THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 18-005 RDO continued
17. Later during the April 18 meeting, the Complainant requested that a formal review letter be sent to him instead of proceeding further, and the Member’s colleague indicated that such a letter (the “Review Letter”) could be done for the end of the following day. 18. On April 19, 2017, the Member and his colleague sent a report outlining the findings of their Review (the “Report”) to the Owner and the Architect. However, neither the Member nor his colleague sent the Report or the Review Letter to the Complainant. 19. On April 20, 2017, the Complainant received the Report from the Owner. On the same day, the Complainant responded to the Report via email to the Owner, and the Owner forwarded the Complainant’s response to the Member. One issue raised by the Complainant was that the Review was performed on the outdated set of drawings. Later that same day, the Member received the updated set of drawings from the Architect. 20. The Member compared the two sets of drawings and determined there was no difference except for two drawings. The Member’s opinion was not changed by the differences. 21. The Owner released the Complainant from the Projects within six days of the Report having been sent to the Owner. The Owner hired the Company to replace the Complainant as the structural engineering contractor on the Projects. Complainant without assuring the Complainant was aware. b. He provided his critique findings for the first time in front of the Complainant’s client, thus preventing the Complainant the opportunity to defend his designs. c. His conduct sufficiently questioned the technical competence of the Complainant in front of the Complainant’s client that the client released the Complainant from employment. D. CONDUCT 22. The Member freely and voluntarily admits: a. He critiqued the design work of the
8. The Email was sent to an email address that does not exist. 9. Understanding that the Member’s colleague sent the Notification Letter to the Complainant, the Member made no effort to contact the Complainant prior to conducting a review of the Complainant’s design work. 10. Before noon on April 17, 2017, the Member and his colleague picked up the drawings from the print shop. Unbeknownst to the Member and his colleague, the set of drawings provided by the Architect were not the most current set of drawings for the Projects. The Complainant had released an updated set of drawings about four months after releasing the original set. 11. On April 17, 2017, at 6:30 p.m., the Architect informed the Complainant of the April 18 meeting at the Owner’s office. The Architect had told the Complainant that it would just be the Complainant, the Architect, and the Owner at that meeting. 12. The Member knew that the Complainant was going to be at the April 18 meeting, but he was not aware of the Architect’s inaccurate communications with the Complainant. 13. The Complainant, the Owner, the Member, his colleague, and the Architect attended the April 18 meeting. 14. At the beginning of the April 18 meeting, the Member became aware that the Complainant was surprised at his attendance in the April 18 meeting, and the Member became aware that the Complainant did not receive the Notification Letter from the Member’s colleague. 15. The April 18 meeting was the first time the Complainant was aware that the Member was specifically reviewing the Complainant’s designs. 16. The Member and his colleague asked the Complainant if he would continue with the meeting. The Complainant agreed to proceed with the April 18 meeting, but did not expect his work would be critiqued during the April 18 meeting. However, during the April 18 meeting, the Member and his colleague verbally discussed their concerns with the Complainant’s designs.
WINTER 2018 PEG | 51
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker