FELIPE Q. Atalig, a CNMI taxpayer, has sued the CNMI Board of Professional Licensing and its chairman Gregorio Q. Castro in his official capacity regarding the issuance of an engineering license to William Hofschneider.
Atalig, representing himself, filed the civil lawsuit in Superior Court in December.
He is accusing BPL of violating applicable CNMI laws and regulations in connection with the requirements for the issuance of an engineering license.
He wants the court to issue a declaratory judgment stating that the defendants’ actions and inaction violated CNMI law and applicable regulations under § 125-20.1 Engineers, Architects, Land Surveyors, and Landscape Architects Regulations.
Atalig also wants the court to issue an injunctive relief requiring the defendants to ensure that applicable law and regulations pertaining to engineering licensure requirements are followed and upheld.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff in early 2019 learned that the board issued an engineering license to Hofschneider who Atalig said did not meet the standard for licensing requirements.
On May 29, 2019, Atalig wrote a letter to the board raising his concern.
He said a license applicant must have “12 years of progressive engineering experience satisfactory to the board” including “at least two years which shall have been under the supervision of a licensed engineer in the same branch of engineering for which licensure is desired.”
He said the requirement was not met by the license applicant because the applicant had worked and been supervised by a licensed engineer for only eight years and lacked four additional years, the lawsuit added.
In response, the board, in a letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, told Atalig that the license issued to the applicant was a final agency action, and that the board “will not be revisiting the issue.”
Atalig stated that BPL had sought the legal opinion of the Attorney General’s Office, which found that the applicant was duly licensed on Feb. 16, 2001 due to him having over 12 years of experience and passing the required examinations.
Atalig objected to the Office of the AG’s opinion and analysis of applicable public law that refers to full-time or part-time “work,” which was removed and replaced with “lawful experience.”
Atalig said the board approved the application because it included the classes that the applicant had taken from 1984-1990 that were directly related to civil engineering.
“And according to the legal interpretation of the AG’s office,” Atalig said, “these classes, together with the applicant’s work from 1990-2001, amounted to more than the requisite 12 years of [full-time or part-time] experience that was satisfactory to the board.”
Atalig said he also took exception to the AG’s office interpretation that “classes taken constitute lawful experience.”
Atalig said, “Classes taken do not constitute lawful experience.”
“There is absolutely no promulgated regulation that somehow equates classes taken as a lawful experience. And the terms ‘classes taken’ and ‘lawful experience’ [have] two vastly different meanings,” he added.
Atalig stated that the board’s decision to include “classes taken” as part of “lawful experience” is “completely contrary to law.”
He said, “The board and the AG’s office interpretation of a ‘lawful experience’ is unquestionably erroneous and completely contrary to the language as provided in the regulations.”
