Liability and ethics, Government vs private 2

[sc]

Four words on government agency staff in general,

"All care no responsibility"

This may not seem fair or true, but at the end of the day who usually ends up wearing the court costs and guilt?

Who am I to state this? a person who has worked both in local government (close association with some government departments including VicRoads and Dept Natural Resources ...) and private industry. You can always tell where a person works by discussing liability with them.

I am currently involved in one such case. A local government body is involved in an issue of construction quality with a farmer and contractor. The LG staff insist that they are only responsible for ensuring a safe site (yet they approve construction). The inspecting staff member expressed his "care" about the construction quality in terms that it may be unacceptable, however when pressed he took no "responsibility" for his comments or the effect that they had on contract payment. This LG staff person has now asked the LG council to assist him in a legal sense now that the " ...." is hitting the fan. Again all care no responsibility.

I think that the liability laws and LG laws need to be changed in some way to ensure that staff whilst acting for their council are partially responsible for their comments/work. This would certainly increase the "responsibility" of the staff as all of a sudden they are in the firing line as well.

regards
sc

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

Hi sc,

If the LG staff person has issues with the construction he/she should take it up directly with the engineer who has stamped the construction drawings.

Regards

VOD

 

[Focht3]

VoyageofDiscovery is right, of course. But in the real world, the LG personnel do a "hit and run" in most instances. A sorry state of affairs. I don't know the particulars of the case mentioned by sc, but I know a few in my area that I'd like to see get their comeuppance!

 

[RDK]

In my opinion, most government types are there because they are afraid that they cannot make it in the real world. While this may not be true for those at the top where they need to make and formulate policy, often with national implications, it is usually true for local government types.

They are watchdogs and follow the usual behaviors of watchdogs. A watchdog has two options, he can bark or not. Now the intruder has two states, he is allowed to be there or he is not. This creates a matrix with four possible outcomes.

Assume the intruder is allowed to be there:

The dog barks, he will simply be told to be quiet.
The dog is quiet, nothing will happen because he was just doing his job.

Now assume that the intruder is not allowed to be there:
The dog barks, nothing will happen because he is simply doing his job.
The dog is quiet; he will be beaten with a big stick for allowing unauthorized access to the junkyard.

Pity the poor dog. The best that can happen is nothing and the worst that can happen is being beaten with a big stick. The dog will display what decision theory calls mini-max behavior. That is he will act in such a way so that he minimizes the maximum harm that can happen. Therefore he will bark every time. I would never take a watchdog position. You cannot make anything happen and all you can do is delay things.

Compare this to the local government building code enforcement agency. They too are watchdogs. They can approve or disapprove plans. If they approve plans it’s like not barking. They may make a mistake and allow something to happen that should not. If they do not approve the plans they are barking. The worst that can happen to them is they will be told to approve the plans by someone else and then it’s the other more senior watchdog who is not barking and responsible.

Its no wonder that the inspector will ask for stamped plans where there is no need for them. Part 9 of the Canadian Building Code does not require stamped plans for most work under its scope. (Hey, I’m not complaining since I get several thousand dollars of work out of this annually. I always tell my clients that the code does not require that this be stamped.)

It’s no wonder that they never take responsibility for anything. There is no incentive for them to apply any judgment or undertake any decision-making roles.

Under Manitoba and Saskatchewan law municipal building inspectors (both individually and as a municipality) cannot be sued for any mistake that they make even if it results in previously approved work being torn down and rebuilt. This applies even if there is gross neglect in the inspection.

We have a local case where a service club invested $60,000 in making their facility accessible and was told to remove it or spend another $200,000 to fix it to meet fire code. The local building inspector approved this work initially.

Personally I would like to see them be held accountable for their actions. If it could be demonstrated that a seal was not required and they insisted on one then they should pay for the additional engineering work. If they issue permits that are invalid or should have been sealed then they should be responsible for the additional costs.

This would result in some professionalism in the building inspection departments. The inspectors would then become professionals and not as is the case locally, carpenters.



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[rhodie]

Assume the intruder is allowed to be there:
The dog barks, he will simply be told to be quiet.
The dog is quiet, nothing will happen because he was just doing his job.

Now assume that the intruder is not allowed to be there:
The dog barks, nothing will happen because he is simply doing his job.
The dog is quiet; he will be beaten with a big stick for allowing unauthorized access to the junkyard.

Aren't these also Type 1 (alpha) and Type 2 (beta) errors in statistics? That illutration was better than anything my textbook offered.

 

[RDK]

Close

They would be alpha and beta errors if the dog had used some statistical rule (intruders at night are most likely not authorized, during daytime they most likely are authorized so only bark at night.) to predict if he should have barked at the intruder. Since the dog will always bark the decision rule is not statistical.

I always like the simple real world examples for these explanations of decision rules and other concepts; it makes them easier to remember and clearer to understand.

I’d like to take credit for this but I heard it in my MBA studies and have seen it in a couple of textbooks.



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Sparweb]

I confront a similar system, where the engineers in Transport Canada have the power to stop any project I'm doing dead in its tracks. They are watchdogs exactly as Mr. Kitson describes them. There is little accountability regarding how sound their argument has to be. It doesn't help that the chief engineer of our company is a "dig-in-the-heels" type.

The only "solution" we have found is to be a bit political, too. Fortunately, we have a selection of watchdogs to which we can submit our applications, and we identified long ago which one is the most reasonable.


STF