INNOVATION November-December 2015

d i sc i p l i ne and en forcemen t

Trends in Complaints Series Explores Trends in Complaint Files and Possible Solutions

The APEGBC Legislation, Ethics and Compliance department has identified a number of recent trends in the types of complaints filed against professional engineers and geoscientists. Over the next while, Innovation will feature articles discussing the trends, ethical issues, and standards of practice involved. The articles will also advise APEGBC professionals how to avoid similar complaints and to protect the public interest. The Code of Ethics Requires Respectful and Professional Communication Efrem Swartz, LLB , APEGBC Director, Legislation, Ethics and Compliance

There are multiple controversial development projects in the province that require the involvement of professional engineers, professional geoscientists and licensees, including limited licensees (“APEGBC professionals”). Many of these projects inflame public opinion and spark fierce debate. Some APEGBC professionals provide consulting services to the proponents of the projects, while others act for citizens groups or environmental organizations that oppose the developments. Last year, APEGBC received a number of complaints involving APEGBC professionals who make unprofessional comments or inappropriately criticize other APEGBC professionals. The incidents typically arose in the course of debate over controversial development projects. The communications often began as differences of opinion over a technical matter, but devolved into personal attacks against the integrity or professional competence of another APEGBC Professional. The unprofessional remarks were made in writing, in the media, or at public venues, such as town meetings. APEGBC recognizes that the majority of members treat each other with respect. However, incidents of unprofessional communication directed towards other APEGBC professionals negatively affect the public perception of the engineering and geoscience professions and give rise to complaints to APEGBC. The complaints typically fall into two categories: 1. Members Making Hostile Comments About APEGBC Professionals. Particularly in regards to environmental or climate change issues, a few members have crossed the line between professional criticism regarding technical matters and have made personal attacks against other members. 2. Members Making Unfounded, Alarmist Claims About Projects. Alarmist, exaggerated or unsubstantiated remarks about the dangers of projects or issues can cause unjustified concern among the public. In some cases, only one party acted unprofessionally. In other cases, both parties strayed. Transgressions include: • Circulating or publishing inappropriate, non-technical critiques of projects; • Making exaggerated statements that mislead and alarm the public about possible dangers in projects or issues; • Including personal comments irrelevant to the scope of a technical review within reports; • Presenting personal views as professional opinions, and;

• Including derogatory, personal remarks about other APEGBC professionals in correspondence copied to government officials or members of the public. In several instances, the APEGBC Investigation Committee issued letters of recommendations to the APEGBC professionals involved, emphasizing that the content of their communications should improve. APEGBC’s Position APEGBC encourages scientific debate that is based on evidence and the application of one’s professional training. Such debate is essential to the advancement of scientific understanding and is necessary for our society to make informed choices on development. At the same time, APEGBC professionals must adhere to the Code of Ethics . Principle 7 of the Code requires APEGBC professionals to treat each other with “fairness, courtesy and good faith,” and “accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment.” This precludes APEGBC professionals from making rude or hostile remarks about each other. The Guidelines to the Code of Ethics states that: Members should not maliciously injure the character or the prospects of business of another member or other individual, being as careful with a colleague’s reputation as with their own. Unless convinced that responsibility to the community demands it, they should not express professional opinions that reflect on the ability or integrity of another person or organization. In addition, Principle 3 of the Code states that APEGBC professionals must “provide an opinion on the professional subject only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge and honest conviction.” As such, APEGBC professionals must refrain from making comments outside of their training and experience and must not make exaggerated statements. Personal attacks by professionals against professionals— especially those made in public or to third parties—reflect poorly on the attacker and on the engineering and geoscience professions as a whole, and ultimately undermine the public’s confidence in the professions. Such incidents serve the interests of neither the public nor the professions. Next Steps APEGBC acknowledges that staying calm and in control can be challenging when discussing projects or issues that affect one’s core personal values. The association will explore opportunities to remind and educate members about requirements and expectations for respectful, professional exchange of ideas and viewpoints in conflict situations.

3 6

NOV E M B E R /D E C E M B E R 2 015

i n n o v a t i o n