Montana Ethic Exam

[andriver]

All,

I am trying to apply for my PE by comity in Montana. I am required to fill out a "Montana Engineer Licensing Law and Rule Questionnaire"

I am running into an issue however. Many of the questions, I am able to find referenced in Montana law, however when viewing in the engineer.mt.gov, these laws have been repealed. I am then not able to find another reference in the current law for the question. I am asked to reply true or false, and cite my source.

Example " T or F, Due to the competitive nature of some projects, licensees may attempt to supplant other licensees or firms from work that is in progress."

This was addressed in 24.183.2205 - and I would be inclined to select True. However, on the engineer.mt.gov site, it shows that 24.183.2205 was repealed. I am not able to find any other mention to a statement like this. I am not sure if this is FALSE not because the original code was repealed? The engineer.mt.gov site is terrible to navigate or search so I may be missing something somewhere. I am running into this issue for many of the questions.​

I am hoping somebody went through this and can give advice. Thanks

 

[IRstuff]

"licensees may attempt"

The wording might suggest that this is about ethics and not law. If it were a question about law, it might more likely read, "licensees are allowed"

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[msquared48]

If that is true, I'd better not practice in Montana.
!

I used to be licensed there years ago, but no longer.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[JAE]

I think most state engineering laws and rules suggest strongly that if a project is underway, you should never try to supplant a currently engaged engineer.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[zelgar]

You need to look at 24.183.2207 UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, (1)(s) -

http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=24.183.2207

(1) In addition to those forms of unprofessional conduct defined in 37-1-316, MCA, the following is unprofessional conduct for a licensee or license applicant under Title 37, chapter 67, MCA:

(s) knowingly seeking or accepting employment for professional services for work on which another licensee or certificate holder is employed, or contracted to perform without the currently employed or contracted licensee or certificate holder being informed in writing;

 

[PEinc]

The word "may" is the problem. Engineers MIGHT illegally try to supplant another but they MAY not legally (not permissible). "May" implies permission. I say the answer is FALSE.

http://www.PeirceEngineering.com

 

[MintJulep]

True. Licencees may try to supplant another engineer. Although it would be unethical and perhaps illegal for them to do so.

Horribly written question.

 

[JStephen]

If this is actually a problem with the exam as written, calling up the Montana board would probably be the preferred approach.

 

[zelgar]

The answer is False. In accordance with 24.183.2207(1)(s), this is considered Unprofessional Conduct and is not allowed.

 

[msquared48]

You mean that I can practice in Montana again, afterall?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[andriver]

Sorry I meant I would have chosen false. Looks like Zelgar found the updated non repealed reference. Curious to how you found it, their site is terrible to search on.

 

[zelgar]

It really wasn't too hard to find. Subchapter 22 deals with Unprofessional Conduct which contains both 24.183.2205 (repealed) and 24.183.2207. When I looked at all of the items that had been repealed (i.e., PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES ONLY IN AREAS OF COMPETENCE, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPER SOLICITATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT, and ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS) and the new rule UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, it wasn't too hard to guess these items may have been combined into a new rule.

Additionally, I've worked for the State of Indiana for 25 years dealing with environmental regulations (both State and Federal). I'm well versed in legal-ease and thinking like a regulator