FBPE Newsletter

[Guest]

I found myself reading the summer edition of the FBPE Newsletter this afternoon. One of the disciplinary actions cited on Page 3 of the newsletter regards Mr. James Lee Smith. The complaint reads, "one count for practicing architecture and seven counts of negligence (one of those counts also includes incompetence and misconduct) relating to his Emergency Insurance Restoration project, and one count for failing to include the name, address and Certificate of Authorization number on each sheet."

What I found interesting is that among the stipulated penalties, Mr. Smith is restricted from "engaging in the design of any electrical systems as stated in Rule 61G15-33.002(4), F.A.C., unless and until he takes and passes Part Two of the NCEES electrical engineering examination."

It appears from this point forward that the only way Mr. Smith can demonstrate 'competency' as it pertains to engineering works involving electrical engineering is to take and pass the NCEES EE exam.

I am wondering if the Board would take the same view of an individual with a background other than electrical engineering without disciplinary action that gained education and experience in electrical engineering and desired to design electrical systems as the prime or delegated engineer. What if that person was a civil engineer and wanted to design elements of an environmental engineering system? I think this decision to compel taking the Part II of the exam was part of the censure for this individual, but I am left wondering if that might not apply to others.

Thoughts?

JR

 

[MetroRAFB]

I received the newsletter as well but haven't had the time to read it all in detail.

" I am wondering if the Board would take the same view of an individual with a background other than electrical engineering without disciplinary action that gained education and experience in electrical engineering and desired to design electrical systems as the prime or delegated engineer. What if that person was a civil engineer and wanted to design elements of an environmental engineering system? I think this decision to compel taking the Part II of the exam was part of the censure for this individual, but I am left wondering if that might not apply to others."

.................I doubt it.

I think the reason they stipulated that this person had to take the EE exam in order to continue doing EE work was because they were not satisfied with his level of competence in that subject during the course of their review. I haven't been able to find anything in the Florida statutes or the Board rules that states you have to practice engineering in the exact same subject area that you passed the PE in. I know several working PE's that have practiced for years in areas other than what they passed the PE in. That doesn't necessarily make it right in the Boards eyes, but I find it hard to believe that they "forgot" to put it in writing if they intended to prohibit this kind of behavior.

That's my take anyway, I'd be interested in hearing other viewpoints.

 

[grover]

I'm not sure the florida laws, but in VA, licensed architects are authorized to practice engineering incidental to their architecture, and licensed engineers are authorized to practice architecture incidental to their engineering. VA doesn't restrict PEs to the discipline they passed, either, but it IS restricted in verbage to areas of competance. So, while there's nothing stopping me (EE) from going out and stamping up designs for a bridge, I'd be doing it illegally as I have absolutely no experience or competance in that area, and would be in violation of the law.

If an engineer were found guilty of practicing in an area they're not competant in, I can see a court order forcing them to pass that module.

 

[Guest]

.................I doubt it.

That was my gut reaction as well. But check this out - FBPE has an application for Principles and Practice Additional Discipline Examination Application

I'm not sure the florida laws, but in VA, licensed architects are authorized to practice engineering incidental to their architecture, and licensed engineers are authorized to practice architecture incidental to their engineering.

Florida does have the same type of provisions. My understanding of the point of the disciplinary action was that the engineer was certifying designs that were not 'incident to', but rather pertained to the practice of architecture. I am sure there has been something lost in the brevity of the description of the issue.

I am also wondering (out loud) if the problem here is that the Florida Rule 61G15, F.A.C. spells out some areas of responsibility to engineers:

CHAPTER 61G15-30 RESPONSIBILITY RULES COMMON TO ALL ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 61G15-31 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

CHAPTER 61G15-32 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-33 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-34 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-35 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS PROVIDING THRESHOLD BUILDING INSPECTION

CHAPTER 61G15-36 PRODUCT EVALUATION

So based on the foregoing sections describing general and specific responsibilities, I can understand why the practice of electrical engineering may have been called-out as a 'competency' issue.

JR