Seven Devils Mountains 

 

Precedential Orders Idaho Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors | PO 1 | 9‐10‐2020

Precedential Orders Precedential Orders are final decisions regarding actions of the Board, usually in disciplinary 

matters. These orders are considered precedential due to statements made in them that are later 

referenced in other orders or disciplinary cases, or they are first time orders on matters not 

previously decided. Not all disciplinary orders are considered precedential, only those adopted by 

the Board in this document are considered precedential. The list considered precedential is a a 

small subset of all the disciplinary orders issued by the Board. These orders are posted in 

compliance with the governor’s executive order that states: 

By December 31, 2020, any written final orders that an agency intends to rely upon as precedent must be posted on the agency’s website on a single webpage, organized by subject, and with a direct link to the final order.

Point of contact For more information contact: 

Keith Simila, Executive Director at keith.simila@ipels.idaho.gov 

Tom Judge, Deputy Director at tom.judge@ipels.idaho.gov 

Jim Szatkowski, Deputy Director at james.szatkowski@ipels.idaho.gov 

 

Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe prior Board orders regarding engineering and land 

surveying practice in Idaho that the Board may rely on for future orders or decisions. This 

precedential order document is meant to provide information on enforcement of the laws and 

rules that govern both professions relating to ethics and professional practice. The abstracts listed 

in this document are representations of the cases to give the orders context and no warranty is 

made or implied regarding the full scope and total accuracy of the abstract.   

PRECEDENTIAL ORDER SUBJECT LISTING

PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR & INTERN LAW AND RULE VIOLATIONS .................... 1

81.02 Robert Van Kleek, P.L.S. – Gross Negligence Defined ............................................................... 1

81.02 Robert Avon, P.L.S. – Gross Negligence Defined ........................................................................ 1

81.02 John Matzinger, P.E., P.L.S. – Plats, Monuments ........................................................................ 2

84.02 J.V. Potter, P.L.S. – Record of Survey, Evidence, Monuments .................................................... 2

87.08 Robert S Nobis, P.L.S. – Untimely Records of Survey ................................................................ 3

90.26 Stephen W. Hackney, L.S.I.T. – Removed Monuments ............................................................... 4

91.02 Steven C. Pearson, P.L.S. – Fraud Defined .................................................................................. 4

91.03 Dennis C. Zimmerman, P.L.S. – Untimely CP&Fs, Missing Lic # on Cap .................................. 5

92.15 Richard A. Johnson, P.L.S. – Mineral Claim Survey Std of Care ................................................ 5

94.33 Rodney Blossom, P.E./P.L.S. – Assoc with Dishonest Enterprises ............................................. 5

95.16B Donald W. Kissinger, P.L.S. – Aid & Abet, Std of Care, Monuments ......................................... 6

95.25 Conrad Smith, P.L.S. – Standard of Care ..................................................................................... 6

96.28 Milton I. Booth, P.L.S. – Violation of ISPLS Min Stds and Consent Order ................................ 6

97.25 Charles Cuddy, P.L.S. – PLSS Monuments, Std of Care - BLM Manual .................................... 7

98.33 Robert G. Nelson, P.L.S. – Untimely Recording, Std of Care, Misconduct ................................. 8

98.35 George A. Loucks, P.L.S. – Std of Care - BLM Manual, Mat’l Discrep, PK Nail Monument .... 9

99.28 Terry T. Golding, P.L.S. – Indiscriminate Criticism .................................................................... 9

00.35 Larry J. Hodge, P.E./P.L.S. – Std of Care Duty, Monument Defacement .................................. 10

04.16 Dan I. Provolt, P.L.S. – Incompetence, Seal Legal Description ................................................. 11

05.15 J.R. Staples, P.L.S. – Std of Care, Correction of Errors Upon Discovery .................................. 11

05.18 03.19 Darren R. Leavitt, P.L.S. – Standard of Care, Quality Control ......................................... 11

07.19 Richard H. Carlson, P.L.S. – Reviewing County Surveyor ........................................................ 13

09.01 Richard G. Green, P.L.S. – Communicate Discrepancy, Standard of Care ................................ 13

17.05 Jared Leavitt, P.L.S. – Plat, Monuments, Consent Order Violation ........................................... 13

18.02 Bryce Jolley, P.L.S. – Standard of Care, CP&F and Record of Survey ...................................... 14

19.02 19.03 Chris Pfahl, P.E., P.L.S. – Monuments, Late Recording, Std of Care .............................. 14

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER & INTERN LAW AND RULE VIOLATIONS ................................ 16

83.06 Joseph Patrick, P.E. – Incompetence, Misconduct Defined ........................................................ 16

86.06 Richard W. Cummock, P.E. – Standard of Care ......................................................................... 16

90.32 Charles E. Archambault, P.E./L.S. – Seal Applied by Others .................................................... 16

92.16 James M. Scranton, P.E. – Seal, Not in Responsible Charge, Aid and Abet .............................. 16

93.16 Charles Sudweeks, P.E., Dwayne Sudweeks, P.E., Jerald N. Rowan, P.E. – Responsible Chg . 17

96.13 Antone, R. Thompson, P.E. – Misconduct, Fraud, Primary Obligation ..................................... 17

96.20 Charles Kitchin, P.E. – Responsible Charge, Aid and Abet ....................................................... 18

98.21 Michael Wisdom, P.E., Kenneth Allen Tewksbury, P.E. – Seal Signed by Others .................... 18

98.31 E.A. “Ted” Hoit, P.E. – Conflict of Interest, Confidentiality .................................................... 18

99.20 Richard H. Harbert, P.E., Richard L. Ballard, P.E. – Seal, Std of Care, Mat’l Discrep .............. 19

02.09 John I. Marble, E.I.T. – Primary Obligation Protect Public ........................................................ 19

03.02 Jonathan Reimann, P.E. – Seal – Others Cannot Sign for PE ..................................................... 19

03.15 Karl Lee Huffaker, P.E. – Conflict of Interest, Seal ................................................................... 19

04.15 Warren Watts, P.E. – Responsible Charge, Aid and Abet, Seal ................................................. 20

04.18 Michael Lund, P.E./L.S. – Indiscriminate Criticism ................................................................... 20

04.19 Billy Manwill, P.E./L.S. – Conflict of Interest, Comp Multi Parties, Outside Work ................. 20

07.12 Rodney Scott, P.E. – Field of Competence, Communicate Discrepancy .................................... 21

07.16 Scott L. Bybee, P.E. – PE Seal Plat, Field of Competence ......................................................... 21

08.23 John W. Bessaw, P.E. – Seal, Responsible Charge ..................................................................... 21

08.36 Garry A. Pace, P.E. – Standard of Care ...................................................................................... 21

09.05 Thomas E. Pestotnik, P.E. – Seal, Field of Competence, Misconduct ........................................ 22

09.06 Joel W. Petty, P.E. – Standard of Care, DEQ Approval for Report ............................................ 22

09.11 Loren A. Jalbert, P.E. – Standard of Care, Objective & Truthful Statements............................. 22

09.23 Scott A. Spaulding, P.E. – Comp Multi Parties, Opinions w/o Knowledge ............................... 23

10.08 Scott A. Spaulding, P.E. – Standard of Care, Structural Load Paths ......................................... 23

10.09 Michael Lund, P.E./P.L.S. – Public Stmt w/o Disclosure of Sponsor ........................................ 24

12.03 12.06 Charles A. Gay, P.E. – Competence, Injure Reputation .................................................. 24

12.07 David Kirkham, E.I. – Notify Discrepancy, Injure Reputation ................................................... 24

12.13 Fredrick A Davies P.E. – QBS, Bid for Services ........................................................................ 25

BUSINESS ENTITY LAW & RULE VIOLATIONS ............................................................................ 26

82.01 Winzler and Kelly, COA – Gross Negligence ............................................................................ 26

95.21 Anderson Associates, Inc., COA – Full-time PE Not in Responsible Charge ............................ 26

96.20 Northridge Engineering, COA – Responsible Charge, Outside Expertise .................................. 27

97.10 Meckel Engineering, Inc, COA and Jeffrey Block, P.E. – Injure Reputation ............................. 27

08.23 Washington Group International, Inc. COA – Competency for Assignments ............................ 30

14.02 Elite Edge Engineers, COA & Lisa Vernon, P.E. – Misrepresent Qualifications ....................... 30

14.04 14.05-14.07 Brown and Caldwell, COA – Communicate Discrepancies ................................... 30

UNLICENSED PRACTICE LAW VIOLATIONS................................................................................ 32

89.17 Cody Walden, unlicensed professional engineering ................................................................... 32

90.08 Peter L. Peterson, unlicensed professional land surveying ......................................................... 32

90.25 Al Marsden, unlicensed professional engineering ...................................................................... 32

03.10 Wesley F. Watson, unlicensed professional land surveying ....................................................... 32

03.13 Brent Bingham, P.E. (expired) – Court Injunction ..................................................................... 33

 

 

1 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR & INTERN LAW AND RULE VIOLATIONS

81.02 Robert Van Kleek, P.L.S. – Gross Negligence Defined Findings of Fact – the matter involves deficient survey work on the part of Mr. Van Kleek. He also failed to renew his license and continued to practice, and he failed to inform the Board of his whereabouts (current address). He failed to appear at the adjudicatory hearing although did appear for the investigatory hearing. He failed to record surveys, file corner records, complete survey projects for which he was paid, was found with errors, omissions, negligence and discrepancies on his surveys, practiced on an expired license, failed to meet the survey requirements of a city and county. Within the context of Idaho Code, the Board construes Gross Negligence described in 54-1220 to mean an intentional failure to perform a manifest duty and reckless disregard of the consequences. Stated otherwise, we (Board) must find that the respondent was indifferent to his duty so far as other persons might be affected. There must be such want of care as to justify the presumption of willfulness or wantonness.

Conclusions of Law – the evidence supports the finding that the respondent was grossly negligent.

Sanction: License revocation, return wall certificate and seal. July 21,1982.

81.02 Robert Avon, P.L.S. – Gross Negligence Defined Findings of Fact – the matter involves a company with license surveyor employees and L.S.I.T who conducted a survey for a client. The survey was long delayed in getting recorded. There was an apparent error in the location of one quarter corner and corner record was missing. The company was in the process of relocating to another state and was often non-responsive to the complainant and sometimes to the Board. Within the context of Idaho Code, the Board construes Gross Negligence described in 54-1220 to mean an intentional failure to perform a manifest duty and reckless disregard of the consequences. Stated otherwise, we (Board) must find that the respondent was indifferent to his duty so far as other persons might be affected. There must be such want of care as to justify the presumption of willfulness or wantonness. Upon hearing, the Board said “we find that Winzler & Kelly, as an entity, failed to perform its duties in reckless disregard of the consequences. Winzler & Kelly was indifferent to its duties so far as other persons might be affected. The delay was so great in completing the (complainant’s) survey as to presume willfulness on Winzler & Kelly’s part.

Conclusions of Law – The petitioners proved gross negligence on the part of the respondent Winzler & Kelly.

No evidence was presented regarding Mr. Avon. The complaint was dismissed against him.

Sanction: COA revocation. July 21, 1982.

2 | P a g e

81.02 John Matzinger, P.E., P.L.S. – Plats, Monuments Finding of Fact - The original complaint regards a surveyor who failed to set pins in a subdivision. He completed a plat, sent to a client, signed the plats indicating that the work had been completed. Client recorded the plat without the knowledge of the surveyor. Matzinger testified he did not intend for the plats to be recorded until the work was actually done. Matzinger made no serious attempt to retrieve the plats being reviewed by his client prior to recording. The complainant contends violations of 54-1227 and 50-1303 & 1309. Matzinger never realized until 2 years after the plats were recorded what happened to the documents. To prevent mistakes like this from happening, it is the Board’s finding that all surveying work should be completed when a licensee signs a plat. Matzinger agreed to an informal settlement of license suspension for the remainder of 1984. Subsequent evidence showed Matzinger signed 3 plats during his license suspension period. Matzinger violated his agreement with the Board. The Board found Mr. Matzinger was grossly negligent (using the definition in 82.01).

Sanction – license suspended from March 1, 1985 to December 31, 1986 order signed 3/1/1985

84.02 J.V. Potter, P.L.S. – Record of Survey, Evidence, Monuments Finding of Fact – The original complaint relates to a dispute on fees, libel, and inaccurate surveys. The Board dismissed the fees and libel as not being within its jurisdiction. The other allegations include – Potter failed to seriously research previous surveys in Section 10; that he mistakenly identified an iron pin as the center of the section as used for the Marster’s subdivision; that Potter allegedly accepted and used an iron pin in the east quarter corner with no supporting evidence; that Potter failed to place his new evidence on file relating to his surveys; and that Potter failed to give due consideration to any alternative survey solutions. The Board did not find the surveyor guilty of gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct.

There were some findings that are precedential. One is when the Board will dismiss complaints or other pleadings which are not filed in good faith or which are intended for the purpose of harassing another professional.

A second relates to when a corner record is required to be recorded. Specifically, the Board states “Clearly what the legislature intended (reference to 55-1604) was to have corner records filed within 90 days after the corner was monumented by permanent staking or marking in the field. It does not matter whether further action with regard to the larger survey needs to be completed…From this time onward, the Board will strictly enforce the provisions of code which require the filing of corner perpetuation records within 90 days after they are permanently marked in the field…Following this date, however, the land surveying profession is on notice that failure to timely file corner perpetuation records may be grounds for disciplinary action.

A third relates to gathering sufficient evidence prior to making a decision on corner location. Potter found a monument he thought was the C ¼ set by Fry, a prior surveyor, set 30 years earlier but in fact found another monument. Based on the misconstrued C ¼, he decided he had

3 | P a g e

to re-subdivide the Section 10 and set a new C ¼ at great expense to the landowner. The Fry corner was close to the Potter corner. The Board found that “the difference between Fry’s purported center of section and the true center of section established by Potter may have been sufficient enough to justify the reestablishment of the center of the section after relevant evidence was considered.”

87.08 Robert S Nobis, P.L.S. – Untimely Records of Survey Findings of Fact – the matter results from a complaint by a section of ISPLS toward a sitting Board member. Mr. Nobis had bypass heart surgery and was unable to respond or meet timelines required in the code. The allegations within the Board’s jurisdiction relate to untimely filing of records of survey, untimely remonumenting of a ¼ corner stone (due to surgery), untimely response to a request for information on a survey (request never received), measuring discrepancy of 20 feet from a survey done 20-years ago with older equipment (complainant admitted he had lesser error using older equipment in the past and failed to contact Mr. Nobis an notify of the error), a platting error that Mr. Nobis was reluctant to change because several land owners have relied on the boundary (no subsequent surveyors contacted Mr. Nobis of the error but he volunteered to file an affidavit). An allegation was made of stray pins belonging to Mr. Nobis which Mr. Nobis indicated were not his as he didn’t have clients in the area. An allegation was made regarding a corner in a subdivision being the wrong place. Mr. Nobis indicated the incorrect pin would be pulled. An allegation of a sketch plat not being recorded – but the work was done prior to 1978 (when the recording act was enacted) and again no prior surveyor contacted Mr. Nobis about this. There was a survey done in 1979 that wasn’t recorded and is now recorded after the complaint was filed. There as an allegation of surveyor errors on surveys performed in 1976 & 1977 and they were not recorded. These were done prior to 1978 and the other surveyor never discussed it with Mr. Nobis so he could validate the errors. A final allegation regards a survey for the BLM where an original corner monument was not found and subsequently the corner was set by proportion by Mr. Nobis. After the survey was accepted by the BLM, they did find the original monument. Mr. Nobis and the BLM agreed that the BLM would pull is prior monument, but the BLM later declined to pull it without telling Mr. Nobis. Mr. Nobis agreed to pull his monument now that he knows they never pulled it. We find the complaint resolves itself to a question of timely filing of records of surveys. Mr. Nobis indicated some of this results from misunderstood instructions to employees who filed the surveys in the office and not the courthouse. He took responsibility for this and will correct office procedures. We do not find that the filing errors have risen to the level of gross negligence. Nonetheless we are constrained to admonish the respondent for failing to have timely filed the surveys. The failure to record was not intentional or willful. We take note that the respondent has attempted to mitigate the problems by filing the surveys prior to the hearing. The petitioners did not ask that the respondent’s license be suspended or revoked. At the same time, we would be remiss if we did not note our disappointment with the failure of the complaining witnesses to contact Mr. Nobis to resolve many of the alleged problems. The Board should not be the first stop whenever a registrant finds a problem with another registrant’s or certificate holder’s work.

4 | P a g e

Conclusions of Law – the evidence does not support a finding that the Respondent was grossly negligent, incompetent, or guilty of misconduct. The matter should be dismissed. It is further ordered that all registrants and certificate holders make a reasonable effort to inform and obtain a response form the registrant or certificate holder whose work is believed to contain the discrepancy, error, or omission when such have been discovered.

The need to protect the public from errors based upon past surveys causes us to require the parties make such filings as may be necessary to protect the record.

Sanction – admonishment. September 11, 1987.

90.26 Stephen W. Hackney, L.S.I.T. – Removed Monuments Stipulation for Consent Order – the matter involves the removal of survey monuments related to a survey paid for by the neighbor of Mr. Hackney along the boundary. Mr. Hackney disagreed with the location of the survey line and monuments set by a P.L.S hired by the neighbor. The neighbor filed a complaint against Mr. Hackney. After an investigation, investigatory hearing and adjudicatory hearing, the Board issued an order. Mr. Hackney neither cooperated with the investigation, nor appeared at either hearing. The Board found Mr. Hackney had violated 54-1234 by removing the survey monuments and found his uncooperative behavior made the investigation more time consuming and difficult.

Order – reprimand. May 6, 1991.

No evidence is available that Mr. Hackney consented to the stipulation and order. The Board later passed a motion to terminate Mr. Hackney’s application to sit for the P.L.S. examination concluding he did not exhibit the behavior of a professional and had failed to reapply since last denied for lack of experience (see case 86.09)

91.02 Steven C. Pearson, P.L.S. – Fraud Defined Findings of Fact – the matter involves a complaint by one surveyor against another alleging violation on 27 surveys. The Board hired an investigator to collect their own facts and held an investigatory hearing. The petitioner alleges gross negligence and fraud constituting violations of 54-1220. The Board referred to case 82.01 for a definition of gross negligence. The Board defined fraud as: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by on person to deceive another. (Blacks Law Dictionary 5th ed, 1979).

Conclusions of Law – we do not believe the violation evidenced during the investigatory hearing are of sufficient magnitude, standing alone, for the Board to take action at this time.

5 | P a g e

Sanction – dismissed without prejudice. A separate letter sent to Mr. Pearson concurrent with the order alluding to drafting errors, corners not set, missing CP&Fs, incomplete information on surveys, missing basis of bearing and missing certificate of surveys. The letter also said “The Board is extremely concerned with these mistakes and urges that you place closer control on you practices so that these types of errors do not continue. It is the intent of the Board to review the future surveys you perform. To facilitate the review, it would be most helpful if you segregated the copies of your surveys performed during the 1991-1992 time period.” July 16, 1991.

91.03 Dennis C. Zimmerman, P.L.S. – Untimely CP&Fs, Missing Lic # on Cap Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a complaint toward 2 surveyors (91.02 & 91.03 stem from the same complaint). In lieu of hearing, Mr. Zimmerman consented to a stipulation related to a drafting error, failing to timely file corner records, and failing to affix his P.L.S. number to corner monuments.

Sanction – reprimand, remedy violations within 30 days, and certify completion. May 6, 1991.

92.15 Richard A. Johnson, P.L.S. – Mineral Claim Survey Std of Care Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves the survey of mineral claims bounded by a national forest. The surveyors for the forest service found several mining claim corners missed by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson delayed in responding to both the national forest surveyor and his client. Mr. Johnson agreed to some of the evidence but failed to amend his survey to the agreed locations. The Board hired an investigator who determined there were problems created by Mr. Johnson’s survey. After an investigatory hearing, Mr. Johnson stipulated to locate, establish and monument, as necessary, all corners used in his survey and file CP&Fs by a date certain. He also agreed to perform such field work as necessary to correct his survey and amend his ROS by a date certain.

Sanction – reprimand and $2,000 fine.

94.33 Rodney Blossom, P.E./P.L.S. – Assoc with Dishonest Enterprises Findings of Fact - License lapsed for one year while practicing. Lack of responsible charge. Errors and omissions on surveys were found.

Mr. Blossom had an oral agreement with Mr. Pete Peterson (unlicensed surveyor) who pled guilty of a misdemeanor for practicing land surveying without a license a few years prior in Idaho. Mr. Blossom allowed Mr. Peterson to solicit business, collect fees, conduct surveys, and other business transactions without Mr. Blossom’s direct involvement, while Mr. Blossom signed and sealed the survey documents without exercising proper responsible charge. In addition to the violation for failure to exercise responsible charge, Mr. Blossom was found to have 37 errors and omissions on his surveys. Gross negligence cites Docket 82.01 for a definition of gross negligence.

Conclusions of Law - Mr. Blossom violated IDAPA 10.01.02.006.02 -Aiding and Abetting, 10.01.02006.03 improper use of seal, 10.01.02.010.01 – association with fraudulent or dishonest enterprises. And 54-1201 – unlawful practice of land surveying (on expired

6 | P a g e

license), 54-1215(3) – improper use of seal, 54-1215(3)c – seal on all original documents, and 54-1222 practicing with an expired license. Each of the 6 surveys represents a violation of the foregoing rules and statutes. As an alternative conclusion of law, the board found that if Mr. Blossom should be found to have been in responsible charge of any of the six surveys, based on the evidence at the hearing and record discussed in the Findings of Fact, the board found that Mr. Blossom was guilty of gross negligence and gross incompetence in his work.

Sanction: Revocation. October 3, 1994.

95.16B Donald W. Kissinger, P.L.S. – Aid & Abet, Std of Care, Monuments Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a complaint by the executive director alleging 7 surveys that were performed by a non-registrant without adequate supervision in violation of 10.01.02.006.02 & 03 (aiding and abetting and sealing work not done under responsible charge), and surveys that were negligently or incompetently performed for not setting monuments along boundaries in violation of 54-1227, and insufficient curve data along a road to allow for retracement of the boundary, inconsistent legend symbols, unclear boundaries and road centerlines, mis-labeled tracts in violation of 10.01.02.005.02 standard of care.

Sanction – voluntary surrender. March 17, 1995.

95.25 Conrad Smith, P.L.S. – Standard of Care Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves surveys performed by Mr. Smith that he admitted were deficient in regard to the standard of care rule 10.01.02.005.02, 55-1906(1) – contents on records of survey such as describing monuments, bearings, distances, etc., 54-1227 describing the minimum size and cap markings, 55-1608 – reconstructing GLO monuments. After a hearing, he entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order.

Sanction - $500 fine. He must also: file an affidavit in response to the N 1/16th corner of Sec. 4, T39N, R4W, BM in CP&F form, the intent of the affidavit to admit that Mr. Smith’s N 1/16th corner is corrected by another surveyor’s N 1/16th corner (Mr. Smith used improper methods to set his corner – turned 90 degrees and set corner at record distance); and correctly perform work outlined in the complaint (fix deficiencies and re-file several surveys). October 1, 1996.

96.28 Milton I. Booth, P.L.S. – Violation of ISPLS Min Stds and Consent Order Consent Order – The complaint was from a county surveyor who refused to approve a plat that had a material discrepancy about a common corner with other surveyors. Mr. Booth sent a letter to the county commissioners complaining about the county surveyor. The commissioners dismissed the complaint as lacking jurisdiction (dispute regarding property corner and surveyor’s competence). The county surveyor sent a letter to the Board as notification of unsatisfactory resolution of a material discrepancy (non-responsive). Later the county surveyor filed a

7 | P a g e

complaint with the Board alleging multiple violations on many surveys and ethics violations. Violations include: errors describing monuments found (size and type); missing a PLSS corner that was monumented with a RR spike with CP&Fs at the intersection of roads and setting a proportioned monument 65 feet away (not finding evidence); double corner for a section corner common to 4 sections and a ¼ corner using poor evidence and refusing to consider evidence of 4 other surveyors; ignoring the wording in a legal description and using highway ROW monuments as control in a subdivision instead of searching for or finding monuments in the subdivision creating a gap or overlap; failing to conduct a field review without a legal description in hand that has a call to a county road – the county road was not shown on his survey; failed to conduct proper record or field research for a survey; failed to comply with earlier direction from the Board directing him to perform more thorough research – case where the easement was not shown and access to a well not clear; failure to respond when notified of a material discrepancy to correct minor errors on a plat; violation of prior direction from the Board directing him to pursue closer communication with the professional community to resolve differences with 12 cases cited; attempting to maliciously and falsely injure and indiscriminately criticize the professional reputation of another registrant; violation of the ISPLS minimum standards for failing research the record on surveys; and other similar violations.

Mr. Booth was reprimanded and fined $1,000. Mr. Booth stipulated to correct or resolve the surveys and other documents listed to the sole satisfaction of the complainant (county surveyor) or other licensed PLS approved by the Board by a date certain. He will have his next 25 surveys reviewed by another PLS selected by the Board. Signed August 20, 1996. Order approving October 1, 1996.

Subsequent to the consent order, Mr. Booth was found in violation of the consent order and a supplemental complaint was filed by the Board staff. A hearing was held February 12, 1997.

Findings of Fact – Mr. Booth stipulated to complete 8 items for survey corrections and work to resolve disputes for 3 cases with arbitration with other surveyors. Mr. Booth had not completed these and the only arbitration conducted was without his cooperation. He filed 2 other surveys without having them reviewed.

Conclusions of Law – the evidence is sufficient to establish violations alleged by the original complainant and supplement complaint, and it is sufficient to establish violation of the stipulation.

Sanction – Revocation of his license. February 12, 1997.

97.25 Charles Cuddy, P.L.S. – PLSS Monuments, Std of Care - BLM Manual A complaint filed by a P.L.S. alleged violations of 54-1215(3)(c) by not placing a seal and signature on a survey map and legal description when presented to a client; violations of Idaho Code 54-1604 by not reconstructing nor rehabilitating a monument used as control in a survey; not producing a legible survey map as required by 55-1905, Idaho Code; not meeting the error of

8 | P a g e

closure required by 55-1911; did not conform to the US Manual of Instruction as require by 31-2709, Idaho Code.

A hearing was held, and Mr. Cuddy signed a Stipulation and Consent Order. Mr. Cuddy admits he failed to monument the calculated positions of PLSS corners; he did not break down a government lot in accordance with the US Manual of Instruction, and he did not set two other PLSS corners. The remainder of the allegations of the complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

Sanction – Reprimand, correct errors. October 9, 1997.

98.33 Robert G. Nelson, P.L.S. – Untimely Recording, Std of Care, Misconduct Findings of Fact – Mr. Nelson was hired to survey a lot. Mr. Nelson delayed in completing the survey and recording the survey. The client attempted to contact Mr. Nelson many times with no timely response. The client filed a complaint. The staff investigated the case. Mr. Nelson was non-responsive or untimely to requests for documents. A complaint was filed by the executive director alleging violations of Idaho Code 55-1904 – File within 90 days of completing a survey, 55-1906(2) Evidence of compliance with the corner record statute, and 10.01.02.004.04 Misconduct and 10.01.02.005.02 Standard of care. Mr. Nelson did not file the record of survey within 90 days. Two monuments described in the record of survey did not have sufficient description for one to ascertain the nature or significance of the monuments. One was a section corner and the other a quarter corner. Mr. Nelson admitted he had not filed an amended record of survey or taken steps to in furtherance of such a filing.

Conclusions of law – Mr. Nelson violated 55-1904 by failing to file the survey within 90 days of its completion. Despite client demands or difficulties, a professional land surveyor has a duty to the public and responsibility to timely file records of survey. Mr. Nelson violated 55-1906(1) and 55-1906(2) by failing to sufficiently describe two monuments on the record of survey. Mr. Nelson is guilty of misconduct pursuant to 10.01.02.04.04 (definition of misconduct). Mr. Nelson failed to be forthright and candid in statements and written responses to the Board and its representatives. Mr. Nelson violated 10.01.02.005.02 standard of care by failing to perform services for his client in accordance with the standard of care for the profession. Mr. Nelson filed a woefully inadequate record of survey.

Sanction - $300 fine, deliver an amended survey to the board for review, make corrections, file with recorder by date certain, complete “survey ethics” course. Failing to comply results in automatic suspension without further action, notice or adjudication for 6 months, failing to comply during suspension period with 30 days results in automatic permanent revocation without further action, notice or adjudication. February 26, 1999.

Mr. Nelson subsequently failed to renew his license and the board requested he return his license certificate and discontinue practicing. Mr. Nelson was nonresponse. The board revoked Mr. Nelson’s license without hearing. Mr. Nelson refused to pick up the letter sent via the post office,

9 | P a g e

so the executive director hired the sheriff to deliver the letter and posted notices in local newspapers and with local recorders with notification of the revocation.

98.35 George A. Loucks, P.L.S. – Std of Care - BLM Manual, Mat’l Discrep, PK Nail Monument Consent Order – Mr. Loucks surveyed a parcel and located corners at existing fence lines. Prior surveyors broke down the section, an original quarter corner stone was found and remonumented, and a 1/16th corner was set by proportion. These corners did not align with existing fences. The complaint alleges Mr. Loucks improperly surveyed by not following the standards in the BLM manual and circular. He set corners at the fences without first notifying the other surveyors of a material discrepancy. He did not file a record of survey within 90 days. He attempted to injure the reputation of other surveyors with disparaging language to his client at meetings. He set a PK nail for a monument. Complaint alleges violations of the standard of care 10.0102.005.02, failure to notify or communicate of a material discrepancy 10.01.02.005.04, attempt to injure the reputations/indiscriminate criticism 10.01.02.007.04, and improper monument 54-1227 using a PK nail. The consent order sustained the standard of care and failure to communicate charges, but dismissed the attempt to injure and improper monument charges as Mr. Loucks agreed to issue apologies and set a proper monument.

Acknowledgements in the consent order – that original corners are those set by the GLO, not corners later established by subsequent section subdivisions, and that if subsequent section subdivisions are located by a surveyor in a manner contrary to that directed by the Manual of Surveying Instructions, BLM and Circular on Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners and Subdivision of Sections as promulgated by the USDI/BLM, they are not to be honored.

Sanction – Reprimand, $750 fine, dismiss the Declaratory Judgement complaint, participation in arbitration on disputed corners. April 20, 2000.

Associated with this case is an order denying a motion to dismiss. The motion cited two causes – untimeliness and the prosecutor (deputy attorney general) not being familiar with the case. The Board’s order of denial that the surveyors notifying the Board of a material discrepancy was not a complaint as it didn’t meet the statutory requirements to be sworn to and filed with the executive director. The six- month clock doesn’t begin until a formal complaint is filed. The prosecutor’s formal complaint started the clock. The statute also says “any person” can file a complaint and doesn’t limit those filing to persons with direct knowledge, affected or injured.

99.28 Terry T. Golding, P.L.S. – Indiscriminate Criticism Finding of Fact – Mr. Golding publicly criticized another PLS for his belief that fees were excessive for a project of an emergency nature (land slide repair). Mr. Golding did not contact

10 | P a g e

the other PLS to validate the facts of his criticism, some of which were incorrect. He participated in public meetings on 3 occasions where the criticism took place.

Conclusions of Law – Mr. Golding’s criticism of another registrant was “indiscriminate” under the common meaning of that word, as he did not base his accusations on careful selections of the facts or discerning taste. His statements were not constructive criticism, but instead were unproductive allegations that failed to advance any public interest and violated the other goal of the rule to maintain a high standard of integrity in the profession. All his criticism concerned the other PLS’s work, including not only the criticism of his methodology but also the fee for the project. The rule at issue limits its application to one’s work to distinguish from one’s personal or non-professional endeavors. One’s professional fees are integral to one’s work. Thus, the criticism of one’s professional fees is criticism of one’s work. His criticisms were in public. Thus, Golding violated rule 7.04. The Board’s rules of Professional Responsibility, either on its face or as applied in this case, do not impermissibly infringe on Golding’s freedom of speech. The rule in question is narrowly tailored to prohibit only indiscriminate public criticism in an effort to further the legitimate interests of the Board for maintaining a high standard of integrity in the profession.

Sanction – Reprimand. July 28, 1999.

00.35 Larry J. Hodge, P.E./P.L.S. – Std of Care Duty, Monument Defacement Order – the matter involves allegations against a sitting Board member in which he provided unpaid advice to an attorney regarding a monument set by another PLS. The other PLS set a monument and fence posts for a 1/16th corner. The monuments and posts fell in a cultivated field. There was a boundary dispute between neighbors. The person who hired the PLS to a set monument filed a complaint because Mr. Hodge advised an attorney for his neighbor via a phone call that the monument could be set below ground (pounded down) so as to not interfere with cultivating the field. The Board hired the attorney general to investigate and offer advice since Mr. Hodge was a Board member. After the investigation and opinion by the attorney general’s office, the Board issued an order that dismissed the complaint as unfounded. The allegations related to 54-1234 (willful defacement of a monument), 10.01.02.007.01 (public statements), and 10.01.02.005.02 (standard of care). The Board found that the statements were not public (phone call). The Board found that Mr. Hodge, in offering free advice, was not performing services. He was not retained and did not have a duty to perform services for the attorney. The duty under IDAPA 10.01.02.005.02 is created when the professional land surveyor is “under duty to the party for whom services are performed.” In this case, Mr. Hodge’s services were not retained by the attorney and his statement was made during a phone call in which the attorney simply asked for Mr. Hodge’s opinion on a matter. Equally important is the limitation in the Rule which states that the duty shall be exercised at a level that others in the profession “exercise in like circumstances.” We have not in the past, nor do intend to hold registrants responsible in these type of circumstances. Regarding 54-1234, there are no allegations that Mr. Hodge did anything to the corner pin, and therefore, any claims against him are invalid. There may be some relief available to the complainant; it cannot be provided by this Board. The

11 | P a g e

complainant may have a cause for civil action against his neighbor if the monument was defaced, injured, or removed. We should caution, however, that if the pin was simply driven into the ground and was not defaced, injured or removed, then his action under 54-1234 will fail (court case cited). Thus, a person does not violate 54-1234 if he simply drives a pin below the ground, as long as it remains in the same location and is not otherwise injured, defaced, or removed. October 2, 2000.

04.16 Dan I. Provolt, P.L.S. – Incompetence, Seal Legal Description Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves the survey of an easement map that was completed and legal description written as part of a court settlement that was not signed and sealed by Mr. Provolt. Mr. Provolt admitted to violations of 10.0102.04.04 incompetence, and 54-1215(3)(b) failing to seal and sign work done under his responsible charge.

Sanction – admonishment, $500 fine. January 25, 2005.

05.15 J.R. Staples, P.L.S. – Std of Care, Correction of Errors Upon Discovery Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves an incorrect survey that was completed by Mr. Staples along a meander line that was incorrectly located. This resulted in a boundary dispute. The aggrieved landowner received an opinion from the BLM that conflicted with that of Mr. Staples. Mr. Staples agreed with the BLM opinion but did not correct or amend the survey, and the old survey was used in court as an exhibit. Mr. Staples agreed to a violation of 10.01.02.005.02 – standard of care which includes the diligent correction of errors upon discovery. He agreed he learned of the error on the project in 2001, and failed to correct that error by filing an amended ROS for over four years after the date of discovery of the error.

Sanction – admonishment, $500 fine. August 8, 2005.

05.18 03.19 Darren R. Leavitt, P.L.S. – Standard of Care, Quality Control Stipulation and Consent Order - the matter involves work by Mr. Leavitt on plats that a county surveyor reviewed. The county surveyor sent a letter to the Board expressing concern related to repetitive mistakes by Mr. Leavitt as he reviewed his plats. The executive director investigated the matter and offered suggestions that were followed up in a letter from the Board chair to Mr. Leavitt stating “the Board shares the concerns that was expressed by (the county surveyor) regarding the repetitive nature of the comments which arise from the review of your plats. The Board would like to give you the opportunity to improve your practice and the Board expects your practice to improve. To that end, the Board requests that you send a copy of the plat and the review comments which you receive from (the county surveyor) on your next 5 plats you prepare. The Board will compare those comments with those received on your previous work.” The Board also expressed concern about using the county review process for quality

12 | P a g e

control and recommended he associate with another PLS for review prior to submittal. The Board wanted to be informed of whom Mr. Leavitt would associate with. They attached a matrix of categories of comments in which they had concerns. The executive director was sent an email from the county surveyor expressing similar concerns as before. The Board hired a PLS to investigate the matter who found numerous violations of 10.01.02.005.02 standard of care. Mr. Leavitt stipulated to have his next 5 plats reviewed at his expense, by another PLS acceptable to the Board, he shall not record or submit for review to any government agency any record of survey or plat related to the 5 plats referenced without first obtaining the reviewing surveyors written statement that the document complies with all applicable statutes and rules and sending a copy of such statement to the Board. Mr. Leavitt is to send a copy of the stipulation to all pending and future clients and notification that his work is being reviewed by another surveyor.

Sanction – admonishment, $500 fine. January 22, 2006.

Mr. Leavitt violated the terms of his order by sending 2 plats in for county review without obtaining a prior PLS review by the Board designated reviewer, and by failing to notify clients of his stipulation. The executive director filed an affidavit to request a hearing to show cause. After a hearing, the Board issued findings, conclusions and order that found the allegations were substantiated. He was ordered to have his work for the next 5 plats and 5 records of survey reviewed by another PLS acceptable to the Board, shall not submit for review to any government agency the next 5 plats or 5 records of survey without first obtaining a written statement from the review surveyor of compliance, he shall notify clients that his work is being reviewed.

Sanction - reprimand, $1,000 fine. May 12, 2006.

After the hearing, the executive director was sent an email from the county surveyor expressing similar concerns as before. The Board hired a PLS to investigate the matter who found numerous violations of 10.01.02.005.02 standard of care. A complaint was filed with 21 counts (related to 21 surveys reviewed). Mr. Leavitt stipulated to a 2nd order committing to improving his work by using proper symbols for monuments, properly labeling corners, using the most recent CP&F instrument number, filing CP&Fs, tying monuments with bearing and distances, referencing all record of survey numbers for common monuments or references such as adjoining properties, show basis of bearing in each drawing, ensure the survey is tied to 2 PLSS corners, utilize at least ½” iron or steel rods as monuments (not PK nails), and take steps to ensure that distances are accurate.

Sanction – reprimand and revocation (stayed), institute a quality control program specified, complete continuing education courses in Ethics for Surveyors and Quality Assurance as specified, have next 10 surveys reviewed by the PLS investigator to determine whether they are materially and substantially free of errors of the nature contained in the complaint at Mr. Leavitt’s expense. Demonstrated compliance allows for the Board to reinstate without restriction. Mr. Leavitt shall not record or submit for review to any government agency any subdivision plat for 3 years. August 14, 2007.

Subsequently, Mr. Leavitt took a job at a university that didn’t involve subdivision plats or records of surveys. He eventually retired his license without completing the terms of his order.

13 | P a g e

07.19 Richard H. Carlson, P.L.S. – Reviewing County Surveyor Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a county surveyor who placed his seal and signature on two plats certifying they comply with 50-1309, Idaho Code, when in fact a PE has signed the sealed the plat instead of a PLS. Mr. Carlson stipulated to violations of 50-1309 and 54-1215(3)(c) and 54-1215(3)(d). Note – at the time, the Board issued an opinion that reviewing surveyors were not to place their seal on the plat, only signatures. The Board has since revised that opinion and now allows it as an option. Nevertheless, in his review, he missed the fact that the original plat was not sealed by a PLS.

Sanction – admonishment, $1,000 fine. August 3, 2007.

09.01 Richard G. Green, P.L.S. – Communicate Discrepancy, Standard of Care Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a subdivision plat prepared by an out-of-state licensee that has a canal adjacent. Mr. Green was the city surveyor who reviewed the plat and insisted the survey use coordinates for the canal alignment that the surveyor could not independently verify. The coordinates were based from an old map and not a survey. The city surveyor also encouraged the developer to use a local surveyor and not one from out-of-state and in fact, the out-of-state surveyor was dismissed eventually from the project as the plat was long delayed in getting approved. The city surveyor did not timely identify in writing the material discrepancies, errors and omissions and respond to questions raised by the out-of-state surveyor. Mr. Green stipulated to violations of 10.01.02.007.04 – attempts to injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another License Holder nor indiscriminately criticize another licensee. He stipulated to violations of 10.01.02.005.04 – obligation to communicate the discovery of a discrepancy in writing. He stipulated to violations of 10.01.02.005.02 standard of care for requiring the out-of-state surveyor use information (coordinates) not part of a ground survey.

Sanction – admonishment, $1,000 fine. July 31, 2009.

17.05 Jared Leavitt, P.L.S. – Plat, Monuments, Consent Order Violation Stipulation and Consent Agreement – the original matter involves a survey plat that was done but didn’t include setting a controlling PLSS monument, correct CP&Fs, interior monuments, and other deficiencies. He signed a settlement agreement and was ordered to correct the problems. He failed to meet the terms of the consent order he signed. An order to show cause for non-compliance with the prior consent agreement was issued and a hearing was held. He later agreed to another settlement agreement.

Sanction – reprimand, $750 fine. May 16, 2019. Properly set a PLSS monument and file a CP&F, resolve a disparity between the counter copy of the plat and the recorded copy, ethics course, take and pass special PS exam, have next 10 ROS, CP&Fs & Plats reviewed. March 6, 2017.

14 | P a g e

Subsequent to his consent agreement, an order to show cause was issued on October 19, 2018 and held on November 9, 2018 for noncompliance with his stipulation and order. He failed to properly set a ¼ corner, but certified to completion. The plat was not amended as agreed but he certified to its proper completion.

Sanction – admonishment, submit next 5 surveys for review, pass a special PLS exam, take an ethics course. November 18, 2018.

18.02 Bryce Jolley, P.L.S. – Standard of Care, CP&F and Record of Survey Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a survey in Power County that involved section breakdowns of several sections of ranch land. The record of survey was not properly completed and corner records were not properly completed or timely filed. He admitted to violations of 10.01.02.005.02 – standard of care; 10.01.03.005 & 012 corner record forms missing or inaccurate information; 55-1604 & 1608; 55-1904 & 55-1906.

Sanction – reprimand, $5,000 fine. Remedy – Set, reset, mark or remark all PLSS monuments and caps that he failed to set or were incorrectly marked; file and/or re-file all missing and deficient CP&Fs; amend and/or otherwise correct deficiencies in the ROS. He must have the next 10 ROS & related CP&Fs reviewed. September 14, 2018.

Mr. Jolley did not complete the remedy and the next 10 surveys properly. An order to show cause was signed 8/30/2019. and related hearing was scheduled. Mr. Jolley subsequently agreed to retire his license in lieu of a hearing and signed a voluntary retirement form on 9/20/2019.

19.02 19.03 Chris Pfahl, P.E., P.L.S. – Monuments, Late Recording, Std of Care Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – the matter involves 2 separate complaints, one in Mullan, Shoshone County and one in Kootenai county. Allegations relate to 5 counts. Count 1 -54-1227 where Mr. Pfahl failed to monument or set compliant monuments at over 100 corners. The Board concurred with the conclusion of law that a “measure point – nothing found or set” constitutes a “field located” corner subject to the requirements of 54-1227 that require a monument to be set, and is not limited to controlling corners. Count 2 – violation of 55-1604, 55-1608 and 55-1906 for failing to monument PLSS corners used or perpetuated on his surveys, and failing to file an amended CP&F for a PLSS corner that he tied to over 12 years after it was remonumented by the BLM that Mr. Pfahl failed to check and perpetuated an incorrect record. Count 3 – violation of 55-1904 by failing to record a survey with 90 days after setting a monument (monument set in 2007, ROS in 2016). Count 4 – standard of care 10.01.02.005.02 for failing to properly resolve the source of a material discrepancy (error in deed) that was monumented by an inexperienced crew where Mr. Pfahl did not review on the ground. The crew placed monuments that did not align with historic occupation (fences) and failed to discover a monument that did align with the occupation. Count 5 – sending a client an unsigned and unsealed survey that was not marked draft in violation of 54-1215(3)(b).

15 | P a g e

Sanction – Count 1 $2,500 fine and next 25 surveys reviewed – suspension (until a reviewing surveyor is retained); Count 2 $2,500 fine and next 25 surveys reviewed – suspension (until a reviewing surveyor is retained); Count 3 $1,500 fine and reprimand; Count 4 $2,500 fine and reprimand; Count 5 $500 fine and reprimand. June 22, 2020. In lieu of fines and reviews, PLS license was surrendered.

16 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER & INTERN LAW AND RULE VIOLATIONS

83.06 Joseph Patrick, P.E. – Incompetence, Misconduct Defined Findings of Fact – reciprocal action based on license revocation from Nevada and Utah. Orders provide evidence that Patrick’s conduct in Nevada and Utah constituted gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct. Errors, deficiencies and code violation described in said orders resulted in the possibility of significant danger to life, health and property. Gross negligence – see Docket 82.01. Within the context of Section 54-1220 we define “incompetence” as a lack of ability, qualification or fitness to discharge a required duty. A person is incompetent when he lacks the qualities needed for effective action. Finally, we define “misconduct” as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful or improper behavior, willful in character.

Sanction – Revocation September 30, 1983

86.06 Richard W. Cummock, P.E. – Standard of Care Consent order – Geotechnical report related to grain silos was signed by Cummock. Information contained in the report was inaccurate requiring client to incur substantial additional expense for re-engineering. Cummock agrees he should not have released the report without assuring himself of the accuracy of the facts he was employed to review. Cummock agrees his actions were inconsistent with his responsibilities as an engineer.

Sanction – reprimand, April 13, 1987

90.32 Charles E. Archambault, P.E./L.S. – Seal Applied by Others Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves work associated with certifying as-built drawings of a water system installation. The seal and signature were placed on drawings, that were submitted to DEQ for approval. The system certification was rejected by DEQ as incomplete and later recertified using “sticky back” transparencies for the client to apply once the client completed the drawings. Mr. Archambault stipulated to a violation of 54-1215 and rule 3.02 (applying seal only to work done under responsible charge).

Sanction – reprimand, obtain the transferable seals & transmit them to the Board and replace with his original seal and signature and date. May 5, 1991.

92.16 James M. Scranton, P.E. – Seal, Not in Responsible Charge, Aid and Abet Stipulation for Consent Order – the matter involves an engineer (mechanical engineer) who as approached by an unlicensed designer to sign and seal drawings for an awning at a restaurant. The unlicensed person completed the work, Mr. Scranton reviewed the work, made some changes and signed and sealed the design. It was rejected by the county when submitted for permit as lacking snow load and wind load provisions. The owner dismissed the designer. Mr.

17 | P a g e

Scranton had no contract with either party. He stipulated to a violation of rule 3.02 (aiding and abetting) and 54-1215(3)(c) and (d) improper use of seal and signature and sealing work not done under his responsible charge.

Sanction – admonishment, $500 fine. April 16, 1992.

93.16 Charles Sudweeks, P.E., Dwayne Sudweeks, P.E., Jerald N. Rowan, P.E. – Responsible Chg Findings of Fact – the matter involves a complaint from an electrical engineer P.E. toward Messrs. Sudweeks (mechanical engineers) regarding 10.01.02.006.01 – assignments in field of competence and 10.01.02.006.02 aiding and abetting unlicensed practice, and toward Mr. Rowan (electrical engineer) alleging violations of 54-1215(3)(c) and (d) improper use of seal and sealing work not done under proper responsible charge, and 10.01.02.006.01 and 10.01.02.006.02. The complaint alleges Messrs. Sudweeks are sealing electrical work they are not competent to perform being mechanical engineers. It also alleges all three engineers hired and/or are involved with an unlicensed electrical designer who performs the work. The Board defines incompetence as a person who “lacks the qualities needed for effective action.” They reference case 83.06 as precedent. The Board found Charles Sudweeks was in compliance with 10.01.02.006.01. The evidence does not support a finding that he has attempted assignments outside of his field of competence. The Board found that the evidence presented was inadequate to sustain a charge that he was aiding and abetting an unregistered person. The Board found there was insufficient evidence to establish Dwayne Sudweeks violated either rule, as he does not “hold himself to practice all electrical engineering.” In the narrow area of practice, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he was practicing outside his field of competence (electrical design incidental to the mechanical engineering work). For Mr. Rowan, the Board did not find sufficient evidence related to aiding and abetting unregistered persons. With regard to the other charges, they had some concerns about the amount of time and supervision which qualifies as “responsible charge.” The average hours spend on projects seemed quite low. Mr. Rowan’s contact with (the electrical designer) was not as frequent as we think might be necessary. Reviewing work does not equate to “control and direction” of the work required by law. We admonish Mr. Rowan and caution him to avoid potential problems in the future.

Conclusions of Law – evidence at hearing was insufficient to establish a violation of Statutes and Rules. It is ordered the matter be dismissed. April 22, 1994.

96.13 Antone, R. Thompson, P.E. – Misconduct, Fraud, Primary Obligation Consent Agreement and Order – Mr. Thompson was charged with misconduct and fraud and violations of 10.01.02.005.01 – Primary Obligation, and 54-1220. Mr. Thompson attempted to use an out-of-state check to pay for groceries at a store in Burley, Idaho. When the store refused, Mr. Thompson displayed a camera and stated that if they didn’t take his check, he was a professional engineer in Idaho and would video the store and notify officials of structural deficiencies in the building.

Sanction – reprimand, apology to store manager, $500 fine. October 1, 1996.

18 | P a g e

96.20 Charles Kitchin, P.E. – Responsible Charge, Aid and Abet Findings of Fact – The case involves a small subdivision where an engineer was hired to design the site work, streets, utilities, etc. The owner dismissed the original engineer and hired a new firm and engineer. The owner didn’t want to pay for a complete rework of the project. The firm, Northridge Engineering took over the project and completed it. The work was signed and sealed by Mr. Kitchin. Mr. Kitchin was found to have substantially copied the work of another licensee (the complainant), changed the title block and used it as his own with minor changes. The Board found that Mr. Kitchin had not exercised responsible charge. He did not regularly do subdivision work, drainage design or sewer design and did not practice in his area of competence. Northridge engineering had unlicensed designers and drafters that did the revisions that Mr. Kitchin signed and sealed.

Conclusions of law – Mr. Kitchin violated 54-1215(3) Improperly affixing seal that aids and abets unlicensed practice, 3c – improperly affixing seal to original documents not prepared by licensee & 3d - work not done under licensees’ responsible charge and 10.01.02.006.02 Aiding and Abetting unlicensed practice.

Sanction – reprimand, $500 fine. May 10, 1996.

Supplemental Order regarding Kitchin and Northridge Engineering.

Findings of Fact – Mr. Kitchin was practicing outside his area of expertise and was not in responsible charge of the project. Mr. Kitchin violated 54-1213(3), 3c, & 3d. Violations of Mr. Kitchin were the responsibility of Northridge Engineering who employed him. The violations of Mr. Kitchin justify the revocation of Northridge’s Certificate of Authorization

98.21 Michael Wisdom, P.E., Kenneth Allen Tewksbury, P.E. – Seal Signed by Others Consent Order – The matter involves licensees who allowed drawings prepared by the company to use their seal and signed by another unlicensed person (office staff forged signatures). Mr. Wisdom, and Mr. Tewksbury agreed they violated Idaho Code 54-1215 by allowing their seal to be applied and their signature to be signed by someone other than themselves.

Sanction - $500 fine for Wisdom, $250 fine for Tewksbury. June 19, 1998

98.31 E.A. “Ted” Hoit, P.E. – Conflict of Interest, Confidentiality Consent Order – The matter involves a P.E. who agreed to review the floor of a residence that appeared to deflect and squeak more than the homeowner desired. It was a newly constructed home. Mr. Hoit came to the home and did a brief inspection and determined the deflections and structure were within allowed design tolerances. He had a prior relationship with the builder of the home and did not disclose that to the homeowner. After completing his review, he sent the report to the builder without the homeowner’s knowledge. The homeowner filed a complaint

19 | P a g e

against Mr. Hoit as the builder was to make repairs directed by the lender and once the report was received the lender no longer required the repairs. The builder eventually made the repairs (fastened the floor better to the joists and replaced carpet). An Alford plea was agreed to for violations of 10.01.02.010.02 Confidentiality for releasing information without the written consent of the homeowner, and 10.01.02.008.01 Conflict of Interest.

Sanction – Admonishment, $500 check to homeowner as restitution. December 10, 1998.

99.20 Richard H. Harbert, P.E., Richard L. Ballard, P.E. – Seal, Std of Care, Mat’l Discrep See 99.20 RH2 Engineering

02.09 John I. Marble, E.I.T. – Primary Obligation Protect Public Stipulation and Consent Order – The matter involves work by the respondent as a contractor, not E.I.T. on a log home construction project where the engineering details were not properly constructed or not constructed at all. The E.I.T. certificate had expired (not required to be active during mentoring period). He worked under the supervision of another PE for part of the project. While there is disagreement on the facts between the respondent and complainant, a consent order was stipulated to in order to settle the complaint. The respondent has a primary obligation to the public even when acting as a general contractor, he must recognize that obligation.

Sanction - $500 fine. August 24, 2002.

03.02 Jonathan Reimann, P.E. – Seal – Others Cannot Sign for PE Letter of Admonishment – The matter involves a failure to properly sign and seal a report. Mr. Reimann completed a report and submitted it to a county. The signature was by another individual with a note that said “for Jonathan Reimann.” The Board sent a letter of admonishment indicating the law does not allow such a signature, with a proviso that he could request an administrative hearing within 30 days of the date of the letter. Otherwise the admonishment will stand and be published in the news bulletin. August 14, 2002.

03.15 Karl Lee Huffaker, P.E. – Conflict of Interest, Seal Stipulation and Consent Order – The matter involves a city engineer who took on a pro bono truck shop project that resulting in him producing a map and other products related to a site that was in a conditional use permit area that was not signed and sealed. The CUP area was part of the aquafer for the city drinking water. The city engineer was expected to provide input to the permit as part of his role as city engineer. He stipulated to violations of 10.01.02.008.01 conflict of interest and 54-1215(3) failure to sign and seal work product.

20 | P a g e

Sanction – admonishment, $500 fine. June 13, 2003.

04.15 Warren Watts, P.E. – Responsible Charge, Aid and Abet, Seal Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves and engineer who took on assignments for the design of buildings that were designed by an unlicensed person (draftsman) to which he sealed and signed the design. He admitted he had an incomplete understanding of responsible charge. He agreed to work with architects for any building with human occupation. He admitted to violations of 54-1215(3)(c) – affixing seal to work not done under his responsible charge, 10.0102.00.02 aiding and abetting unlicensed practice and 10.01.02.006.03 affixing seal to documents not prepared under his responsible charge.

Sanction – admonishment, $2,000 fine, work with licensed architects on certain buildings, entitled to engage in foundation, structural, underground and site development design work to accommodate such buildings designed by others and pole buildings, so long as it does not include the practice of architecture. April 18, 2005.

04.18 Michael Lund, P.E./L.S. – Indiscriminate Criticism Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves statements made in public regarding the cost of a sewer project. The complaint alleges statements were made that injured the engineer and company performing a study in public in violation of 10.01.02.007.04 indiscriminate criticism. Mr. Lund admitted that he asked the question “Is it possible that the engineer is trying to intentionally keep the cost of the (project) low so that the project appears feasible?”

Sanction - admonishment. August 4, 2004.

04.19 Billy Manwill, P.E./L.S. – Conflict of Interest, Comp Multi Parties, Outside Work Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves an engineer who worked for both a city and a county as an employee. He also worked for a sewer district as a board member. He admitted to violations of 10.01.02.008.01 – conflict of interest, 10.01.02.008.02 – compensation from multiple parties, and 10.01.02.008.07 – work outside of regular employment. All of the allegations involve not getting written permission from employers prior to gaining outside employment.

Sanction – admonishment, $1,000 fine. August

21 | P a g e

07.12 Rodney Scott, P.E. – Field of Competence, Communicate Discrepancy Stipulation and Consent Order – Alford plea. The matter involves a design of retaining walls for building site lots that were not properly completed and the site not properly constructed. The retaining walls were not adequately designed. Mr. Scott was trained as a mechanical engineer. He took on an assignment as a structural engineer. The stipulation indicates violations of 10.01.02.006.01 – assignments outside his field of competency, and 10.01.02.005.04 for failing to communicate the discovery of a discrepancy.

Sanction – surrender of license. September 18, 2007.

07.16 Scott L. Bybee, P.E. – PE Seal Plat, Field of Competence Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a PE who signed and sealed two plats. He admitted to violations of 54-1215(b) – not stamping draft or preliminary on nonfinal plats, (c) original seal and signature only and (d) stamping only work done under licensee’s responsible charge, and 10.01.02.006.01 taking on assignments only his field of competence.

Sanction – reprimand, $2,000 fine, 5-month limit on engineering work to only that of city engineer (no private clients), ethics class, notify any prior clients where he was contracted for PLS work that he is not qualified by law to perform the work. August 23, 2007..

08.23 John W. Bessaw, P.E. – Seal, Responsible Charge Stipulation and Consent Order – The matter involves work performed by Mr. Bessaw in connection with a state laboratory, to review the design of the laboratory to assure it met Biosafety Level 3 standards. Mr. Bessaw was a project manager of Washington Group and did not perform the final engineering design and did not qualify as an exception to responsible charge under 54-1223(b). Mr. Bessaw’s admitted to a violation of 54-1215(3)(b) and 10.01.02.006.03 for failing to seal documents prepared under his responsible charge. WGI’s admitted to a violation of 10.01.02.006.01 for failing to assign competent licensees to the project.

08.36 Garry A. Pace, P.E. – Standard of Care Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves work performed by Mr. Pace in which he submitted subdivision development plans as a final work product and “For Construction” and were stamped and submitted to a city. The city returned the set with comments indicating significant deficiencies. Mr. Pace made changes and resubmitted them for construction permit approval. They were again returned with redlines as insufficient to meet the city standards for construction. He acknowledged his work was inferior to the acceptable standard of care in violation of 10.01.02.005.02.

Sanction – admonishment, $500 fine, ethics course. August 1, 2008.

22 | P a g e

09.05 Thomas E. Pestotnik, P.E. – Seal, Field of Competence, Misconduct Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves the work of Mr. Pestotnik on a pole building where he stamped the work of a pole barn design that was already constructed without a permit. An PE stamp was needed once the permitting authorities discovered it. The building also had a bathroom and bedroom (IBC building code vs IRC residential code). Mr. Pestotnik’s design review and calculations were found to be inadequate by the structural engineer hired by the Board staff to review this project. Mr. Pestotnik agreed to violations of 10.01.02.005.02 standard of care, 10.01.02.006.01 – assignments in field of competence, 54-1215(3)(d) use of seal and signature only for projects in responsible charge without the exemption provided in 54-1223(5) – standard design plans, 10.01.02.004.04 – misconduct, and 10.01.02.007.01 – complete, objective and truthful reports, statements or testimony, for providing incomplete copies of drawings to the Board staff investigating the matter, resulting in a misrepresentation of the facts concerning the investigation.

Sanction – reprimand, $1,000 fine, complete courses in IBC structural loads, wood structure design, ethics and limiting his practice utilizing his professional engineer license to: inspection of manufactured homes for banks and other lending institutions for the sole purpose of certifying the fitness of such structure for purposes of loan collateral. He shall not provide home inspections for residential customers, and shall not engage in any other design or engineering work that might otherwise be authorized by an Idaho professional engineer license. February 12, 2009.

09.06 Joel W. Petty, P.E. – Standard of Care, DEQ Approval for Report Stipulation and Consent Order – The matter involves a homeowners association that hired Mr. Petty to develop their water system to meet their increasing demands. Approval for the Preliminary Engineering Report from the DEQ was not obtained before the construction began on the project pursuant to Idaho Code 39-118. Mr. Petty maintains that his actions were lawful. He admitted that if the facts and allegations were proven at hearing, the could be found to be sufficient grounds for discipline.

Sanction – admonishment, $2,000 fine, ethics course. March 6, 2010.

09.11 Loren A. Jalbert, P.E. – Standard of Care, Objective & Truthful Statements Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves Mr. Jalbert’s work with a city to develop a new source of domestic water from a well. A test hole was drilled to determine the subsurface geology and hydrogeology. Two well logs were prepared, a draft and final. The principle difference between the two is the draft log showed consolidated material form 260-280 feet and from 320-335 and the final log indicates those sections were unconsolidated formations. The draft log was used in the bidding documents. Bidders were possibly misled to their detriment in

23 | P a g e

determining the type of equipment that could be used and the potential cost of the project, to the potential advantage of Mr. Jalbert’s company. The bids also excluded the use of cable drills, limiting the potential bidders, even though the successful bidder was allowed to use a cable drill. During the bidding process, a driller communicated his concern about the discrepancy between the two logs to Mr. Jalbert but he failed to recognize the significance of the issue, nor did he communicate this information to his client and he failed to change the bid specifications. He stipulated to violations of – 10.01.02.005.02 - standard of care, 10.01.02.005.06 – obligation to communicate with clients (rule no longer exists), and 10.01.02.007.01 – making complete, objective and truthful statements in reports, statements or testimony.

Sanction – admonishment, $1,000 fine. April 13, 2009

09.23 Scott A. Spaulding, P.E. – Comp Multi Parties, Opinions w/o Knowledge Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves the structural design of a building. The porches were constructed during winter when frost was present. The foundations for the porches failed and pulled the porches off the building. The contractor abandoned the job, and allegedly did not construct the porches as designed. The building owner redesigned the posts and beams but was required by the county building official to have the plans engineered. Mr. Spaulding made minor additions to the plans, sealed and signed and dated them. Finally, the contractor hired Mr. Spaulding to testify against his former client in court providing testimony to a hypothetical proposed by the contractor’s attorney that it would be acceptable to pour footings in an excavation with one inch of frost because the heat of hydration would melt the frost. Mr. Spaulding did not confirm the fact the footings were not poured under these conditions prior to stating that opinion. This conduct violated 10.01.02.008.02 for accepting compensation from multiple parties on the same project without first having written permission. He also violated 10.01.02.007.02 for expressing opinions on less than adequate knowledge of the facts in issue. He also stipulated to violations of 54-1215(3)(d) and 10.01.02.006.03 for inappropriate use of seal and signature under licensee’s responsible charge.

Sanction – reprimand, $2,000 fine, ethics course. July 31, 2009.

10.08 Scott A. Spaulding, P.E. – Standard of Care, Structural Load Paths Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves structural engineering work that was not compliant with building codes for residential construction by not adequately considering load paths and failing to adequately document calculations. Mr. Spaulding admitted violations of the 10.01.02.005.02 – standard of care.

Sanction – reprimand, $4,000 fine, wood design course required.

24 | P a g e

10.09 Michael Lund, P.E./P.L.S. – Public Stmt w/o Disclosure of Sponsor Stipulation and Consent Order – Mr. Lund was employed by a private consulting firm and engineer on a sewer district project. He was also retained by the board of the sewer district in inspect the work of the consulting firm for which he also was retained. Mr. Lund sent a personal letter and opinion survey criticizing the sewer board with resources provided by others. Mr. Lund was terminated by the sewer board. Mr. Lund admitted to violations of 10.01.02.007.03 – statements regarding public policy (not disclosing who is paying him to make his statements).

Sanction – reprimand, $200 fine, ethics course. November 8, 2012.

12.03 12.06 Charles A. Gay, P.E. – Competence, Injure Reputation Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves the work of Mr. Gay as contracted engineer for a county planning department. A housing project in a mountainous area required large rockery retaining walls to construct level pads for the housing to be built. The county planning department had to approved the erosion and runoff controls implemented by the construction contractor and designed by the engineers. The project approval was based in part by Mr. Gay’s review of the work and his conclusions. He made assertions regarding the geotechnical stability of the rockery walls and erosion controls indicating failure of the walls and erosion problems. Upon investigation – it appears most of his comments were not founded on the facts based on the owner’s engineers and staff investigator observations. There was no evidence of failure and Mr. Gay had misinterpreted what he thought were problems. He wrote a letter to the county planning with his findings that were later admitted as statements without factual evidence. Mr. Gay has a general civil engineering degree, but no special expertise in geotechnical engineering. Mr. Gay admitted to violations of 10.01.02.004.04 – incompetence, 10.01.02.00502 – standard of care 10.01.02.006.01 – assignments in field of competence, and 10.01.02.007.04 – injuring the reputation, prospects or employment of another licensee.

Sanction – admonishment, ethics course. March 28, 2012.

12.07 David Kirkham, E.I. – Notify Discrepancy, Injure Reputation Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves the mechanical systems installed in a high school. Mr. Kirkham worked for a fabricator and tasked to complete a testing, adjusting, and balancing report once the system was installed. He did this work 6 months late – after the building was occupied. The TAB report listed contractual deficiencies. Mr. Kirkham sent two letters in response to the deficiencies described in the report to the fabricator, and others blaming the contractual shortcomings on another P.E. (the designer), the commissioning agent, and the construction manager. He specifically recommended the P.E. be dismissed or replaced. He admitted to violations of 10.01.02.005.04 – failure to notify of a material discrepancy, error or omission, and 10.01.02007.04 – attempts to injure the reputation and employment prospects of another engineer.

25 | P a g e

Sanction – admonishment, ethics course. March 28, 2012.

12.13 Fredrick A Davies P.E. – QBS, Bid for Services Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves Mr. Davies responding to a city RFP, where hourly rates and bid amounts were submitted for the project. He quoted the lowest rate and was successful in obtaining the contract. He admitted to a violation of 10.01.02.009.05 – submitting information constituting a bid for services requested. Mr. Davies was an electrical engineer and his experience was electrical engineering. The services were civil engineering services. Price was considered more than work experience by the city in evaluating the contract RFP.

Sanction – reprimand, $1,000 fine. August 2, 2012.

26 | P a g e

BUSINESS ENTITY LAW & RULE VIOLATIONS

82.01 Winzler and Kelly, COA – Gross Negligence Findings of Fact – the matter involves a company with license surveyor employees and L.S.I.T who conducted a survey for a client. The survey was long delayed in getting recorded. There was an apparent error in the location of one quarter corner and corner record was missing. The company was in the process of relocating to another state and was often non-responsive to the complainant and sometimes to the Board. Within the context of Idaho Code, the Board construes Gross Negligence described in 54-1220 to mean an intentional failure to perform a manifest duty and reckless disregard of the consequences. Stated otherwise, we (Board) must find that the respondent was indifferent to his duty so far as other persons might be affected. There must be such want of care as to justify the presumption of willfulness or wantonness. Upon hearing, the Board said “we find that Winzler & Kelly, as an entity, failed to perform its duties in reckless disregard of the consequences. Winzler & Kelly was indifferent to its duties so far as other persons might be affected. The delay was so great in completing the (complainant’s) survey as to presume willfulness on Winzler & Kelly’s part.

Conclusions of Law – The petitioners proved gross negligence on the part of the respondent Winzler & Kelly. No evidence was presented regarding Mr. Avon. The complaint was dismissed against him.

Sanction: COA revocation. July 21, 1982.

Rehearing occurred where W&Z main office took charge and completed the work. As a result, the Board issued a new order denying the complainants allegations as meeting the gross negligence standard and dismissed the complaint. December 10, 1982.

95.21 Anderson Associates, Inc., COA – Full-time PE Not in Responsible Charge Findings of Fact - The complaint involves landowner allegations toward an engineering company who offered and completed Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental site assessments and a workplan, using a geologist to complete the work and not an engineer. The complaint also alleges a conflict of interest in that AAI completed work for the seller of the property and the buyer of the property. Another allegation addressed whether an engineer was in proper responsible charge of the business entity. The allegation focused on whether engineering work was performed and whether a geologist is authorized to complete the work versus and engineer. The board found that the practice act of both professions allowed such work. But if the work progressed to the design of engineered systems, then an engineer is required (addressed in the order upon reconsideration). The board made no finding of the conflict of interest as the exclusive practice of engineering had not been found. Finally, the board found that the business entity did not have a full-time engineer in responsible charge. The VP of the company was an engineer, but only offered part-time service as an independent consultant.

27 | P a g e

Conclusions of Law - The board dismissed the allegations of a non-engineer practicing engineering and conflict of interest. The board found AAI to have violated 54-1235 for not having an engineer in responsible charge of the business entity and for failing to timely notify the board of a change in responsible charge of the business entity (30 days by law).

Sanction – reprimand & $500 fine. September 27, 1995

A motion for reconsideration was heard. The board dismissed the arguments related to cost estimates being the practice of engineering, but reduced the fine to $400 because no one actually practiced engineering for the company since the board found the work was not exclusively the practice of engineering. November 21, 1995.

96.20 Northridge Engineering, COA – Responsible Charge, Outside Expertise Supplemental Order regarding Kitchin and Northridge Engineering.

Findings of Fact – Mr. Kitchin was practicing outside his area of expertise and was not in responsible charge of the project. Mr. Kitchin violated 54-1213(3), 3c, & 3d. Violations of Mr. Kitchin were the responsibility of Northridge Engineering who employed him. The violations of Mr. Kitchin justify the revocation of Northridge’s Certificate of Authorization.

Conclusions of law – Northridge violated 54-1235

Sanction – revocation of Certificate of Authorization, July 10, 1996

97.10 Meckel Engineering, Inc, COA and Jeffrey Block, P.E. – Injure Reputation Findings of Fact – The matter involves an engineering firm that competed for a contract with a public entity via QBS and submitted proposals to deliver design solutions for a levee project near St. Maries, Idaho. Meckel Engineering hired an unlicensed expert to assist them with developing a competing proposal. The unlicensed person, along with Mr. Block presented this proposal to the client. The allegations cited 10.01.02.007.04 Actions in regard to other registrants or certificate holders, Idaho Code 54-1222 Unlicensed practice and 10.010.02.009.03 Assignment on which others are employed. A supplemental allegation amending the complaint cited 10.01.0.006.02 Aiding and abetting unlicensed practice against Mr. Block. Based on the evidence at hearing, the Board is convinced that Meckel Engineering was attempting to injure the professional prospects or employment of the complainant in violation of Rule 10.01.02.007.04 by attempting to obtain a portion of the work for themselves. There is no question that Meckel knew the complainant had been selected for the contract. Even though Meckel knew about the selection, it continued to seek and opportunity to perform a portion of the contract. Because Meckel did not succeed in its attempt to obtain employment, Meckel has not violated 10.01.02.009.03. We therefore dismiss the charge (later rule change makes it a violation to attempt to obtain or actually obtain employment without first providing written notification).

28 | P a g e

With regard to the allegation that Idaho Code 54-1222 (unlicensed practice) has been violated by the unlicensed person, we find that there has been a violation. The unlicensed person was responsible for the technical proposal and is not a registered professional engineer in the State of Idaho. Neither Mr. Block nor Mr. Meckel were in responsible charge of the drawings or the project. Meckel should not have allowed the unlicensed person to practice professional engineering without proper registration.

We are concerned that Mr. Block may have inadvertently assisted the unlicensed person practice professional engineering without Idaho registration (violate 10.01.02.006.02). The limited degree of his involvement with the project and the subordinate position he holds in Meckel Engineering, mitigate the situation. We therefore dismiss the charge filed against him in this case.

Conclusions of law – The evidence is sufficient to establish violations by Meckel Engineering of IDAPA Rule 10.01.02.007.04 and Idaho Code 54-1222. The charge related to IDAPA Rule 10.01.02.009.03 is dismissed. The charge relating to IDAPA Rule 10.010.02.006.02 filed against Mr. Block is dismissed.

Sanction – Reprimand and $500 fine. February 12, 1997.

99.20 RH2 Engineering, Inc COA – Assignment Others Employed

Richard H. Harbert, P.E., Richard L. Ballard, P.E.

Introduction – The matter involves two engineering companies J-U-B (complainant) and RH2 (respondent) and their respective engineers. The complaint alleges RH2 violated Idaho Code sections 54-1215, and rules IDAPA 10.01.02.004.04, 005.02, 005.04, 006.02, 007.04, 008.01, and 009.03 of the Board’s rules of professional responsibility. The Board dismissed rule 005.04 for the reason that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Board dismissed rule 004.04 (definition of incompetence) and 008.01 (conflict of interest) for the reason that the prosecutor determined that he lacked the requisite evidence to successfully prosecute those allegations. The remaining allegations were prosecuted at hearing. The allegations include: failing to stamp and sign a final Value Engineering report in violation of 54-1215; accepting work on an assignment on which J-U-B was employed in violation of rule 009.03; indiscriminately criticizing J-U-B’s work in public in violation of rule 007.04; failure to inform J-U-B of material errors, omissions, or discrepancies in violation of rule 007.04 (now 5.04); and failure to meet the standard of care in violation of rule 005.02.

Findings of Fact – J-U-B was employed by a city to plan, design and construct sewer infrastructure. After a city election where a new city manager was selected, RH2 competed for and was selected to conduct a value engineering proposal of J-U-B’s work and future plans. After presenting the report, which appeared critical of the site selection and design proposal of J-U-B, later J-U-B was displaced by RH2 to take over the project. RH2 submitted a final VE report without signing and sealing it.

29 | P a g e

Conclusions of Law – 1. Failure to seal a final report 54-1215(3). The sealing and signing requirements are critical to the system of accountability that is a cornerstone of the regulation of professional engineers. Sealing and signing a document is the singular action by which a professional engineer signifies to the client and the public that the engineering work was done by or under the direction and control of an individual who has met the minimum qualifications for licensing as a professional engineer. When a professional engineer fails to seal and sign a document, he or she diminished the accountability of the profession. Four elements are necessary to find a violation of 54-1215(3): the document in question must be a land survey, report, plat, drawing or plan or contain specifications, design information or calculations; the document must lack the seal, signature or date; the document must be present to a client or public or governmental agency; and the document in question must final (later law changes indicated or it must be marked preliminary if not final). The board found the allegation met all four elements. 2. Accepting Employment for an assignment on which another is employed in violation of rule 10.01.002.009.03. In order to find a violation of this rule, we must find that each of the following elements are satisfied: one registrant or certificate holder must be employed for or have a contract to perform an assignment; another registrant or certificate holder must accept employment for the same assignment (note the rule changed in 1998 to prohibit seeking in addition to accepting work on which another is employed and to require written notification); the other registrant or certificate holder must accept such employment knowing that the first is employed for the same assignment; and the first registrant or certificate holder must not have been informed of the acceptance of the assignment. Each element is satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. 3. Indiscriminate criticism in violation of rule 10.01.02.007.04. In order to find a violation of the rule we must find the following elements: criticism by one registrant or certificate holder that is indiscriminate, in public, and concerns the other’s work. Criticism alone is not actionable under this rule. The Board has interpreted the rule to prohibit criticism or accusations not based on careful selection of facts or discerning taste. The Board found insufficient evidence to find a violation. 4. Failure to communicate a material error in violation of rule 10.02.007.04 (now 005.04). The rule does not require mere differences of opinion to be brought to the attention of a fellow professional, where an issue is so great as to justify blackballing a project for fear of the lives and property of a community, then the issue is material, even if not conclusively proven. We find that each violated this rule. 5. Violation of the standard of care rule 10.02.005.02. This rule has two distinct causes, pointing out that the duty to act in accordance with the standard of care for the profession is owed to both the public in general and to one’s client. Compliance with the statutes governing the practice of professional engineering and the Board’s rules of professional responsibility are perhaps the most basic elements of the standard of care for the profession. Each respondent has violated one or more of those statutes and rules, therefore we conclude that each has violated rule 5.02. Furthermore, failure to communicate with J-U-B regarding specific design concepts, cost estimates, and field conditions does not satisfy the standard expected of a professional engineer.

Sanction – If we had found a violation of all counts prosecuted, we likely would have revoked the licenses and certificates of all involved. Harbert’s PE license suspended for 1

30 | P a g e

year, complete ethics course; Ballard is reprimanded and must complete ethics course; RH2 is reprimanded, fined $2,000, designate another licensee other than Harbert as its engineer in responsible charge; respondents motion to strike is granted (introduction of new evidence too late). October 28, 1999.

Mr. Harbert failed to complete the ethics course and his license was revoked. RH2 appealed the Board’s decision to court. The court upheld the Board’s order in its entirety. The case was appealed to district court and the supreme court and the Board’s ruling was upheld.

08.23 Washington Group International, Inc. COA – Competency for Assignments Stipulation and Consent Order – The matter involves work performed by Mr. Bessaw in connection with a state laboratory, to review the design of the laboratory to assure it met Biosafety Level 3 standards. Mr. Bessaw was a project manager of Washington Group and did not perform the final engineering design and did not qualify as an exception to responsible charge under 54-1223(b). Mr. Bessaw’s admitted to a violation of 54-1215(3)(b) and 10.01.02.006.03 for failing to seal documents prepared under his responsible charge. WGI’s admitted to a violation of 10.01.02.006.01 for failing to assign competent licensees to the project.

14.02 Elite Edge Engineers, COA & Lisa Vernon, P.E. – Misrepresent Qualifications Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves engineers that were formerly employed at Elite Edge Engineers. After they moved to other firms, Elite Edge engineering continued to advertise on the website they were employed at Elite Edge and several projects completed by the former engineers continued to advertise technical capabilities that no longer existed at the company. The former employees requested Ms. Vernon remove their names and projects that were accomplished prior to employment at Elite Edge Engineering. Ms. Vernon was slow to respond to their request. An Alford plea was made with alleged violations of 10.01.02.009.02 – representation of qualifications.

Sanction – admonishment for both Ms. Vernon and Elite Edge Engineers, fine of $1,500 for Elite Edge Engineers and fine of $1,000 for Lisa Vernon, and agreement to immediately lock down the website and reflect it is under construction until all necessary changes are completed as required by rule 009.02. February 10, 2014.

14.04 14.05-14.07 Brown and Caldwell, COA – Communicate Discrepancies Stipulation and Consent Order – the matter involves a wastewater treatment plant in a city where one engineering firm was dismissed and another was hired to complete the construction. The firm that was hired was told not to talk to the former firm by city officials regarding material

31 | P a g e

discrepancies, errors or omissions and made public statements of criticisms. The matter is settled with an Alford plea regarding violations of 10.01.02.005.04 – obligation to communicate material discrepancies, errors, or omissions. The allegations toward the individuals were dropped and only the company agreed to the plea.

Sanction – reprimand, $2,500 fine. Individual licensee charges dismissed with prejudice. November 6, 2014.

32 | P a g e

UNLICENSED PRACTICE LAW VIOLATIONS

89.17 Cody Walden, unlicensed professional engineering Consent Order and Stipulation – the matter involves an unlicensed person holding himself out and/or practicing professional engineering without a license. Mr. Walden advertised his business under “Engineers – Environmental.” The staff received assurances he had engineers on staff. The staff validated none were licensed and requested he discontinue holding himself or his company out as practicing professional engineering. Later it is found that he offered engineering services to a homeowner’s association. He is informed this action is a violation of Idaho Code. He is later investigated for the extent of his offering and work and the Board authorizes counsel to proceed with a cease and deist demand. Mr. Walden agrees to comply. The Board receives a 3rd complaint of Mr. Walden using business cards offering Landscape Engineering. The Board authorizes counsel to seek and did file a court injunction. Mr. Walden eventually settled with a consent order to discontinue using term “engineering” and offering and practicing professional engineering. September 21, 1990.

90.08 Peter L. Peterson, unlicensed professional land surveying Court Order – the matter involves Mr. Peterson who was contracted to perform a survey. The survey proved to be inaccurate and a fence and other features were constructed. The landowner sued and recovered damages from Mr. Peterson. Subsequently, the Board requested the local prosecuting attorney file a criminal case against Mr. Peterson. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and signed a settlement agreement approved by the judge, and the case dismissed. He was fined $200 (suspended) and court costs. July 8, 1990.

The prior executive director indicated Mr. Peterson has violated the court order and continued to practice professional land surveying. He was sentenced to jail time for this violation. Documentation of this action has not been found.

90.25 Al Marsden, unlicensed professional engineering Consent Agreement – the matter involves an unlicensed person who prepared a report related to a drainage plan for a planned subdivision and submitted the report to a county for approval using the name of an engineering company that had not completed the report. The engineering company’s engineer completed some of the report but refused to sign and seal the entire report as it was not done under his responsible charge. Mr. Marsden agreed to sign a consent agreement to cease and desist the practice of professional engineering. August 16, 1990.

03.10 Wesley F. Watson, unlicensed professional land surveying Stipulation and Consent Agreement – the matter involves an unlicensed person who admitted to practicing professional land surveying for many clients. Mr. Watson stipulated to cease and desist practicing, comply with the Act (54-12) and refund all clients listed fees collected for his

33 | P a g e

services. The Board agreed to not pursue other actions either criminal or injunctive, unless Mr. Watson is found to practice in the future. May 3, 2003.

03.13 Brent Bingham, P.E. (expired) – Court Injunction Court Injunction to prohibit practice – the matter involves a former licensee who continued to practice engineering in Idaho after the Board refused to renew his license. Mr. Bingham was providing geotechnical engineering services. In 1992, Mr. Bingham submitted an unsigned, unsealed engineering report. Upon investigation, he was non-responsive to inquiries and non-responsive to the notice to appear at hearing. The Board would have revoked his license, but since it was lapsed, they refused to renew for a period of 5-years and until he demonstrates compliance with the practice laws of Idaho. Mr. Bingham was subsequently found to be practicing engineering in Idaho in 2003. The Board filed a complaint in district court in 2003, and the court granted the motion for injunctive relief. September 4, 2003.