Avoiding the "public protection" trap: a cautionary tale for professional regulators

For much of my working life, I have been affiliated with a number of professional regulatory bodies and professional associations, either in a staff role (usually as Registrar, CEO, Executive Director or Complaints Director – and sometimes several of these roles at once), or as Chair / Member of the regulatory body’s Council.

In terms of my Board work, most of these have been government appointments – federal, provincial or municipal – or I have been appointed by professional associations that have chosen (but are not mandated) to have a “civilian voice” on their Board.

The enduring mantra of all of these  bodies that have been granted the privilege of self-regulation of their respective professions is  “protection of the public”. So it should be. This is the message that is drilled into newly-licensed professionals and vigorously emphasized for the balance of their careers; it is also the message that is proudly paraded before the public.

From my observations spanning over 30 years, one result of this repeated theme is that “protection of the public” now carries a policing connotation out of all proportion to common sense, thoroughly eclipsing the fact that regulated professionals have, at the start of their career, satisfied the rigorous professional responsibility and knowledge standards of the relevant College, and been granted their license to practice. Issuing that license is not a “one off” event either; the license must be regularly renewed, following the regulator’s satisfaction that the member continues to be of good character, and has satisfied the regulator’s annual continuing professional education requirements.

The regulated population is not the enemy. Too often, regulators shoot first and ask questions later. This is particularly true when the College’s senior executive is also a regulated member of that College’s profession. Curiously, in my observations, that is less the case when that senior executive is not, and has never been, a regulated member of any profession, and brings no clinical or scope of practice background to the role.

Yes, at the end of the day the College is rightly responsible, through self-regulation, to ensure that public protection is a key mandate. So too, must regulators ensure that their members’ interests are not forgotten. That license hanging on the wall was earned, and the regulator has granted it. Regulated members deserve respect and fairness for that, which is not a tall order. They should never have to fear that envelope or phone call from their College.

Regulators: don’t fall into the “public protection” trap, and never be your members’ enemy!

© Peter Portlock                                       

Re-Group Collaboration Inc. 2026

NEXT: What’s the REAL role of a government-appointed public member?