An End-of-Year Review

Veronica Bayó Clifford, Esq. is of counsel for Grossman, Furlow & Bayó, LLC in Tallahassee.

The end of the year is upon us and with it comes an opportunity for reflection, learning and review. With that in mind, this article covers changes in Florida’s engineering laws and rules over the past year.

And, because there is nothing quite as educational as learning from the mistakes of others, it will also provide an overview of recent trends in disciplinary action and a couple of notable cases. Because I do not want a lump of coal in my stocking this year, the names and some identifying details have been changed.

New Laws

The Interstate Mobility Act passed this year requires that regulatory boards under the Department of Business and Professional Regulation allow licensure by endorsement for any individual who applies for licensure by endorsement if the applicant meets certain specified criteria. This law streamlines the application process for qualified individuals, including engineers.

Another important piece of legislation passed this year made several amendments to Part IV of Chapter 553, F.S. (Florida Building Code). These changes include a new definition of “private provider firm” – a business entity that offers services through engineers, architects or building code administrators. The amendments significantly shorten the time local governments have to approve, approve with conditions, or deny permit applications.

For complete permit applications submitted by private providers, local governments must now make a permit determination within 10 business days of receipt instead of the previous timeframe of 120 days. There are several additional changes that merit review by those engineers engaged in this area of practice.

New Rules

The Board of Professional Engineers made several rule changes this year and has done an excellent job making this information available on their website: fbpe.org.

One important rule change concerns continuing education and demonstrating compliance. Licensees are now required to affirmatively declare completion of the continuing education requirements upon licensure renewal. Licensees must sign up for a National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Continuing Professional Competency (“CPC”) Tracking Account and certify that they have done so.

The rule states that the Board will use attendance information submitted by continuing education providers and documents uploaded to the NCEES CPC Tracking Account to determine compliance. However, keep in mind that the rule still requires licensees to keep records documenting continuing education for a period of four years from the date of completion.

Notable CE Cases

The subject of continuing education segways nicely into our review of recent disciplinary cases. In preparing to write this article, I reviewed several cases and was struck by how many of them were based on simple failure to complete the required continuing education.

Indeed, out of the 50 or so cases reviewed, over 25% of them were continuing education cases. Only negligence cases were more prevalent at around 35%. Unlicensed practice and misconduct cases also made up a significant portion.

A recent Board of Professional Engineers case demonstrates how quickly a minor continuing education case can spiral into a major one. In this case, an engineer had recently renewed his license and had attested to having completed the required continuing education necessary for renewal.

Unfortunately, the engineer found himself subject to a continuing education audit. Not only did the engineer fail to timely respond to the Board’s audit, but when he finally did so, he was unable to produce any evidence that he had completed any CE hours. The engineer’s license was reprimanded and suspended until he completes all outstanding required CE hours and a host of other requirements. Crucially, he is required to petition and appear before the Board for reinstatement and to demonstrate compliance.

Misconduct Cases

Another notable case decided this year involves a charge of misconduct. Cases involving misconduct are interesting because the term encompasses a variety of behaviors. For purposes of the following case, misconduct meant a failure to disclose a conflict of interest.

An engineer working for a Florida county failed to disclose that she was seeking employment with a private company whose project plans she was reviewing. She ultimately approved the project without disclosing to her employer the circumstances surrounding her involvement with the private company. The engineer had signed a conflict-ofinterest disclosure form as part of her employment with the county.

The Board reprimanded her engineering license and imposed an administrative fine, costs, and the successful completion of an engineering professionalism and ethics course within one year and the Board’s Laws and Rules Study Guide within 30 days.

Although this article is in no way meant to be an exhaustive review of this year’s engineering regulatory matters, I hope it provides awareness of the everchanging nature of the subject.