HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm No 0043.43 - Testimony - CA-26 - Qualifications for the Director DPWJune 6, 2019
To: Hawaii County Charter Commission
Douglas Adams, Chairman
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendment CA -26
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.)" because:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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 also object to the proposed charter amendment on a personal basis. Prior to my retirement, I was
formerly the Wastewater Division Chief for the County of Hawaii for many years. Initially this position
reported to the Chief Engineer, now referred to as the Director of Public Works. Under several Chief
Engineers over the years I never had the situation arise where I would question the decisions of the
Chief. When the Department of Environmental Management was formed as a result of a previous
charter amendment, the requirement for having a Professional Engineer was eliminated. The position
was eventually filled by a non -engineer. Although I cannot recall if any of my technical decisions were
actually overruled, numerous issues arose where I disagreed with administrative and managerial
decisions. This ultimately led to my resignation and early retirement. To this day, I am disappointed in
this outcome, since I believe that this resulted in a major setback the Wastewater Division, the
Department and the public at large.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me on my cell at_
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Pew J Boor, P.E.
Comm. No. 43.43
Peter J. Boucher, P.E.
Hilo Hawaii 96720
pboucher@hawaii.rr.com
June 6, 2019
To: Hawaii County Charter Commission
Douglas Adams, Chairman
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendment CA -26
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.)" because:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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 also object to the proposed charter amendment on a personal basis. Prior to my retirement, I was
formerly the Wastewater Division Chief for the County of Hawaii for many years. Initially this position
reported to the Chief Engineer, now referred to as the Director of Public Works. Under several Chief
Engineers over the years I never had the situation arise where I would question the decisions of the
Chief. When the Department of Environmental Management was formed as a result of a previous
charter amendment, the requirement for having a Professional Engineer was eliminated. The position
was eventually filled by a non -engineer. Although I cannot recall if any of my technical decisions were
actually overruled, numerous issues arose where I disagreed with administrative and managerial
decisions. This ultimately led to my resignation and early retirement. To this day, I am disappointed in
this outcome, since I believe that this resulted in a major setback the Wastewater Division, the
Department and the public at large.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me on my cell at_
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Pew J Boor, P.E.
Comm. No. 43.43