April 2014

Safeguarding the Profession

Licensing board members dedicate their time and talents to maintaining the profession’s standards and protecting the public.

BY DANIELLE BOYKIN

Continuing education, industrial exemptions, licensing mobility, and licensing law uniformity are just some of the issues that engineering licensing board members are continually addressing in the interest of professional engineers nationwide. Who are the professional engineers taking on the responsibility of serving on these regulatory bodies? Five current board members shared with PE the critical issues their boards tackle and their thoughts on the value of giving back to the profession and serving the public.

Licensing board members are all aligned under the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Most members are appointed by their state’s governor or legislative body, often on the recommendation of NSPE state societies (and other professional and technical societies) based on their professional expertise and experience and proven leadership skills.

When Patty Mamola, P.E., began serving on the Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, she had no idea that taking on this role would lead to her becoming NCEES’s first female president. Mamola, who remains a member of her state board, sees three critical issues that most boards will need to address: mobility, public engagement, and diversity of the profession. “NCEES was formed by a number of states, because they recognized that there needed to be some standardization of what it took to become a licensed engineer and particularly if engineers were going to be able to work across state lines,” she says. “Ninety-three years later, we are still working on mobility issues, and I think this is the biggest issue that boards face.”

PATTY MAMOLA, P.E.

A critical piece of promoting and protecting licensure will also require more outreach to help the public to better understand the engineering profession. “We need the public to understand our significance and that everything in their lives, engineers touch or have a part in,” says Mamola. “Then we can start talking about the importance of licensure.” This outreach should also involve generating more interest in engineering by engaging a more diverse group of students, she adds.

Miles Williams, P.E., is coming to the end of his six-year term with the Louisiana Professional Engineering and Land Surveying Board. The LAPELS chair attributes much of his preparation to serve on the board to his leadership roles with the Louisiana Engineering Society and other professional organizations. “It takes a substantial amount of effort to serve on a licensing board, but it’s very fulfilling,” he says. “We are a big team and everyone is dedicated to protecting the public and enhancing the profession at the same time.”

Howard “Skip” Harclerode, P.E., F.NSPE, has entered his 11th year on the Maryland State Board for Professional Engineers and his sixth year as board chair. He was motivated to serve because of his satisfying career in engineering and strong interest in licensure issues. He admits that initially he didn’t have a clear idea of how much time and focus board members dedicated to regulating professional practice. His first year involved learning the basics of service, particularly the methods for reviewing a license application and investigating complaints against licensees. “It was amazing how many reciprocity applications that we’d go through at every meeting, and most times there were more reciprocity applications than applications to take the PE exam,” he recalls.

STEPHEN SHROPE, P.E.

Overcoming Challenges
Three years into his five-year term, Stephen Shrope, P.E., has learned that serving on the Washington State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors is about more than just carrying out administrative tasks or simply approving and rejecting licensure applications. Similar to other licensing boards, the Washington board is wrestling with challenges brought on by technological advances and potential changes to licensure laws. “Some of our laws are quite old and they don’t reflect the new technologies and the issues that we are encountering, which include electronic signatures, computer-based testing, and licensure of foreign educated engineers,” says Shrope, the current board chair and an NSPE member.

Shrope adds, “Our primary charge is to qualify and license people that are going to offer services in our state. In recent years, there has been an increase in foreign applicants seeking licensure and it is more difficult to ascertain their qualifications.”

The board recently experienced this difficulty in evaluating credentials and qualifications for licensure as NCEES began offering licensing exams internationally. In 2012, the board evaluated applications from 11 Egyptian candidates seeking comity licensure, according to the Washington Board Journal. Documents provided by the candidates indicated that they were members of the Egyptian Syndicate of Engineers and credentials were equivalent to U.S. standards for licensure. The board later determined that the organization was not a licensing organization, but similar to a union. After another detailed review, only one of the applicants was assessed as qualified to receive comity licensure in the state.

MILES WILLIAMS, P.E.

During Williams’ tenure, one of the most significant licensure issues that the Louisiana board has dealt with involves industrial licensure. Following the DeepWater Horizon oil rig explosion and subsequent oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, the board launched a review to see if any engineering practice laws or rules were broken in the incident that resulted in the deaths of 11 workers. The investigation remains open because it is LAPELS policy to wait until active civil and criminal proceedings are concluded before the staff completes its investigation, says Williams. Board staff will have access to information provided during the court proceedings to assist in the investigation.

Williams believes that this tragic event has put an increased spotlight on the importance of engineering licensure. “We have had substantial events in and around our state, including the BP oil spill, that may have changed the public perception of licensure,” he says. “We want to make sure that people working in the industrial setting know that they should be participating under the laws and rules of our state.”

Louisiana is heavy on industry and the board is focused on educating industry about the importance of licensure rather than taking an adversarial stance, says Williams. “We are working on increasing the number of licensed professionals in industry because we believe it’s in the best interest of the public,” he says. “It is a long ongoing mission that’s going to take years of effort.”

When Harclerode began his first term, the board was transitioning to becoming an independently funded board. Nearly five years ago, the Maryland legislature moved $300,000 of the board’s funds into the state’s general fund to shore up budget gaps, which has proved to be both a challenging and contentious issue for design professionals in the state. “The Maryland Society of Professional Engineers wasn’t happy about that, nobody was happy about that,” Harclerode recalls. “There needs to be a way to better protect the board’s funds to improve services for our licensees and protect the public.”

Harclerode and board members are also constantly pushing for changes that will improve the board’s ability to regulate practice and provide timely and efficient service to licensees. For example, the board would like to see a change made by state officials to allow it to hire administrative staff as permanent employees with benefits rather than as contract employees to alleviate turnover, which can hamper the board’s licensure processes.

HOWARD HARCLERODE, P.E., F.NSPE

Galvanizing Action
It is important that licensing boards maintain their autonomy, but board members must be careful not to create an adversarial relationship with stakeholders. It is also critical that boards get cooperation from licensees and the organizations that represent them. “We still have to do our job as a licensing board, but I don’t think we should do that job in a vacuum,” says Harclerode. “When we work on regulations, we make an effort to reach out to various organizations and we ask for feedback and involvement on working groups. It wasn’t always this way and industry felt that regulations were being shoved down its throat.”

About 80% of complaints received by the Maryland board come from consumers or building code officials, says Harclerode. The board has made every effort to establish a good working relationship with these officials. “This is very helpful because they are often our eyes and ears. They see things that people are doing that are unethical,” he says.

There are times when changes sought by licensing boards require legislative action. When there is a need for new or improved laws, it is incumbent on a board to engage technical and professional societies and maintain a dialogue that they will help to facilitate changes, says Mamola. “The last thing a legislature wants to have is controversy,” she says. “You don’t want to open up your laws and regulations and then find out that you have significant opposition because legislators will say ‘no, we don’t want to do this.’”

Even if the board identifies an issue of concern, says Williams, the professional society must determine if there is a change worth pursuing legislatively. “LES must be the advocate for law changes,” he says. “Board members will attend committee meetings and testify to describe what the rules and laws are and what a change may mean when it comes to enforcement. We never lobby for a law change.”

Laws don’t change overnight, says Shrope. He agrees that boards can’t be the catalyst for that change. “Boards have to be independent and enforce and administer the law,” he says. “We can point out things and work with professional societies and state organizations to develop proposed language. It ultimately has to be put forth by these organizations in the interest of the public.”

As the terms of current board members come to an end, a new crop of professional engineers should be preparing to take on this line of service. PEs who are interested in serving on their state’s licensing board should be motivated by a desire to maintain the honor of the profession, never by hopes of personal gain, says Harclerode. “You should never take a position on a licensing board if you think it’s going to generate you more work,” he says. “If that’s your motivation, you’re fooling yourself.”

When Lori Fobes, P.E., learned about an opening on the Michigan State Board of Professional Engineers from an officer in her firm, she didn’t hesitate to apply to serve on the board. She is dedicated to using her expertise and experience as a professional engineer to play a critical role in shaping how the board implements new continuing education requirements for licensure. “Serving on the board has given me a new appreciation of what has to go on behind the scenes to maintain the integrity of the licenses that people hold, particularly when it comes to licensees that are requesting reciprocity from state to state,” says the first-term board member.

What advice would Fobes give to PEs who are thinking about one day serving on a licensing board? “Past leadership experience with professional organizations makes it easier to speak up and state what’s on your mind on this board or any other boards that you serve on,” says the Michigan Society of Professional Engineers local chapter director. “You also need to have a passion for the profession.”