CPD Audit and an Inflated Conference Certificate
Emeka, a registered Engineering Technologist, applies to renew his 2025 practising licence. The Council's CPD policy for the year requires at least 30 verified points, of which at least 15 must be technical, no more than 10 may come from in-house or self-directed activity, and every claim must be supported by attendance or completion evidence. Emeka submits: 30 points for a three-day vendor product training that was mostly sales demonstration; 20 points for a three-day professional conference, although he attended only the first day but has a certificate for the full event; 15 points for in-house toolbox talks that he delivered; 10 points for an online ethics course with no assessment; and 10 points for a webinar he attended twice under two titles. He says the total is 85 points, well above the minimum, and that the Council should not nitpick.
1. Assess each CPD item and calculate the verified total under the policy.
Read the worked answer
Apply the policy item by item, and distinguish claim from verification.
Vendor training: 30 claimed, but the content was mostly sales demonstration. Count only the technical portion; even if the whole three days were allowed, the activity is vendor training, not independent technical development. A reasonable verified figure is 10 technical points unless the provider supplies a technical syllabus and assessment.
Conference: 20 claimed, but he attended one of three days; the certificate says full attendance, which is inconsistent with the record. Pending the integrity issue, count 7 points for the day attended, not 20.
In-house toolbox talks: 15 claimed, but the cap is 10 for in-house or self-directed activity; count 10.
Online ethics course: 10 claimed, no assessment. If the policy requires completion evidence, a certificate of viewing may count as non-technical self-directed activity, but within the 10-point cap shared with in-house; it cannot be added on top.
Duplicate webinar: 10 claimed twice; count once, and only if attendance evidence exists.
Verified total is therefore around 27 to 37 depending on how the integrity issue is resolved; it is not 85. His arithmetic double-counts duplicates and ignores caps.
2. What should the registrar decide on the renewal application?
Read the worked answer
Because the conference certificate appears to overstate attendance, the registrar should not simply top up the shortfall. The application should be deferred for verification: request the conference attendance record, the vendor's technical syllabus, and evidence of the ethics course completion.
If the verified total is below 30 after excluding the misrepresented item, offer a conditional shortfall plan: complete a specified technical course or supervised practice before renewal, with the licence renewed only on evidence. If the total reaches 30 but includes a false certificate, renew with a written warning and an audit note, or refer the false certificate to the disciplinary process if it was knowingly submitted.
The key principle is that CPD is a professional-integrity declaration, not a points game; a candidate who submits inflated claims should not be rewarded with automatic renewal.
3. How should the registrar deal with the conference certificate itself?
Read the worked answer
The registrar should write to Emeka and to the conference organiser. To Emeka: state the discrepancy, invite an explanation, and warn that submitting a certificate for days not attended may amount to a false declaration. To the organiser: ask for the attendance record and whether the certificate was issued in error. Do not treat the certificate as conclusive.
If Emeka corrects the record promptly and the remaining CPD meets the requirement, handle it as a compliance issue with a warning; if he maintains the claim despite the attendance record, refer it as a disciplinary matter. This also protects the Council's audit trail: if the Council renews on a certificate that is later shown to be false, the credibility of the whole CPD regime is damaged.