As Gov. Jenniffer González Colón pushes a reform that would broaden the powers of professionals authorized to issue permits, public hearings and written testimony on the new Planning and Permits Code have brought to light multiple failures in the performance of these professionals, who are accredited by the Permits Management Office, known as OGPe, in Spanish. The problems include failure to comply with document requirements and the issuance of permits without proper accreditation.

Authorized Professionals and Authorized Inspectors were created under the 2009 permitting law to evaluate and issue permits for land development and use. Administration Bill 114, proposed by the governor, expands that role, creates new definitions and delegates to them adjudicative functions now carried out by several government agencies outside OGPe, such as the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources and the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture.

According to the Interdisciplinary Collective of Professionals, which brings together professionals in the social sciences: “The model [under the new code] relies heavily on delegating functions to a new category of actors: ‘professionals in the permit system.’”

“This fragmentation of roles may appear technically sophisticated, but it raises questions about coherence, oversight and conflicts of interest,” the group added in its written testimony before the Legislature.

The collective said the new model “places the full weight of validation on the licensed professional, reducing the state’s role from evaluator to after-the-fact enforcer.”

“After-the-fact enforcement [which, under the bill, government agencies would carry out] is no substitute for prevention when decisions have permanent impacts on the territory. A professional is always at the disposal of the client; the state must be at the service of the country,” the group said.

Authorized Professionals are surveyors, agronomists, architects, engineers, geologists, planners and other licensed construction professionals who obtain OGPe authorization to evaluate and grant or deny permits. Authorized Inspectors, certified by OGPe, inspect and issue certifications and documents for construction projects, land development, use permits and business operations.

They are not employees of OGPe or the Planning Board. They are people who intervene in the process by which a person or company seeks a permit.

About 150 Authorized Inspectors and Authorized Professionals are currently registered on OGPe’s portal, though not all are active.

Administration Bill 114 proposes a code of ethics to regulate these professionals. However, it does not establish procedures for evaluating their performance and compliance, or for investigating or sanctioning these permit professionals. Instead, it leaves those matters to the Professional Regulation Rules. The current rules place responsibility for imposing fines and sanctions on OGPe. But that agency would be eliminated under the proposed code.

The adjudicative powers the administration bill would grant these permit professionals run counter to the recommendations of organizations demanding greater controls and strict penalties for the failures, illegalities and omissions of these professionals, which have even been detected by the Office of the Inspector General and the Puerto Rico Office of the Comptroller, the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo found.

For example, although the United Retailers Association (CUD, in Spanish), a small-business association, believes the Authorized Professional role is intended to speed up the permitting process, it does not trust the government’s ability to regulate it and is therefore concerned about delegating additional functions, including adjudicative powers.

“This promise to enact regulations governing the conduct of these professionals has been made in recent years and has not been fulfilled. The measure must set a strict, non-extendable deadline for its completion. Those regulations must include the penalties applicable in cases of noncompliance,” CUD President Ramón Barquín III said in his written testimony.

“The figures of Authorized Professional and Authorized Inspector lack adequate oversight, which has created problems because these professionals have approved permits that do not meet the requirements applicable to the operation. This situation is aggravated when we look at the breadth of powers that have been granted [in the bill] to these professionals,” Barquín added.

In a recent opinion column in the newspaper El Nuevo Día, engineer and ecologist Carl Axel Soderberg recalled that in the case of the environmental massacre at Jobos Bay in Salinas, the Planning Board concluded that it had been enabled by the issuance of bogus permits granted by an Authorized Professional, who was fined $25,000 and whose license was revoked for only two years.

The CPI asked the Planning Board how many Authorized Professionals and Authorized Inspectors have been fined since 2009, when the current law was approved; how many have had their licenses revoked; the total amount of fines imposed; and how much has been recovered. As of publication, the information had not been provided.

In its testimony before the Legislature, the Coalition for the Northeast Ecological Corridor made several recommendations, including that an “authorized professional should be held accountable through the revocation of their professional license (e.g., planner, engineer, architect)” in cases of noncompliance.

Environmental Planner Luis Jorge Rivera Herrera, a member of the coalition, also recommended that project proponents be required, in cases of fraud or noncompliance, to demolish “any illegal structure and restore the property to its natural condition if it had not previously been built on or paved.” He also suggested that the government be reimbursed for “all expenses related to compliance and enforcement actions, plus a penalty equivalent to a specified percentage of the total cost or value of the project.”

“In this way, a real mechanism would be adopted to deter noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations,” Rivera Herrera said.

The proposed bill states that “the civil liability of the person who designs or builds, established in the Puerto Rico Civil Code and the chapter on plan certification, shall not extend to Accredited Professionals,” meaning they would not be responsible for construction or design defects in a project.

The proposed Planning and Permits Code also removed a sentence from current law that excluded these permit professionals from the immunity granted to OGPe officers, agents or employees and expressly stated: “Authorized professionals shall not be covered under this provision and shall respond individually in any judicial action brought against the state.”

Although they were not included among those who would enjoy immunity if the code is approved, an attorney specializing in environmental law, another specializing in administrative law and a planner consulted by the CPI agreed that the express provision should remain so there is no room for doubt that they are responsible for negligent or wrongful acts or omissions that may lead to the authorization of a permit that should not have been granted.

Administration Bill 114 is under consideration in the House of Representatives as House Bill 1213 and in the Senate as Senate Bill 1183. In the House, the Special Committee to Address Permit Reform has held seven public hearings, while the Senate Committee on Innovation, Reform and Appointments has held four hearings on the measure, which runs more than 800 pages. Between the two chambers, they have received nearly 50 written statements.

Forceful Findings

A report published in 2023 by the Office of the Inspector General found a lack of audits of construction permits granted by OGPe, permit professionals and autonomous municipalities. In 2021, over a 10-month period, “5,424 construction permits were granted,” the report said. The Planning Board “certified to the OIG that during that period only one permit was audited.” The Planning Board is the agency required to audit those permits.

The report also found that engineers and architects who were not authorized by OGPe as Authorized Professionals issued construction permits. That same complaint surfaced during the public hearings. The OIG also found that some of these professionals carried out conflicting duties by appearing as “design professionals on permits they authorized.” Design professionals are licensed engineers or architects who prepare and certify the plans and documents required for projects and permits.

The Office of the Comptroller also found deficiencies in permits granted by Authorized Professionals. Among the OCPR’s findings was the granting of permits “by professionals without authority to do so and without all required documents.” For example, some lacked evidence of ownership or a lease, or lacked authorization from the project owner for a Residential Use Permit. In another case, the professional lacked evidence that the designated design professional, specialists and inspector were licensed and members in good standing of their respective professional associations.

“The situations described may lead to challenges and questions regarding the validity of the permits granted and place OGPe in a disadvantageous position in the event of claims by individuals or entities that may be affected by the granting of those permits,” the Office of the Comptroller stated in its audit.

The comptroller also found that professionals deviated from legal and regulatory requirements when issuing permits and that OGPe had not evaluated them, citing the Office of Professional Regulation as saying, “does not have enough personnel to handle the referrals.” The audit also identified delays in investigating cases submitted to its Complaints Division between 2012 and 2016 regarding alleged noncompliance with permit applications and issuance.

Four Categories of Permit Professionals

Under the governor’s proposed Planning and Permits Code, Authorized Professionals would be able to evaluate and adjudicate applications such as Unified Permits, Consolidated Construction Permits, Incidental Unified Permits and Environmental Compliance Determinations by Categorical Exclusion.

“This is extraordinary, because such permits may include earthmoving, tree cutting, clearing, impacts on species, neighborhoods, community well-being and more,” warned Pedro Saadé Lloréns, an environmental attorney and retired professor at the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Puerto Rico’s Río Piedras Campus School of Law, in written comments on the measure, for which he has requested additional public hearings.

The proposed permit reform refers to four types of professionals who would work on permit issuance and adjudications: Authorized Professionals, Qualified Professionals, Authorized Inspectors and Licensed Professionals. The difference among the four is that they would handle different procedures within the permitting system. In addition, the services of a Qualified Professional would not have to be provided by a Licensed Professional, such as an architect, agronomist, surveyor or engineer.

Under the proposed code, these permit professionals could be randomly assigned by the Central Permits Office, which would replace OGPe, to handle service requests. The proposal also preserves a provision in current law that allows them to be hired directly by an entity or person that needs a permit.

In his testimony to the Senate, Saadé Lloréns said the restructuring proposed in the code, which concentrates regulatory and permitting power in the Department of Economic Development and Commerce, “is also accompanied by an expanded and extremely important transfer of public functions to Accredited Professionals.” Among those new powers, he highlighted the ability to “certify that a project will not have significant impacts and, therefore, that the preparation and notification of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.”

In the attorney’s view, “this represents a major loss that should remain in the hands of public officials, not private entities hired by the private parties who would precisely benefit from the decisions of the former,” which is why he does not recommend approving the proposed code. “As if that were not enough, the restructuring in question includes transferring the duties of care and custody of the coasts — including authorizations or concessions on coastal public trust lands — to the DDEC or to the professionals as well.”

Planner David Carrasquillo Medrano, director of the organization ¡Planifiquemos!, said he is concerned that the bill reduces accountability for these permit professionals, particularly because of the lack of oversight of a figure hired by the permit applicants themselves.

The Sierra Club also publicly expressed concern over the powers the administration bill would grant these permit professionals. “The measures allow professionals hired directly by developers, companies or applicants to carry out evaluation, certification and recommendation functions within the permitting system,” the organization said.

“This raises concerns because those hired by the party interested in getting a permit could have a financial incentive to favor approval of the project. Many people believe that evaluation and adjudication functions should remain primarily in the hands of public officials subject to oversight,” the Sierra Club added.

Olga Angueira Andraca, president of the Puerto Rico College of Architects and Landscape Architects, warned in her testimony that the measure opens the door for Qualified Professionals who “lack the professional license or the degree of ethical responsibility required to validate official documents” to make decisions on behalf of agencies. Unlike an Authorized Professional or an Authorized Inspector, a Qualified Professional does not have to hold a professional license — such as an architecture license — that could be at risk if they fail to fulfill their duties and that could serve as a deterrent against irregular or negligent actions.

“Delegating to the private sector the determination of matters related to impacts on natural habitats means transferring an inherent responsibility of the state to actors who ultimately respond to private interests. Although Licensed Professionals possess technical knowledge, their involvement should not replace the oversight and evaluation duty of the relevant government agencies,” Angueira Andraca added.

Under the proposed law, Qualified Professionals could issue Certifications for Incidental Unified Permit Applications, Infrastructure Capacity certifications and even a Determination of No Environmental Impact, “thereby exempting the interested party from having to submit an Environmental Impact Statement,” Saadé Lloréns said.

“The idea that privately hired professionals could have powers as extraordinary as these must be categorically rejected,” the attorney said.

The Coordinadora Unitaria de los Trabajadores del Estado, as well as the Puerto Rico College of Engineers and Surveyors, agreed in their testimony on the need to adjust the definitions of permit professionals so they are licensed in their area of expertise and answer to the state, not to permit applicants.

The Planning and Permits Code also proposes creating an Oversight and Compliance Panel that would sanction permit professionals for actions contrary to the law if the measure is approved.

For example, the panel could revoke a permit professional’s accreditation “in cases of serious and repeated noncompliance.” Those sanctions could be reported to their respective professional associations. The code would also allow for fines and jail time in cases in which incorrect or false information is submitted, or necessary information is omitted, to obtain a recommendation, license, permit or authorization. However, that would apply only when it was done “intentionally and with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Possible Conflicts of Interest

The bill would allow any municipality or government agency to hire former employees as permit professionals immediately after they leave their jobs. Puerto Rico’s Government Ethics Act bars a former official from being hired by the agency where they worked during the first two years after leaving employment, or from advising clients before that same agency. “Direct hiring shall not, by itself, constitute a conflict of interest or affect the validity of the process,” the bill states.

Luis A. Pérez Vargas, executive director of the Office of Government Ethics, warned in his testimony that the measure “does not define what constitutes a conflict of interest in matters related to the evaluation and granting of permits.”

“The current ethics framework seeks, above all, to prevent an official from improperly benefiting from confidential information, internal knowledge or relationships acquired while performing public duties. When an agency is allowed to hire its own former employee as an Accredited Professional immediately after their departure, this fundamental objective is distorted,” Pérez Vargas said.

The OEG director said that “exempting Accredited Professionals creates a privileged category of former public servants who, unlike others, could immediately return to their agency of origin. This regulatory inequality violates the principle of equality before the law and creates a dangerous precedent for future exceptions that could progressively erode the structure of ethical safeguards.”

Rivera Schatz’s Proposal

Two days before the bill to create the Planning and Permits Code was introduced, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz filed Senate Bill 1173, a different, less sweeping version addressing the professionals who handle permit procedures.

Among the changes to current law is replacing the Unified Permit required to operate certain businesses with a Declaration of Use, which would eliminate the requirement for prior inspections. Under the current permitting system, inspections may be carried out by Authorized Inspectors, while permits may be approved by Authorized Professionals.

For the electronic Declaration of Use, the applicant would be required to submit photographic and documentary evidence demonstrating compliance with the requirements for the proposed business. These declarations would be evaluated based on the possible impact of the business on its immediate surroundings, the community and existing infrastructure.

“The citizen notifies. The state records. Oversight operates afterward, not before,” Rivera Schatz’s measure reads.

Wilma Maldonado Arrigoitía contributed to this story.

This translation was generated with the assistance of AI and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and clarity.