July 2006 ISSUE

APEGGA DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act

— and —

IN THE MATTER OF the conduct of E.I.T. X, regarding a letter published in the February 20, 2005 Calgary Herald.

BACKGROUND
During the course of an investigation conducted by APEGGA’s Investigative Committee into the conduct of E.I.T. X concerning a letter of E.I.T. X’s published in the Calgary Herald, E.I.T. X had freely and voluntarily admitted and agreed with the attached facts and findings presented by the Investigative Committee.

Since E.I.T. X has admitted to conduct that constitutes unprofessional conduct, there is no need to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee for a formal hearing.  In accordance with Section 52 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, APEGGA’s Investigative Committee is recommending the attached orders that it considers appropriate.

As the case manager designated by the Discipline Committee to review the matter, I  agree with those orders. During my discussion of the orders with E.I.T. X, he confirmed that he, also, agreed with the orders.

Therefore, in accordance with Section 52 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, the orders have the same force and effect as if they had been made by the Discipline Committee following a formal hearing.

AGREED STATEMENT  OF FACTS

1. At all material times, E.I.T. X was an Engineer-in-Training registered in good standing with APEGGA; 2. A complaint was received by APEGGA from a Professional Member, regarding a recent letter to the Calgary Herald;
3. E.I.T. X was the author of a letter that was published in the Calgary Herald as “lead letter of the day”;
4. Within the text of his letter, E.I.T. X was highly critical of individuals employed by the City of Calgary and its partner organizations; when he insisted that, “... the people responsible should be fired immediately.” The criticisms were not directed at any particular individual or profession;
5. Within the text of his letter, E.I.T. X described himself as a Civil Engineer.  As an Engineer-in-Training, he was not entitled to use a title which implied he was a Professional Member.

II. FINDINGS
It was found that the conduct of E.I.T. X in the foregoing respects constitutes unprofessional conduct in that:

1. E.I.T. X failed to conduct himself with fairness and objectivity when submitting his letter by stating that “... the people responsible should be fired immediately.”, in violation of Rule of Conduct #3 of the Code of Ethics;
2. E.I.T. X held himself out as a Civil Engineer, thereby implying that he is entitled to engage in the practice of engineering, in violation of Rule of Conduct #4 of the Code of Ethics and Section 3(1)(a)(ii) and 3(1)(b)(i) and 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act.
There were no findings to support the allegation that E.I.T. X brought the profession into disrepute. E.I.T. X criticized those responsible for road quality, but only those responsible for disbursement of his property tax contributions.  Responsible transportation professionals were not explicitly mentioned in his published letter to the Calgary Herald.

III. RECOMMENDED ORDERS

1. That E.I.T. X be given a letter of reprimand for violating Code of Ethics Rules of Conduct #3 and #4 by writing a letter which was subsequently published to the Calgary Herald, in which E.I.T. X was overly and unfairly critical of employees of the City of Calgary and its partner organizations, and in which E.I.T. X refers to himself as a Civil Engineer.
2. That E.I.T. X successfully complete the Professional Practice Exam within six months, and that his registration as an E.I.T. be suspended if the exam is not completed within the specified period.
3. That this recommended order be published by APEGGA, in The PEGG, without names.
E.I.T. X, a 2004 engineering graduate, has not yet written the Professional Practice Exam.

Date of Decision:
April 25, 2006

NOTE
This decision appears in The PEGG in accordance with an APEGGA Council policy that requires publication. In this instance, an order in the decision stipulated that names not be published.