PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE AIPG’s
Disciplinary Procedures and Code of Ethics
J. Todd McFarland, CPG-11348
todd.mcfarland@
woodplc.com
As noted in the AIPG Bylaws, Section 1.2, one of the pur- poses of the institute is to “promote high standards of ethical conduct among its Members and Adjuncts, and within the profession of geology.”1 Furthermore, as noted in AIPG Bylaws, Section 2.3.1, “applicants for Certified Professional Geologist shall affirm their adherence to applicable professional and ethical standards.” The professional conduct of members is governed by the AIPG Code of Ethics and the Institute has the authority to investigate alleged ethics violations.2 The investigation and disposition of complaints of ethics violations is governed by the AIPG Disciplinary Procedures.3
Allegations of unethical conduct and discussion on how to enforce ethics rules are not recent developments. In Congress in 1798, Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont spat on Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut dur- ing a vote. The evidence was presented to the entire House of Representatives in a case of disorderly behavior with a motion to expel Lyon falling two votes short of the two-thirds majority needed. The Constitution authorized the House of Representatives to discipline its members in 1798, but there was not a uniform or consistent method for discipline until the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was estab- lished in 1967. Prior to 1967, allegations of misconduct could be investigated by ad hoc committees or directly reviewed on the floor of the House. This inconsistent process undoubtedly led to contradictory disciplinary actions, so the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (renamed Committee on Ethics in 2011) was created to serve as a reliable and accessible body for review of official misconduct.4
AIPG also has a well-defined process to address ethics com- plaints. Allegations of violations of the AIPG Code of Ethics are directed to the Ethics Committee Chair directly or in care of the Executive Director. The Executive Director will forward the allegations without review to the Ethics Committee Chair. The current Executive Committee will also not be involved in the review of the initial complaint including the review of documents associated with an ethics complaint and will not be provided the name of the person(s) making the allegation or the name of the respondent to those allegations.
The Executive Committee is informed that an ethics com- plaint has been received and the complaint is under review. Initially, that is the only information the Executive Committee
receives regarding an ethics allegation. Breaching the confi- dentiality of this process compromises the investigation. The Ethics Committee Chair will review the allegation and can dismiss the allegation, request additional information, or proceed with an investigation. If the investigation proceeds, the Chair may personally conduct the investigation or may identify an independent investigator that is not a member of the Executive Committee as the Ethics Committee functions independently. The investigator will then notify the respon- dent of the pending investigation.
It should be noted that review of an ethics complaint by a committee made up of members of the organization could lead to conflicts of interest. The potential for those conflicts to introduce bias into an investigation should be considered in an ethics investigation. In the case of an ethics review, a conflict of interest can occur when personal interests compromise the judgment, decisions, or actions of the committee. Respondents to ethics allegations as well as the person(s) making the alle- gations rely on the ethics committee to provide a judgement based solely on the information provided.
Openness is critical when reviewing conflicts of interest, whether those conflicts are actual or perceived. Perception can be defined as a way of understanding or interpreting some- thing, a mental impression.5 Perceived conflicts of interest can happen when an individual observes a situation and reaches a conclusion. Determining if a perceived conflict of interest is an actual conflict of interest requires disclosure as an individual’s personal conclusions can be just as critical to an investigation as the conclusion of a committee. Disclosure is key in promoting transparent reviews and allowing the committee to produce justifiable conclusions. Therefore, the investigator should not have a conflict of interest with the person(s) making the allegations or with the respondent because the investigator prepares the report to document the findings.
Following submittal of the document of findings to the Chair for review, the Chair can dismiss the allegations or bring formal charges. If formal charges are recommended, then the Chair must notify the respondent who may resign, accept disciplinary actions, or request a hearing. If the respondent requests a hearing, the Chair will then appoint a
Continued on p. 42 1. AIPG Bylaws (Revised – February 1, 2020),
https://aipg.org/page/Bylaws
2. AIPG Code of Ethics (Adopted December 11, 1989, with modifications adopted October 5, 2003, revised June 24, 2017 and last revision on September 14, 2019),
https://aipg.org/page/Ethics
3. AIPG Disciplinary Procedures (Adopted July 23, 1989 – Revised 2004, 2015),
https://aipg.org/page/disciplinaryprocedures 4. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ethics,
https://ethics.house.gov/about/committee-history (Accessed on May 28, 2020). 5. Dictionary – Google Search (Accessed on May 29, 2020)
www.aipg.org Jul.Aug.Sep 2020 • TPG 37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
