salary. While I know that you are accountable to the public and not to us, please consider that we are professionals who do the best we can, and work in a health sector that does not pay us handsomely for this. Find ways to cost cut, not increase fees. Very disappointed in the way CASLPO is handling our money.”

CASLPO’s Response

Costs have increased over the last few years due to the increase in the number of complaints and reports received, the increased complexity of the cases and the larger portion of members being referred to Discipline.

The following is a breakdown of the activity with respect to complaints, reports and discipline by year:

2014 2015 2016 As of May 29, 2017

New complaints 11 31 15 9 New Reports 5 9 8 8 Complaints or reports carried forward from the previous year

7 8 35 33

Discipline hearings 0 1 1 0 * *1 member has been referred to Discipline. Hearing date to be scheduled

Appeals 1 2 5 4 Total 24 51 64 54

The year over year comparison highlights several things: 1. Overall, the total number of complaints, reports, hearings and appeals has consistently increased. 2. A large number of complaints and reports are getting carried over from one year to the next due to

the complexity of the cases. The increased complexity necessitates the need for more investigations and expert reports.

3. The new complaints and reports received each year are increasing. 4. One Discipline hearing is taking place per year. 5. The Discipline hearings in 2015 and 2016 were both contested.

To provide some context, there is a large range of costs per case based on the complexity and the nature of the case. A simple straight forward case may cost the College up to $600, while a complex case (where an investigator report and expert opinion are required) may cost the College $8,500 on average. If the member is referred to discipline, the costs will vary based on the number of hearing days. If the hearing is uncontested, the matter can be completed in a day and cost the College $1,000 - $2,000. If the member contests the allegations, the hearing could run for many days and cost the College approximately $8,000-$10,000 per day. The College has an obligation in meeting its public protection mandate to hold a hearing when there are serious concerns of professional misconduct/incompetence. In the same vein, any member referred to discipline has the right to respond to the allegations in a full public hearing. These are legal obligations and rights that the College does not have the authority to ignore or avoid, and the College must follow the statutory procedures as required.

In all cases, College committees and staff have processes in place to mitigate the risk of incurring unnecessary or excessive costs. These mitigation processes include:

• Investigators are not appointed to every case. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee evaluates whether an investigation is warranted on a case by case basis.

• Experienced investigators are used to reduce costs. • The Director of Professional Conduct reviews the investigation plan and constantly monitors

investigation costs. • All disbursements outside of the investigation plan need to be approved by the College

before they are incurred. • Prior to referring any cases to Discipline, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee

determines: 1. Are the concerns of such a serious nature that a referral to the Discipline Committee is justified? If yes, then: 2. Is there sufficient evidence available to prove the allegations?

• The Committee can request a legal opinion when a case is unclear to avoid referring a matter that does not meet this threshold and to ultimately save the cost of a hearing.

• Prior to a discipline hearing taking place, the College holds a pre-hearing conference in an attempt to resolve the allegations. The hope is to achieve an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) and Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) which best meets the interest of protecting the public. If an ASF and JSP can be reached, then a hearing can go from spanning days to involving just a few hours.

CASLPO fees are higher than other Colleges (76 comments)

Greatest Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Three Matters:

• CASLPO fees are higher than other provinces. • CASLPO fees are higher than other professions. • CASLPO fees are higher than other rehab and mental health professions and the risk of harm is

significantly lower.

Sample Comments

1. “I have a number of thoughts regarding the proposed fee changes. We already pay much higher fees for CASLPO membership than most other rehab and mental health professionals (OT, PT, social work). I don't know how this can continue to be warranted or justified. I don't think the risk factor inherent in much of our work is higher than OT, PT or mental health - it is arguable less invasive and with less risk for serious harm, especially in non-hospital settings. There is a good argument to be made that we are paying more than enough already. What I would like to hear, instead of justifications for increases in fees, is how you have explored reducing inefficiencies in the organization. I have a hard time understanding how raising fees is of benefit to members.”

2. “Have other regulated health professions colleges increased their fees to the same extent? And what do audiology/speech language pathology colleges in other provinces charge? Additionally, you are able to prorate fees for new members when they complete their mentorship, but won't do it for members who go on parental leave? Seems like another money grab... All in all, it is hard to have faith in the agency that regulates my profession and is supposed to protect the public when it is gouging its members. But what choice do myself and my colleagues have? If we want to continue working in our chosen professions and keep helping Ontarians, we must pay these outrageous fee amounts. I fully expect that you will say that you appreciate our feedback and will consider it... and then completely ignore it and do what you want.”

3. “The proposed increases in membership fees is in my opinion [sic] unacceptable. In comparison to other allied health professions and medical professions our group pays the highest fees as a ratio of our annual average income by anywhere from 50 to 200%. I understand the need to pull funds to support the college from somewhere however I do not feel that the work the college does is justified as it certainly has not helped my practice to perform better from a salary perspective. There is no regulation or control to benefit audiologist and speech language pathologist professional positions over that of a CDA or HIS. Additionally, you suggest increased payments based on the rate of inflation but my salary does not increase based on the rate of inflation annually and I would argue that very few others on [sic] our profession experience the same increases in salary.”

4. “Increasing annual fees for such a very low risk profession is ridiculous and robbery. Engineers with PEO pay $200 a year in a very high risk profession with huge liability issues. Why should members pay more because of decreased enrolment? Fees were raised previously because the enrolment was too high! Cut back your staff or place them on contract like we are when things get busy or die down. Cut your costs instead of increasing our fees. Increased costs for developing supports to assist with mentoring? No thanks. Many organizations have built in mentoring supports already for their staff. You want to increase our fees????, I haven't had a pay increase in years. Not even COLA. Not impressed.”

5. “Other provinces are not even comparable to what SLPs in ON are paying. SLPs, including myself,

have had to sacrifice other memberships such as; [sic] OSLA, to offset CASLPO's fees, which has implemented in less professional development and access to important issues and discussions. Please reconsider this proposed change.”

CASLPO’s Response

Members expressed the belief that AUDs and SLPs pay significantly higher fees than other comparable health professions in Ontario. As depicted in Table 1, the reality is that annual fees fall right in the middle of all other health professions in Ontario. In correlation with annual fees, CASLPO’s total membership number also falls right in the middle of all other health professions in Ontario.

Membership size does matter. Although all health profession regulatory bodies are mandated to carry out the same objects and duties according to the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA), professions with large memberships have the ability to achieve enormous economies of scale with overhead costs. Conversely, professions with smaller memberships must spread overhead costs over fewer members. Additionally, all health professions have annual operating costs that are variable and increase as the number of members increase. These costs include:

• The number of domestic and internationally-educated applications received • The number of peer and/or practice assessments performed for quality assurance • The number of practice advice calls and emails received • The tools provided to members to maintain their professional standards (i.e practice

standards and guidelines, learning modules, webinars and in-person events), and • The number of complaints, reports and discipline matters

As depicted in Table 2, CASLPO’s annual fees fall right in the middle of other health professions in Ontario of similar size.

Table 1. Ontario’s regulated health professions ranked in order of cost of annual renewal

Rank

Health Profession

Total Membership (reported to OFC in 2015)

Current Annual Fees (taxes included if applicable)

1 Dental Surgeons (includes professional liability insurance) 9,929 $2,160 2 Denturists 670 $2,147 3 Midwives 803 $2,000 4 Chiropodists 672 $1,700 5 Physicians and Surgeons 40,258 $1,625 6 Dental Technologists 562 $1,520 7 Optometrists 2,243 $1,067.85 8 Chiropractors 4,712 $1,050 9 Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and

Acupuncturists 3,158

$1,033.67

10 Opticians 2,688 $877 11 Occupational Therapists 5,616 $743.03 12 Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists 3,905 $728

(increases proposed for 2018 - $743 2019 - $758 2020 - $773 2021 - $788

2022 - $804) 13 Pharmacists 15,113 $678 14 Kinesiologists 1,729 $650 15 Dietitians 3,806 $608 16 Physiotherapists 8,625 $595 17 Massage Therapists 13,114 $589 18 Psychologists, Psychological Associates 3,728 $550 19 Respiratory Therapists 3,152 $500 20 Medical Radiation Technologists 6,902 $470 21 Pharmacy Technicians 3,835 $452 22 Dental Hygienists 13,245 $400 23 Medical Laboratory Technologists 7,349 $384.20 24 Nurses 171,264 $271.20

Table 2. Comparison of CASLPO’s fees to health regulatory colleges within +/- 1500 members

Health Profession

Total Membership (reported to OFC 2015)

Current Annual Fees for General Certificate (taxes included if applicable)

Chiropractors 4,712 $1,050 Opticians 2,688 $877 Occupational Therapists 5,616 $743.03 Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists 3,905 $728

(increases proposed for 2018 - $743 2019 - $758 2020 - $773 2021 - $788 2022 - $804)

Dietitians 3,806 $608 Psychologists, Psychological Associates 3,728 $550 Respiratory Therapists 3,152 $500

Members also expressed the belief that AUDs and SLPs in Ontario pay significantly higher fees than AUDs and SLPs in other Canadian provinces. As depicted in Table 3, CASLPO fees are the second highest in Canada but CASLPO’s membership is by far the largest. When you look at CASLPO’s fees and membership as a percentage of the average, CASLPO’s fee is 1.2 times the average whereas CASLPO’s membership is 2.7 times the average. CASLPO’s fees are disproportionately lower than the size of the membership when compared to the averages across the provinces.

Table 3. Comparison of CASLPO’s fee to Colleges in other Canadian provinces that regulate AUDs and SLPs

Province

Total Membership

Current Annual Fees for General Certificate (taxes included if applicable)

Manitoba 461 $810.34 (increases approved for 2018 - $850.85 2019 – 893.40)

Ontario 3,905 $728 (increases proposed for 2018 - $743 2019 - $758 2020 - $773 2021 - $788 2022 - $804)

Quebec 2,972 $692.73 Alberta 1,713 $650 Saskatchewan 404 $600 British Columbia 1,716 $500 Newfoundland and Labrador 177 $500 New Brunswick 322 $350 Provincial Average 1,459 $604

Why are fees increasing by 2% (47 comments)


• Instituting a 2% increase each year when inflation isn’t known and the external job environment is precarious is not reasonable.

• Fees have increased by significantly more than inflation over the years. • A fee increase shouldn’t be needed because there should be a surge in membership with the new

McMaster program and increased enrollment at other Universities. • Without knowing how the College spends members’ money it is difficult to support a fee increase.

Sample Comments

1. “In this current fiscal climate, I think it is very presumptuous to assume that a 2% increase is in line with inflation when job opportunities and public funding for SLP and audiology positions have been on the decline. Many publicly funded jobs, unionized and non-unionized, have not experienced pay raises in several years. In addition, a member in their first year of practice is very unlikely to have a steady income considering the rise of part-time and casual work, so to ask them to pay their registration in full is unfair. I understand the role of a regulatory body is to protect the public first and foremost, however I am very uncertain as to what CASLPO has been doing in this regard with our registration fees to date, so I am equally wary about what would be done with the increase in

fees. Overall I'm very disappointed and strongly against the proposed fee increases. It is irresponsible, completely unethical and wildly inappropriate.”

2. “In my 15 years as [sic] member of the College, fees have increased from $500 to what will soon be $800 -- this seems like well beyond inflationary changes. One of the reasons for the increase over the next 5 years is said to be the decline in membership -- could fees be reduced when membership increases? With more SLP graduates coming from the new McMaster program in two years' time, numbers will go up. I was also not sure how changes in types of work (casual, part-time) have impacted membership numbers or the fees CASLPO receives -- it is my understanding that anyone who practices as an SLP, from one hour a year to full-time, has to hold a General membership.”

3. “I feel that it is irresponsible to increase fees without providing the membership with an accounting of your budget, including expenses and income. Since 2010, College fees have increased from $500 to $728, an amount of 46%. In looking at the cost of inflation, $100 in 2010 is now equivalent to $111 today, or an increase of 11%. In that period, my income has increased not at all-minimally. Speech-Language Pathologists do not earn an income that justifies this cost. While I understand that our population base is smaller than many colleges, this would also mean fewer associated costs, if one assumes an equal incidence percentage. Occupational therapists, who I might presume have similar numbers to ours, pay less than our current fees, say nothing of an increase. In this day and age, there is no reason why you cannot find areas in which to economize. Before I would agree to this increase, I require more information, and more justification. The justifications you have provided are not substantial and do not support your request. You will have to do a much better job at convincing me that these increases are required before I will ever support your request. I hope that you will not proceed with this ill-thought-out plan.”

4. “Three years ago, when CASLPO announced it was first going to increase registration fees, one of the reasons stated was an increase in membership/registration. Now we are being told one of the reasons for the increase is a slowing in membership growth due to increased resignations and a rise in casual and part-time employment. The Annual Reports suggest membership continues to grow: - 2014 new membership was up by 12.09% - 2014 total membership was up by 3.32% - 2013 new membership was up by 7.69% - 2013 total membership was up by 2.11% The latest report noted 65 resignations, and suggested this was an increase, but as far as I'm aware resignation numbers were not captured in the previous year's report. Over the next several years, you will expect the numbers to continue to climb, given McMaster University is initiating its new Masters program in September 2017, with almost 40 new spots. We were also advised that U of T will be increasing its numbers by 10 students over the new two years. I'm certain this will soon be followed by an increase in enrollment at Western and other Ontario schools. Many students within Ontario programs reside in the province (or hope to practice -- may have to leave due to poor job market).”

5. “Since 2010, our fees have increased from $500 to $728. This is equivalent to a 65% increase. If you look at the Consumer Price Index, inflation from 2010 to 2017 was equivalent to 11%. I see a big discrepancy here. As a full time employed SLP, I've had a salary freeze for the past 4 years. When I was on parental leave, and not earning an income, I had to pay full college fees. Part-timers also pay full college fees. I understand the College is not an organization that is looking out for my interest,

but for the public interest. Therefore there is no incentive or obligation from the College to consider needs of their "members". However, it is us "members" that are funding the college. Please don't create further hardship for your members!! Please stop spending money on these surveys and asking for member opinions. We all know that our opinions don't matter and the College will do what they will regardless. I'm sure most members were not in agreement with the last round of fee increases!!”

CASLPO’s Response

Although the rise in fees since 2002 has exceeded the rise in inflation by 15%, it is closely tied to the rise in membership. Table 4 depicts the fact that CASLPO’s membership has actually increased at a faster rate than annual fees paid by members.

Table 4 Increase in annual fee compared to the increase in membership size from 2002 to 2016

2002 2016 # Increase % Increase CASLPO Annual Fee $500 $728 $228 46% CASLPO Membership 2,678 4,003 1,325 49% Increase in Inflation between 2002 and 2016 (per Bank of Canada)

31%

The proposed increases of 2% are not driven by inflation; inflation is only one of many factors that is causing costs to increase. Each College’s operating expenses will vary year over year by such factors as:

• The population of the membership • The number of domestic and internationally-educated applications received (number of IEAs

has doubled over last two years). • The number of peer and/or practice assessments performed for quality assurance (number

has increased from 35 to 50) • The number of practice advice calls and emails received (number has increased from 1788

to 2099 over the last year) • The tools provided to members to maintain their professional standards (i.e practice

standards and guidelines, learning modules, webinars and in-person events), and • The number of complaints, reports and discipline matters • Inflation or changes in the external environment

Note: The largest costs that vary year to year and have the biggest impact on the bottom line are the costs associated with complaints, investigations and discipline.

Increases of 2% were proposed due to the following considerations:

• The revenue increases would enable CASLPO to generate funds to meet its reserve goals and mitigate the risk of having insufficient funds to deal with emergencies or unexpected events

• Rather than having to institute a large one-time increase, member feedback supported a lower amount spread out over a number of years

• The fees were increased by 2% in previous years and the membership accepted the amount

• Inflation is expected to hover between 1% to 2% over the next 5 years

College Services (41 comments)


• CASLPO does nothing to benefit its members. • Compliance activities (i.e. SAT and peer assessment) are excessive and are not warranted. • CASLPO should do more to protect SLP and AUD jobs rather than simply offer title protection. • CASLPO takes a passive role with respect to legislative changes with regard to SLP and AUD

professions and is out of touch with members.

Sample Comments

1. “OSLA represents the S-LP and Audiologist professions when engaging with regulators at the time regulations are being developed. OSLA helps the profession survive in an increasingly competitive world. CALSPO simply accepts whatever legislation is passed and then ensures S-LPs and Audiologists abide by that legislation in the interest of public safety. CALSPO blindly accepts the rising trend of casual and part time work for the professions while expecting the shrinking pool of S-LPs and Audiologists to blindly accept increased fees. It's high time that CASLPO consider either partnering with OSLA or dissolve completely to allow OSLA to take on the roles of both representing the professions to regulators and, with intimate knowledge of the regulations, protect the public in accordance with those regulations. CALSPO's proposal to increase fees is out-of-touch with the reality of the professions. If fees continue to increase, more professionals, including myself, will be rethinking their futures and may decide to leave the professions all together. I simply cannot afford increased fees.”

2. “My overall professional dues exceed $1500/year - with CASLPO being over half of that amount. At least the other organizations I belong to provide the public with education as to what I can offer in my role...and provide me with opportunities to further develop my skills. With CASLPO, I understand the purpose of the Regulated Health Professionals Act is to protect the public from unscrupulous practitioners - & I am in full support of this - but it should also include protecting the public from other professionals providing speech and language recommendations. You provide us with no job protection - title protection only - yet there are professionals in the province providing SLP-like support to families!”

3. “I believe that the auditing process is important, but NOT to the extent that it is being done. You

could get a good picture if people are meeting the expectations when they submit their proof of compliance and from the continuing education etc. A site visit to each person being audited is frankly going overboard and an unnecessary large cost. We have no guidance from CASLPO regarding information saved on the cloud or encryption...what is/isn't considered safe on our computers etc.”

4. “CASLPO should also consider supporting access to services as a means of protecting the public. If the public continues to face difficulty accessing S-LP services (e.g. long wait lists, cutting outpatient programs, pockets of populations that do not qualify for services, unequal access to services across

and within LHINs), there will be no public to protect. OSLA provides support within this realm, but it is not enough, given membership numbers are not what they should/could be. It is unfortunate, as increased CASLPO fees will likely have a negative impact on the number of OSLA members, as it becomes more difficult for members to come up with the funds to stay registered with associations/regulatory bodies.”

5. “As a 12th year member of CASLPO, I can indicate from my own experience as well as from having

had many talks with colleagues on this subject, that CASLPO does NOTHING to benefit its members. Unlike ASHA in the US, CASLPO doesn't provide anything of substance or value to its membership. ASHA offers conferences, resources, webinars, evidence-based articles on their website etc etc. The CASLPO journal, by contrast, offers absolutely nothing of clinical value. I recently completed a peer review and the inordinate amount of time it took me to upload the materials to ensure I am adhering to all of the many rules of the college took many valuable hours and hence, money. It is quite shocking how stringent our college is as compared with other regulated professions - eg Psychologists have nothing close to the rigorous process required for SLPs. And really, other than for SLPs involved in dysphagia, how much inherent "risk" is there in our profession that we have to go through such stringent procedures for self assessment and peer review? I am resentful that we need to pay such high dues to a college that does not serve its membership at all.”

CASLPO’s Response

The role of CASLPO is to protect the public through self-regulation. The privilege of self-regulation requires that the professionals involved fund the cost of regulation. Members feel that they don’t receive any benefits from the College but that is simply not the case.

• Members are able to use a protected title which differentiates their services compared to non-regulated practitioners

• The public has greater trust in regulated professionals • CASLPO ensures that there is a level playing field among practitioners with respect to advertising • CASLPO stops non-regulated practitioners from claiming they are SLPs or AUDs • Members can call CASLPO with any practice related questions • Practice standards and guidelines are created for members to help them meet the standards of

practice • CASLPO hosts in-person forums, E-forums and webinars to address current issues that the

membership is dealing with • All members are eligible to run for Council if they would like to have more of an impact on what

CASLPO does

In terms of compliance activities, CASLPO’s rate of peer assessment of its members is less than 1%. Some Colleges select as many as 20% of their members to participate in peer assessment. The results of the peer assessment process show that, on average, 17% of members peer assessed are falling below the standards. When members fall below the standard, there is risk of harm to the public. Therefore, CASLPO feels that the peer assessment process provides verification that members are meeting standards and provides the College with the ability to work with members who are not. CASLPO’s strategic plan proposes that funding be directed to increase the number of peer assessments over the next few years.

Public Awareness (39 comments)

Greatest Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Five Matters:

• CASLPO is currently spending too much on public awareness. • The current public awareness campaign is ineffective. • Rather than spending money on informing the public on how to make a complaint, CASLPO should

spend the money on educating members on how to avoid having a complaint brought against them. • Members pay OSLA to inform the public. CASLPO should not take on this responsibility. • CASLPO should reduce the use of pamphlets and brochures and concentrate on social media.

Sample Comments

1. “The public campaigns fail to be meaningful to members and the public. I would rather see more basic outreach to the public and better support for clinicians. As an SLP working in acute care, I don't find it helpful to call my college and get absolutely zero feedback on questions of policy, procedure and best practice. I don't feel supported. That would be a better use of our hard-earned dollars. Not everyone is unionized and can get that cost-of-living increase to match the rising fee cost. Not to mention that anticipating the changes in membership and keeping up with CRA rules is up to the college and should not fall as a burden to its members. This shows a lack of vision and preparedness.”

2. “With as much respect as possible, the college's efforts to educate the public, which are part of the reason for the increase in fees, has been ineffective. I'm in the field and I've been unaware and unexposed to the education efforts the college is attempting to make. Many other organizations are doing a far better job at getting this message out to those who need it.”

3. “I am not really interested in my membership fees going towards video/brochure publicity for the

college. I pay my SAC and OSLA memberships in order to advocate for the profession.”

4. “Over the last few years, the cost of our College membership has risen dramatically. This has become particularly burdensome for those of us who work part-time. These increases, combined by the general consensus that CASLPO does nothing to promote or better our profession, is disturbing. Not only that, but the brochures CASLPO is putting out to the public practically encourage any client ho [sic] has any problem with their therapist to complain to the College. It is no surprise that the College is receiving a higher volume of complaints and in turn, its costs are increasing. In addition to this, we are very restricted by the College in how we market ourselves. If we have expertise in voice, it is actually in the public's best interest to seek out a voice professional and not another individual who doesn't have the same skill set. The College should be working with its members to identify classes of expertise where it is "legal" so to speak, for such clinicians to refer to themselves as having these [sic] expertise. You could then even make money by having these members pay extra into being allowed to refer to themselves as such.”

5. “I also have to question why so much more money is being spent on discipline and complaints - have you considered that instead of investing money advertising to the public about how to complain you might invest that money in providing the profession with more education and training in how to avoid discipline and complaints - customer service training, or training on how to have difficult conversations with families, or whatever issues you see coming up as frequent complaints - give us more information and tools about how to handle and respond to these things so that they don't escalate into major issues that cost you more money to handle.”

CASLPO’s Response

Like the majority of Colleges in Ontario, CASLPO has increased its public awareness activities. This was driven in part by the government’s directions with respect to providing greater transparency and public awareness. These initiatives are part of the College’s 3-Year Strategic Plan. This was the first major campaign undertaken by the College since 2002. CASLPO has also partnered with other Colleges through the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario (FHRCO) to produce a public awareness campaign that will be launching in the spring of 2017.

Proposal #4

The annual fee paid by a member in the year of the member’s first application shall be prorated according to the quarter portion of the year falling between the date the certificate of registration is issued and September 30th in the same registration year.



Type

Current Amount

Type

Proposed Amount

Effective October

1, 2017

Prorated Annual Fee for Initial and General Membership

Prorated Annual Fee for Initial and General Membership

(Once your application is approved, the annual fee is prorated according to period that you become an initial or general member of the College)

(Once your application is approved, the annual fee is prorated according to quarter that you become an initial or general member of the College)

Sep 16 to Oct 15 $728.00 Sep 16 to Dec 15 $728.00

Oct 16 to Nov 15 $667.33

Nov 16 to Dec 15 $606.67

Dec 16 to Jan 15 $546.00 Dec 16 to Mar 15 $546.00

Jan 16 to Feb 15 $485.33

Feb 16 to Mar 15 $424.67

Mar 16 to Apr 15 $364.00 Mar 16 to Jun 15 $364.00

Apr 16 to May 15 $303.33

May 16 to Jun 15 $242.67

Jun 16 to Jul 15 $182.00 Jun 16 to Sep 15 $182.00

Jul 16 to Aug 15 $121.33

Aug 16 to Sep 15 $60.67 Response Data:

Do you understand the reasons for the change?

Answer # of Responses % Yes 1046 91.04% No 103 8.96% 1149 100%

Do you agree that this change is reasonable


72.26%

Agree 691 60.45% Disagree 149 13.04%

27.74%


Comments

6 out of 623 comments (0.9%) were received relating to Proposal #4.

1. “Prorated membership fees quarterly rather than monthly means that individual members are paying for months during which they received NONE of the services or advantages associated with being a CASLPO member. People should not be expected to pay membership fees for months that they were not actually members of CASLPO.”

2. “The change in pro-rating by quarter as opposed to by month greatly affects those who may be taking a maternity/paternity leave.”

3. “I am not sure I understand the fee per quarter question. This is ok if it is only for the first year. After that I would like to only have one payment per year.”

4. “I think the prorated fee for new practicing general members should be an average of the three months lumped together rather than the month with the highest cost associated with it.”

CASLPO’s Response

The majority of the members who responded feel this change is reasonable and meets CASLPO’s objective of easing the administrative burden and streamlining processes.

Proposal #5

Schedule of Fees and Penalties All of the following fees are in Canadian funds

Type



Application Fee $100.00 $150.00 Response Data: Do you understand the reasons for the change? Answer # of Responses % Yes 1034 90.86% No 104 9.14% 1138 100% Do you agree that this change is reasonable Answer # of Responses % Strongly Agree 106 9.33%

59.24%

Agree 567 49.91% Disagree 263 23.15%

40.76%


Comments


Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Two Matters:

• The application fee should vary based on the complexity of the applications. • Canadian applicants should pay a lower fee than international applicants who require more work to

process their applications.

Sample Comments

1. “Regarding increasing the initial application fee from $100 to $150 because of what you say are increasing costs of processing these applications...then prorate the initial application fee based on the complexity of the application. Make it fair. If someone who graduates from a Canadian or American university applies, their fee should be less than an international applicant, where the complexity of the review that is required for the application is far greater. Why should those whose applications are more simple and straightforward be required to foot the cost for those whose applications are complex? “

2. “If international applications are causing increased amount of administrative costs, please review your processes and determine if changes can be made to make the process more efficient and cost effective. Additionally, I would agree with charging the specific international application higher fees (who are directly benefitting that service) rather than penalizing current, domestic members.”

3. “I would suggest maintaining the $100 application fee for simple, straightforward applications, such as those applying from within Canada/graduated from a Canadian university and increasing the fees for more complex applications such as international applications.”

4. “I do not agree with increasing the charges for College application for Canadian university graduates. The requirements of membership are adhered to by graduates from Canadian universities. Perhaps international students need to pay more if the gathering of transcripts, equivalent degrees etc. require further College administrative time.”

5. “I would agree with the increase from $100 to $150 fee for people wanting to change status etc but I think this increased fee should be accompanied with a more streamlined system for these changes. Where [sic] the committee to review these applications meets more frequently and perhaps more simple reviews of Canadian trained SLPs are reviewed separately from more complex cases of international SLPs. ( or whatever makes sense to divide simpler vs more complex cases).”

CASLPO’s Response

The College’s decision to charge international applicants and domestic applicants the same application fee is to demonstrate fairness and not create a barrier to international applicants. Apart from the CASLPO application fee, international applicants already have additional costs (i.e. credential assessment and document translation costs) that do not apply to domestic applicants.

Proposal #6

The College shall maintain, as a schedule to these By-laws, a list of all fees and penalties which may be charged or imposed by the College.

Schedule of Fees and Penalties All of the following fees are in Canadian funds

Type Current Amount Effective October 1, 2016-September 30,

2017 Application Fee $100.00 Registration Fee $200.00 Annual Fee General $728.00 Academic $728.00 Initial $364.00 Non-Practising $364.00 Life $70.00 Prorated Annual Fee for Initial and General Membership (Once your application is approved, the annual fee is prorated according to period that you become an initial or general member of the College)

Sep 16 to Oct 15 $728.00 Oct 16 to Nov 15 $667.33 Nov 16 to Dec 15 $606.67 Dec 16 to Jan 15 $546.00 Jan 16 to Feb 15 $485.33 Feb 16 to Mar 15 $424.67 Mar 16 to Apr 15 $364.00 Apr 16 to May 15 $303.33 May 16 to Jun 15 $242.67 Jun 16 to Jul 15 $182.00 Jul 16 to Aug 15 $121.33 Aug 16 to Sep 15 $60.67 Penalty fee for late renewal (Payment of an annual fee is also required)

General $145.60 Academic $145.60

Initial $72.80 Non-Practising $72.80 Life N/A One month fee adjustment for changes in membership class pursuant to Articles 6.1 and 6.3 of By-Law No. 2011-3

$30.00

Reinstatement Fee for Suspended Members (Payment of an annual fee is also required)

General $364.00 Academic $364.00 Initial $182.00 Non-Practising $182.00 Life N/A Additional or Replacement Wall Certificate $50.00 A hardcopy of Membership Card $50.00 A hardcopy of Tax Receipt $50.00 A letter confirming a member's registration status or payment receipt with the College $50.00

The completion of forms from other jurisdictions $50.00 A fee may be charged to a member by the College for reminding a member to do something that they are required to do but have failed to do

$50.00 per reminder

Copying documents from a member's or applicant's file

$50.00 per request including the first

twenty-five pages, and $1.00 per page

thereafter A hard copy of documents that are available on the College's website $50.00

NSF/credit card declined $50.00 Request a recount pursuant to Article 5.14 of By-Law No. 2011-1 $200.00

Certificate of Authorization (Professional Corporation) Application Fee $100.00

Certificate of Authorization (Professional Corporation) Registration Fee $200.00

Certificate of Authorization (Professional Corporation) Annual Fee $500.00

Administrative Fees for Professional Corporations Each notice sent by the Registrar for the failure of the corporation to renew its certificate of authorization on time

$50.00

Replacement certificate of authorization $50.00 Issuance of a new certificate of authorization in the event of a name change of the corporation $50.00





84.87%

Agree 749 67.05% Disagree 95 8.50%

15.13%


Comments

There were no comments relating to Proposal #7.

Proposal #7

2 PAYMENT OF FEES 2.1 The fees payable by a member or applicant for registration shall be those fees

which are set out in the By-laws of the College, as amended from time to time. Where no fee or penalty has been set out in the schedule, a member or person shall pay the College the fee or penalty set by the College.

2.2 Where a person requests the Registrar to do anything that the Registrar is required or authorized to do by statute or regulation, the person shall pay the prescribed fee.

2.3 A member’s obligation to pay a fee or penalty continues regardless of whether the member fails to receive notice of a fee or penalty.

2.4 Any fee or penalty charged or imposed by the College not paid by a member shall be included as part of a member’s next annual membership fee.



(b) may suspend the member’s certificate of registration for failure to pay the fee or penalty within 30 days after notice is given.

Response Data: Do you understand the reasons for the change? Answer # of Responses % Yes 1027 92.36% No 85 7.64% 1112 100% Do you agree that this change is reasonable Answer # of Responses % Strongly Agree 112 10.17%

72.66%

Agree 688 62.49% Disagree 192 17.44%

27.34%


Comments


Greatest Frequency of Aggregated Comments Centred on Two Matters:

• General support for the proposed change except members feel it is unfair to charge a penalty or fee to a member without providing notice.

• Why suspend a member if the fee is being added to their annual renewal.

Sample Comments

1. “In the payment of fees section you propose that it is a member's obligation to pay a fee "regardless if they got notice of that fee/penalty". That hardly seems right to me. I don't understand how difficult it would be to send a notice that fees are due or outstanding. We spend enough money on membership, the least you could do is send members an email reminding them that fees are due.”

2. “I have issue with the added line that notes regardless of a registrant being advised of a fee they are

required to pay that fee-I think this is unfair sounds like the College isn't being transparent in their activity. If there is a charge for something I am asking for or the College is doing then they should be VERY clear about the cost of that activity.”

3. “Question relating to changes in penalties was too broad. I support parts of it (applying unpaid fees

to next year's fee) but not others (fees at the discretion of the College when none are set out, penalizing members for not receiving notification).”

4. “I don't think it's fair and reasonable to charge members fees without notifying them that their

requests are fee-for-service. I don't think the fees listed are of themselves overly concerning; I just think we have a right to know that we will be charged and how much we will be charged.”

5. “If you say you will add unpaid fees to the next year's membership, then why would you suspend

after 30 days of non payment?”

CASLPO’s Response

CASLPO attempts to contact members multiple times when a fee or penalty is instituted. If the member fails to provide CASLPO with up to date contact information, it is the member who is responsible for the failure of payment. The wording in the proposed by-law needs to be revised to clarify the current operating procedure.

The section regarding suspensions for non-payment was added to give the Registrar the ability to suspend a member. This ability may be used by the Registrar in extreme circumstances (i.e. non-payment of a discipline order to repay costs in large amounts) where the College wishes repayment to be expedited.

Proposal #8

By-law 2011-3

9 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

9.1 The annual fee for a certificate of authorization for a professional corporation shall be paid on January 2nd each year.

9.2

A professional corporation or a member listed in the College’s records as a shareholder of a professional corporation shall pay an administrative fee for each notice sent by the Registrar to the corporation or member for failure of the corporation to renew its certificate of authorization on time. The fee is due within thirty days of the notice being sent.

By-law 2011-5 2 FEES

2.2 The annual fee for a certificate of authorization for a professional corporation shall be paid on January 2nd each year.

2.3

A professional corporation or a member listed in the College’s records as a shareholder of a professional corporation shall pay an administrative fee for each notice sent by the Registrar to the corporation or member for failure of the corporation to renew its certificate of authorization on time. The fee is due within thirty days of the notice being sent.





83.26%

Agree 776 74.69% Disagree 109 10.49%

16.74%


Comments

There were no comments relating to Proposal #8.

Re: CASLPO’s proposed fee increases

To:

Debra Zelisko

Yvonne Wyndham

Tina d’Agnillo

Jennifer Anderson

Randi Fisher

Elizabeth Fitzpatrick

Robert (Bob) Kroll

Vicky Papaioannou

Véronique Vaillancourt

Sandi Singbeil

Judith (Judy) Rowland

Copies to:

Brian O’Riordan, Registrar of College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologist of Ontario

Denise Cole, Assistant Deputy Minister - Health Workforce Planning & Regulatory Affairs, Ontario

Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care

Mary Cook, Executive Director of Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists

of Ontario

______________________________________________________________________________

Dear elected CASLPO Council Members,

As a member of College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists of Ontario, I am writing to

you in response to an email received on March 28, 2017 from CASLPO seeking feedback on proposed

changes to fees affecting all members of the College. The email stated the following, “The proposed fee

adjustments and changes to fees reflect the rising cost of meeting the College’s regulatory mandate and

strategic goals while addressing increased pressures from the external environment.”

This letter is being respectfully submitted to formally express my opposition to a fee increase proposed

by the CASLPO.

Comments and data were compiled from contributing members and are summarized in this response.

There is resounding agreement that the College is not spending members’ dollars judiciously. The

availability of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Services in the province is not growing at the

rate the college is growing and spending as there are increasing numbers of members working part-time

and casually due to limited work while paying full membership rates.

There were specific examples of grave concern brought forth.

• Since 2010, 46% increase in fees, approximately 40% increase in staff but only 15% increase in

membership

• 3% increase in membership from 2014 to 2015 yet a 17% increase in expenses including a 12.8%

increase in salaries and benefits

• Expenses far exceeding comparable profession - physiotherapy

• Investigation and hearings - highest per case cost of managing complaints/reports of all the colleges in

the province, yet it had one of the lowest number of complaints of all the regulated health professions

Comparison – 53 times greater cost per complaint than the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario (CPO)

• CASLPO $47,525/case; 9 complaints/reports and 2 of those when to hearings and zero went to court

• CPO $899/case; 233 complaints/reports and 3 went to hearings and 1 went to court

• Occupancy and office administration

• Comparison - based on number of staff, 47% greater than CPO

• Staff salaries and benefits

• Comparison – per staff, 15% higher salary than CPO

• Overall operating cost

• Comparison - per member, 25% greater than CPO

• With sizable increases in fees since 2010, the College has not been able to demonstrate much in the

way of a cash reserve.

• The College took it upon itself to undertake a substantial multimedia public education campaign on

the benefits of regulation rather than partnering with other colleges through the Federation of Health

Regulatory Colleges of Ontario.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1) CASLPO must act responsibly and curb its spending immediately to find ways to achieve efficiencies

rather than increase members’ fees. Beyond the necessary spending cuts and staff reductions, looking

for opportunities in partnering with other colleges; for example, shared accountability among colleges

to reduce duplicate or mutually beneficial work.

2) Colleges must be more transparent and timely in their reporting.

a. Annual reports should not lag behind by two years.

b. Stakeholders should be able to readily make cross college comparisons of registration practices,

membership, operations costs, quality assurance practices, practice standards and complaints, reports,

investigations and hearings.

3) Better government oversight over college practices, including spending.

a. Expenditure guidelines and limits.

b. Consequences to the colleges for excessive expenditures.

As elected representatives of CASLPO, I trust that you will act on behalf of its members and address the

above concerns to halt fee increases in coming year.

CASLPO Response to Member Emails re: Proposed Fee Increases May 8, 2017

Dear concerned CASLPO member,

Thank you for taking the time to provide your views on the proposed changes to the College’s fee

structure. We want to assure you that your feedback will be brought forth to the entire Council for

consideration at their meeting on June 9th, 2017. We also want to encourage you, if you have not done

so already, to complete the official formal survey sent to the membership. This tool provides the

College with the ability to efficiently collate and analyze the data provided by members.

We note that your “comments and data” were assembled by “contributing members” who believe that

the College is not currently spending funds in a judicious way. The information provided below

respectfully addresses this concern. In providing this comprehensive response, the College hopes to

meet one of its strategic goals: to improve transparency in order to build trust with the public and

members.

1. “Since 2010, 46% increase in fees, approximately 40% increase in staff but only 15% increase in

membership”

General member fees of $500 remained the same from 2002 to 2011. For the 2011-12 membership

year, the general fee increased by 20% to $600. Using 2010 as your starting point for measurement

inaccurately captures the historical relationship between fees and the membership because it

disregards the fact that fees remained the same for 9 years (from 2002 to 2010).

If you compare the increase in fees from 2002 to 2016 ($500 to $728) to the increase in membership

for the same time period (2,678 to 4,003) you will see there is a correlation. Between 2002 and

2016, fees increased by 46% while the number of members increased by 49%. It should be noted

that the College’s rate of increase in fees is in fact lower than the rate of member population

growth.

The number of College staff members has increased over time to meet the demands of regulating

two professions in the public interest. In 2002, the College employed 7 full-time equivalent staff

members. Currently, the College employs 12 full-time staff members. Five staff members were

added between 2008 and 2016 to address the following organizational needs:

o Director of Professional Practice and Quality Assurance was hired in 2011 to provide

appropriate focussed support to the members on an ongoing basis and to strengthen and

improve the Self-Assessment Tool, Peer Assessment, and Member Practice Advice,

particularly for SLPs.

2

o Director of Professional Conduct was hired in 2012 to oversee the transition to the new

legislated framework for complaints and discipline, to address the backlog of cases in this

area and to provide appropriate ongoing support to the newly created Inquiries, Complaints

and Reports Committee.

o Manager of Information Technology was hired in 2013 to bring in-house all of our

information technology services and needs. This eliminated the need for external consulting,

trouble-shooting and maintenance costs in this area, and so as to provide better protection

and organization of membership data and registration, complaint and quality assurance files

and cases.

o Audiology Practice Advisor was hired in 2013 to provide dedicated practice advice services

to Audiology members and to modernize and update Audiology practice standards on an

ongoing basis.

o Assistant to the Director of Professional Conduct was hired in 2015 to assist with the

increasing workload pressures in the investigations area and to assist the College in

processing investigations in a timely manner. This role also provided dedicated support to

Discipline panels. Additionally, all case decision-writing has now been brought in-house

eliminating the need for external decision writers.

We believe that this staff complement now adequately supports the work of the College in

addressing the public interest and supporting the membership.

2. “3% increase in membership from 2014 to 2015 yet a 17% increase in expenses including a 12.8%

increase in salaries and benefits”

The main driver of the 17% increase in expenses between 2014 and 2015 was expenses relating to

investigations and hearings.

During 2015, the College spent over $125,000 for two discipline cases. These costs related to:

- Prosecution Counsel (legal representation for the College)

- Independent Legal Advisor (legal representation for the Discipline Committee)

- Public Hearing costs

- Discipline panel costs

In one case, the hearing spanned five days and the member was ordered to pay the College $97,595

in costs. To date, the College has not received any funds as the member appealed the decision to

the Ontario Divisional Count. In the second case, the discipline hearing was re-scheduled several

times and then deferred to 2016.

For accounting purposes, the College is required to accrue all future costs for any known liabilities at

their fiscal year end. In other words, all estimated future costs associated with bringing all current

cases to closure must be recognized and expensed at the end of the current fiscal year end. To meet

this requirement, the College accrued costs of almost $125,000 more than what was accrued in

3

2014 to recognize the future liability of the appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court, the discipline

hearing that was deferred to 2016 and other complaints/reports in progress at the fiscal year end.

Due to the increased number of complaints and reports from 2014 to 2015, costs for investigations

and expert reports increased by $20,000. In 2014, the College received 11 complaints, 5 reports and

1 inquiry. In 2015, the College received 31 complaints and 9 reports.

The 12.8% increase in salaries and benefits from 2014 to 2015 resulted from the addition of the

Assistant to the Director of Professional Conduct to address the increase in complaints and

investigations, as well as the costs associated with staff turnover/severance.

3. “Expenses far exceeding comparable profession – physiotherapy

a) Investigation and hearings - highest per case cost of managing complaints/reports of all the

colleges in the province, yet it had one of the lowest number of complaints of all the regulated

health professions

Comparison – 53 times greater cost per complaint than the College of Physiotherapists

of Ontario (CPO)

o CASLPO $47,525/case; 9 complaints/reports and 2 of those went to hearings and

zero went to court

o CPO $899/case; 233 complaints/reports and 3 went to hearings and 1 went to

court”

The information provided in the CASLPO Annual Report, from which your data appears to be

derived, is of a summary nature and does not provide sufficient details to perform a cost per case

analysis. For the 2016 Annual Report, CASLPO will look at providing more details to enhance

transparency.

To provide some context, there is a large range of costs per case based on the complexity and the

nature of the case. A simple straight forward case may cost the College up to $600, while a complex

case (where an investigator report and expert opinion are required) may cost the College $8,500 on

average. If the member is referred to discipline, the costs will vary based on the number of hearing

days. If the hearing is uncontested, the matter can be completed in a day and cost the College

$1,000 - $2,000. If the member contests the allegations, the hearing could run for many days and

cost the College approximately $8,000-$10,000 per day.

It is important to note that the College has an obligation in meeting its public protection mandate to

hold a hearing when there are serious concerns of professional misconduct/incompetence. In the

same vein, any member referred to discipline has the right to respond to the allegations in a full

hearing. These are legal obligations and rights that the College does not have the authority to

ignore or avoid, and the College must follow the statutory procedures as required.

4

In all cases, College committees and staff have processes in place to mitigate the risk of incurring

unnecessary or excessive costs. These mitigation processes include:

Investigators are not appointed to every case. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports

Committee evaluates whether an investigation is warranted on a case by case basis.

Experienced investigators are used to reduce costs.

The Director of Professional Conduct reviews the investigation plan and constantly monitors

investigation costs.

All disbursements outside of the investigation plan need to be approved by the College

before they are incurred.

Prior to referring any cases to Discipline, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee

determines:

1. Are the concerns of such a serious nature that a referral to the Discipline

Committee is justified? If yes, then:

2. Is there sufficient evidence available to prove the allegations?

The Committee can request a legal opinion when a case is unclear to avoid referring a

matter that does not meet this threshold and to ultimately save the cost of a hearing.

Prior to a discipline hearing taking place, the College holds a pre-hearing conference in an

attempt to resolve the allegations. The hope is to achieve an Agreed Statement of Facts

(ASF) and Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) which best meets the interest of protecting the

public. If an ASF and JSP can be reached, then a hearing can go from spanning days to

involving just a few hours.

To address your feedback, the following details provide the data necessary to perform a straight

cost per case analysis.

CASLPO

“Investigations and Hearings” per the financial statements is broken down as follows:

Investigations and Hearings

Legal costs – current year $114,501 Legal costs – accrual for future years 251,000 Investigations 62,214 Investigations and Hearings per Financial Statements $427,715

The actual amount spent towards “Investigations and Hearings” in 2015 is $176,715

($114,501+62,214) of which $55,231 was spent on discipline hearings.

The Annual Report discloses that there were 9 dispositions, 4 matters that were appealed to the

Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) (only 2 matters proceeded to HPARB in 2015),

and 2 discipline hearings (1 of which was scheduled in 2015 but then deferred to 2016). Apart from

dispositions, CASLPO carried forward 2 complaints, 4 reports and 1 inquiry from 2014, received 31

5

new complaints and 9 new reports in 2015 which were at various stages of process at the fiscal year

end.

Therefore, the total number of cases that CASLPO incurred expenses for during 2015 were:

HPARB appeals 2 Discipline hearing (contested) 1 Complaints (2014) 2 Reports (2014) 6 Complaints (2015) 31 Reports (2015) 9 Total Cases 51 The 2015 Cost per Contested Discipline case was $55,231 ($55,231/1). The 2015 Cost per Case for Complaints and Investigation of Reports was $2,430 (($176,715-$55,231)/(51-1)). Comparison with College of Physiotherapists of Ontario (CPO) CPO doesn’t segregate the costs of investigations and hearings on their financial statements. However, CASLPO obtained the following financial data from CPO:

Investigations and Hearings

Legal – professional conduct $122,904 Investigations 38,999 Investigators* 360,000 Other Hearing expenses 994 Total Investigations and Hearings $522,897 *Exact financial data regarding salaries cannot be disclosed. Conservatively, the midpoint of the salary range for the Investigator position at CPO was used for this analysis.

Of the $122,904, $35,446 was spent on a divisional court appeal, $47,170 was spent on discipline hearings. The number of cases that CPO incurred expenses for during 2015 are: Confirmed complaints 46 Registrar’s inquiries 170 HPARB appeals 1 Discipline hearings (uncontested) 3 Divisional court review 1 Total Cases 221

6

The 2015 Cost per Uncontested Discipline Case was $15,723 ($47,170/3) The 2015 Cost per Divisional Court Review was $35,446 ($35,446/1) The 2015 Cost per Case for Complaints and Investigation of Reports was $2,029 (($522,897 -$47,170-$35,446)/(221-3-1)) Summary CALPO’s cost per case for Discipline was higher than CPO in 2015 due to the fact that CASLPO’s hearing was a contested case which took place over 6 days (5 hearing days + 1 day for release of decision) versus CPO’s 3 hearings for uncontested cases which took place over 3 days. If you compare the cost per day for Discipline, CASLPO spent $9,205 per day ($55,231/6) and CPO spent $15,723 per day ($47,170/3). In 2015, CASLPO actually spent $6,518 ($15,723-$9,205) less per day towards Discipline. CASLPO’s cost per case for Complaints and Investigations was $401 ($2,430-$2,029) higher than CPO in 2015. This variance can be attributed to the fact that CASLPO received a large number of complex complaints and reports in 2015 which required investigators, expert reports and legal opinions. b) “Occupancy and office administration - Comparison - based on number of staff, 47% greater

than CPO”

Although all Health Regulatory Colleges are required to have their financial statements audited,

there is no requirement to classify their expenses in the same way. Therefore, it is difficult to make

direct comparisons across the financial statements of all Colleges. The recommendation you make:

“Stakeholders should be able to readily make cross college comparisons of registration practices,

membership, operations costs, quality assurance practices, practice standards and complaints,

reports, investigations and hearings” does have merit and will be pursued by the College to increase

transparency.

In order to compare CASLPO and CPO occupancy and office administration expenses, the financial

statement line items must be examined to ensure all related expense categories are included.

For example, expenses related to “Networking, representation and travel” on CPO’s financial

statements are included in “Office and general” on CASLPO’s financial statements.

By comparison:

Per 2015 Audited Financial Statements CASLPO Fiscal year end

September 30, 2015

CPO Fiscal year end March 31, 2015

Premises $190,891

Office and general 254,693

Administration and office $605,079

Networking, representation and travel 61,708

7

Total Occupancy office and administration 445,584 666,787

Number of staff 11.5 26

Office administration cost per staff $38,746 $25,646

$ Difference ($13,101)

% Difference (34%)

Number of members 3,900 8,135

Cost per member $114 $82

$ Difference ($32)

% Difference (28%)

Although all Colleges are required to carry out the same objects and duties according to the

Regulated Health Professions Act, larger Colleges have the opportunity to achieve greater

economies of scale with greater purchasing power leading to a 34% difference in cost per staff and

28% difference in cost per member.

Although CASLPO is small, it is constantly looking for ways to contain administrative costs or achieve

efficiencies. Over the last 3 years we’ve achieved the following:

41% ($9,200) reduction in telephone and teleconference expenses by switching to an IP

phone system, renegotiating existing contracts and moving to a new teleconference service

provider

64% ($4,500) reduction in internet costs by moving to a new service provider

Elimination of data entry costs as members complete their renewal online

Reduced the cost of manual processing of credit cards or cheques through increased use of

online credit card payments, including an $8,500 reduction in credit card fees through

contract renegotiation

A $64,000 in-year reduction in costs for 2016-17 due to an unexpected decrease in fees

revenues

A change in health insurance providers to reduce benefit costs

Mailing and printing costs reduced significantly through electronic distribution of meeting

materials and College newsletters and membership communications

Holding many College council Committee meetings electronically rather than in person.

Negotiation of an improved hotel accommodation discount for Council members and peer

assessors

Establishment of a new staff salary compensation grid, which is closely aligned with salary

levels of other Colleges of comparable size and budget, including annual salary restraint

measures.

8

c) “Salaries and benefits - Comparison - per staff, 15% higher salary than CPO”

In order for all Health Regulatory Colleges to protect the public as required by the Regulated Health Professions Act, there needs to be staff to direct or manage Registration, Professional Conduct, Quality Assurance and Patient Relations. These areas are led by the Registrar who is the Chief Executive Officer of the College. To provide support to the mandated activities of the College, staff are also employed by the Registrar to direct or manage Finance, Information Technology, Communications, Reception, Member Practice Advice and French-language services. As the population of members grows and the Regulatory framework changes, a need for more administrative staff to support core activities arises. These staff members are compensated at a lower rate than senior-level personnel. Comparing the staff complement:

Number of staff members by level CASLPO CPO

Registrar 1 1

Deputy/Associate Registrar 1 2

Director/Manager 5 4

Administrator/Assistant/Advisor/Coordinator/Analyst 4.5 19

Comparing costs:

Per 2015 Audited Financial Statements CASLPO Fiscal year end

September 30, 2015


Salaries and benefits $1,336,314 $2,595,771

Number of staff 11.5 26

Cost per staff $116,201 $99,837

$ Difference ($16,364)

% Difference (14%)

Number of members 3,900 8,135

Therefore, the average cost per staff for CPO is 14% lower than CASLPO due to the fact that CPO employs a larger number of support staff, who as is the case at both Colleges, are paid at a lower rate of compensation. In contrast to CPO, many Directors at CASLPO have no dedicated administrative assistance. d) “Overall operating cost – Comparison – per member, 25% greater than CPO”

Each College’s operating expenses will vary year over year by such factors as:

The population of the membership

The number of domestic and internationally-educated applications received (number of IEAs

has doubled over last two years).

9

The number of peer and/or practice assessments performed for quality assurance (number

has increased from 35 to 50)

The number of practice advice calls and emails received

The tools provided to members to maintain their professional standards (i.e practice

standards and guidelines, learning modules, webinars and in-person events), and

The number of complaints, reports and discipline matters

The largest costs that vary year to year and have the biggest impact on the bottom line are the costs

associated with complaints, investigations and discipline.

To illustrate how these costs can vary, year over year, the following is a comparison of total expenses for 2015 and 2014 of CASLPO, CPO, the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) and College of Dietitians of Ontario (CDO). CCO and CDO were added as comparators because they are closer in member size to CASLPO.

Per 2015 Audited Financial Statements

CASLPO Fiscal year end

September 30, 2015


CCO Fiscal year end

December 31, 2015

CDO Fiscal year end March 31, 2015

Total expenses $2,628,522 $4,568,797 $4,314,655 $2,191,308

Number of members 3,900 8,135 4,254 3,695

Cost per member $673.98 $561.62 $1,014.26 $593.05

$ Difference ($112.36) $340.28 ($80.93)

% Difference (17%) 50% (12%)

# of confirmed complaints received

31 46

53 2

# of Registrar reports (investigations)

9 170 38 2

Number of discipline hearings 1 3 11 0

# of hearing days 4 3 11 0

Per 2014 Audited Financial Statements

CASLPO Fiscal year end

September 30, 2014


CCO Fiscal year end

December 31, 2014

CDO Fiscal year end March 31, 2014

Total expenses $2,246,492 $4,657,930 $4,202,044 $2,093,662

Number of members 3,793 7,792 4,161 3,589

Cost per member $592.27 $597.78 $1,009.86 $583.36

$ Difference $5.51 417.59 ($8.92)

% Difference 1% 71% (2%)

# of confirmed complaints 11 52 57 2

10

received

# of Registrar reports (investigations)

6 298 39 3

Number of discipline hearings 0 1 13 0

# of hearing days 0 4 18 0

In 2015, CASLPO’s cost per member was $112 higher than CPO. However, in 2014, CASLPO’s cost

per member was $6 lower than CPO. CASLPO had less complaints, reports and discipline hearings in

2014 which brought the cost per member down below CPO.

Although CCO is close in membership size, their cost per member far exceeds CASLPO in 2014 and

2015 due to the large number of complaints, reports and discipline hearings they handled.

CASLPO’s cost per member was $81 higher than CDO in 2015 and $9 higher than CDO in 2014. The

larger cost per member is supported by the fact that CASLPO had more than triple the amount of

complaints and reports in 2014 and more than 10 times the amount of complaints and reports in

2015.

Therefore, single year cost comparisons between Colleges are very problematic due to the annual

fluctuations in complaint and discipline costs.

4. “With sizeable increases in fees since 2010, the College has not been able to demonstrate much in

the way of a cash reserve”

CASLPO has internally restricted reserve funds of $650,000 segregated by Investigations and

Hearings ($300,000), Quality Assurance ($200,000), and Patient Relations and Public Awareness

($150,000). By placing internal restrictions on these funds, the College Council has mitigated the

risk of the College not having the funds available to perform these legislatively mandated activities.

CASLPO also has a reserve of unrestricted funds which would be used in the event of emergencies

or unexpected challenges. The College Council has set a goal to maintain an unrestricted reserve

sufficient to cover 6 months of the College’s operating costs. This level of unrestricted reserve is

consistent with the thresholds set by the Canada Revenue Agency. It is also recommended by our

auditors. This is a practice followed by most other Colleges.

The following graph illustrates the amount of the unrestricted reserve from 2009 through 2017 with

respect to the goal of maintaining an amount equal to 6 months operating costs.

11

The unrestricted reserve is projected to be at 69% of the goal of $1.4M by the end of the 2017 fiscal

year end. The College Council continuously monitors the level of reserves with respect to financial

and operational risks and makes determinations on expense allocations and fee increases based on

the financial data. The current proposal for fee increases is intended to progressively bring the

unrestricted reserve amount to its goal and reduce the likelihood of fee increases in the future.

5. “In 2016, the College took it upon itself to undertake a substantial multimedia public education

campaign on the benefits of regulation rather than partnering with other College through the

Federation of Health Regulatory College of Ontario”

Like the majority of Colleges in Ontario, CASLPO has increased its public awareness activities in

recent years. This was driven in part by the government’s directions with respect to providing

greater transparency and public awareness. These initiatives are part of the College’s 3-Year

Strategic Plan. This is the first major campaign undertaken by the College since 2002. Your

assertion that CASLPO has not partnered with other Colleges through the Federation of Health

Regulatory Colleges of Ontario (FHRCO) in terms of public awareness is simply not factual. In fact,

we are very much involved in FHRCO’s current and planned activities in this area.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Projected2017

Unrestricted Reserve

Unrestricted Reserve6 months operating costs

+$7K

-$364K

-$43K +$11K -$56K +$88K

+$137K

+$138K

Amount +Added or -Removed from Unrestricted Reserve

69% of goal

12

You end your communication by appealing to the elected and appointed professional members of

the College Council to “act on behalf” of the members of the College. In fact, all members of Council,

whether elected by members (9), nominated by universities (2), or lay individuals appointed by the

provincial government (7), are enjoined to act on behalf of the public. The proposed fee

adjustments are to ensure that the College can continue to fulfill its role to provide regulation of the

two professions “in the public interest” as described by the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Thank you again for taking the time to submit your views.

Yours sincerely,

Deb Zelisko, President, CASLPO Brian O’Riordan, Registrar, CASLPO

Recommended revisions to the proposed amendments to the By-laws

Original Proposals #1 & #2



Type Current Amount Proposed Amount


Annual Fee

Initial $364.00 $728.00



Type




New Recommended Revisions to Proposal #1 & #2

CASLPO is recommending the following revisions to Proposal #1 & #2:

1. Defer the “Effective” date for the proposal by one year to October 1, 2018.



Type Current Amount Proposed Amount


Annual Fee

Initial $364.00 $728.00



Type




Rationale for the Recommended Revision • Provide a concession to IPRs from the original proposal to respond to the comments received

regarding “the burden of existing student loans, difficulty finding consistent work, and lower pay scales when work is found”.

• Provide the current IPRs and future applicants with ample notice of the increase.

Original Proposal #3




Type

Current Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount


2017-September

30, 2018


2018-September

30, 2019


2019-September

30, 2020


2020-September

30, 2021


2021-September

30, 2022

Annual Fee

General $728.00 $743.00 $758.00 $773.00 $788.00 $804.00

Academic $728.00 $743.00 $758.00 $773.00 $788.00 $804.00

Initial $364.00 $743.00 $758.00 $773.00 $788.00 $804.00

Non-Practising $364.00 $371.00 $378.00 $386.00 $394.00 $402.00

New Recommended Revision to Proposal #3

CASLPO is recommending the following revisions to Proposal #3:

1. 1% increase in annual fees in 2017-18. 2. 2% increases in annual fees in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21.

Effective October 1, 2017, the annual fee shall be increased by one percent of the annual fee payable for the previous year, rounded up to the nearest dollar.


Type

Current Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount

Proposed Amount


2016-September 30,

2017


2017-September 30,

2018


2017-September 30,

2018


2019-September 30,

2020


2020-September 30,

2021

Annual Fee General $728.00 $735.00 $750.00 $765.00 $780.00 Academic $728.00 $735.00 $750.00 $765.00 $780.00 Initial $364.00 $368.00 $750.00 $765.00 $780.00 Non-Practising $364.00 $368.00 $375.00 $383.00 $391.00

Rationale for the Recommended Revisions o In response to the precarious job market for SLPs and the lack of salary increases awarded to

members in public sector employment, the increase in 2017 has been reduced to 1% to provide some relief to members

o The increases between 2018 and 2021 now align precisely with the next 3 year strategic plan. o The increase in the 5th year (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2022) was eliminated in response

to the difficult nature of predicting expenses and membership trends at the current time. CASLPO still has the ability to propose a fee increase or decrease in the future if the financial situation warrants the proposal.

Original Proposal #7

2 PAYMENT OF FEES 2.1 The fees payable by a member or applicant for registration shall be those fees which are set out in

the By-laws of the College, as amended from time to time. Where no fee or penalty has been set out in the schedule, a member or person shall pay the College the fee or penalty set by the College.

2.2 Where a person requests the Registrar to do anything that the Registrar is required or authorized to do by statute or regulation, the person shall pay the prescribed fee.

2.3 A member’s obligation to pay a fee or penalty continues regardless of whether the member fails to receive notice of a fee or penalty.

2.4 Any fee or penalty charged or imposed by the College not paid by a member shall be included as part of a member’s next annual membership fee.



(b) may suspend the member’s certificate of registration for failure to pay the fee or penalty within 30 days after notice is given.

New Recommended Revision to Proposal #7

CASLPO is recommending the following revision to Proposal #7:

1. Clarify section 2.3 to disclose the fact that the College will provide notice to the member when a fee or penalty is given and the onus is on the member to provide correct, up-to-date contact information.

2.3 The College will provide written notice of a fee or a penalty to a member when it is due. A member’s obligation to pay a fee or penalty continues regardless of whether the member fails to receive notice of a fee or penalty due to incorrect or out of date contact information.

CASLPO 5 Year Financial Forecast Based on Revised Proposals

Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast2021/2022 2020/2021 2019/2020 2018/2019 2017/2018 2016/2017

Revenues: Membership fees 3,443,938 3,363,294 3,224,583 3,093,960 2,924,592 2,809,452 Registration fees 8,150 8,250 8,350 8,450 34,200 34,800 Application fees 28,800 29,250 29,700 30,150 30,600 20,700 Other fees 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 22,003 Investment income 46,552 47,502 48,471 49,461 50,470 51,500

Government grant - Ehealth Total Revenues 3,545,939 3,466,796 3,329,604 3,200,521 3,058,362 2,938,455% growth in revenue year over year 2.3% 4.1% 4.0% 4.6% 4.1%

Expenditures:

Salaries and Benefits Salaries 1,395,157 1,354,380 1,317,028 1,333,176 1,299,025 1,195,369CAASPR salary reimbursement (3,577) (42,924) (42,924) (45,945)

Employment insurance 22,333 21,681 21,059 21,337 20,549 18,596 Canada Pension Plan 41,764 40,546 39,381 39,903 38,646 35,044 Employee benefits 233,790 226,956 220,684 224,200 217,980 177,108 Temporary help 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 37,000

Learning and Development 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500Recruitment 554

1,714,543 1,665,064 1,616,076 1,597,192 1,554,776 1,434,227

Office and General Photocopier and fax 11,403 11,291 11,179 11,068 10,959 10,850 Courier 526 520 515 510 505 500 Telephone and teleconference 14,353 14,072 13,796 13,525 13,260 13,000

Insurance 9,274 9,004 8,742 8,487 8,240 8,000 Membership dues 53,469 52,501 38,361 37,775 37,225 34,400 Office and Sundry expenses 24,290 23,814 23,347 22,889 22,440 22,000

Repairs and maintenance 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Bank charges 104,982 99,160 91,872 85,079 78,205 69,000 Internet services 2,760 2,706 2,653 2,601 2,550 2,500

Rent and operating costs 219,282 213,165 207,354 207,354 204,602 201,000Travel 13,663 13,528 13,394 13,261 13,130 13,000CAASPR 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Payroll services 3,363 3,330 3,297 3,264 3,232 3,200Networking and Presentations 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000

481,365 467,090 438,509 429,814 418,347 406,450

Council & Committees Professional members - Honoraria 108,435 108,435 108,435 108,435 108,435 66,000Professional members - Expenses 45,300 44,400 43,512 43,512 43,512 30,000Council learning development 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

178,735 177,835 176,947 176,947 176,947 121,000

Aud. & SLP Practice Committees Practice Standards & Guidelines 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 2,000Quality Assurance Peer assessment 109,155 94,918 82,537 71,772 62,410 53,000

Self assessment 12,697 12,448 12,204 11,965 11,730 11,500CASLPO Forums 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000Jurisprudence testing 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 7,000 0

135,852 121,366 108,741 117,736 95,140 70,500

Registration Accred'n of university international credentials 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500Mentorship program 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 37,500 15,000

19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 39,000 16,500

Professional Fees and Consultants Legal 56,275 54,636 53,045 51,500 50,000 60,000Information technology 28,706 28,143 27,591 27,050 26,520 26,000

Other consultants 73,034 70,907 68,842 66,837 64,890 63,000 Audit 33,122 32,473 31,836 31,212 30,600 30,000 Translation 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

193,138 188,160 183,314 178,599 174,010 181,000

Member Engagement Website maintenance 3,153 3,122 3,091 3,060 3,030 3,000Outgoing communication 11,041 10,824 10,612 10,404 10,200 10,000Publications 9,937 9,742 9,551 9,364 9,180 9,000Elections 4,845 4,845 4,845 4,750 4,750 4,750

28,976 28,533 28,099 27,578 27,160 26,750

Discipline Hearings Legal 463,710 450,204 437,091 424,360 412,000 400,000Complaint Investigations Investigators 92,742 90,041 87,418 84,872 82,400 80,000

Hearing expenses 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0SCERP 0 0 0 0 0 0

561,452 545,244 529,509 514,232 499,400 480,000

Public Awareness Public Awareness - Research 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Production 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 - Distribution 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700

51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000

Amortization and Depreciation 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000

Total Operating Expenditures 3,395,061 3,294,291 3,182,194 3,143,098 3,066,780 2,818,427

Revenues over Expenditures 150,878 172,505 147,410 57,423 (8,418) 120,028 Transfer from Reserves re: Invest. & Hearing - - - - - - Transfer from Reserves re: Quality Assurance - - - - - - Transfer from Reserves re: Public Awareness - - - - - -

Net Operating Budget 150,878 172,505 147,410 57,423 (8,418) 120,028Add: Amortization 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000

Less: Capital purchases (12,200) (12,200) (12,200) (12,200) (12,200) (12,200)To add to Unrestricted reserve 169,678 191,305 166,210 76,223 10,382 138,828

Opening Unrestricted Reserve balance 1,413,663 1,222,357 1,056,147 979,924 969,542 830,714

Closing Unrestricted Reserve balance 1,583,341 1,413,663 1,222,357 1,056,147 979,924 969,542Unrestricted Reserve as a % of operating expenses 47% 43% 38% 34% 32% 34%

Unrestricted Reserve as a % of operating expenses TARGET 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Difference -3% -7% -12% -16% -18% -16%

1

REPORT TO COUNCIL ELECTION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BRIAN O’RIORDAN MEETING DATE Friday June 9, 2017


INTRODUCTION

We will, as per By‐Law #1 of the College, be electing the Executive Committee of the College at the meeting of Council on June 9, 2017.

The election of officers of the College (President and two Vice‐Presidents) is governed by Section 8 of the By‐Law. The composition and duties of the Executive Committee can be found in sections 10.1 and 10.2 of By‐Law #1.

As usual, nominations for the offices of President and Vice‐President can be made in advance by e‐mail to myself or made at the time of the meeting.

All members of Council are eligible to run for the position of President. Only Audiologist members of Council may run for Vice President, Audiology and only SLP members may run for Vice‐President SLP. At the end of the election process, Council must have an Executive composed of 2 SLPs, 2 AUDs and 2 public members (article 10.1 of By‐Law #1).

Eligibility to serve on the Executive Committee as an officer or member is also constrained by the following:

No person may serve as a given officer (President or Vice‐President) “for more than three

consecutive terms” (Article 8.1.2)

No member of Council “may be a member of the same committee for more than six consecutive terms” (Article 9.5.3)

Deb Zelisko and Judy Rowlands have completed their terms on Council and are not eligible to be nominated.

Eligible Council members may nominate themselves or propose others for nomination. Those nominated may speak on their own behalf for up to one minute, if they so choose.

Nominations shall take place in the following order:

President

Vice‐President – Audiology

Vice‐President – SLP

3 other members In the event there are more nominees than positions available, there shall be an election by secret ballot.

As prescribed in Article 8.1.7:

“When more than two members of Council are nominated for the same position, the nominee who receives the lowest number of votes on each ballot shall be dropped from the subsequent ballot. This procedure shall be followed until one nominee receives a majority of the votes cast. If there is a tie that cannot reasonably be broken by other means, the position shall be filled by lot, using a procedure deemed fair by the candidates involved.”

The usual tie‐breaking method used by Council has been a coin‐toss.

If any member of Council duly nominated for office wishes to have someone scrutineer the counting of ballots they must so indicate at the time of nomination. Scrutineers may observe the count, but must not communicate with those counting in such a way so as to impede or obstruct the vote count.

The two other staff members involved in the count will be the Executive Office, Communications Manager and the Director of Professional Conduct. The results of each ballot will be announced immediately, by the Registrar. Members elected to the Committee will take office immediately.

There are presently sixteen voting members on Council, all of whom may cast ballots. The current members of the Executive Committee are:

‐ Deb Zelisko, President ‐ Judy Rowlands, Vice President, SLP ‐ Vicky Papaioannou, Vice President, AUD ‐ Bob Kroll, SLP ‐ Shari Wilson, Public Member ‐ Melanie Moussa‐Elaraby, Public Member

The composition of other Committees of Council shall be confirmed at the Council meeting in September, upon the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Chairs of committees will be elected at the first meeting of a committee following the September meeting of Council. All committees presently constituted will continue in office until next year’s fall meeting of Council.

The Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario provides strategic leadership to health profession regulation within the changing health care system. The Federation’s activities include:

• Collective work on many government priorities and regulatory issues

• Provision of regulatory expertise on relevant issues for government and stakeholders

• Stakeholder collaboration and project participation

• Identification of priority initiatives for research and action, and the sharing of promising practices

• Repository of sector-specific issues and information

• Communication on the role of the regulator to the public and stakeholders

• Ongoing support for regulatory Colleges and mentoring of new Colleges

• Development of tools and materials to support the healthcare system in regulatory areas

• Education sessions for College council members, committees, and staff

A B O U T T H E F E D E R AT I O N

F e d e r a t i o n o f H e a l t h R e g u l a t o r y C o l l e g e s

o f O n t a r i o

2016-2017 Highlights

CONTENTS:

President’s Report 2

Committee Reports 4

Transitions 7

List of Members 8

I N T R O D U C I N G A R E S O U R C E F O R T H E P U B L I C :

W W W. O N TA R I O H EA LT H R EG U L ATO R S . C A

https://ontariohealthregulators.ca/

This report covers the Federation’s corporate year from the April 28, 2016 Annual Meeting to the May 4, 2017 Annual Meeting.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROJECT—PUBLIC PORTAL The Federation’s 2016-2017 year celebrated the launch of a highly anticipated and valued venture—the Public Engagement Project. The Communications Committee, led by Committee Chair Monique Poirier of the College of Dietitians of Ontario, shared its members’ invaluable expertise over the year, culminating with the creation of the Ontario Health Regulators website (ontariohealthregulators.ca).

This multi-year, multi-phased project focuses exclusively on the public, reaching out to patients and their caregivers to provide a resource for those who want to know more about regulatory aspects of healthcare providers in the province. Current information on the multi-lingual website includes:

Registration—providing information on who is practising and who is able to practise, with links to all Colleges’ public registers

Complaints and Discipline—identifying the rights of patients and how to get help, with links to all Colleges’ information on how to make a complaint

General Regulatory Information—helping to explain what a College is and what it does

Sincere thanks is extended to the hardworking and dedicated members of the Communications Committee, listed below.

P R E S I D E N T & E X E C U T I V E C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T Executive Committee Members:

Shenda Tanchak,

President

Marshall Moleschi Past President (through

September 2016)

Linda Gough, Past President (since

September 2016)

Kevin Taylor, Vice-President

Brenda Kritzer, Treasurer

Elinor Larney, Member

Brian O’Riordan, Member

Kathy Wilkie, Member

Page 2


Key Highlights in Addition to ontariohealthregulators.ca: • The launching of the Ontario Health Regulators website was a key

accomplishment in the 2016-2017 year—phase 1 of the Public Engagement Project. The next phase includes the production of a video to enhance the website and an organized approach to reach out to the public through social media.

• On November 18, 2016, a Communications Conference, organized by a Working Group with Chair Ryan Pestana of COKO, and held by host Jill Hefley at CPSO, focused on Pillars of Public Engagement. The keynote speaker, James MacDonald from Ornge, and a number of College communications staff from CPSO, the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, RCDSO, CASLPO , and OCP shared a plethora of helpful recommendations about social media and more.

C O M M U N I C AT I O N S C O M M I T T E E Communications Committee Members:

• Monique Poirier (College of Dietitians of Ontario), Chair

• Jill Hefley (CPSO), Past Chair

• Angie Brennand (CMTO)

• Lori DeCou (OCP) - through November 2016

• Lisa Gibson (CASLPO)

• Margaret Goulding (CMLTO)

• Ryan Pestana (COKO)

• Lisa Pretty (College of Physiotherapists of Ontario)

• Nancy Stevenson (COTO)



BILL 87, PROTECTING PATIENTS ACT, 2017

A key area of focus for the Federation in the 2016-2017 year was the anticipation of and response to legislative amendments to the RHPA—Bill 87. While supporting the intent of the Bill as it relates to public protection, there are issues related to the number of new ministerial regulation-making powers, and a number of drafting issues that could lead to unintended negative consequences. Federation President Shenda Tanchak appeared before the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly on April 12, 2017, and she reinforced the Federation’s commitment to transparency, to reducing and eliminating sexual abuse of patients and improving supports for patients who suffer abuse, and to share Federation members’ regulatory, operational expertise to ensure that the policy intentions of the Bill can be achieved without imposing new barriers for patients.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR FHRCO MEMBERS AND THEIR COUNCILS, COMMITTEES, AND STAFF

Federation members are provided with resources to help with their individual orientation, ongoing education, and training needs:

• Education for Health Professional Regulators of Ontario (EHPRO) - five modules with 22 video segments about all aspects of the RHPA

• Semi-Annual Training for Regulatory Council Members - two-day, live sessions focusing on regulation, featuring Deanna Williams and Richard Steinecke

• Semi-Annual Discipline Orientation Workshops (see page 4 for more information)

• Investigations and Hearings Symposia (see page 5 for more information)

• Communications Conferences (see the previous page for more information)

• In development: Training for the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Patients (see page 5 for more information)

PRESENTERS TO FEDERATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS/EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DURING 2016-2017 YEAR:

• Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care : ADM Denise Cole, Director Allison Henry, Manager Stephen Cheng

• HPARB: Vice-Chair Taivi Lobu, HPARB Registrar Christy Hackney

Page 3


P R E S I D E N T & E X E C U T I V E C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T ( C O N T . )

FHRCO:

Fostering

Healthy

Regulatory

Collaboration

in

Ontario

List of Discipline Orientation Committee Members:

• Tina Langlois (CMRTO), Chair

• Anita Ashton (College of Physiotherapists of Ontario)

• Genevieve Plummer (OCP)

• Ravi Prathivathi (CNO)

• Iris Samson, (CASLPO)

Page 4


D I S C I P L I N E O R I E N TAT I O N C O M M I T T E E

Key Highlights: The Discipline Orientation Committee continues to deliver quality education and

training programs, providing comprehensive orientation for regulatory

adjudicators. Basic training programs are available twice each year. Advanced

sessions, which were developed in response to the interest of professional and

public members who sit on discipline panels, are provided annually and are built

on the knowledge and skills regulatory adjudicators acquired by attending the

Basic session or participating in hearings. Again in 2016, both sessions were held

at the Osgoode Professional Development Centre in Toronto.

May 17, 2016 – Basic Program: 32 registrants [11 Colleges (1 by webcast)]

October 20 & 22, 2016 – Basic and Advanced Programs: 32 Basic [15 Colleges (3 by webcast)] and 26 Advanced (8 Colleges)

Future Discipline Orientation Program Dates for 2017:

Basic Sessions: May 18 & October 26/ Advanced Session: October 27

Note of Thanks:

The appreciation of the Federation is extended to Anita Ashton, who had served

on the Discipline Orientation Committee since its inception, and who resigned

from the Committee as she has taken on new duties at the College of

Physiotherapists of Ontario. Anita provided a depth of knowledge and insight

that gave strength to these valued training sessions.


Co-Chairs (2016)

• Cara Moroney (COKO) • Preeya Singh (CDHO) Co-Chairs (2017)

• Genevieve Plummer (OCP) • Meghan Clarke (OCP) Membership open to all Federation member staff who are involved in investigations and hearings

The Investigations and Hearings Network provides Federation member staff with opportunities for regular meetings and online resources to share information and practice questions.

A session was held on September 19, 2016, which provided opportunities for discussion on discipline processes, transparency, and the SATF Report.

The next session is scheduled for June 19, 2017 in Toronto.

I N V E S T I G AT I O N S A N D H E A R I N G S N E T W O R K

List of Working Group Members:

• Barry Gang (College of Psychologists of Ontario), Chair

• Carolyn Gora, CPSO

• Tina Langlois, CMLTO and CMRTO

• Mark Pioro, CRPO • Melisse Willems, College of Dietitians of

Ontario • Mary Kennedy through June 2016 when

she left her position at the College of Denturists of Ontario

The objective of the Working Group is to provide FHRCO members with opportunities for training for their Councils, Committees and staff related to the prevention of and response to the sexual abuse of patients.

For Summer 2017, planning is underway for the production of training videos, featuring subject matter experts and featured speakers. Learning modules, including elements related to diversity, will focus on the following areas:

• The Dynamics of Abuse

• Legislation (as it relates to sexual abuse)

• Beliefs, Attitudes and Personal Responses to Sexual Abuse

• Setting Up Appropriate Intake and Investigation Processes (staff focus)

• Making Findings and Fashioning Appropriate Dispositions and Remedial Programs

The appreciation of the Federation is extended to this dedicated Working Group and those who will be sharing their expertise to produce these important training modules.

T R A I N I N G F O R T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F S E X UA L A B U S E O F PAT I E N T S

W O R K I N G G R O U P

List of Committee Members:

• Kathy Wilkie (CMLTO), Chair • Brenda Kritzer (COKO) • Brian O’Riordan (CASLPO) • Jo-Ann Willson (CCO)

The Ad Hoc Risk Management Policy Development Committee has been monitoring work by the Health Insurance Reciprocal of Canada (HIROC), the insurance provider for the Federation and most of its members. HIROC representatives will be meeting with the Committee to share HIROC’s risk management tools early in the new FHRCO Corporate year to determine what can be implemented at the Federation level and what can be shared for consideration by individual Colleges.

A D H O C R I S K M A N A G E M E N T P O L I C Y D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M I T T E E

Page 6


The Legislative and Policy Issues Committee focused on two distinct, but related, issues in 2016-2017:

• The release of the report of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s Task Force on the Sexual Abuse of Patients

• The introduction of Bill 87, Protecting Patients Act, 2017

The Committee will continue to focus on Bill 87 and how this Bill will change the RHPA and, potentially, some of the processes at the individual College level.

Additionally, as an ongoing resource, Committee members and the Board of Directors are kept informed through monthly “Legislative Updates” provided by Federation legal counsel Richard Steinecke.

L E G I S L AT I V E A N D P O L I C Y I S S U E S C O M M I T T E E

In accordance with the By-Laws, the Nominations Committee facilitated the call for nominations for the Executive Committee and Officers as well as the call for Committee members and Committee Chairs. Elections and appointments take place during the Board Meeting that immediately follows the Annual Meeting each year, and a press release is issued shortly thereafter to announce the new Executive. The dedication of our volunteers and support from member Colleges is one of the greatest resources the Federation values and appreciates.

N O M I N AT I O N S C O M M I T T E E


• Kevin Taylor (CRTO), Chair • Brian O’Riordan (CASLPO), Past Chair

• Carol Bock (CASLPO) • Barbara Cadotte (OCP)

• Joel Friedman (CCO)

• Rod Hamilton (College of Physiotherapists of Ontario)

• Brenda Kritzer (COKO)

• Tina Langlois (CMRTO) • Timothy Mbugua (COTO)

• Kevin McCarthy (CNO) • Marina Solakhyan (CMO)

• John Tzountzouris (CMLTO) • Louise Verity (CPSO)


• Linda Gough (CMRTO), Chair • Kathy Wilkie (CMLTO)

• Jo-Ann Willson (CCO)


FEDERATION MEMBERS:

• Marshall Moleschi retired as the Registrar and CEO of the Ontario College of Pharmacists on September 30, 2016.

• Anne Resnick served as Interim Registrar and Executive Director of the Ontario College of Pharmacists from October 1, 2016 through January 9, 2017.

• Nancy Lum-Wilson was appointed Registrar and CEO of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, effective January 9, 2017.

• Joyce Rowlands resigned as Registrar of the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario, effective May 5, 2016.

• Mark Pioro served as Interim Registrar and CEO of the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario from May 5, 2016 through January 9, 2017.

• Deborah Adams was appointed as Registrar and CEO of the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario as of January 9, 2017.

• Dr. Rocco Gerace announced his retirement as Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on February 24, 2017, effective March 1, 2018.

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS:

• Allison Henry was confirmed as Director of the Health System Labour Relations and Regulatory Policy Branch in the Health Workforce Planning and Regulatory Affairs Division, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care., announced November 10, 2016.

• Grant Jameson was appointed as Ontario’s new Fairness Commissioner, announced April 12, 2017.

T R A N S I T I O N S

F H R C O O N L I N E R E S O U R C E S

• An Interprofessional Guide on the Use of Orders, Directives and Delegation for Regulated Health Professionals in Ontario

• Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) eTool

• Listing of Positions Available at FHRCO Member Colleges

• Information on College Council Meeting Dates

• Link to new Ontario Health Regulators website

Suite 301 - 396 Osborne St

PO Box 244

Beaverton ON L0K 1A0

Phone: 416-493-4076

Fax: 1-866-814-6456

Email: bakenny@

regulatedhealthprofessions.on.ca

F e d e r a t i o n o f

H e a l t h

R e g u l a t o r y

C o l l e g e s o f

O n t a r i o

F e d e r a t i o n o f H e a l t h R e g u l a t o r y C o l l e g e s o f O n t a r i o


Members: College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

(CASLPO)

College of Chiropodists of Ontario (COCOO)

College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO)

College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario (CDHO)

College of Dental Technologists of Ontario (CDTO)

College of Denturists of Ontario

College of Dietitians of Ontario (CDO)

College of Homeopaths of Ontario (CHO)

College of Kinesiologists of Ontario (COKO)

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (CMTO)

College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario (CMLTO)

College of Medical Radiation Technologists of Ontario (CMRTO)

College of Midwives of Ontario (CMO)

College of Naturopaths of Ontario (CONO)

College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO)

College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario (COTO)

College of Opticians of Ontario

College of Optometrists of Ontario

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)

College of Physiotherapists of Ontario

College of Psychologists of Ontario

College of Registered Psychotherapists Therapists of Ontario (CRPO)

College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario (CRTO)

College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and

Acupuncturists of Ontario (CTCMPAO)

Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP)

Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO)

w w w. r e g u l a t e d h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n s . o n . c a

REPORT TO COUNCIL STATUS UPDATE – FHRCO PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT PROJECT – PUBLIC PORTAL

BRIAN O’RIORDAN, LISA GIBSON

MEETING DATE Friday June 9, 2017


INTRODUCTION

On behalf of FHRCO Communications Committee Chair, Monique Poirier – “Spread the News!” As a member of the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario (FHRCO), CASLPO will actively promote the launch of the new public portal – ontariohealthregulators.ca (OHR). To date, a group email has been sent to all CASLPO members and stakeholders. The CASLPO website will include a link to the new OHR website and a push to promote it will be integrated into CASLPO activity where applicable.

WHAT IS IT?

• The ontariohealthregulators.ca website is a unique public resource.

• Designed as a one-stop gateway to reach websites of all health regulators in Ontario.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE WEBSITE? 1. Educate the public about the role of regulatory colleges, the value of regulation, and the

importance of a self-regulated system.

Protecting you and your family click here to learn How

2. Educate Ontarians about their rights as healthcare consumers. Help drive traffic and engagement to the college websites, where individuals can get

more detailed information about a regulated health professional. Learn

3. Help people find a regulated health professional. Find

4. Get help when having concerns or complaints about care Get Help

HERE’S HOW YOU CAN HELP:

Tell your family and friends about the site and ask them for their feedback.

Ask them to visit www.ontariohealthregulators.ca


https://ontariohealthregulators.ca/who-we-are/

https://ontariohealthregulators.ca/learn/

https://ontariohealthregulators.ca/find-health-care-professional/

https://ontariohealthregulators.ca/get-help-us-concerns-complaints-care/

http://www.ontariohealthregulators.ca/

1

Lisa Gibson

From: CASLPO <[email protected]>Sent: May 30, 2017 9:54 AMTo: Lisa GibsonSubject: Announcing NEW Ontario Health Regulators Website - A gateway to websites of all Health

Regulators in Ontario

May 30, 2017

To CASLPO Members and Stakeholders:

Announcing the new Ontario Health Regulators website!

In 2017, the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario created www.ontariohealthregulators.ca. The Ontario Health Regulators (OHR) website is the one-stop gateway to the websites of all the health regulators in Ontario. From here, the public can find the most trustworthy, relevant, and up-to-date information about the Colleges and the health professionals they regulate.

What Are The Advantages of using the OHR website?

This new website recognizes the public's need for easy-to-access information and resources on regulated health professionals in a single place.

On this site, visitors will be able to access the registers of all 26 Colleges, find a health professional and see important information about a health professional's registration and discipline history.

The site also contains a variety of articles to help users of the healthcare system make the most of their care and time with regulated health professionals.

The information on this site is available in 10 languages.

Why Should I share the OHR Website? Your help is needed to complement the efforts already in place to reach as wide an audience as possible. The website will be marketed on social media to Ontario caregivers using video and sponsored posts. A targeted online article campaign will also be launched across the province to promote the value of using the services of regulated health professionals and the new website. Please watch for updates.

2

Visit www.ontariohealthregulators.ca and share your thoughts on the website! Together, we will increase public awareness about the advantages of regulation. Thank you! Brian O'Riordan Registrar Learn More, Visit: caslpo.com

Forward this email

This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

CASLPO | 3080 Yonge Street | Suite 5060, Box 71 | Toronto | Ontario | M4N 3N1 | Canada

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE *UPDATE* - BILL 87: “PROTECTING PATIENTS ACT” LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE RHPA MEETING DATE June 9, 2017


Since the last update to Council on March 3, 2017, Bill 87 was referred to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, which conducted public hearings on the Bill and then approved a series of amendments. On April 12, 2017, Brian O’Riordan, Carol Bock and Preeya Singh made the CASLPO submission on Bill 87 highlighting the importance of zero tolerance towards sexual abuse of patients; the importance of sound legislative changes to protect the vulnerable populations treated by audiologists and SLPs; and highlighting the ways CASLPO has endeavored to promote better access to College information for those facing a communication barrier. A copy of the presentation is attached. A number of other Colleges and interest groups also made submissions to the Standing Committee including: Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario (FHRCO), Ontario College of Pharmacists, Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, College of Physiotherapists Of Ontario, College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario, The College of Physicians and Surgeons Of Ontario, Ontario Nurses' Association, sections of the Ontario Medical Association, and Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. The Bill was reported back to the Legislative Assembly, where it received Third Reading approval on May 30 and Royal Assent. Richard Steinecke is working for FHRCO on an analysis of the amended Bill 87. CASLPO staff are developing a workplan to ensure our compliance with the legislation.

1

CASLPO Presentation to Standing Committee on Bill 87, the Protecting Patients Act

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

2:00pm

Committee Room 1, Main Legislative Building, Queen's Park, Toronto

Presenters:

Brian O’Riordan, Registrar Carol Bock, Deputy Registrar Preeya Singh, Director, Professional Conduct

2

Good Afternoon,

I am Brian O’Riordan, Registrar of the College of Audiologists and Speech‐Language Pathologists of Ontario

(CASLPO). I am joined today by Carol Bock, Deputy Registrar, and Preeya Singh, Director of Professional

Conduct.

Thank you to all members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear today in order for us to submit

our views on the very important piece of legislation before you, the Protecting Patients Act 2017. We will be

confining our remarks to Schedule 4 of Bill 87, concerning the proposed amendments to the Regulated

Health Professions Act (RHPA).

CASLPO licenses approximately 4000 registrants, with 3300 being Speech‐Language Pathologists (SLPs) and

700 being Audiologists. Some 97% of SLPs are women, as are 80% of Audiologists.

A Master’s degree, combined with a six‐month mentorship component, is required for entry‐to‐practice. The

professions became self‐regulated in Ontario under the RHPA in 1993.

We are here today to voice our overall support for Schedule 4 of Bill 87 and to provide you with hopefully

some interesting perspectives as the regulator of these two professions.

We absolutely support the zero tolerance for sexual abuse of patients voiced by all three political parties. We

also strongly support the submission made to you by the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario

(FHRCO). Bill 87 will, we believe, enhance public protection and support strongly the zero tolerance concept.

Like many Colleges, we have in place a robust Sexual Abuse Prevention Program to regulate the members of

the College. We also have a strong Position Statement on “Professional Relationships and Boundaries”. This

year, in fact, members of the College were required especially to review the Position Statement as part of the

3

annual Quality Assurance process. Prevention measures are a key component of a College’s role as a

regulator.

Fortunately, we have very little front‐line experience in receiving and processing sexual abuse complaints

concerning the registrants of our College.

However, it is vitally important that the public knows where and how to make a complaint about a regulated

health professional. That is why all Colleges, including ourselves, are devoting more and more effort and

resources to Public Awareness Strategies and Transparency Initiatives. In fact, this is one of our College’s

three major current Strategic Plan goals.

Our College has revised its website to make information more accessible to the public. We have produced

three public awareness videos and we have brochures available in both official languages and in a half dozen

others. Our material is available in community settings, hospitals, clinics, and schools.

The patients cared for by Speech‐Language Pathologists and Audiologists are among the most vulnerable

members of society in Ontario. They are infants born with hearing loss. They are children, teens, and adults

with autism, developmental delays and language, speech, and hearing impairments. They are people who

have suffered a stroke, head injuries, and degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS.

These fundamental barriers to communication make these individuals the most vulnerable to abuse and the

least able to report abuse. So, that is why at the College we have developed strategies to promote better

access to information for these individuals. How does a person living with a communication or literacy barrier

make a complaint? The College has developed resources that use simplified language, combined with

pictures, to help people understand the role of Audiologists and Speech‐Language Pathologists and how to

make a complaint. These documents have been reviewed by individuals experiencing communication

barriers, so as to ensure the content is easy to understand. It is hoped that these initiatives will better

4

protect and inform Ontarians about the care they can expect to receive and what to do in the event they

need to file a complaint about one of our members. All of these supports for our public are on the College

website which uses the universal symbol for communication accessibility.

In conclusion, we support the approach to patient safety embodied in Bill 87, but do strongly commend to

you the submission from the Federation, particularly the Appendix of proposed wording changes, and we

urge you to keep in mind during your deliberations the many different communities of patients affected by

the Bill.

MEMO

TO: Shenda Tanchak President, Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario FROM: Richard Steinecke DATE: May 26, 2017 RE: Standing Committee Changes to Bill 87 The following are the significant changes made to Bill 87 by the Standing Committee. Minor and non-substantive changes are not included. We will next develop a fuller analysis of how RHPA Colleges should prepare to implement Bill 87. 1. Exceptions to the College’s Duty of Confidentiality

Section 36 of the Act is amended to permit much broader disclosure to the Minister. In essence the disclosure can be made to enable the Minister to determine whether a College is fulfilling its duties and carrying out its objects. The Colleges no longer have to assess whether the request for information is made for an authorized purpose or not; rather, the Minister is limited to using the information only for the authorized purpose. In addition, disclosure can now be made for the administration of the regulation of retirement homes as well as for the administration of the regulation of long-term care homes. 2. Public Register

A number of changes have been made, including the following:

a. Rewording the reference to the death of former members to reduce the concern that

such information cannot be maintained on the public register;

b. Rewording the reference to posting the specified allegations so that what needs to be

posted is clearer;

c. The rules for posting the results of every discipline and incapacity hearing have been

significantly altered:

Ms. Shenda Tanchak May 26, 2017 Page 2

i. For discipline, the result of a finding of professional misconduct or

incompetence must include particulars of the grounds for and a synopsis of the

decision and any reprimand;

ii. For discipline hearings where no finding of professional misconduct or

incompetence were made, the results (including “the reasons”) will only be on

the register for 90 days unless the member requests they stay on longer;

iii. For fitness to practise hearings, only the fact of a finding of incapacity will be

recorded on the register; and

d. The duty to correct information is limited, for the time being, to register postings on

professional negligence findings by a court.1

3. Definition of a Patient for the Purposes of Sexual Abuse

The deeming of a patient for sexual abuse purposes remains for one year or such longer period as is prescribed by regulation. However, the beginning of the one-year (or longer) period is now specified as being from the date the person ceased being the member’s patient. So the existing definitions of when a person stopped being a patient will remain as the starting point of the extended period of being deemed a patient. 4. Posting Council Meeting Information

Colleges will now have to post on their websites not only the date and agenda of upcoming Council meetings, but also the meeting materials. The exception to this duty is also clarified as being when the Registrar anticipates that the materials relate to what will likely be a closed portion of the meeting. 5. Withdrawal of Complaints by the Registrar

The Registrar will continue to have discretion to accept the withdrawal of a complaint. However, to do so the Registrar must believe that the withdrawal is in the public interest. Both parties, not just the member, will need to be notified if the Registrar accepts the withdrawal. Registrars can decline to accept withdrawals. 6. Interim Orders (Suspensions, TCLs)

A number of drafting concerns have been addressed, including permitting the making of an interim order during the course of a Registrar’s investigation and clarifying that the duration of the order remains in place until the matter is finally disposed of in some manner. A technical requirement has been added (which Colleges will have to be alert to) that the notice to the

1 There was also an amendment to the public register provision relating to acknowledgements and undertakings, but it does not appear to be substantive.


member of a contemplated interim order must contain a copy of the provisions of the Code. The ICRC also has the explicit authority to vary any interim order it makes. In addition, interim orders in incapacity matters have been returned to its own provision so that the criteria for interim orders will not be intermingled in discipline and incapacity matters. 7. Third Party Production Orders

A new provision has been inserted setting out specific criteria and procedures for motions in sexual abuse / sexual impropriety matters requesting production of records from third parties in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., psychiatric records of a complainant or witness). 8. Professional Misconduct Findings by Other Regulators

The provision permitting a Discipline Committee to make a finding of professional misconduct by a regulator outside of Ontario will be expanded to include regulators inside of Ontario (e.g., for another profession). 9. Immediate Suspensions When Certain Findings are Made at Discipline

The provision requiring the immediate suspension of a member’s certificate where a finding of sexual abuse is made that will, when the penalty hearing is held, result in mandatory revocation will be expanded. It will now also apply to offence findings that require mandatory revocation and findings by other regulators that involve frank sexual acts. Also, the suspended suspension provision cannot be used to circumvent the immediate suspension requirement. 10. Expanded List of Frank Sexual Acts Resulting in Mandatory Revocation

The expanded list of frank sexual acts that will result in mandatory revocation (e.g., touching of breasts) will be clarified to mean that the touching is of a “sexual nature”. Appropriate clinical touching is not included in the mandatory revocation provision. 11. Self-Reporting of Bail Conditions

This provision has been clarified and expanded to including any restrictions, not just bail, resulting from an offence charge and requires that additional information be provided in the self-report so that its contents can be verified (e.g., the location of the relevant courthouse). 12. Eligibility for Funding

In addition to the criteria for automatic funding for therapy and counselling and similar expenses upon the filing of a complaint or report of sexual abuse, Colleges will be able to make regulations providing additional criteria to be eligible for such funding.


13. Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act

An additional schedule has been added to Bill 87 for the DPRA to permit interim orders to be made by the Accreditation Committee on pharmacies. In addition, pharmacy technicians will be permitted to dispense remotely when under the supervision of a pharmacist. Some other housekeeping amendments are included. 14. Transitional Issues

The Minister can make regulations to governing transitional matters related to Bill 87. Thank you.

April_24_Notes_Internal_Version2

Meeting Notes – CAASPR Board

April 24, 2017 (St. John’s, NL)

The following is a set of collated notes from the initial face‐to‐face meeting of the “Centralization and

Capacity‐Building Project” with the CAASPR Board held in St. John’s, NL on April 24, 2017. This material

is an internal reference document and is not intended for broad circulation. Much of the information

contained herein is preliminary and may change as the Project progresses.

Decision Making Most of the deliverables associated with the Project will require approval of some kind before they are

finalized. A discussion among CAASPR Board members yielded the following matrix.

Decision Responsibility RFPs & vendor contract awards Project Manager + CAASPR Executive Committee (Board members

should be sent RFP in advance for information purposes and positing on websites/distribution).

Vetting and finalizing Competency

Profiles

To CAASPR Board for approval then to individual Councils for ratification.

Vetting and finalizing Performance

Indicators

Project Manager and Performance Indicators Consultant will present proposed process at next CAASPR Board meeting.

Negotiations with SAC Existing group – Lori, Brian, Celine and Linda with Project Manager and Exam Advisor

Service Agreement with Exam Provider Drafted with advice/guidance from Exam Advisor. To CAASPR Board for approval then to individual Councils for ratification/signature.

Website/Portal

design/functionality/content

Registrars Committee.

Review & acceptance of background

research


Review & acceptance of Language

Proficiency Policy

To CAASPR Board for approval then to individual Councils for ratification.

Establishment of centralized

assessment process

CAASPR Board.

Review & acceptance of AEF

assessment manual


Review & acceptance of pre‐arrival tool Registrars Committee.


Proposed Assessment Process A diagram outlining the proposed assessment flow/process was presented for discussion purposes. It

has been reproduced below and may be modified with input from CAASPR members and the AEF

consultant. Note that at some point in the sequence below, applicants must prove official language

proficiency.

Desired Qualities – National Exam CAASPR Board members were asked to comment on the key criteria/aspects/elements they would like

to see in the newly developed National Entry‐to‐Practice Exam. Major themes included:

The Exam is valid, reliable, defensible and secure

May be used for those returning to practice as well as new graduates and internationally

educated applicants

Offered in a number of locations across the country (including rural/remote) and more often

than twice annually – computer‐based

Accessibility and special needs issues are addressed

The exam blueprint be directly and explicitly linked to the Competency Profile

Issues related to safety and professionalism are assessed

Scenarios that test high‐level thinking and problem solving abilities – multiple‐choice

Data be available to help inform educational and continuing competency programs

A fair and transparent process is implemented

The question bank is reviewed regularly to ensure proper performance

A governance and oversight structure where regulators are central

Data/reports which could inform the content of remediation and or bridging programs.

Communication with Stakeholders Two groups of Stakeholders were identified. “Primary Stakeholders” being those whose input would be

sought to inform the content/design of, and make decisions related to the Project’s deliverables.

“Secondary Stakeholders” were defined as those groups that should be kept apprised of major Project

activities, but not asked to contribute to them directly.


Primary Stakeholders Secondary Stakeholders

CAASPR Board Registrants

Member Regulator Councils Applicants

Fairness Commissioners

University Programs

Government Ministries and Departments

Related Professions

Employers

Federal and Provincial Professional Associations

Public

It was determined that for the time being, Primary Stakeholders would be kept up‐to‐date through a

(monthly) two‐page written update. This would include the status of key deliverables and associated

next steps. Notes would be added for items requiring decisions by the Board and/or member Councils.

A quarterly “newsletter” would be prepared for Secondary Stakeholders. Dissemination of these items

would be facilitated by CAASPR member regulators and via the CAASPR corporate website.

Applicant Profile Data collected from member regulators related to applications from internationally educated (IE) AUDs

and SLPs is presented in two charts below. The first details the volume of applications received from

2011‐2016 – total and by jurisdiction. Note that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador only

became regulated in 2013; no data for British Columbia for 2013 is available. The second chart shows

the country of education of the 180 IEs who applied for licensure (collectively – for all jurisdictions) in

2016.


0

50

100

150

200

250

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

IE ApplicantsON AB BC QC MB NL NB SK TOTALS

IE ‐ Country of Education (2016)

US N. Zealand Belgium Brazil India Australia Singapore

Jordan France Lebanon Algeria UK Phillipines S. Africa


MEMORANDUM SUITABILITY TO REGISTER TO Council

FROM Registration Committee


ACTION REQUESTED:

Recommendation to Council to approve a policy that outlines the relevant factors for the Registration Committee to consider when determining if an applicant meets the good character requirement of Ontario Regulation 21/12.

BACKGROUND:

THIS POLICY APPLIES TO:

This policy applies to all applicants.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Excerpt from Ontario Regulation 21/12, section 3:

Requirements for certificate of registration, any class

3. An applicant must satisfy the following registration requirements for the issuance of a certificate of registration of any class:

1. The applicant must provide details of any of the following that relates to the applicant:

i. A conviction for a criminal offence.

ii. A conviction for an offence related to the regulation of the practice of the profession in Ontario or in any other jurisdiction.

iii. A finding of professional misconduct, incompetency or incapacity in Ontario in relation to another health profession or in any other jurisdiction in relation to the profession or another health profession.

iv. A current proceeding for professional misconduct, incompetency or incapacity in Ontario in relation to another health profession or in any other jurisdiction in relation to the profession or another health profession.


v. A denial of registration, licensure or similar status by a regulatory body in Ontario that is responsible for the regulation of another health profession or by a regulatory body in another jurisdiction that is responsible for the regulation of the profession or another health profession.

vi. A revocation or suspension of registration, licensure or similar status in Ontario in relation to another health profession or in any other jurisdiction in relation to the profession or another health profession.

2. If the applicant is registered with a body responsible for the regulation of a health profession, the applicant must provide a certificate, letter or other evidence acceptable to the College from the regulatory body confirming that the applicant is in good standing.

3. If the applicant has ceased being registered with a body responsible for the regulation of a health profession, the applicant must provide a certificate, letter or other evidence acceptable to the College from the regulatory body indicating that the applicant was in good standing at the time he or she ceased being registered.

4. The applicant must provide proof that he or she has professional liability insurance in the amount and in the form as required by the by-laws.

5. The applicant must be able to speak, read and write either English or French with reasonable fluency.

6. The applicant’s past and present conduct must afford reasonable grounds for the belief that the applicant,

i. does not have a physical or mental condition or disorder that could affect his or her ability to practise the profession in a safe manner,

ii. will practise the profession with decency, integrity, and honesty and in accordance with the law, and

iii. will display an appropriate professional attitude.

7. At the Registrar’s request, the applicant must undergo a criminal background check.

PRINCIPLES:

Ontario Regulation 21/12 has several requirements that are collectively known as the “good character” requirements. These good character requirements are exemptible requirements.

When a registration requirement is deemed an exemptible requirement, the Registration Committee has some discretion.

It is important for applicants to provide true and complete information to the College.

It is also important for applicants to recognize that declaring a conduct matter does not automatically disqualify an applicant from registration with CASLPO. Each circumstance is reviewed by the Registration Committee on a case-by-case basis.


FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE REGISTRATION COMMITTEE:

1. The nature of the conduct, including:

a. The nature and seriousness of the offence;

i. Has the applicant been convicted of any offence in Ontario or in any other jurisdiction inside or Outside Canada?

- What is the offence that the applicant has been convicted of? - Is it an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada? - Is it an offence under the Health Insurance Act? - Is it an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? - Is it an offence in which the applicant was impaired or

intoxicated? - Is it an offence relevant to the applicant’s suitability to practice

audiology or speech-language pathology?

ii. Are there any existing charges against the applicant in respect of a federal, provincial or other offence?

- What is the existing charge against the applicant? - Is it an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada? - Is it an offence under the Health Insurance Act? - Is it an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? - Is it an offence in which the applicant was impaired or

intoxicated? - Is it an offence relevant to the applicant’s suitability to practice

audiology or speech-language pathology?

iii. Are there any existing conditions, terms, orders, directions, or agreements relating to the applicant’s custody or release in respect of federal, provincial or other offence processes?

iv. Is the applicant the subject of a finding of professional misconduct, incompetence, incapacity or another similar proceeding by a body that governs a profession, inside or outside of Ontario, where that finding has not been reversed on appeal?

v. Is the applicant currently the subject of a proceeding for professional

misconduct, incompetence, incapacity by a body that governs a profession, inside or outside of Ontario?

vi. Has the applicant been denied registration, licensure or similar status by

any regulatory body (health profession or another profession) in Ontario, or any other jurisdiction in or out of Canada?

vii. Has the applicant had his or her registration, licensure, or similar status

suspended or revoked by any regulatory body (health profession or


another profession) in Ontario or any other jurisdiction in or out of Canada?

b. The current status of applicant’s character and its impact on likely future

conduct;

i. No evidence of subsequent wrongdoing

ii. Observations and references of those currently working with the applicant

c. How long ago the incident(s) occurred; and

d. The relevance of the incident(s) to professional practice:

i. Whether the offence occurred while practising the profession;

ii. Whether there is any connection to the profession such that it would

bring disgrace and dishonour it (i.e. public perception);

iii. Whether the offence put an individual or the public at risk;

iv. Whether the offence is part of a pattern of behaviour or an isolated event;

v. Whether the offence can be seen to present a risk to people in the practice setting of the member; and/or

vi. Whether the offence suggests discrimination, disregard or disrespect for people based on a ground protected by the Human Rights Code (race, colour, ancestry, creed (religion), place of origin ethnic origin, citizenship, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity), sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability, receipt of public assistance).

2. The honesty and completeness of the submission by the applicant:

a. The applicant made an honest declaration on the application form; or

b. The College learned of an issue on receipt of verification of registration from

another regulatory body, from a criminal record check or another source.

3. The consequential actions of the applicant, such as:

a. The outcome of any remediation or rehabilitation undertaken.

b. The acceptance of responsibility, expression of remorse/insight or provision of restitution by the applicant.


c. The subsequent conduct of the applicant including any work, volunteer activities

or practice of audiology or speech-language pathology with no further evidence of conduct issues arising (i.e. past good conduct).

d. The development of measures or safeguards to prevent any repetition of the incident(s), such as developing monitoring and accountability mechanisms where appropriate.

APPLICATION PROCESS:

When applying for registration with CASLPO, information regarding an applicant’s good character is collected by staff from the following sources:

1. The applicant disclosing past conduct on his or her application form; 2. Other regulatory bodies confirming past conduct status; 3. The media or the internet; or 4. Other sources.

EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT ISSUES:

The following are examples of some of the conduct issues that would be flagged by staff for review by the Registration Committee:

Criminal activity o Convictions, charges

Regulatory Activity o Discipline, fitness to practise findings o Complaints and investigations where action was taken o Registration denied

Dishonesty o False information on application

Other misconduct o Academic discipline

VERIFICATION PROCESS:

If information is received by the College that indicates that there is an issue regarding an applicant’s past or current conduct, the information must be verified as appropriate depending on the source of the information and based on the information received.

Information may be verified by contacting the applicant or any other sources that are considered relevant and appropriate.


For Any Criminal Charges or Findings:

Official copies of court transcripts, court information, reports, orders, reasons for the decision, sentencing documentation, probation orders or pardons.

Any Regulatory Findings

Copies of any order and reasons for the decision.

Any Outstanding Regulatory Proceedings

Copies of Notices of Hearing and interim orders

NOTICE OF REFERRAL TO THE REGISTRATION COMMITTEE:

If the Registrar believes that the applicant does not meet the good character requirement, the Registrar will refer the application to the Registration Committee for consideration in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The applicant is provided with notice of the referral and has an opportunity to make a written submission to the Registration Committee about the incident(s).

The applicant will have 30 days from the receipt of the notice of referral to make a submission in writing to the Registration Committee.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION:

It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the College with evidence of his or her good character. This supporting documentation is provided to the College in the applicant’s written submission to the Registration Committee. The applicant’s written submission may include but is not limited to, the following items:

A personal statement describing the circumstances of the incident(s). An explanation as to why the incident(s) is not relevant to the applicant’s suitability to

practice as an audiologist or a speech-language pathologist (i.e. evidence that rehabilitation and/or remediation was successful.)

Evidence of compliance with any Order imposed by a court or another regulatory body. Letters of reference from employers or colleagues, who are aware of the facts of the

matter. Letters from health care providers who are or were engaged in treating the applicant,

providing their professional opinion on the applicant’s capacity to practice.

REGISTRATION COMMITTEE DECISIONS:

The Registration Committee will consider each application on a case by case basis and will consider all the information provided.

Should the Committee find that additional information or clarification of any information is necessary before a decision can be reached, staff will notify the applicant in writing. The


applicant will then be afforded a period of additional time to supply any requested additional information or clarification.

After considering the application, a panel of the Registration Committee may:

Direct the Registrar to register the applicant; Direct the Registrar to register the applicant with terms, conditions, and limitations;

or Direct the Registrar to refuse to register the applicant.

APPEAL:

Decisions of the Registration Committee may be appealed by the applicant to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) within 30 days of the applicant’s receipt of the Registration Committee’s written Order and Reasons.

DEFINITIONS:

Guilty A court or quasi-judicial body has found that an individual committed an offence.

Offence A breach of law that is prosecuted in a court or by a quasi-judicial body. This includes criminal offences as well as any other offences under federal, provincial or municipal statutes.

MEMORANDUM COUNCIL EDUCATION SESSION TO Council

FROM Brian O’Riordan, Registrar


RECOMMENDATION:

Proceed with development of agenda for the session on Council Education scheduled for September 27, 2017.

BACKGROUND:

Carol Bock and myself presented to the Executive Committee several possible topics for the Education Day. The Committee asked us to focus on developing the following:

“Council Governance: Many Perspectives, One Interest” o Bruce Matthews, the former Deputy Registrar of the Ontario College of Trades

is an excellent presenter on this topic. As an example of what he could focus on in this respect, please see attached article of his, recently published in the CLEAR newsletter.

“Mitigating Bias in Decision-making” o There are several presenters that could address this topic

CASLPO 101 o Carol is updating presentation material.

REPORT TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DATE June 9, 2017


The Executive Committee monitors and coordinates the work of the committees of Council and ensures that Council has all the pertinent information that it requires prior to making decisions. The Committee recommends the composition of all committees for the upcoming cycle of Council meetings and develops the schedule of Council meeting dates. The Committee deals extensively with matters concerning external relations involving the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (OSLA), Canadian Alliance of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Regulators (CAASPR) and the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario (FHRCO). The Committee develops program concepts for Council learning development enhancements, and has a particular focus on governance matters and transparency and accountability initiatives. The Committee completes a formal annual performance appraisal of the Registrar.

1. The Executive met on May 19, 2017.

2. Evaluation of March 3, 2017 Council Meeting.

Council member survey feedback was favourable overall, but full participation is needed by all members in completing the survey.

3. President’s Report

Ms. Zelisko indicated that this will be her last Committee meeting as President and that that she will not be able to attend the Council meeting on June 9, 2017. She thanked the Executive Committee and staff for all their hard work and support over the past year. She indicated how much she learned over the past six years on Council, ant that she would be writing a note of appreciation to Council for the June 9 meeting, as she cannot attend in-person. The Executive Committee approved Vice President Vicky Papaioannou to Chair the June 9 Council meeting in the absence of the President. Judy Rowlands, Vice President SLP, indicated that this was her last meeting on Executive, as well. She thanked Committee members and staff for all their assistance and support and regretted that she would be unable to thank Council members in person on June 9, as she will be absent.

4. Registrar’s Report

B. O’Riordan summarized his report noting he will be submitting an updated version to Council.

5. Strategic Plan 2015-18 Update

C. Bock updated Executive on the implementation of the strategic plan.

6. Executive Committee Orientation

Executive consensus is to hold a Committee Orientation for Executive members concurrent with a “Succession Planning” session.

7. Council Education Session B. O’Riordan and C. Bock presented 5 possible session topics and Executive discussed them.

8. Registrar Performance Evaluation 2016-17 [In-Camera]

The committee reviewed the Performance Review inputs and communicated their decisions and rationale to the Registrar.

9. Council Professional Member By-Election Process, Districts 1 and 3

B. O’Riordan proposed that CASLPO emphasize in an email announcement to members that this is a By-election, to alleviate confusion about two election processes. Executive suggested a change in date in the deadline of casting of eBallots i.e. Friday September 8. When the email is distributed after May 24 announcing the newly elected members, it can include a notice about pending by-elections in both districts.

10. Proposed By-Law Revisions for Fee Changes

R. Cimerman reviewed the membership survey analysis provided. The Committee thanked R. Cimerman for her work. B. O’Riordan informed the Executive Committee about the ‘click rates’, and that nearly 75% of members are aware and informed about upcoming fee increases. Executive noted that this survey analysis document is a good educational document for members. Suggestions indicate that there is a consensus to show some good will to members given response rate. It was suggested that the general fees increase only by 1% in 2017-18, and that the Initial Practice Registration fees increase be delayed a year. Therefore, general fees would increase as follows: 2017-18: 1% 2018-19: 2% 2019-20: 2% 2020-21: 2%

11. CAASPR Update

B. O’Riordan summarized the CAASPR Employment and Social Development Canada funded Project Description, updated the committee on the recent CAASPR Board of Directors meeting, as well as the Expert Panel National Essential Competencies project progress.

12. FHRCO Update – Bill 87 Response – Amendments to RHPA

B. O’Riordan reported at the next Council meeting, L. Gibson will show the new Ontario Health Regulators website developed by FHRCO. B. O’Riordan updated Executive on developments respecting Bill 87, as well as CASLPO’s presentation to the Legislative Committee, and that the Bill is at the next step, “clause-by-clause” consideration. The bill is expected to be back in the House by June 1. P. Singh addressed how the amended Bill might affect CASLPO, specifically.

13. The Committee agreed to forwarding to Council for consideration the Risk Management Report and the Suitability to Register proposal. The proposal relating to World Education Service (WES) was referred back to the Registration Committee for further consideration.

14. The Draft June 9 Council meeting agenda was approved.

REPORT TO COUNCIL REGISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DATE June 9, 2017


The Registration Committee provides a fair and transparent process for reviewing and deciding on applications for registration in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, College regulations, and matters that have been referred to it by the Registrar where the Registrar:

(a) has doubts, on reasonable grounds, about whether the applicant fulfills the registration requirements;

(b) is of the opinion that terms, conditions or limitations should be imposed on a certificate of registration of the applicant and the applicant does not consent to the imposition; or

(c) proposes to refuse the application.

The Committee also advises Council and makes recommendations on matters relating to entry to practice standards, registration regulations, and related matters. It also addresses issues of reporting practices concerning Ontario’s Office of the Fairness Commissioner.

The Registration Committee met on May 9, 2017, and discussed the following issues:

1. CAASPR Projects – The Registrar updated the Registration Committee regarding the status of the CAASPR projects.

2. Application Cases Considered for March 22, 2016, to February 23, 2017 – College staff alerted the Registration Committee that an applicant who had been reviewed on February 9, 2017, had requested a registration review from the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB). Staff also reminded the Committee that an applicant reviewed at a meeting on August 16, 2016, had requested a registration hearing. This hearing will take place from June 20-22, 2017.

3. Strategic Priorities – College staff reported that the registration projects associated with the strategic plan could now start to move forward due to the hiring of the Audiology Practice Advisor and Manager of Mentorship. More information regarding the progress of this project would be coming to the Committee at a future meeting.

4. Office of the Fairness Commissioner (OFC) Cycle 2 Action Plan – College staff updated the Committee regarding the completion of the OFC Cycle 2 Action Plan items. The Committee will continue to discuss strategies for uncovering and mitigating bias in the registration process at a future Committee meeting.

5. FAQ for Completing Additional Clinical Practicum Hours – This item is relevant to one of the application cases currently under appeal. Further development of this policy has been put on hold pending the results of this appeal.

6. Defining the Professional Master’s Degree – This item is also relevant to one of the application cases currently under appeal. Further development of this policy has been put

on hold pending the results of this appeal.

7. Suitability to Register –The Committee reviewed a policy outlining the relevant factors for the Registration Committee to consider when determining if an applicant meets the good character requirement of Ontario Regulation 21/12. The Committee recommended sending the policy to Council for approval.

8. Strategies for Uncovering and Mitigating Unconscious Bias – The Committee was advised that more training regarding uncovering bias was to come and that we would continue to develop strategies for uncovering and mitigating unconscious bias after the additional training had been completed.

9. Using World Education Services (WES) exclusively – The Committee discussed the rationale for using WES exclusively as an academic credential evaluation resource. The Committee recommended sending the policy to Council for approval.

A panel of the Registration Committee met on May 9, 2017, and considered the following application cases:

Profession No. of Cases Type Decision

Audiology

3 International applicants Applications approved with terms, conditions, and limitations.

1 Coursework/Practicum Proposal

Accepted proposal.

Speech-Language Pathology

6 International applicants Applications approved with terms, conditions, and limitations.

2 Coursework/Practicum Proposal

Proposal partially accepted.

TOTAL 12

REPORT TO COUNCIL QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE FROM

MEETING DATE

Alexandra Carling-Rowland

June 9, 2017


Quality Assurance is a statutory committee mandated to promote, maintain and evaluate continuing competence among members, and to ensure the quality of practice of the professions in accordance with the legislation, regulations, standards, guidelines and policies of the College, thereby protecting the public.

The Quality Assurance (QA) Committee met in person on March 7th 2017 and via teleconference on March 24th 2017

1) SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT) SUBMISSION

a) Decisions were made regarding the twenty-eight members who missed the SAT submission deadline.

b) Requiring members to review a document as part of the SAT process was successful. This was realized by the numbers of members who accessed the Position Statement on Professional Relationships and Boundaries.

2) PEER ASSESSMENT

a) All of the 2016 Peer Assessment reports have been reviewed.

b) For 2017, the committee agreed that if a member is found to meet all of the standards, a summary will be written by the peer assessor and reviewed by the committee, as per the Quality Assurance regulation.

c) The committee agreed to a pilot for the Non-Clinical Peer Assessment process for 2017. Those members participating in the pilot will be removed from the peer assessment selection pool for ten years. The committee will evaluate the results at the end of the year.

of 2

REPORT TO COUNCIL INQUIRIES, COMPLAINTS AND REPORTS COMMITTEE (ICRC) MEETING DATE June 9, 2017


The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) is the statutory committee that considers all complaints and reports made to the College regarding members. The ICRC acts as a screening committee, and has the responsibility to determine whether or not allegations warrant a referral to the Discipline Committee for a hearing. If a referral is not merited in a particular case, the ICRC may make other decisions in accordance with the legislation. Operationally, the ICRC meets by way of two standing panels to deal with cases, with respective panels maintained for each profession. The full committee meets for purposes of training and policy deliberation.

CASE STATUS UPDATE There are currently 40 open cases on the ICRC roster.1 Open cases are those where a decision has not yet been sent to the member. Two (2) of the cases involve matters pre‐dating 2015, and 15 originated in 2015, 14 of which involve the same complainant. There are ten (10) open cases from 2016: five (5) complaints and five (5) reports. Thirteen (13) new matters began in 2017: seven (7) new complaints, five (5) reports and 1 incapacity matter. Of the cases opened prior to 2015, one began in 2014: a mandatory report. This matter has been reviewed by an ICRC panel and is pending review by an expert. One (1) matter from 2013 is an incapacity inquiry. In the incapacity inquiry, the member’s certificate of registration has been suspended pending completion of an independent medical assessment. Since the last report to Council, the ICRC has rendered decisions in seven (7) cases. One case

was closed within 150 days of receipt.

1 The numbers in this report only include received complaints and matters where an investigator has been appointed. Other matters are dealt with informally though the Professional Conduct department and are reported to the ICRC when a resolution cannot be achieved.

of 2

Breakdown of Open Cases by Profession

Complaints:

Audiology 8 (2017‐4 cases; 2016‐3 cases; 2015‐1 case)

Speech‐Language Pathology 19 (2017‐3 cases; 2016‐2 cases; 2015‐14 cases)

Registrar’s Reports:

Audiology 7 (2017‐ 3 cases; 2016‐4 cases)

Speech‐Language Pathology 4 (2017‐2 cases; 2016‐1 case; 2014‐1 case)

Incapacity Inquiries:

Audiology 1 (2013‐1 case)

Speech‐Language Pathology 1 (2017‐1 case)

ICRC PANEL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS SINCE FEBRUARY 13, 2017 (DATE LAST REPORT FOR COUNCIL WAS PREPARED) The SLP panel met on February 15, March 21 and May 3, and is scheduled to meet again on June 20, 2017. The AUD panel met on February 22, April 5 and May 16, and is scheduled to meet next on June 27, 2017. The full ICR Committee is also scheduled to meet on June 20, 2017 to receive training on handling complaints and reports of sexual abuse, conducted by Margaret Bogue.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD (HPARB) In a complaint under review as of July 27, 2016, the College attended the case review on February 16, 2017. A decision from HPARB is pending. In a complaint under review as of October 13, 2016, the College received confirmation from HPARB on March 22, 2017 that the applicant had withdrawn their request and therefore no review took place. In two (2) other cases under review as of October 13, 2016 (related to the same complainant), the College attended a pre‐review conference on February 21, 2017 and a case review on May 4, 2017. A decision from HPARB is pending.

of 1

REPORT TO COUNCIL DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE MEETING DATE June 9, 2017


The mandate of this statutory Committee is to hold hearings on allegations of incompetence or professional misconduct referred to it from the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

STATUS OF DISCIPLINE MATTERS There is currently one (1) referral before the Discipline Committee. Specified allegations regarding a member were referred to the Discipline Committee on April 15, 2016.1 A pre‐hearing conference has been scheduled over the summer and next steps will be determined at that time. With respect to the Brenda Berge matter, the College has received the Member’s factum requesting a review of the Divisional Court decision. College counsel and the Attorney General’s Office will respond to the request directly to the court and Council will be updated as this matter progresses.

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE MEETINGS SINCE FEBRUARY 13, 2017 (DATE LAST REPORT FOR COUNCIL WAS PREPARED) Meetings of the Committee are scheduled as needed to deal with training and policy matters.

1 Notice of Hearing has been posted to the public register (as required under the recent changes to the College’s Bylaw No 2011‐6, Article 7.1.6.2).

REPORT TO COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM

MEETING DATE

Ruth Cimerman

June 9, 2017


The Finance Committee is a non-statutory committee with a mandate to review all matters with a financial impact on the College. It prepares recommendations to Council on the budget, risk management and the audit.

The Finance Committee via teleconference on May 11, 2017 and considered the following items.

1) REVIEW OF YTD Q2 2017 FINANCIAL RESULTS

Staff reviewed the Q2 Year-To-Date March 31, 2017 Financial Results and summarized the overall financial picture. The following areas were highlighted:

• Overall, we are at $344k Net Profit which is $20K higher than budgeted.

• Revenue is $27K less than budgeted. Revenue is falling short of budget due to higher than expected resignations at renewal and lower than expected number of IPRs converting to general members. Because we amortize the revenue we received at renewal over 12 months, we are seeing a shortfall of $3.1k per month which will translate into a $46K revenue shortfall by year end.

• The revenue shortfall should be offset by the following areas of reduced expenditures:

o Salaries and benefits – Savings of $30K-$40K due to the delayed hiring of Audiology Advisor and Manager of Mentorship role

o Professional member honoraria and expenses – Savings of $10K-$15K due to the delay of the discipline hearing that was initially scheduled for Spring 2017

o Practice standards – Savings of $25K due to a change in the project approach for resources that support new regulations

o Mentorship – Due to the delay in hiring the Manager of Mentorship, the $31K budgeted for 2016-17 may be delayed until 2017-18.2)

2) RISK MANAGEMENT

The Committee performed their annual review of the documents which comprise the Risk Management Plan (i.e. Risk Policy, Risk Tolerance Profile, Risk Register and Fraud Risk Reassessment Checklist). The Committee made the following motions:

1) Risk Policy

• Approve the Risk Policy and bring it to Council for final approval without revision.

2) Risk Tolerance Profile

• Approve the Risk Tolerance Profile and bring it to Council for final approval without revision.

3) Risk Register

• Bring forward selected items from the Risk Register based on:

i. Risk tolerance rating;

ii. Significant changes to risks or mitigation since the last review; and

iii. new emerging risks that need to be addressed

• These selected items will be presented to Council for approval.

4) Fraud Risk Reassessment Checklist

• Bring forward selected items from the Fraud Risk Reassessment Checklist based on:

i. Significant changes to risks or mitigation since the last review; and

ii. New emerging risks that need to be addressed

• These selected items will be presented to Council for approval.

3) REVIEW OF CASLPO FINANCIAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES The Committee performed the required 3 year review of the CASLPO Financial Planning Principles as per the policy. The Committee recommended one addition to item 6 of the Financial Planning Principles to include Risk Management priorities as a consideration when allocating the budget.

REPORT TO COUNCIL SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY PRACTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATE June 9th 2017

REPORT DATE May 29th 2017

The Speech-Language Pathology Practice Advisory Committee (SLP PAC) is a non-statutory standing committee which provides advice to Council on matters affecting speech-language pathologists and the practice of speech-language pathology. The SLP PAC met for a half day teleconference meeting on April 3rd, 2017.

1. DOCUMENT REVISION AND DEVELOPMENT

1.B) POSITION STATEMENT ON THE PROVISION OF SECOND OPINIONS

The committee continued their work on developing the Position Statement on the Provision of Second Opinions. Research and discussions have focussed on defining the purpose of a second opinion versus first opinions. This will, in part, determine members’ responsibilities and competencies.

REPORT TO COUNCIL PATIENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM

MEETING DATE

Brian O’Riordan/Lisa Gibson

June 9, 2017


This committee’s primary duty is to establish a patient relations program, which includes a sexual abuse prevention plan and may make recommendations about the amount of funding a College commits to assist victims of sexual abuse by members. The Committee may also develop initiatives relating to public education and awareness.

SUMMARY The Patient Relations Committee met on April 12th to review CASLPO’s public awareness projects and to elect a Chair. Sandi Singbeil (SLP) was acclaimed as Chair at the meeting. Randi Fisher was thanked for her service as Chair. Staff recommended that the Patient Relations Committee consider the following: Recommendation:

That the proposed public awareness projects for Year 3 and the proposed budget be approved as amended. After considering the Patient Relations Committee discussion, year 1 and 2 project metrics, to date and principles developed by and approved by the Patient Relations Committee July 21, 2016, Committee consensus was for staff to move forward strategically, using the existing assets and recommended other initiatives. This supports the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, Objects of the College 8. To promote and enhance relations between the College and its members, other health profession colleges, key stakeholders, and the public and the Ministry’s guidance to all RHPA College’s to increase public awareness. The proposed budget and projects support CASLPO’s integrated communications plan, including public awareness, and addresses the Strategic Plan goal “Increase the public’s awareness of the College and its members”.

BACKGROUND

At the April 12, 2017 Patient Relations Committee Meeting, a summary of Year 1 and 2 projects and deliverables was provided. A review of the recommended strategy was discussed. The fulsome discussion, included a review of the Committee’s previously developed and approved set of project guidance principles for public awareness:

1) Leverage member involvement where we can, to facilitate distribution of Public Awareness tools, such as videos and brochures ensuring efficient effort for members and direct benefits for the public and members.

2) Always keep in mind CASLPO’s provincial mandate.

3) Public awareness efforts should have a multi-cultural outreach component.

4) Social media presence should be explored as a priority for the College.

5) Leverage existing assets (videos and brochures) to increase public awareness and education, while continuing to be transparent and accountable.

6) Consider availing of niche opportunities for public awareness that are congruent with these principles.

A list of potential public awareness projects was presented for the Committee’s high level guidance to enable further staff exploration and for Finance Committee review, to bring forward to Council for consideration and approval. It was noted that the recommended project list included a combination of repeat use of existing assets (video and brochures) and tactics (Facebook posts and clinic screens) in addition to new options for consideration. The Registrar clarified that the $92,000 budget proposed in the Strategic Plan for Year 3 was a placeholder amount, including a public opinion research component of $30,000 which will not be needed in year 3. The Committee was asked to consider the 6 principles in addition to the strategic plan goals, budget and resources when making project decisions. After thoughtful discussion and consideration of the metrics to review value for money, three decisions were made:

i) To select the larger of the two brochure display options (700 Ontario clinic locations as opposed to 105) considering the over-achievements in Years 1 & 2.

ii) To select one patient-relationship poster including both professions as opposed to one poster for each profession. Further, consensus was to apply any 2nd design funds to a French version but not to exceed $13K specific to this project (estimated $9K plus translation)

iii) To approve the revised Public Awareness project budget to be brought forward for the Finance Committee to review.

The approved public awareness Initiative project and deliverables list for Year 3 is as follows: Repeat existing 90 second Video Promotion ‘Clinic Screens’; Video:2 months $4500

$ 9,000

Repeat existing 2, 30 sec Videos Facebook Promotion using (2 months) $3300

$ 6,400

Add Hospital waiting rooms; increases video Distribution: Largest in 5 Districts; 16; i.e. GTA 6

$ 14,000

Repeat brochure distribution Dr. office display: May & Sept: $ 23,278

700 Ont. brochure displays; IDS Q2 & Q3 Velocity pick-up reports; 42,000 brochures - 21,000 brochures x 2 quarters; 30 ea.@ 700 loc. $20,340 distribution + Print $2938. Develop Patient-Relationship’ Poster;(Same poster; AUD & SLP) Office/Clinical Settings $9,000, + $4,000 FR (Includes 1 full-colour poster 11”x17”, 100lb gloss, score-fold, 1 letter or postcard,(4,000 Members; 1 ea) Design $3,000, + Print, Fulfillment, Mailing: $6,000. All-In :$9,000. Download capability: English/French

$ 13,000

Social Media: Launch Facebook, integrated in communications; Internally resourced

$ 1,000

Estimated Total $ 65,678

draft agenda - caslpotest.caslpo.com/sites/default/uploads/files/mtg_en... · draft agenda council...

Documents