Comm No 0043.33 - Testimony - CA-26 - Qualifications for the Director DPW

Home

From: nfherbert@twc.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 10:27 AM To: Charter Commission Subject: Proposed change to Public Works Director requirements I oppose CA -26, the proposal to amend Section 6-2.2 relating to Qualifications for the Director of the Department of Public Works. It is vital that the Director's qualifications continue to include the requirement to be a "registered professional engineer", more accurately, a "licensed professional engineer (P.E.). I am a registered professional civil engineer in Hawaii and have worked as a project engineer and construction manager in this county. I can testify through personal experience in dealing with Public Works that having a non -engineer as Director would absolutely be the irresponsibe ting to do. May I ask why this change is proposed and by whom? What is the rationale? Should we allow a non -lawyer to be General Counsel using the same general background being proposed for Public Works...no licence to practice law?. What is the difference? The very concept of engineering licensure was developed over a century ago after a series of engineering disasters causing much damage and fatalities occurred, due to inexperienced persons making critical engineering decisions. Degrading the nationwide system of licensed engineers in responsible charge of matters of vital engineering decisions goes against the need to "hold paramount" the safety of the public. - The Director frequently makes engineering decisions as part of their duties and responsibilities, in fact has the power to over -rule engineering decisions made by his or her subordinates; many of these decisions potentially affect the safety, health, and well-being of the public; - The adverse risks of an unlicensed engineer, or a non -engineer, over -ruling the engineering judgement of local DPW engineering staffs, have been well-documented by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and is an unacceptable risk for Hawaii County; - Perhaps the most important reason for retaining presentrequirements is that licensed P.E.'s are bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, which first cannon states that "Engineers, in the fulfillment of their fundamental duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. I ask that I be allowed to comment at tomorrow's meeting. Respectfully submitted, Neal Herbert, P.E. 1 Comm. No. 43.33