|
DALE BEAUCHAMP
Editor's Note: APEGGA Council requires
that The PEGG publish Discipline Committee decisions. Following
are the details of a committee decision of May 8, 2003,
involving
the above.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the provisions in the Engineering, Geological
and Geophysical Professions Act, APEGGA's Investigative Committee
suspended Mr. Beauchamp's registration in July 2002, pending
a decision of the Discipline Committee.
On Aug. 27, 2002, the Discipline Committee received a referral
for a discipline hearing from the Investigative Committee.
After obtaining the availability of all necessary parties,
a hearing date of Jan. 31, 2002, was set.
On Oct. 24, 2002, the Discipline Committee issued a formal
notice of hearing and served copies on Mr. Beauchamp and on
the Investigative Committee. At the same time, the Discipline
Committee, according to its standard process for disclosure
of documents, requested that the parties provide, to the panel
and to each other, copies of documents on which they intended
to rely at the hearing.
On Jan. 14, 2003, the Discipline Committee received documents
from the Investigative Committee. No documents were received
from Mr. Beauchamp. All submissions were provided to the panel
on Jan. 24, 2003.
Subsequently, the hearing scheduled for Jan. 31, 2003, was
adjourned. The Discipline Committee issued notices on Feb.
25, 2003, indicating that the hearing would be held on March
28, 2003.
THE HEARING
The hearing was held before the panel at the Association's
offices in Edmonton on March 28, 2003. Barry Massing represented
the Investigative Committee. Mr. Beauchamp was not present,
having forwarded an e-mail message the morning of March 28,
2003, stating that he would not be attending the hearing.
THE CHARGES (ALLEGATIONS)
As noted in the notice of hearing, the matters to be decided,
as brought by the Investigative Committee before the panel,
are:
1. That Dale Beauchamp failed to comply with Regulation 150/99,
Section 19, in that he has not produced satisfactory documentation
in support of his activities undertaken in accordance with
the Continuing Professional Development Program.
2. That Dale Beauchamp failed to comply with Bylaw 32.1 in
not responding to requests from the Association, dated June
16, 2000, February 21, 2001, June 22, 2001.
3. That by reason of the foregoing, Dale Beauchamp has engaged
in unprofessional conduct and breached Rule #10 of the APEGGA
Code of Ethics.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
1. With respect to Item 1, above, the panel finds that Mr.
Dale Beauchamp failed to comply with Regulation 150/99, Section
19, in that he did not produce satisfactory documentation
in support of his activities undertaken in accordance with
the Continuing Professional Development Program.
Section 20 of the General Regulation under the Engineering,
Geological and Geophysical Professions Act states: "on
request of the Practice Review Board … a professional
member must satisfy the Board that the person is complying
with the requirements of the program." Although the Continuing
Professional Development Program has been the subject of discussion
among some members of APEGGA, the profession as a whole, with
the sanction of the Government of Alberta, has implemented
a CPD program that is designed to promote lifelong learning
and community activities. The program is intended to enhance
both the individual member's performance and his or her ability
to serve the public. Compliance with the program is not optional.
2. With respect to Item 2, above, the panel finds that Mr.
Beauchamp failed to comply with Bylaw 32.1 in not responding
to requests from the Association, dated June 16, 2000, Feb.
21, 2001, and June 22, 2001.
Professional members must respond promptly and appropriately
to any duly served communication of a regulatory nature from
APEGGA. The Investigative Committee presented evidence that
Mr. Beauchamp was duly served with three notices requiring
his response. Mr. Beauchamp was unwilling or unable, after
three formal requests from the Association, to provide documentation
supporting his CPD Program activities.
3. In addition, the Panel finds that Mr. Beauchamp failed
to comply with Section 60(1) of the EGGP Act that required
him to appear as a witness before the Discipline Committee
to provide evidence with respect to the matters in question.
Mr. Beauchamp was served notice to attend the disciplinary
panel hearing originally scheduled for Jan. 31, 2003, and
re-scheduled for March 28, 2003. The panel concludes that
Mr. Beauchamp deliberately chose not to respond to the Association's
requests for information and subsequent formal notices. Mr.
Beauchamp advised APEGGA by e-mail at 6:50 a.m. on the morning
of the hearing that he would not appear before the disciplinary
panel.
4. The panel finds that the foregoing conduct of Mr. Dale
Beauchamp constitutes unprofessional conduct and is in violation
of Rule 10 of the Code of Ethics.
Mr. Beauchamp himself conveyed to APEGGA in his March 28,
2003, e-mail message that "my actions in this matter
have been extremely unprofessional."
THE ORDERS
On April 14, 2003, the Director of Professional Practice
wrote to the two parties indicating that the Panel had asked
him to determine the costs associated with the hearing. He
indicated that he would provide a copy of the letter listing
the costs to the panel, along with any comments by the parties,
on April 21, 2003. Mr. Beauchamp submitted comments, which
were provided to the panel.
Pursuant to the panel's findings, the Investigative Committee's
submission on orders given at the hearing, Mr. Beauchamp's
admission in his March 28, 2003, e-mail message and his comments
in response to costs of the hearing, the panel makes the following
orders:
1. That Mr. Beauchamp be reprimanded for unprofessional conduct.
2. That Mr. Beauchamp pay to the Association the amount of
$1,663.01, being the full costs of the hearing.
Since June 2000, Mr. Beauchamp was offered several opportunities
to comply with the requirements of the CPD Program. Failing
that, Mr. Beauchamp could have avoided the disciplinary hearing
entirely by agreeing with the Investigative Committee's conclusions
in the stipulated order. The panel is of the view that he
unnecessarily extended the time and expense of bringing this
issue to a conclusion, and that he should bear responsibility
for the costs.
3. That Mr. Beauchamp pay to the Association a fine in the
amount of $3,000.
Mr. Beauchamp's actions (or inaction) constitute a deliberate
and repeated pattern of ignoring legal requirements of the
EGGP Act, the related regulations, and the authority of APEGGA
to administer the legislation. The panel believes a fine is
an appropriate sanction to address Mr. Beauchamp's behaviour.
4. That Mr. Beauchamp's registration with APEGGA continue
to be suspended indefinitely until such time as:
a) the aforementioned costs and fine are paid in full; and
b) the regulatory requirements of the CDP Program with respect
to Mr. Beauchamp's practice are satisfied.
5. That this decision be published in The PEGG as well as
in Edmonton, Calgary and Grande Prairie newspapers.
The outcome of this particular case should serve as a general
deterrent to others who take a blasé attitude to CPD
compliance or to their relationship with the governing body.
The hallmark of a profession is its ability to self-govern.
APEGGA, a regulatory body with legal authority over its members,
is charged with implementing the public will as outlined in
the EGGP Act and Regulations. The public demands accountability
and responsiveness from the regulatory body and from regulated
members.
|
