Posted on 06/20/2010 12:21:05 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative
Frank Patton is the name of the unlicensed Minerals Management Service (MMS) Engineer who approved the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. No, that's not his picture above. That's another matter for another day.
Funny, but I can't find Tony Hayward's name on any of those, smoking gun, internal emails being touted around by the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, but I do see Frank Patton's name. Yep, on April 16, 2010 - 'Approved By' - Frank Patton.
From the trial (or hearing) the other day, you would think it was Congress' job to oversee and investigate private businesses. I somehow don't think that was part of the original plan. What I would like to see is a subcommittee investigating why federal workers are not required to maintain credentials equal to, or greater than, those whom they regulate.
Who's regulating the regulators? Unlicensed engineers are approving plans submitted by licensed engineers. When are we going to have a trial about stuff that really matters?
According to licensed Professional Engineer (PE), and whistleblower, Joe Carlson, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), just as other federal agencies, does not require their Engineers to be professionally licensed. Instead, federal agencies have invoked a special 'exemption' whereby unlicensed federal workers are above reproach. In other words, "We don't need no stinking license." You've got to be kidding me!
As one who holds two professional licenses (not in engineering), each with its own rigorous set of ongoing requirements, I have nothing but contempt for the federal government, the Congress, and our feckless POTUS, in this matter. There are no excuses. How is an unlicensed 'engineer' supposed to have the ability, training, and the professional integrity to review and approve plans designed by professionally licensed engineers?
What's worse is the fact that Frank Patton can't be blamed, fired, reprimanded or fined. Why not, you say? Because, remember, Frank Patton is not even licensed. But Congress can go around blaming Tony Hayward, who is also not licensed, and whose name is curiously not found on any of those damning internal emails. I do however see the names: Brian Morel, Mark Hafle, and Richard Miller. Perhaps they are licensed and should be brought up on charges by the appropriate engineering licensing board. And as for Frank Patton, I just wonder how many safety awards are hanging in his office?
Following are a few excerpts from Joe Carlson:
Frank Patton is the unlicensed MMS engineer who approved the BP drilling plan. During his May 11, 2010 testimony (see pages 252-314) to the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation, he admitted, (see pages 274-76), that he failed to ensure the BP Drilling Plan complied with federal regulation at 30 C.F.R. §250.416(e), because it did not contain the required information about the design and performance adequacy of the blow-out preventer. The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which live-blogged the hearing, described his testimony here.
If MMS required its engineers to be PE’s, then Mr. Patton would have been required to “blow whistles,” publicly if necessary, to prevent BP’s inadequate drilling plan from being approved. This could well has resulted in his being fired or otherwise discriminated against at MMS, given widespread, longstanding, MMS corruption. However, had MMS required Mr. Patton to be a PE, then anyone could now file a professional misconduct complaint against him with the Louisiana Professional Engineering Licensing Board, for his professional negligence/incompetence in approving a plan that failed to comply with federal regulation. If he lost his PE license as a result, then MMS could fire him. If he had been a PE, Frank Patton would have made sure the BP drilling plan contained the required information about its blowout preventer and perhaps this unprecedented disaster is averted....
The federal government has a duty to protect American health and safety, at work and elsewhere, including our environment. PE’s, by law, must “hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public in the performance of professional duty.” That federal agencies exempt their engineers from having the legal obligations of PE’s is nonsensical and a contributing cause to the disaster the Gulf and many other accidents and disasters, such as the recent Upper Big Branch mine disaster which killed 29 in West Virginia.
Here is a formula we can all live with:
Federal PE licensure + reformed federal whistleblower protection = much improved workplace and public health and safety in America.
Read More at the Source: Whistleblowers Protection Blog
I can't tell you the number of times, I have had to tell people that I can not do something they want done, because it would be against the cannon of ethics and state laws I am sworn to uphold.
Professional engineers are licensed because of the importance of protection the public health and safety.
Industrial and governmental exemptions are at times a serious abuse of the public trust. Actually, what is interesting is how government and/or industrial management so often doesn't value what true engineers can provide. Having said that getting a PE doesn't guarantee competence, but it does indicate a certain self selection and commitment to one’s profession.
I’m one in....I lost count, I think 7 or 8 states.
The state boards with a couple of notable exceptions simply collect fees and do little of value.
It’s a disgrace.
The engineering profession is not valued because the boards do not vigorously enforce the laws. Unenforced laws = no laws.
Rarely does it come up - many think it is simply a way to keep engineering fees inflated - but when engineering failures do make the news - they are usually big deals.
I think there is a legitimate role for upholding professional standards for licensing purposes - I just wish there was an easier way to get reciprocal arrangements to practice in other states.
State Engineering boards are fee-collecting shills and are full of lazy technical dinosaurs that have no apparent interest in the profession except for the half-dozen or so blatant violators that by-and-large get their attention.
When I graduated, I had to make a decision whether to sit the EIT exam. When I asked around, there wasn’t much way of getting to the PE level in computer/software/communications - most of the EIT and PE exams back then were, in the majority, civil engineering exams. There was one question about writing a fragment of FORTRAN, one electrical science question, etc. The majority of the exam was civil and mechanical engineering - which while important, misses a huge area of liability and public safety in the use of software systems.
In the end, I decided not to sit the EIT, simply because I could see no applicability going forward, and few to no PE’s under which I could work to meet the requirement for industry experience.
The MMS and SEC are wonderful examples of what you say, ie “Unenforced laws == no laws.”
I hear you. Being licensed in my profession(s) is no guarantee of competence either, but it makes one accountable to a set of standards and a board. Unlicensed government employees don’t appear to be accountable to anyone, and in the case of the MMS, only to a set if standards written in 1991 (or thereabouts) by God knows who.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.