January 2008 Issue
Professional Practice & Ethics Corner
APEGGA members with professional practice or ethics questions are welcome to
mail them to Ray Chopiuk, P.Eng., Director, Professional Practice, APEGGA, 1500
Scotia One, 10060 Jasper AVE NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 4A2; fax them to 780-426-1877;
or
e-mail them to rchopiuk@apega.ca.
Q As professional members of APEGGA employed by a department
of the Government of Alberta, we are involved in the review of applications,
submissions and related documentation sub-mitted to the department in accordance
with the requirements of various acts, regulations and codes. Individual professionals
from industry have expressed concerns about the “ethics” of one professional
conducting a review and providing feedback or commentary on the work of another
professional, albeit under a defined regulatory process that is intended to protect
the health and safety of Alberta workers.
Are there scenarios where government professionals (reviewers) would potentially
contravene the Code of Ethics by conducting a review of another professional’s
work?
A There is nothing in any of the five rules under APEGGA’s
Code of Ethics that would suggest one professional should not review the work
of another professional. As a matter of fact, the commentary that appears in
the Guideline for Ethical Practice — available on APEGGA’s website
at www.apega.ca/
pdf/Guidelines/02.pdf — recognizes that “professionals are entitled
to review and evaluate the work of other professionals when so required by their
employment duties.”
This guideline is available at www.apega.ca/pdf/
Guidelines/02.pdf.
It should not come as a surprise to any professional who submits something to an authority for approval, or in compliance with a regulatory requirement, that the work could be reviewed. The Occupational Health and Safety Code, for example, contains numerous instances where something is required to be certified by a professional engineer, but where the director (on behalf of the government) is still required to approve the matter.
It would not be logical in those instances to expect that the engineer’s submission would not be reviewed. Otherwise, why would the legislators have required the director’s approval in addition to the engineer’s certification?
As for one professional offering feedback or commentary to the other professional, again, there is nothing in the Code of Ethics suggesting that would be unethical. Perhaps, then, the real issue is whether the government (or any) professionals are required to inform the other professionals that their work is being reviewed.
The guideline suggests that a professional member should not call into question or critically comment on another professional’s conduct or technical competence until after communicating with the other professional. That certainly seems prudent, not only as a matter of professional courtesy but, perhaps more importantly, to attempt to obtain assurance that the basis for any criticism is valid. For example, has the reviewed work been superseded by a version that addresses the issue of concern?
In an APEGGA discipline case a few years ago, a member was charged with unprofessional conduct because he “reviewed and commented upon the engineering report prepared and submitted by [another member] but had not advised [the other member] of his intent to do so.” In considering the charge, the Discipline Committee panel noted that, “The comments in the member’s report are cursory ... rather than a substantive critique.”
The panel dismissed the charge, saying that “the intent of Rule #10 [in effect at that time], in terms of notifying other professionals when reviewing their work, is to ensure that critiques are based on facts rather than inferences.”
It would appear that merely reviewing another professional’s work would
not require one professional to advise the other. A government professional asking
for clarification about something in another professional’s submission
or providing feedback to the other professional would hardly seem unethical.
In any event, the government professional is contacting and advising the other
professional.
From all of this, what would appear to be unethical would be one professional
(government employee or otherwise) making critical comments to third parties
about another professional’s work, in terms of conduct or competence, before
giving the other professional the opportunity to address the criticism.