November 2006 ISSUE
Professional practice & Ethics Corner
APEGGA members with professional practice or ethics questions are welcome to
send them to Ray Chopiuk, P.Eng., Director, Professional Practice, APEGGA, 1500
Scotia One, 10060 Jasper Ave. NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 4A2, fax 780-426-1877, or
e-mail rchopiuk@apega.ca.
Q I’m a member of APEGGA, and I’ve discovered that another APEGGA member issued a report containing conclusions and recommendations that can’t be supported by available information. Am I required to advise APEGGA about this? Can I do so in confidence?
A Rule 5 of the APEGGA Code of Ethics states: “Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity, and reputation of their professions, and thus, the ability of the professions to serve the public interest.” While the rule itself does not speak to the question specifically, the Guideline for Ethical Practice amplifies and comments how on the principles in Rule 5 might interpreted and applied to professional activities.
The guideline says that, “If a member determines, or has reasonable and probable grounds to believe, that the professional conduct or the technical competence of another professional member is in serious question, he or she has a clear and definite duty to inform APEGGA accordingly.” However, the guideline also says that, “A professional should not call into question the professional conduct or technical competence of another professional member without first consulting that member to attempt to determine the relevant facts.”
While the amplification and commentary in the guideline are not rules of conduct, they suggest that a member should do two things in deciding whether to inform APEGGA: 1. assess whether the matter is serious, and 2. try to review the matter with the other member to gain an understanding of the situation.
Use of the word “serious” would suggest that not every concern should be brought to the Association’s attention. Consulting the other member provides an opportunity to find that, perhaps, things are not as they seem or that the situation has been subsequently rectified.
Although APEGGA might respond to a casual question about a matter in an informal fashion, the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act requires that a complaint must be in writing for APEGGA to be able to investigate a member’s conduct. In other words, an investigated member is entitled to know his or her accuser and the nature of the accusation.
There have been several instances where APEGGA’s Discipline Committee has had to decide cases referred to it as a result of members advising APEGGA. In some of those cases, the offending members have argued that the reporting members themselves failed in their obligations because they neglected to first consult the offending members “to determine the relevant facts.” However, since no complaints were filed as a result, there is no Discipline Committee “case law” to provide guidance as to how serious such omissions might be.
Again, because the guideline’s references to advising APEGGA and informing the other member are not rules of conduct specifically, simply not doing so would not necessarily be outright unprofessional conduct. The discretion would lie in the hands of the Discipline Committee in deciding, on the basis of evidence brought before it, whether such a failure (to inform) constitutes unprofessional conduct.
nd, of course, that would only occur if, firstly, a complaint was made, and APEGGA investigated the matter and laid charges against the member.