Transcript Slide 1
At What Point Do I File A Complaint?
David J. Evans, Assistant Executive Director
NC Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors
June 6, 2014 www.ncbels.org
Regulating the Professions
In order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare, the practice of engineering and the practice of land surveying in this State are hereby declared to be subject to regulation in the public interest.
[§ 89C-2] Licensure (education – experience – examination) Enforcement
Licensees
Professional Engineers Professional Land Surveyors Licensed Businesses Total 24,076 2,608 3,627 30,311
Cases Opened 2004 - 2013
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
109 113
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006
140 129
FY2007 FY2008
151
FY2009
90
FY2010
107
FY2011
107
FY2012
110
FY2013
106
Cases Opened FY2013 (FY2014 to date)
Non-licensed Individual or Firm 21% (25%) Licensed Firm 12% (15%) PLS 31% (44%) PE 36% (16%)
PE/PLS Disciplinary Actions
PLS 2009 – 51% 2010 – 59% 2011 – 41% 2012 – 57% 2013 – 41% PE 2009 – 48% 2010 – 74% 2011 – 51% 2012 – 54% 2013 – 30 %
Improper Practice by a Licensee
21 NCAC 56.1301(b)
Preferring Charges. Any person who believes that any licensed Professional Engineer, Professional Land Surveyor or firm holding a certificate of authorization is in violation of the provisions of G.S. 89C or the rules in this Chapter may prefer charges against that person or firm by setting forth in writing those charges and swearing to their authenticity, along with providing corroborative evidence. The charges shall be filed with the Board's office in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Unlawful Practice by an Unlicensed Person
21 NCAC 56 .1302(b)
Preferring Charges. Any person who believes that any person or firm is in violation of the acts specified in G.S. 89C may prefer charges against that person or firm by setting forth in writing those charges and swearing to their authenticity. The charges shall be filed at the Board's office in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Complaints from Regulators
Deficient, substandard or inaccurate: Plans Specifications Reports (including letter reports) Record drawings Certifications Substantial compliance with plans and specifications Numerous or serious violations of codes or requirements Excessive number of submittals
Complaints from Regulators
Competency “red flags” Certified multiple disciplines Bad or incomplete work Too many questions from licensee Evidence work isn’t that of the person certifying it (responsible charge) Professional Engineer’s license is not current Company performing the work is not licensed Work is not properly certified
Certification
Unless otherwise indicated by a “preliminary” type statement, certification = final work product Public should be able to rely upon it , once issued can’t use the “it was only meant for…” excuse Can’t retract certification after issuance If there is a problem licensee must notify the appropriate parties Issue revision to remedy Can’t reissue final work as preliminary to limit its use
Why check the status of a license?
He’s not licensed and never has been!
There have been cases of fabricated Professional Engineer’s seals Determine if the license is restricted Without a valid or current license the public and regulatory agencies cannot rely upon the work The Board has authority over its licensees, including firms Non-licensed individuals and firms are not subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct or discipline by the Board Fraudulent or invalid credentials = risk to the public!
Filing a Complaint
Complaint must be in writing and sworn to and notarized ( Complaint Form ) Provide evidence to corroborate allegations Work in question Review comments Notice of Violation, stop work order, etc.
Correspondence with licensee Codes or regulations violated Meet with Board investigator Possibly testify at hearing
Confidentiality
Per G. S. 89C-10(f), the investigation of a licensee is confidential until a citation is issued to the licensee The Review Committee agenda presented to the Board does not contain the names of respondents or case numbers Includes charges and recommended actions only Review Committee members and staff do not discuss cases with other Board members
Disciplinary Process
Charges determined – respondent notified of allegations Field investigation Better understanding of allegations Verification of deficient work Develop witnesses Corroborate allegations or respondent’s position if charges are contested Evidence collection Plans, reports, specifications, correspondence, Notices of Violation, stop work orders, depositions, Orders, invoices, contracts, RFQ/RFPs, proposals, marketing materials, code references, project files, etc.
Disciplinary Process
Field investigation If there was a violation, attempt to determine why it occurred Competency Lack of training, education and/or experience Responsible charge “Plan stamping” Too much work “Supervising” too many employees Financial gain Favor (client, friend, church, etc.) Professional judgment overruled Exercised poor judgment Poor understanding of codes, regulations, or rules and laws, etc.
Inexperience Poor interpersonal communication skills Unethical
Disciplinary Process
Review Committee What is it going to take to gain compliance or get assurances of future compliance?
Contemplated Action Settlement Conference Committee Hearing Appeals
Potential Discipline (Licensee)
Reexamination Refuse to renew/reinstate license Suspension Revocation Civil penalty (up to $5000) Reprimand Restriction of practice Education
Potential Actions (Non-licensee)
Cease and Desist Referral Another board Attorney General’s office District Attorney Criminal prosecution Injunctive relief Consent agreement
Complaints
NCDOT Complaint
PE with DOT alleged respondent certified inadequate design documents and prepared a design for a set of girders without supporting computations [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)]. DOT analysis performed on the bridge girder design showed it to be inadequate and when the respondent was asked to provide calculations he admitted that the girder design was prepared without calculations.
Results
Performed services outside area of competence by performing structural design [21 NCAC 56.0701(c)(3)] and affixed seal to work not done under direct supervisory control or responsible charge [21 NCAC 56.0701(c)(3)]. Reprimand, ethics course and restricted respondent from practicing structural engineering until proof of competency is furnished by passing the NCEES Structural I Examination.
No prior discipline
NCDENR Complaint
Wastewater Treatment Plant project – respondent failed to conduct practice in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and failed to comply with state regulations applying to a project to protect the public [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)].
Allegations pertained to Engineer's Certifications (4 submittals) Numerous unit processes were not constructed according to the approved plans and specifications , and the changes directly led to operational difficulties which were on-going and not resolved at the time of complaint. Further, the Engineer's Certifications did not accurately reflect the construction deviations and specifications.
with the approved plans
Engineer’s Certification excerpt
I certify that the construction of the above referenced project was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
Results
Failed to conduct practice in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and failed to comply with state regulations applying to a project to protect the public [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)].
Reprimand and $2500 civil penalty No prior discipline
Board Initiated
Information received from inspections department revealed that a PE affixed seal to inadequate design documents, failing to protect the public [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)]. Failed to design for intended use, which resulted in excessive floor vibration. PE utilized reductions in the floor live load that were not allowed by NC Building Code for the occupancy classification of the building.
Several floor framing members were insufficient to support the code required loading. Failed to properly certify documents [21 NCAC 56.1103] by not signing and sealing some documents and using a scanned signature.
Results
Affixed seal to inadequate design documents, failing to protect the public [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)] and failed to properly certify documents by not signing and sealing documents and by using scanned signature [21 NCAC 56.1103].
Reprimand and $5000 civil penalty No prior discipline
County Inspections Complaint
PE produced a deficient, substandard or inaccurate report, failing to protect the public [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)] by approving anchor bolts for a basement foundation for a modular home that he could not have seen. Anchor bolts were not the required length or embedded in concrete. Board staff noted that respondent failed to include address on drawing as required [21 NCAC 56.1103(a)(6)].
Report excerpt
This is to confirm my investigation of …for the above project. The modular home was set prior to inspection and the anchor bolts were installed prior to inspection. Following the placing of the home on the basement walls an inspection revealed one or more loose anchor bolts. Please accept this as certification that the problem has been corrected. I have investigated these anchor bolts and found that the anchors meet building code requirements and are now correct and meet specifications.
Results
Produced a deficient, substandard or inaccurate report, failing to protect the public [21 NCAC 56.0701(b)]; failed to include address on document [21 NCAC 56.1103(a)(6)]; and affixed seal to work not done under direct supervisory control or responsible charge [21 NCAC 56. 0701(c)(3)]. Reprimand, $5,000 civil penalty and ethics course No prior discipline
NCDOT Complaint
DOT PEs alleged respondent performed services outside area of competence and undertook to perform an engineering assignment when not qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field of professional engineering [21 NCAC 56.0701(c)(1)]. Not competent to provide cost estimates for construction of a bascule bridge in that respondent has no education or experience in planning, designing, construction or cost estimating of bascule bridges.
Results
Performed services outside area of competence and undertook an engineering assignment when not qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field of professional engineering [21 NCAC 56.0701(c)(1)].
Reprimand, $1000 civil penalty and restrict practice from planning, design or cost estimating of bascule bridges, until such time as respondent satisfies the Board by education, training or experience that he is competent.
No prior discipline
Why File A Complaint?
The Board can only address problems it knows about Better applications, plans, specifications, reports, etc.
More conscientious professionals Professional obligation
If the licensee has knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of the Board Rules (21 NCAC 56) or of the North Carolina Engineering and Land Surveying Act (G.S. 89C), shall present such information to the Board in writing in the form of a complaint as may be required by the Board….
[21 NCAC 56.0701(g)(2)]
and shall cooperate with the Board in furnishing such further information or assistance
Public protection!