Non-PE Reference Dilemma

[Ron]

Rather than hijack ControlNovice's thread on PE Reference, this is a different twist to similar issues...

I was recently asked to provide a reference for someone applying to take a certification exam for registration in a specialty consulting area (not required to be an engineer or architect). I mentored this person for many years and watched his progress, but have lost touch with his day-to-day activities over the past 5 or 6 years. While I had contact with him, my review of his work was spotty and more related to corporate contracts and liability than to technical issues.

The review form pointedly asks for my assessment of his competence to act in this "registered" capacity.

Here's my problem.....

The registration is in a specialty consulting area that includes engineers and architects, but doesn't require either. It is not a state licensing effort, but a "professional" association registration. Many of the members of said organization seem to practice some level of pseudo-engineering and some even have the gall to state that they provide engineering or architectural functions, though they are not either (I'll take that up with my state board)(the ones who are licensed...no problem).

I guess my problem is philosophical and two-fold.... (1) Shouldn't their registration process and exam determine the initial competence, and (2) I'm not sure I want to condone such organizations that dilute or inadvertently subvert the licensed practices of engineering and architecture by supporting the registration of non-licensed professionals in closely related activities.

Your thoughts?......

 

[electricpete]

It seems like the main question is whether these folks really practice engineering or not (if not, then no problem, right?).

Can you tell us more about what they do or are you trying to protect some anonymity?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[Ron]

electricpete...trying to protect anonimity.

It is one of those nebulous practice areas that closely interfaces with architecture/engineering and can easily cross over into, particularly, engineering. An example...this consulting sometimes affects the loading on structures, which should be considered. Many of those who practice this consulting are not qualified to assess the effect on structures.

While they are probably a bit better than the contractors of this specialty, I have seen catastrophic results when contractors have made such decisions. Many of these consultants are former contractors.

 

[HVACctrl]

I would run, not walk, to my nearest state board and discuss this with them (figuratively speaking of course). They need to know your concerns. It is your duty as well.

Not only could it cause danger for the public, but it also subverts our profession as a whole and allows the poorly educated an enroute into taking the jobs they are neither qualified for nor deserve.

I would write a formal letter, perhaps even just start off with a phone call or email to your board secretary or the like.

Ed

http://www.engineerboards.com

 

[PSE]

First thought, if you have reservations with making the recommendation on the individual, politely refuse altogether or if you do go ahead with the filling the recommendation, do it honestly. It looks like the larger concern is with that of this registration/certification program. For that you may want to get some input from your state licensing board. With regards to offering engineering services to the public (if they do so), they may be operating right on the edge. If there services are offered to companies, they might be considered outside the public arena.

Regards,

 

[JAE]

Ron,

Anytime I'm asked to provide a reference and have some hesitations about the quality of the individual, or my amount of knowledge of that individual's talent, I try to be up front with the candidate and notify them that "I can do the reference, but it will be limited in its content...do you still want me to do it?" If they still insist, I consider that I've been transparent with them and will simply fill out the form only to the level that I can. In some cases, I've even written things like "no specific knowledge of their expenience in this area" and left it to the reviewers to consider.

As far as the concern over indirectly condoning a questionable organization by participating in their reference system, I think I'd first try to mentally separate my task of being a reference from the organization itself. This is easier to do if the mis-behavior is minor or difficult to pin down.

If the group was one that imported illegal drugs into the country, and the candidate was trying to get "licensed" to be a consultant to them, well of course I'd refuse.

But when an organization only sometimes skirts the legality of engineering practice, and generally does not, perhaps I would...still keeping an eye on them as far as their ethics/legality. Without knowing the extent to which they do illegally practice engineering, its hard to say.

I guess there is a gray area here where a group's behavior might progressively get to a point where they become illegitimate, in your view, and you wish not to support them directly or indirectly.

If you were to call your state engineering board, and ask them directly "Does this group, the XYZ Association, generally violate the state engineering laws" and the board said no, would you have any ethical reason not to participate?

 

[Ron]

JAE...to answer your bottom line question...NO. I have some respected colleagues who have this "registration" and are practicing engineers and architects. I guess my biggest concern is the "apparent equivalence" this organization seems to give to those who are not licensed professionals.

I believe I have separated my tasks as you suggested. They just both happened to be at question and occurring at the same time! I have had a conversation with the individual and have told him of my reservations.