HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm No 0043.33 - Testimony - CA-26 - Qualifications for the Director DPWFrom: 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