HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm No 0043.53 - Testimony - CA-26 - Qualifications for the Director DPWTestimony on CA -26, Hawaii Charter Commission, proposal to amend
Section 6-2.2 relating to Qualifications for the Director of the
Department of Public Works, to remove the requirement that the
Director be a "registered professional engineer" (more accurately,
"licensed professional engineer, or P.E.).
June 7, 2019
Hawaii County Charter Commission
Dear Commission Members,
My name is Curtis Beck, 1 have been licensed in Hawaii as a professional
engineer since 1983. I am opposed to amendment No. CA -26. At the risk
of repeating arguments already made, I would just like to come from a
slightly different perspective to point out that the concerns of the local
P.E.'s of Hawaii about allowing the possibility of a non -engineer being in a
position of "responsible charge" in the execution of vital engineering
decisions, has long been an issue of national concern.
Like some of my other colleagues, I have been deeply involved in the
activities of the National Society of Professional Engineers, or "NSPE" for
about. 20 years now. During that time, I have represented the Hawaiian
Society at NSPE annual meetings, served three years on the NSPE Board
of Directors, served six years on the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, other
engineering "interest groups", and for the past four years have been
serving on the Board of NSPEs National Institute for Certification of
Engineering Technicians.
In 2005, I served on a special Task. Force appointed by the NSPE Board of
Directors entitled the "Task Force on Over -Ruling Engineering Judgement"
which dealt with concerns related to those raised by local P.E's on
proposed charter amendment CA -26.
In its final report in 2006, the NSPE Task Force on Over -Ruling
Engineering Judgement said this: "Today, engineers sometimes report to
political scientists, public administrators, and MBAs at the head of their
organizations. Sometimes this structure works well, relieving the engineers
Comm. No. 43.53
of the non-technical problem areas but deferring to the engineer's judgment
on all technical issues. However, a risk that is frequently ignored is that,
unless a trust relationship develops between the engineer and the non-
engineer supervisor or regulator, the technical program or project can be
misdirected into unstable and even dangerous ground that may become
unduly influenced by political factors, public relations issues, financial
considerations, and unreasonable completion schedules..
More recently, NSPE adopted its Position Statement No. 07-02 on
"Recognition of the Engineering Function in Government". Within the text of
NSPE-07-02 is this strong statement: "NSPE recommends that
government officials having the authority for hiring or appointment,
recognize the importance of the engineering function within their
government departments and agencies through the selection of fully
qualified licensed professional engineers to positions having responsibility
for making engineering decisions and exercising engineering judgment.
I wish to remind the members of the Charter Commission that the
nationwide system of engineering licensure laws was set up state -by -state,
starting with Wyoming in 1907 and completing with Montana in 1947, in
response to the growing number of engineering disasters in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, many of which were the direct result of unqualified
individuals making critical engineering decisions. The enactment of CA -26
would work to degrade this progress in protecting the safety, health, and
welfare of the public.
Please do NOT approve CA -26!
Respectfully,
WL/5
Curtis Beck, P.E., Fellow,NSPE