Opinion ID: 2334179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Legal Basis for the Board's Complaint

Text: The central point of the board's case against Bird is that he signed and affixed his seal to the Cardinal Woods Commercial plans, much of which originally was the work of architect McInnis and his associates. [10] The board charged, and the AHC agreed, that this constituted a violation of section 327.411 and regulations promulgated under the statute, specifically 4 CSR 30-3.030(7) and 4 CSR 30-13.010. A licensed architect or engineer is required to have a personal seal that the licensee is to affix to all final documents including but not but not limited to, plans, specifications, estimates, plats, reports, surveys, proposals and other documents or instruments prepared by the licensee, or under such licensee's immediate personal supervision, and such licensee shall be held personally responsible for the contents of all such documents sealed by such licensee. Section 327.411.1 (emphasis added.) The AHC decision raises the question of whether Bird was required to have exercised immediate personal supervision over architect McInnis in order to have affixed his seal to drawings included the work of McInnis. One possible answer to this question  advocated by the board  is that such supervision is precisely what the statute requires and that Bird has violated the law because he did not supervise McInnis, even though Bird had no relationship with McInnis. The other possible answer, suggested by the context of the statute and regulations, is that the immediate personal supervision requirement applies to preparation of documents by non-licensed personnel, such as draftsmen, and is intended to ensure that all drawings and documents are prepared under the standards of the regulated professions, architecture and engineering. In any event, the licensed professional who signs and seals the documents shall be personally and professionally responsible for them. Section 327.401.1. [11] After the AHC found that Bird was subject to discipline, the board held a hearing to impose discipline. Bird complains in this appeal that, during the disciplinary hearing, the assistant attorney general urged the board to impose substantial discipline because architect McInnis' career has been ruined by this case. As to that, it may be noteworthy that McInnis sued the client, Landmark, for the additional amounts he claimed were due. McInnis not only lost the claim for additional compensation, but Landmark was awarded $15,906  the amount Landmark had paid McInnis  in its counterclaim against McInnis for failing to provide drawings that would be approved by the city of Independence. [12] Whatever else may be said of the attorney's comment, it seems to express the view that the purpose of regulating the professions of architecture and engineering is to provide financial protection for the members of those regulated professions. This view indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose behind professional regulation. While some financial protection of licensees may be an effect of professional regulation, the public's protection  not the licensees'  is the purpose of professional regulation. Duncan v. Missouri Board for Architects, 744 S.W.2d 524, 535-536 (Mo.App.1988). This purpose is nowhere better shown than in Duncan, in which the court of appeals reviewed the discipline cases brought by the board against a group of engineers involved in designing the Hyatt Regency Hotel walkways that collapsed in Kansas City in 1981, killing 114 persons and injuring about 186. Id. at 527. The court upheld the discipline of the engineers who, among other things, affixed their seals but failed to review shop drawings prepared by employees of the steel fabricator for the structure that collapsed. Id. at 542. The version of section 327.411 in effect at that time referred to affixing the seal to documents prepared by him, or under his direction. Id. at 535. The conduct at issue in Duncan, however, was not the failure to supervise, but the failure to review and check plans and drawings for which the licensed engineers were legally responsible. Id. at 541. In the case against Bird, the AHC found that, by signing and affixing his seal to the Cardinal Woods Commercial plans, Bird violated regulations 4 CSR 30-030(7) and 4 CSR 30-13.010. 4 CSR 30-13.010 defines immediate personal supervision, the phrase used in the statute. The regulation describes the conditions under which [s]pecifications, drawings, reports, engineering surveys or other documents will be deemed to have been prepared under the immediate personal supervision of an individual licensed with the Board. 4 CSR 30-13.010(1). The regulation also states that an individual licensed with the Board shall supervise each step of the preparation of the specifications, drawings, reports, engineering surveys or other documents and has input into their preparation prior to their completion. Id. at subsection 3. Under the statute, affixing one's seal to a document makes an engineer personally responsible for the contents of all such documents sealed by such licensee unless the licensee specifically disclaims responsibility for some document relating to or intended to be used for any part of the engineering project. Section 327.411.1 to 3. Placement of personal liability upon the licensee furthers the interest of public safety by providing extra incentive for licensees to guarantee their work. The AHC acknowledged that, in modifying the plans for Cardinal Woods Commercial, Bird thoroughly reviewed both his changes and McInnis' work to ensure the safety and quality of the plans. By affixing his seal to the plans, Bird became personally responsible for any defect in both his modifications and McInnis's original plans. Section 327.411, and by extension 4 CSR 30-13.030, impose an affirmative duty on licensees to ensure the quality of the work they complete and to accept personal responsibility for documents they seal. In authorizing the board to punish Bird for affixing his seal to the modified plans originally drafted by McInnis or his associates, the AHC misconstrued both section 327.411 and 4 CSR 30-13.030 as being prohibitive in nature. Section 327.411 provides that a licensee shall affix the seal to all final documents ... prepared by the licensee, or under such licensee's immediate personal supervision. Id. 4 CSR 30-13.030 defines what qualifies as immediate personal supervision for purposes of clarifying the kind of supervision that triggers the licensee's duty to affix his seal. By affixing his seal to the plans, Bird fulfilled his affirmative duty under both the statute and the regulation. Since he fulfilled his affirmative duty under the statute, the AHC's authorization of Bird's discipline was improper. In authorizing the board's discipline of Bird based on a violation of 4 CSR 30-13.030, the AHC misinterpreted the statutory authorization underlying the regulation. The purpose of section 327.411 is to impose liability upon licensees in the case of defect by requiring a licensee who affixes his or her seal to be fully responsible for the work. Regulation 4 CSR 30-13.030 cannot go beyond this statutory purpose. The regulation, therefore, may define immediate personal supervision only for the purpose of a licensee's personal liability. As interpreted by the AHC and the board, regulations 4 CSR 30-3.030(7) and 4 CSR 30-13.030  in which the board explains immediate personal supervision  go well beyond the purpose and authority of section 327.411. Contrary to the AHC's decision in this case, the regulations do not function to protect the property interest of other co-licensees. The AHC also found that Bird violated 4 CSR 30-3.030(7). Unlike 4 CSR 30-13.030, the language of 4 CSR 30-3.030(7), which was repealed in 2004, is prohibitive in nature. 4 CSR 30-3.030(7) prohibits [t]he signing and sealing of ... documents or instruments not prepared by the professional engineer or under his/her immediate personal supervision. To be faithful to the purpose of section 327.411, the regulation means that a licensed engineer may not seal documents prepared by an unlicensed subordinate unless the engineer has directly supervised the unlicensed individual's work. Subsection 7 does not apply to situations in which two licensees work separately on a project. As indicated by the use of the statutory term immediate personal supervision, subsection 7 is limited to prohibiting a licensee from affixing his seal to the work of non-licensees in the absence of immediate personal supervision. This prohibition ensures that engineers supervise the work of non-licensee employees in order to ensure the safety and quality of their work which, in turn, protects public safety. Because it applies to supervision of non-licensee employees, and not to prior work of licensees such as McInnis, the AHC incorrectly authorized discipline of Bird for violating subsection 7. The regulation cannot require that Bird supervise McInnis, another licensee. The regulation can and does, however, offer a licensee the option of specifying which portions of the completed work the licensee takes responsibility for and which portions of the work are the responsibilities of other licensees. Subsection 6 of 4 CSR 30-13.030 states that [i]n the instance of one (1) licensee performing design for other licensees to incorporate into his/her documents, each licensee shall seal, date and sign those documents, using the appropriate disclaimer for clarification of each licensee's responsibility.  It follows that if a licensee does not use the appropriate disclaimer for clarification of each licensee's responsibility,  the licensee becomes responsible for the entire project. By not delineating his modifications from McInnis's earlier work, Bird assumed responsibility for the entire project, a consequence that Bird fully accepted. Bird may face professional discipline if the final product to which he affixes his seal does not meet the standards of the profession as embodied in the licensing statute. There is, however, no contention that the final work signed and sealed by Bird was deficient. The AHC and the board have no authority to impose discipline on a licensee simply for not distinguishing his work from that of another licensee where the licensed professional takes responsibility for the entire work. The AHC erred in focusing on the immediate personal supervision language of the statute and regulations and overlooking the common meaning of the word prepared. The statute says prepared, not drafted. The use of the word prepared  in the context of affixing a seal to plans, drawings and other such documents  does not mean that the licensee in fact drafted each piece from scratch. If prepared means that each work is thoroughly the original product of the licensee, it would follow that architectural and engineering drawings and details cannot contain portions that are non-unique, such as non-original customary features or details copied from the work of others, perhaps from standard texts, or from previously used drawings. The statute and regulations are not intended to ensure that all works of licensees are thoroughly original or to enforce copyright protections. [13] The statute and regulations were enacted to ensure that a licensed professional such as Bird takes full personal responsibility for the documents that are prepared, affixed with his seal, and submitted to the governmental authorities for permits and provided to the builders to use in constructing a project. After Bird reviewed the plans, drawings and other documents, he made modifications so that they would be accepted by the city. Bird conducted a thorough review of the documents; there is nothing in the record to suggest that Bird did not check and re-calculate, as appropriate, all of the computations, measurements, and drawings, including those that had been drafted by architect McInnis and his associates. In doing so, Bird prepared the documents  within the meaning of the statute  for submission to the city and for use in building the project. By affixing his seal, and thereby accepting responsibility for the entire project, Bird acted in compliance with the statute.