July/August 2018

Under Scrutiny

Are the rising threats to the PE license connected to some of the profession’s longtime challenges?

BY DANIELLE BOYKIN

One of the greatest challenges now facing professional engineers is a movement in states around the country to revise occupational licensing and regulation. As reported in the pages of PE, a growing enthusiasm to revamp how occupations are regulated has led to threats that could undermine or eliminate engineering licensure without much regard for the negative effects to public safety.

The questions that arise: Are the profession’s own longtime challenges making the fight against these threatening bills and regulations more difficult? If so, how can the profession respond?

PE recently spoke with members of NSPE’s Future of Professional Engineering Task Force, which has been looking at a broad range of issues, to get a perspective on how the profession can address this licensure conundrum. The task force was created two years ago to identify areas in which the practice of professional engineering is facing change and determine how the profession can continue on a path that is successful and sustainable. Some of the challenges it has identified may well be contributing to the issue.

With the Stroke of a Pen

One of those longtime struggles is communicating the unique role of PE licensure in protecting the public. The engineer’s role in protecting the public officially began in Wyoming in 1907, when Charles Bellamy became the first licensed professional engineer. Other states would follow Wyoming, but not without resistance from some public officials and individuals who could no longer practice engineering without a license. And in some states, engineering licensure only gained importance after a tragic event resulted in significant loss of life and property. The failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928, which resulted in the deaths of 500, brought licensure to California. A deadly explosion at a school due to faulty engineering in 1937 made way for licensure in Texas.

Since 2016, legislation and regulations that could undermine or even eliminate licensure have been introduced in 32 states, and the attacks continue to spread. Although much of the legislation doesn’t specifically target professional engineers, by opposing occupational licensure in general, the broad attacks sow confusion about the importance of engineering licensure and its role in protecting the public. “Our profession could simply be gone with the stroke of a pen because legislation can do away with all occupational licenses,” says Adam Stodola, P.E., F.NSPE, chair of the Future of Professional Engineering Task Force.

It’s not a matter of if, but when and how the profession must adapt to stay relevant, says Shelley Macy, P.E., the task force vice-chair. “The task force assumed that professional engineering licensure doesn’t have any special protections moving forward,” says the Wyoming licensing board member. “It is good for all of us to remember that only a small portion of the public has a basic understanding of the true nature of our work and such ignorance is not protection.”

Amy Barrett, P.E., F.NSPE, understands the danger to the profession. In 2015, her home state of Indiana was ground zero in the threat to occupational licensure. A jobs commission was formed based on model legislation pushed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, an association of state lawmakers that support private-sector interests, and led to a recommendation that would have eliminated the PE license. “I went from a place where I thought I was fine and then to a place where there was a chance that everything that I had worked for would become irrelevant,” recalls the former Indiana Society of Professional Engineers president. “It gave me a unique perspective that this can happen to any of us.”

The Indiana Society, in partnership with NSPE, won this battle. But it required an outreach and education effort to show a clear difference between professional engineers and other occupations and the difference between licensure and certifications, recalls Barrett.

Recently, there were victories against undermining professional engineering licensure in Colorado and Louisiana. NSPE–Colorado members helped defeat legislation that would have required state licensing boards to presume that consumers are sufficiently protected by market competition and private remedies. In Louisiana, NSPE successfully advocated for amending legislation that would have prohibited the use of most professional certifications or accreditations within the state and contained a provision that presumes that market competition is sufficient to protect consumers. (Read more about these challenges to engineering licensure in the PE Report section of PE).

The battle over occupational licensure isn’t just a state issue. In 2017, the Federal Trade Commission created the Economic Liberty Task Force to address what it believed were burdens associated with occupational licensure. The task force website states that licensing restrictions can close the door on job opportunities for people who are ready to work; prevent workers from marketing their skills to employers and consumers; reduce entrepreneurship and business innovation; and stifle price, quality, and service competition among professionals.

In September 2017, NSPE participated in a hearing on occupational licensure convened by the House Judiciary Committee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. The Society signed a letter with licensing boards and professional associations opposing federal legislation that would undermine states’ regulation of occupational licensure. The letter explained that the public is best served when state regulatory boards are free to make decisions on issues of public health, safety, and welfare. It also pointed out that state licensing boards limit the ability of unqualified professionals from entering the market and restrict or remove professionals when they don’t follow the professional standards set by the state or they endanger members of the public. The licensing boards ensure that the skilled professional is acting for the benefit of the consumer, and not at the expense of the consumer.

Each effort to undermine engineering licensure exposes how little the public and policymakers truly understand what professional engineers do. “There are many different facets of engineering, beyond what the public is aware of. That is why educating the public is key,” says Barrett.  She adds, “When you see that MD designation, you know you’re getting a certain level of care from a medical professional. We have to educate the public that when they see the PE designation, they are getting a superior level of care.”

Michael Conzett, P.E., agrees that the threat is very real and professional engineers shouldn’t be naive in thinking that the movement will end anytime soon. While he personally believes that there are too many occupations requiring licensure for entry, he says engineering isn’t one of them. “I believe that we can stem the tide toward it seriously affecting engineering, but we can’t be complacent. We must be united in our efforts,” says the former NCEES president. “If pieces of our profession don’t care about licensure or work against this, we will be fighting an uphill battle.”

When protecting licensure and the public, the profession must look at the bigger picture, Conzett believes. “What is most important is that members will care enough about the future of their licensed profession that they will weigh in and be heard in the public square.”

Obstacles to Mobility

A second longtime concern of the profession that intersects with threats to licensure relates to the mobility, or lack thereof, of the PE license. As they move to reduce the reach of occupational licensure, proponents of licensing reform and legislators cite the lack of mobility as one major concern. Essentially, lack of mobility is an inefficiency and obstacle for workers.

To facilitate mobility, licensing standards should permit individuals to move across state lines with minimal retraining or residency requirements, and localities should accept as many licenses as possible granted in other jurisdictions, according to a 2015 Hamilton Project white paper on licensing reform policies.

Conzett says regulations that vary by state, particularly continuing education regulations, are exasperating for too many professional engineers licensed in multiple states. “It is very frustrating to see that many states are resistant to changing laws and regulations because it’s ‘too hard.’ It would be a sad day if legislators heard the complaints of those engineers who are having trouble with mobility and decided it was time to do something about it,” he says, adding that legislative overreach would be a great concern.

“The primary reason [the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying] has developed a Model Law and Model Rules is to enhance mobility,” he says. “We need every state licensing board to work harder to implement the models in their states so we can keep the ‘mobility wolves’ at bay.”

The task force believes one possible solution could be found in supporting multistate compacts that provide broad reciprocity between states if an individual is determined eligible for licensure in one of the signatory states.

Fixing the Disconnect

A third longtime challenge that contributes to the increase in bills and regulations that threaten the profession: a lack of awareness about the educational and experience requirements to become a PE. The public is not fully aware of the protection it receives when engineering services are licensed and regulated, says Macy. “NSPE must be tireless in its education and marketing efforts to reach all levels of the public to inform them of the necessity for licensing professional engineers,” she says.

When Barrett was tasked to examine public policy and the role of the PE with Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE, she wasn’t surprised to learn about the minimal representation of engineers within state legislative bodies and in Congress. While engineers make up less than 1% of Congress, nearly 42% of members have legal backgrounds, says Barrett. “There’s a disconnect when you don’t have people that are knowledgeable about the subject within these discussions.”

Increased advocacy to get more engineers appointed and elected to public office as well as developing better relationships with policy makers are top priorities. “It’s all about relationship building so when a topic comes up that affects the profession and the safety of the public, they feel comfortable enough to pick up the phone and call us to ask questions,” she says. “If they don’t know that we exist, how do they know that we’re the ones to talk to?”

That disconnect isn’t just felt throughout state legislatures and the halls of Congress. Companies and organizations that rely on engineering talent often don’t appreciate the value of professional licensure—to the detriment of their organizations and the public.

NSPE believes that existing industrial exemptions in state licensing laws should be phased out with licensed professional engineers being in responsible charge of the practice of engineering. The task force recommends equipping state societies with more communication tools to engage local and state regulators about industrial exemptions, drawing important parallels to the legal and medical professions and unregulated practice.

Telling Our Stories

If Adam Stodola had one big wish, it would be that more professional engineers would brag about themselves and the profession. “Nobody is going to tell our story better than us,” he says. “It starts with us going out there and communicating to people why the PE is important and what the PE does.”

This “bragging” also involves breaking the stereotypes of the “typical engineer” and showing the diverse, cool projects that professional engineers are involved with every day. Stodola points to outreach and engagement opportunities, such as Professional Engineers Day, to share these stories. NSPE launched PE Day to celebrate the licensed professional engineer through social media postings and events. The third annual PE Day will be August 1, 2018.

NSPE has also created advocacy tools to help professional engineers explain the importance of engineering licensure and to combat the narrative that all licensing requirements are the same, which allows legislators to lump highly educated design professionals in with barbers, cosmetologists, florists, and even yoga instructors.

“There’s a myriad of ways to communicate this value,” says Stodola. “It’s not going to magically appear in someone’s mind unless we tell and show them.”

Macy agrees that PEs need to do more sharing, not less. “More positive marketing about our individual experiences can only promote the profession,” she says. “Each one of us has the power to remind others of our existence and our necessity.”