INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Jobs

Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach
60

Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

(OP)
This article popped up in my google feed. I thought it was interesting, a little funny and a little ridiculous.


http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/...

Being familiar with licensing laws, and being an engineer, I agree with the city. I can see how easily a lay person could buy the spin, though.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I find it funny that the article describes him as a "Swedish-born electronics engineer". This is all dumb and is the result of the public not being informed or knowing what a PE or being chartered is. Everyone who is chartered or a professional engineer should be compelled to identify themselves as such to avoid confusion. Everyone knows a doctor has a medical certificate and every lawyer has a license to practice law. Engineering does a terrible job in educating the public as to what being licensed means by trying to bogard the term "engineer".

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I did find this interesting and have had numerous discussions regarding use of the term engineer throughout my career. I became an "engineer" when I got my BSCE in 1972. I became a PE when I passed the exam in 1977 or 78.

Late in my career one supervisor would not let the new engineers use the term "Engineer" on their cards or emails because of his strict interpretation of the State's position. I felt the restriction should be on PE not engineer in its generic definition.

Where I did get upset was throughout my career in the paper industry where people without engineering degrees where given titles such as Process or Production Engineers, Safety Engineer, or even Mechanical or Electrical Engineer. The first three may have had degrees in Paper Science or other "technical" disciplines, while the last two often had no degrees at all; having worked up though technical trades.

gjc

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

He lost out because Oregon has no industrial exemption: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060.

Seemed to me that he was blatantly pushing the envelope. Had he keep to something like "BSEE 1982 Uppsala University" he could have gotten away with it. He's pi$$ing into the wind, since it's Oregon law, and the board is probably indemnified for following the law.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

#5 in the link is Oregon's industrial exemption.

I find it interesting that an attorney, presumably a member of the Oregon Bar, is arguing the matter this way.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

sorry, I missed that, but it's still very restrictive and open to interpretation. Based on #5, he still shot himself in the foot, since the industrial exemption is negated when public safety is involved, which was the subject of his original letter.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

The other examples in the article sound even worse. One guy just mentions his past work as an engineer in a political add, which he was, albeit in an exempt industry, and they opened an investigation. This sounds overly restrictive to me.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

5
He /said/ he's an engineer, but was he "practicing" engineering without State registration? Where's the danger to the public? He /commented/ on what should be done, and showed his research. He didn't /enact/ any policy or provide any designs. He told the resident engineers that they should change things, in detail.

Seems to me like they're pretty far out of line.

There are gobs of engineers who never even sat for a P.E. exam, whom are in no way deceitful in having 'engineer' on their business card.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

This is so extremely stupid.

The guy's attorney says this:
""The government does not have the power to take speech that is objectively true, declare it false and then punish speakers who -- wittingly or unwittingly – deviate from the government's idiosyncratic definition,'' wrote attorney William Ohle in the suit."

1. The government (state of Oregon) did not take his speech and declare it false.

2. The guy's argument that the traffic signal timing was off is not the issue. He is and always was free to criticize the government for that.

3. The state simply fined him for claiming to be an engineer when, in the state of Oregon, he was not. He was simply trying to bolster his argument by laying claim to a regulated profession.

4. "wittingly or unwittingly"..... in all areas of the US and all states - the law generally denies the defense of ignorance of the law makes you innocent.

5. No one took away any free speech rights...unless you want to argue, as the attorney seems to arguing, that you could run into NORAD, claim you are president of the USA, and push the red button whenever you want.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

The free speech angle is interesting. The California statute states that just calling oneself "electrical engineer" means that they "practice" electrical engineering, and are in violation of the law, presumably aside from the industrial exemption. Presumably, since "sanitation engineer" is not specifically referenced in section 6732 of the California code, one could claim to be a sanitation engineer without getting into trouble.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

This article - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fin... - provides more detailed information, including links to relevant documents, making clear that the engineering board in Oregon says he should not be free to publish or present his ideas.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

So there were two examples from politicians, one published by the government in the form of the Voters Pamphlet. (I guess they don't vet) To alter JAE's answer #3 above to apply to the politicians: The state simply investigated/warned him for claiming to be an engineer when, in the state of Oregon, he was not. He was simply trying to bolster his political credibility by laying claim to a regulated profession that operates under a code of ethics.

What's the danger to the public? Might get some braggart in office that's way under-qualified. A remote possibility, of course.smile

IRstuff, I can vaguely recall an Oregon case where the term "domestic engineer" (for a maid service) was determined not to be confusing to the public, and therefore not subject to a fine.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Unfortunately, over the ages, the term "engineer" has been genetically modified as it were to the point that the term has become very generalized - colloquialized as it were.

This generalized use is very different than the term "Attorney", where the perception is automatically one of a person who is licensed to practice law. A law school graduate is not considered to be an Attorney until after passing the bar. This is not true for engineers, some of whom do not need to be licensed to "practice" engineering, specifically in the industrial arena.

Although the case seems to be ridiculous, even if it is thrown out for lack of substance, which I doubt here, the public's perception and use of the term "engineer" will not change.

In my mind, the use of the term "engineer" without specifying the discipline or license qualification, is acceptable so long as there is no monetary interest or claim to fame as it were involved. Not all will agree with this...

There are undoubtedly additional qualifications to this too...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote:

sorry, I missed that, but it's still very restrictive and open to interpretation. Based on #5, he still shot himself in the foot, since the industrial exemption is negated when public safety is involved, which was the subject of his original letter.

So non-licensed colleagues should be prosecuted if they share any concern for public safety? Sounds like a great way to stop whistleblowing!

Quote:

The state simply fined him for claiming to be an engineer when, in the state of Oregon, he was not. He was simply trying to bolster his argument by laying claim to a regulated profession.

No one took away any free speech rights...unless you want to argue, as the attorney seems to arguing, that you could run into NORAD, claim you are president of the USA, and push the red button whenever you want.

The problem with your argument is that there is no room for ambiguity, sadly there are many rulings that support this and contradict the many that do not. Depending on the judge, you could walk into NORAD claiming to be president and there may/may not be impersonation/fraud/other such charges used bc you didn't state what you were president of. OTOH had you claimed to be POTUS there's little doubt of such a charge sticking. Personally I don't see as engineers why we cannot make distinctions between the two given that other professions and our own professional societies (including NSPE) very commonly and clearly do. From what I have read he never claimed to be a PE so I believe the Oregon board greatly overstepped their ethical bounds.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

9
I feel that as long as someone has a degree in engineering and is not otherwise misrepresenting their credentials, they should be able to call themselves an "Engineer"

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I agree that the perceived "overreaching" by the Oregon State Board of lawfully stipulated regulations and terminology will be an issue here, with the courts setting some limits, limits that will not benefit the reputation and public perception of registered and licensed practicing engineers. That will still be our endeavor as professionals.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

CWB1 - the guy could easily, and legally, criticized the traffic signals without claiming to be an engineer. No speech would have been denied him - and from what I read, no speech was EVER denied him even after his spurious "engineer" claim - they just fined him for his credential enhancement actions - not his speech about the signals.

XR250 - I sort of feel that way too - but this simply shows that there are two realms of argument here:
1. If it is illegal on the books - then it is simply illegal to claim "engineer" status in some states. You can't claim that he didn't violate the law.
2. Should the state have laws that prohibit the use of engineer? Or Professional Engineer? Valid question but doesn't change the law unless you can get legislatures to change the law.

One is a legal realm and one is a "what-ought-to-be" realm.


Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

If the law is deemed unconstitutional, then the phrasing of the law is very important.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Here is the article in the regular newsletter to engineers in Oregon

http://www.oregon.gov/Osbeels/docs/Newsletters/201...

Page 6

I concur that the board is going a bit overboard,
when I read the newsletter, it looked to me like he was HIRED to tune traffic lights
and lacked qualifications to do so, hence I was surprised by the low fine.

Now it looks like the the guy was out there with a stop watch and a tape measure looking to get out of a traffic ticket, and the calculation is taught in any physics class.
Of course the real situation it is probably someplace between the two extremes.

In the past few decades the intersections in the Beaverton area have grown from the 2 lane country paths they were when I was learning to drive. And I can see where yellow light duration's may not have changed to accommodate a larger intersections, the book says the yellow light is X seconds long so they make it that way. Now the City has a revenue source with red light cameras. There is a real lottery revenue stream, if you are the unlucky one you get a ticket in the mail. (The State has the monopoly on the normal lottery.)
But I also see car after car going through even though the light is red, especially on a left turn signal.

I too also recall the domestic engineer case by the Oregon Engineering Board several decades ago.

Got all the above typed up then read the Motherboard article
from the Motherboard article, it looks like City (in the full color chart) is not following ORS 811.260(4) a state law.

but then you look up 811.260(4) it has no such calcs or chart

And that chart was drawn up by Jarlstrom, and that chart looks like a very detailed engineering calculation and now that chart is published.

Humff
Again the real situation is between

Hydrae

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

5
I think the state of Oregon is being too precious. If the guy were practicing as an engineer, or offering his services as an engineer, fair enough. But he was merely calling himself an engineer. By Oregon's definition, I am not an engineer, since I am retired and no longer registered to practice anywhere. But by their definition, I was never an engineer, because I was never licensed in that state.

As far as I am concerned, once an engineer, always an engineer. And I will continue to call myself an engineer, and Oregon be damned.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Operating Engineers Local 701 out of Gladstone, OR can expect a similar 'cease and desist' letter any time now:

Quote (IUOE 701 Local)

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701 represents heavy equipment operators, heavy duty repairers, technical engineers and stationary engineers throughout Oregon and Southwest Washington.

Technical and stationary engineers?

Link

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Ingenuity,
That will not happen it "The Peoples Republic of Oregon".

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

It all started with the concept of locomotive "engineers" way back when.

Here the term is a euphemism for an "operator".

So, by that logic, Al Capone was an engineer too. He was a real operator!

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I don't know how Oregon defines and regulates "engineer", "Engineer", and their derivatives, but I think—from a philosophical point of view—they are on the wrong side of the issues raised in the article.

IMHO, a graduate engineer is a little "e" engineer. Period. Then, professional licensure makes one a big "E" Engineer of whatever type the license is for. As I understand the article, it appears that Mr. Järlström only called himself a little "e" engineer, which he is. My dad has a BS in petroleum engineering, but never worked in that field. Instead, he worked as a general engineer at Dow Chemical for a while after getting out of the Air Force, so he would have come under the industrial exemption here in California. He later became a high school chemistry teacher. He still correctly refers to himself as a little "e" engineer.

IMHO, Mr. Järlström was NOT practicing engineering. Hokie66 said it well: "If the guy were practicing as an engineer, or offering his services as an engineer, fair enough. But he was merely calling himself an engineer."

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

JAE,
While it may not be important or even relevant, many folks appreciate knowing a bit about the person they are interacting with as the first part of open and honest communication, introductory small talk if you will. Sure, he could have omitted his engineering experience however omitting even vaguely relevant details often quickly turns folks mistrustful when they're discovered, people always look for personal agendas in govt/politics. Regardless, he disclosed this info protecting the public's welfare to the board appointed with interpreting and enforcing these laws as necessary, the board did have a choice and made one of questionable ethics. Personally I have never understood how these boards can repeatedly denigrate senior engineers in this manner while promoting junior engineers with almost no experience.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"Personally I have never understood how these boards can repeatedly...."

Because they are the arm of the state, it is the law, and no one in the legislature is moved (by their constituencies) to change that law.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

The board made it pretty clear that they had no dog in the hunt with respect to his subject material. They objected to his describing himself as an "engineer" and as an "excellent engineer." He seemed to go out of his way to push the legal envelope that's already established case law. He was neither registered nor covered by the Oregon industrial exemption, since this was a personal project and his occupation wasn't even as an exempted engineer.

I think his lawsuit will crash and spectacularly burn. He reads like Don Quixote.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (IRstuff)

The board made it pretty clear that they had no dog in the hunt with respect to his subject material

Actually they do.

Look into document titled "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ASSESS CIVIL PENALTY". It says just so:

"By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineering ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon’s and “worldwide” traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation and design in connection with public equipment and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering…

By engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) AND oar 820-010-07370(3)(c) on a second occasion.

So his crime was not just in calling himself "engineer", but "reviewing, critiquing, and submitting the critique to members of the public".

Not to mention he attempted to "advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing" (from the same document)

It's more like you see bridge that is about to collapse but are gagged by local authority to prevent making your knowledge public without proper licence.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"No good deed goes unpunished", does it, CheckerHater? Sometimes the law is an ass.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

hokie66...you need to be more assertive in your opinions. You're getting too mellow in retirement!lol

On one hand, I can see the point of the board....to prevent the erosion of the profession. Most state boards in the US have similar prohibitions, though perhaps not as aggressively pursued.

Actually, the guy was practicing engineering. He was opining on the timing of traffic lights....a purview of traffic engineering as a subset of civil engineering.....and he was doing so in a public forum.....even if you set aside the term "engineer", he was "practicing" outside his area of expertise....he's not a civil engineer with traffic engineering expertise. While he might be correct, he usurped the term "engineer" in an effort to add credibility to his argument. That is precisely what the law seeks to prevent.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Most of the articles I've seen about this claim the Board is responsible for the what is referred to as the "title act" in Oregon and is trying to use it to suppress his speech. This is simply wrong. The "title act" is in the Oregon Revised Statutes (laws), meaning the state legislature made it a law that a person cannot refer to themselves as an engineer unless registered as a professional engineer.

If I understand things correctly, the Board has responsibility for directly creating and amending the Oregon Administrative Rules (rules) related to engineering, but cannot directly change the Oregon Revised Statutes. They sometimes propose legislation changes, but anyone can do that - the legislature still has to enact the changes they propose.

They do, however, have responsibility for enforcing both the laws and the rules. They do so without interpretation. I can't believe he found an attorney to take his case - oh wait, yes I can - he found an attorney to take his case money. I doubt that he'll win.

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
(OP)
Hypothetical:

Maybe there is an unwritten part of the story that includes the guy pestering and being a nuisance to the city employees while trying to get out of paying for his wife's ticket. They finally got fed up and and used his engineer proclamation as an opportunity to slap him on the wrist.

Could you believe that a guy who spends his spare time trying to prove or disprove engineering behind a yellow light time could have irritated some people along his journey towards a bunch of news story?

Naw!

On a side note; how legitimate is his claim about yellow light times? I thought traffic engineers (real ones) accounted for light timing and a lot of other statistical data to time lights for traffic flow. Is the timing of the light color itself not even considered as this guy purports?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
If the State of Oregon is going to focus on the public voicing of criticism of the engineering ITE formulas, then I do believe it's a LEGITIMATE objection on the basis of free speech. If the focus is on that paragraph of the complaint/charge, the State is saying that only registered (by the State) engineers have permission to even criticize State-implemented practices of law.

I find that particularly applicable to the purpose of Free Speech, protected so very, very, very specifically for reasons of petitioning the government. To require a State issued license before one may address the State in complaint, making arguments of technical content, is to me, pretty illustrative of suppression of Free Speech with an intent to suppress critique.


I, at first, thought it appropriate to merely focus on the difference between /practicing engineering/ and merely /claiming/ one is an engineer, and whether or not he /was/ practicing engineering. If we accept the State's assessment that he /was/ practicing engineering, then it certainly becomes a matter of Constitutional violations, imo.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Agree with JNieman.

This IS Free Speech issue.

One should be able to make public statement regarding what he or she believes is wrong.

Such public statement is expected to be made "to the best of person's knowledge and understanding", and "knowledge and understanding" may include Engineering degree, no matter where and when received.

And about legitimacy of the claim. From the article:

"Järlström, understandably, wanted to get feedback on his findings. And so he reached out to the engineering board, his local sheriff, and 60 Minutes. He was even invited to give a talk about his research in front of the Institute of Transportation Engineers in Anaheim, California. He also spoke to Alexei Maradudin, the last surviving author of that 1959 paper: "He wants me to continue with this, it's amazing that I have his support," Järlström said."

So, he submitted his findings to peer review no less.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (Terratek)

I thought traffic engineers (real ones) accounted for light timing and a lot of other statistical data to time lights for traffic flow

Think again: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/10/16/...

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

@Terratek,

The amount of thought that goes into the timing of lights varies by municipality and as lawsuits have shown, some are very intentionally and maliciously reduced for purposes of revenue. Those, being the outliers, are grouped in with those who merely don't put much thought into their lights and make it up as they go along. Some municipalities may lump 'traffic lights' responsibilities onto an engineer already overburdened by civil engineering tasks, and, unable to prioritize the lights, just sort of throws a canned response at it that may not fit the situation. Regardless, the police have equal authority to enforce compliance with bad designs.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach


Quote (the police have equal authority to enforce compliance with bad designs.)


But the police can also ignore enforcement by their own judgement, whereas a photo ticket just generates revenue without the review of the situation. If it was the last car in the line and the line of cars suddenly slows down forcing the last car to violate, the Police may let that one go, but the photo ticket sends out the ticket anyway.

The short yellows and photo tickets become a cash cow for the city without much cost. It also becomes a cash cow for the company that put up the photo ticket generator who is a contract company.
There is a quick review by an officer before sending out the ticket, but in order to properly fight these tickets it takes legal help.

Hydrae

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Everywhere I've lived (small sample size) the camera-ticketing systems had to have real traffic officers review each and every one to ensure validity. One major city in Louisiana I lived in had 'x' seconds of video recorded with the photograph of the offense, so there was additional context included. I don't know how universal that is. Seems reasonable to me if you're going to use the camera systems. They're far from my ideal law enforcement tool, but that's just my opinion.

But like @Terratek suggested about the 'offender' in the story... the law can also be abused to "punish" someone for being annoying if they just don't like him and want to retaliate with police/court power.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I read through the State Board of Examiners Final Order By Default.

The board took exception to the use of the word engineer. OK, the law says you can't.

But they also took exception to him reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula. They claimed that by doing so it constitutes "purporting to be able to perform engineering services or work". In simple terms, the board said he was claiming to be a PE or offering engineering services simply by critiquing and alternating a formula written by a PE. This is wrong no matter how you try to spin it, and would be the basis of his case.

I wish I could find a direct link. I found it here, but you have to click on the explore case in depth link and then go to the bottom to find the report.

http://ij.org.ln.is/yE0uE?ref=patrick.net

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Not sure how I should feel, seeing Lionel Hutz agree with my opinions on the law. bigsmile

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I think the distinction needs to be made between engineer and Professional Engineer and not over who is and who is not an engineer. Engineer is a very loose term that can mean anyone who is a problem solver (typically with an engineering degree). There are many engineers out there in industries that don't require a PE but they perform the same analytical tasks as a PE. The fact that they do not possess a PE license does not make them any more or less of an engineer. I have worked with several non licensed engineers that were more technically capable and more well versed in codes than engineers with a PE. In my opinion, the term "engineer" should not be regulated but rather the term "Professional Engineer" which implies that you generally have 4 years of experience and passed a test.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I always thought the only prohibition to the general use of the term engineer was in the naming of a business or hiring yourself out as a professional engineer. I've got a BSME, took the EIT but never saw any reason to take the PE exam. Every job title at every company I've worked for says I'm some kind of engineer. This gut was not misrepresenting himself as a professional engineer and was not soliciting money from the populace for his engineering skills. I don't see the Oregon state board as having any standing and wish the guy well in his campaign against red light cameras.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
Should someone be a doctor before completing residency, or a lawyer before passing the bar? I think we should hold the title of engineer to a similar standard. Granted, I'm in Canada, where this is the case.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (canwesteng)

Should someone be a doctor before completing residency?

Yes, PhD. You don't have to be a Doctor of Medicine to call yourself a "doctor"

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Sorry for the little offtopic here, I am just curious...
I am an engineer (because of degree / experience / professional registration) but I am not "practicing" engineering as such due to the fact that I am unemployed (on long leave or whatsoever). Am I still allowed to call myself an engineer ? say my question applies to the US context / regulatory for the practice of engineering.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

By everything you have stated, of course. No worries. Current Employment status matters not...

If that were true, then every time you were laid off, you could not say that you were an engineer to a potential employer - ridiculous thought.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (rotw)

Am I still allowed to call myself an engineer ?

In Oregon you better not.

Here is the screenshot from the site that is a bit difficult to navigate (but you can go and try: http://ij.org/case/oregon-engineering-speech/ )

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"I am an engineer (because of degree / experience / professional registration) but I am not "practicing" engineering as such due to the fact that I am unemployed (on long leave or whatsoever). Am I still allowed to call myself an engineer ? say my question applies to the US context / regulatory for the practice of engineering."

If the /s above are ORs, no. But there is no requirement to be employed as an engineer to use the title. Keep your PDHs and Oregon registration up to date and you are good.

Did anyone notice that he called himself an engineer to the very board that regulates the profession in Oregon? And after being warned the first time he continued to do so? The man was looking for a fight, got what he wanted, and even paid the fine. While the board claimed that providing the calculations constituted engineering without a license, I don't believe they would have fined him or anyone else for doing math as long as they don't refer to themselves as engineers while unregistered.

I concur that the yellows are too short. If I happen to blink at the wrong moment, I've missed the change and compensate by either over hard braking or by pushing the yellow.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I suppose if he had called himself a mathematician or a physicist, he would have been fine. Makes no sense. I hope he wins the free speech claim. How wide is this protection of the word "engineer" in the lower case? In Australia, you have to be licensed to practice the profession, but "ABC Engineering" can be a welding shop. In my experience, there is no damage done to the Profession of Engineering by the use of the word in this manner. Conversely, here the folks who drive trains are not called "engineers", but rather "train drivers".

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

And "ABC Engineering" does have to be licensed as a business, where, on the application for licensing, the nature of the business is identified. The critical word here is "licensed" to be legal.

When I was a young child my first perception of the word "Engineer" pertainied to my train set locomotives, and the fact that my grandfather was a locomotive engineer for Southern Pacific on a run from Plains to Savannah.

It was only in the late fifties that I assigned another meaning to the word.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Oregon's law makes it very clear that anything that relates to public safety requires licensed engineers.

> calling himself an engineer, when unlicensed, is a violation of the law
> performing AND publishing an analysis of a safety-related issue, when unlicensed, is a violation of the law.

His suit should be more about the safety imperative that's inherent in the law; there should an obligation to report hazards to public safety, regardless of whether he's licensed or not. If the board is truly intended to protect public safety, then they are shirking their public responsibility as protectors of the public by punishing someone who potentially has pointed out a valid issue with the timing of the lights. The board, at no time, has claimed that his argument has no merit, therefore, they simply punishing him for being ethical and safety-conscious.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

How long ago (or do they still) prevent motorists from putting gasoline in their own cars?

I only visited Oregon with a car once and the guy definitely filled far above the fill-no-more level.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

IRstuff,

I had similar thought as you have summarized. I felt I needed to "hold my horses" when I realized that the board (to their credit) has given a first warning. I guess a "smart" engineer who is genuinely concerned by public safety would have heard the message (their was a traffic signaling light saying "be careful") and corrected their attitude accordingly - I'd say as bare minimum - in order not to jeopardize by himself the process and the claim at once. In this case tI suppose it was just a matter of tweaking a bit his title, "technical expert, auto-claimed specialist, etc." all of these are example of non controlled titles which can provide alternative, if I am correct.
PS: I am not working in US, so I took the latitude to share a philosophical opinion on the subject, hope its OK ;)

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

If you respect your profession and want to continue to make a living at it, it is important to keep standards at the highest level possible. It is as much a marketing concern as anything else. Engineering today, in spite of board efforts, which have been extremely poor, has become little more than a commodity. If this trend continues, things will degrade to levels seen in England, where anyone that can pick up a screwdriver is an engineer. If you think that's good for your pay grade, you've got a real surprise coming. If you want to know how to do this right, aspire to duplicate the AMA. They've got the cat in the bag. Would you even think to go to just any doctor in training for your bypass surgury? Even at 25% of the cost? No you want insurance, lots of it, so you can afford to go to a real doctor. One with plenty of experience.

Technology is stealing American jobs. Stop H1-Bs for robots.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote:

If this trend continues, things will degrade to levels seen in England, where anyone that can pick up a screwdriver is an engineer.

I mostly agree with your point as I firmly believe that in the US we have made it far too easy to become a PE, however having started on the shop floor I also need to point out that many overseas including the British have commonly used "engineer" to mean a machinist for centuries.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

5
@BigInch

I wouldn't ever sacrifice the ability to criticize the government. Some repeat that the board is /only/ against him for using the title 'engineer' but that is simply not true. Their writing has been directly linked to multiple times in this thread. I suggest reading them in their entirety. Especially this gem:

Quote (http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-J...)


18 By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the
19 critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public
20 for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and "worldwide" traffic signals,
21 which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge
22 of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation,
23 evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. J arlstrom
Page 6 - FINAL ORDER BY DEFAULT
1 thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). By doing so through
2 the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control systems, and through the use of the
3 science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems to advise members of the
4 public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom
5 engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-040-0030(1 )(b) and (2)(a). By
6 engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration,
7 J arlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1 ), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3 )( c) on a second
8 occas10n.

To rephrase the verbiage:

By applying knowledge of mathematics and logic, Jarlstrom was engaging in unlicensed engineering.

If this does not get challenged and overturned, this is a dangerous precedent. If upheld, this supports a State employing a monopoly on the practice of mathematics, physics, or logic and prevents anyone not licensed by the same State from legally being able to criticize or evaluate the engineering of the State.

Their suit goes far beyond someone simply professing themselves as an engineer without appropriate licensing.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
This isn't about free speech. It’s about an egomaniac and a couple of ambulance chasers who agree with him to turn this into a media spectacle.

If this guy were half an “engineer”, he would have filled out the paperwork and paid the nominal fee to get licensed in Oregon. Then he could have engaged in this argument in a professional, respectable manner.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I think we decided, long ago, with poll taxes, that you can't impose "nominal fees" on Constitutionally protected rights, including free speech. Redressing Government practices is one of the basic tenets of free speech.

He might be an egomaniac - that's completely moot. His lawyers might be ambulance chasers. That's completely moot. All that matters are the facts and whether or not they're right. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. In fact, this isn't even about /him/ anymore but rather about all Oregonians and possibly Americans.

To say that anyone mailing in some mathematical proofs and illustrations is "performing engineering" in a manner requiring registration and license with the State Board is ludicrous. The requirements are not "nominal" seeing as how you must have a degree, years of work under a P.E., and then sit for a test (in most States) so I don't see how that's something to so easily brush off.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"If this does not get challenged and overturned, this is a dangerous precedent. If upheld, this supports a State employing a monopoly on the practice of mathematics, physics, or logic and prevents anyone not licensed by the same State from legally being able to criticize or evaluate the engineering of the State."

This is hardly a precedent. I would guess that the basic wording is from the national board.

Quote (California PE Act)

“Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in such professional or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

If he's suing on the grounds of civil rights, and is heard, and a ruling is made, that's exactly what a precedent is, and exactly what future cases can base judgment upon.

Again - the Oregon board made it into more than simply an issue of whether or not he's a licensed engineer. They made it into an issue of what constitutes performing engineering work which requires a license, and quite broadly overstated their case, imo.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

JNieman - I am in the general view that the guy was fined for only claiming to be an engineer when he was not licensed.

But in reading your posted quote there it sets up an important question.

I can see on one hand that the state could come in and fine the guy for his claim as an engineer. Whether it SHOULD be "engineer" or "Professional Engineer" can be debated.

However, most states that I am licensed in (and I used to be in Oregon) limit the PRACTICE of engineering to cases where the person is trying to get employed and make money as a consultant of some sort....i.e. holding oneself out to the public for hire.

In this case, the guy doesn't appear to have been hoping to get paid for anything - just expressing an opinion on an engineering issue.

I would then agree that a state denying someone's ability to state an opinion is wrong, engineering or otherwise, where the person is just talking, vs. promoting for hire.
So is the "Practice of Engineering" only truly a regulated activity if there is paid compensation or the hope of paid compensation as an engineer?

So in summary, if you are not licensed:
Holding yourself out to be an engineer to the public - illegal
Holding yourself out to be an engineer for hire - illegal
Expressing an engineering opinion in an effort to secure engineering work - illegal
Expressing an engineering opinion with no hiring or monetary compensation anticipated - legal...free speech




Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

It appears Oregon law is very aggressive on the matter, allowing fewer exceptions to the use of "engineer" and "the practice of engineering" than found in other states. One key exception I wish he took advantage of is 672.060(9)(b).

Quote (https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/o...)


672.060 Exceptions to application of ORS 672.002 to 672.325. ORS 672.002 to 672.325 do not apply to the following:
. . .
(9) An individual, firm, partnership or corporation offering to practice engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping if:
. . .
(b) The offer includes a written statement that the offeror is not registered to practice engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping in the State of Oregon, but will comply with ORS 672.002 to 672.325 by having an individual holding a valid certificate of registration in this state in responsible charge of the work prior to performing any engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping work within this state.

If it were me, after the first warning from the board, I would have researched the law and responded with an apology and asked for guidance in selecting a valid certificate holder, or taken the position that my correspondence was in an effort to secure responsible charge services. It sounds like he had garnered significant support from the engineering community, "hiring" a professional to work his numbers and take responsible charge seems to be the path of least resistance.

I used to count sand. Now I don't count at all.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I not disagreeing with the notion that the state should not create a monopoly on engineering calculations, but that is what's in probably any state's PE law, and is therefore going to be protected by the NCEES and other organizations with vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The Board, however, has overstepped its authority in one regard, because the acts in question don't violate the law, as written

672.005 Additional definitions. As used in ORS 672.002 to 672.325, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following:
(a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and experience.
(b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.

Since the lights already are past "construction, manufacture or fabrication" his analysis does not violate subparagraph b. His claim that he is an "excellent engineer" and that he's qualified to do the analysis does violate other parts of the law.

Obviously, no one has really probed the wording, since it implies that even stating that he has a degree in (electrical) engineering violates subparagraph c in this section. There's plenty of bad grammar in the law, and should have a complete re-write to clarify the scope of "or" used in various parts of the law.

672.007 Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping. For purposes of ORS 672.002 to 672.325:
(1) A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I hope all the Oregon high school physics teachers are registered engineers :)

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

JNieman...good one!

IRstuff...I think you missed the word "any" in 672.005(1) and "or" in (1)(b).
It doesn't have to be during construction so if it is after construction you would still be violating the Oregon statute.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I agree the definition of the practice of engineering is a bit grey and seems to cross into some other professions. Note however, that Jarlstrom is not arguing that he was not engaged in the practice. By referring to himself as an engineer, he admitted to practicing while unlicensed.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

The "any" refers to a) or b) or the others I didn't include, and not to parsing below the subparagraphs.

which "or" in b) are you referring to? 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

My parse:
Applying [blah] to such professional services or creative work as [blah] during [construction, manufacture or fabrication] for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any [blah].

So any professional services or creative work that's NOT during [construction, manufacture or fabrication] seems fair game.

professional service or creative work is problematic
Does "professional" apply to [service or creative work] or is it [professional service] or [creative work]. I take it to be the former

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

IRstuff...I think I take it to be the latter. I've never heard of the term "professional creative work" in an engineering law context.

Me trying to boil it down visually:

“Practice of engineering” means doing any of the following:
Then it lists (a) and (b) so any of either (a) or (b) so I agree with you there.

(b)Applying special knowledge of the ... (various) ... engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as
consultation
investigation
testimony
evaluation
planning
design
and
services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design

Note that this whole last line makes sense as one unit.

in connection with any public or private
utilities
structures
buildings
machines
equipment
processes
works
or
projects.


So the "services during construction" doesn't apply to this particular case since the traffic system was already in place.
But the investigation and evaluation part does.

And in the second part this is definitely a public utility/equipment so that applies as well.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

As much as bed yellow light timing irritates me, I'd just put infrared LED's around my license plates so the camera can't see them, and move on.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

(OP)
All of this interesting debate and I just realized I miss-spelled speech in the title.

I'm an:

Enginere
Ingineer
Enginer

I'm good at math.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Let's just be careful about how insistent we are about interpretation of the law; the Oregon State Bar may be monitoring this thread.

I used to count sand. Now I don't count at all.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

The most effective way to get a bad law overturned is to start enforcing it.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"...the Oregon State Bar may be monitoring this thread."

I heard they have their own SWAT team.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Politicians are always looking for new ways to raise money.

I wonder what would happen if one of the pinheads who fined Järlström had a medical emergency in a restaurant, would people yell "is there a doctor in the house" or "is there an Oregon licensed doctor in the house"? If only a non-Oregon doctor were present, would he refuse the service?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

BB:

In that is the conundrum: Both medical doctors and structural engineers deal with life safety issues. Go figure... banghead

Actually, service would not be refused due to the Good Samaritan law... unless there are no Good Samaritans in Oregon. noevil

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

While "services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design" may make sense as a unit, it's absurdly unbalanced in the context of the paragraph. Particularly since the items before this are also needed "for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design."

Moreover, the entirety of PE law is "for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design," since that's what ensures public safety, which is the ostensible goal of the law.

Otherwise, even ignoring what we do here, every student in college doing engineering is in violation of the law, as parsed that way, as are the professors.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I think a lot of us would be violating the Oregon state law by our participation in Eng-Tips. If I ever visit, I will try to keep my mouth shut.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

But Eng-Tips Isn't in Oregon. It's a place in Cyber Heaven!!

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (hokie66)

If I ever visit, I will try to keep my mouth shut.

Muzzle hokie66?? Say it ain't so......lol

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Reason are listed in the Law

Quote (480.315 Policy. The Legislative Assembly declares that, except as provided in ORS 480.345 to 480.385, it is in the public interest to maintain a prohibition on the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) The dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards directly associated with the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids;
(2) Appropriate safety standards often are unenforceable at retail self-service stations in other states because cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by customers;
(3) Higher liability insurance rates charged to retail self-service stations reflect the dangers posed to customers when they leave their vehicles to dispense Class 1 flammable liquids, such as the increased risk of crime and the increased risk of personal injury resulting from slipping on slick surfaces;
(4) The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility;
(5) The dangers described in subsection (3) of this section are heightened when the customer is a senior citizen or has a disability, especially if the customer uses a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, walker, cane or crutches;
(6) Attempts by other states to require the providing of aid to senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail have failed, and therefore, senior citizens and persons with disabilities must pay the higher costs of full service;
(7) Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids;
(8) The hazard described in subsection (7) of this section is heightened when the customer is pregnant;
(9) The exposure to Class 1 flammable liquids through dispensing should, in general, be limited to as few individuals as possible, such as gasoline station owners and their employees or other trained and certified dispensers;
(10) The typical practice of charging significantly higher prices for full-service fuel dispensing in states where self-service is permitted at retail: (a) Discriminates against customers with lower incomes, who are under greater economic pressure to subject themselves to the inconvenience and hazards of self-service; (b) Discriminates against customers who are elderly or have disabilities who are unable to serve themselves and so must pay the significantly higher prices; and (c) Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance, endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs;
(11) The increased use of self-service at retail in other states has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities at gasoline stations;
(12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers;
(13) A general prohibition of self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by the general public promotes public welfare by providing increased safety and convenience without causing economic harm to the public in general;
(14) Self-service dispensing at retail contributes to unemployment, particularly among young people;
(15) Self-service dispensing at retail presents a health hazard and unreasonable discomfort to persons with disabilities, elderly persons, small children and those susceptible to respiratory diseases;
(16) The federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, requires that equal access be provided to persons with disabilities at retail gasoline stations; and
(17) Small children left unattended when customers leave to make payment at retail self-service stations creates a dangerous situation. [1991 c.863 §49a; 1999 c.59 §160; 2007 c.70 §276)

]

I do not know of a fuel pump union, Pumping gas typically pays minimum wage ($9.75) but some stores have store unions such as the big department stores (Safeway, Albertsons, Fred Meyer (Kroger)) which I assume also covers the pump jockeys

I particularly like reason 12 and 13 in the law

The rural areas which allow self service at night are not in the wet area of the state (which is 9 months of the year) hence the justification for reason 4 being not applicable

As for it being voted down it happens at both the referendum level and in legislature

That is also a $500 fine to the Station for a violation.


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

All that verbiage about potential hazards, and not a word about the dangers of dispensing fuel when under the influence of a drug.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

hydrae, this is a joke right? This can't be serious?

(1) The dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards directly associated with the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids;
I've never heard of a self-service crisis of exploding cars in other states.

(2) Appropriate safety standards often are unenforceable at retail self-service stations in other states because cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by customers;
Yes my local quick-shop cashier would be able to ensure safety by having a clear view of me filling my tanks...lol. And they are typically soooo much more intelligent than I am.

(3) Higher liability insurance rates charged to retail self-service stations reflect the dangers posed to customers when they leave their vehicles to dispense Class 1 flammable liquids, such as the increased risk of crime and the increased risk of personal injury resulting from slipping on slick surfaces;
Properly broom finished concrete is rarely slick - even with oils on it. And I'm sure those "highly" trained quick-shop employees are much better than I am at keeping my balance on slick surfaces. And finally - those damn high insurance rates are driving all those self-serve stations out of business all over the country....NOT.

(4) The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility; Hey Oregon – try northern Minnesota in the winter. Pansies

(5) The dangers described in subsection (3) of this section are heightened when the customer is a senior citizen or has a disability, especially if the customer uses a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, walker, cane or crutches;
(6) Attempts by other states to require the providing of aid to senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail have failed, and therefore, senior citizens and persons with disabilities must pay the higher costs of full service;
Wait…I thought that self-service caused all sorts of higher costs (see (3) above). And those that need help – seem to be fine in the 49 other states.

(7) Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids; So let’s have the quick-shop cashiers do this over and over again all day since they aren’t as important.

(8) The hazard described in subsection (7) of this section is heightened when the customer is pregnant; So any cashier getting pregnant – tough luck to you.

(9) The exposure to Class 1 flammable liquids through dispensing should, in general, be limited to as few individuals as possible, such as gasoline station owners and their employees or other trained and certified dispensers; Again – they aren’t as important so let them breathe the fumes as much as possible – they can be easily replaced without much cost to society.

(10) The typical practice of charging significantly higher prices for full-service fuel dispensing in states where self-service is permitted at retail: (a) Discriminates against customers with lower incomes, who are under greater economic pressure to subject themselves to the inconvenience and hazards of self-service; So many are dying across the country from filling their own tanks that somebody, anybody…please do something!!!

(b) Discriminates against customers who are elderly or have disabilities who are unable to serve themselves and so must pay the significantly higher prices; and Full service isn’t a significantly higher price where I am located. But in order to keep all things in this country level and equal, let’s force everyone to pay more.

(c) Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance, endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs; So charging those who are not handicapped more is not discriminating against them? And when does a full service gas filling ever result in “maintenance checks by attendants”? What utter stupidity.

(11) The increased use of self-service at retail in other states has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities at gasoline stations; …but has increased the number of automotive repair facilities with much higher specialized mechanics…. If there’s adequate repair facilities at non-gasoline stations what is the problem?

(12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers; Wait a minute…just wait a minute. The points made above keep stating that there’s a HUGE increase in costs associated with full service that discriminates against those who must use full service. You can’t have it both ways.

(13) A general prohibition of self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by the general public promotes public welfare by providing increased safety and convenience without causing economic harm to the public in general; It’s only economic harm if you are elderly or disabled and have to pay more. But if everyone has to pay more then it’s not economically harmful.

(14) Self-service dispensing at retail contributes to unemployment, particularly among young people; …except during school hours. But if they can skip school and work, I’m sure they will be way more qualified to pump gas than I am and just don’t worry about all the fumes those young people will breathe in each day….just don’t worry.

(15) Self-service dispensing at retail presents a health hazard and unreasonable discomfort to persons with disabilities, elderly persons, small children and those susceptible to respiratory diseases; But young people need the work so if they get sick from the fumes that’s OK.

(16) The federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, requires that equal access be provided to persons with disabilities at retail gasoline stations; and So let’s have everyone pay more for full service instead of providing for identified full service islands.

(17) Small children left unattended when customers leave to make payment at retail self-service stations creates a dangerous situation. [1991 c.863 §49a; 1999 c.59 §160; 2007 c.70 §276)
There’s things called credit cards, that get inserted into the pump for payment. Customers rarely leave the car like that…and if they do there’s other laws on the books that govern that. Making everyone pay for full service won’t fix stupidity.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

It will be interesting then, the intersection between PE engineers and attendant manned electric car charging stations.

Most of the parts of the attendant-based service apply to electrical vehicles. They also apply to buying groceries and other shopping, so it's not clear why any of that is allowed.

I had better be careful. I wouldn't want censure from the Oregon PE board.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Back to the issue at hand....

I've given this some thought and cannot conceive that this is even remotely a "free speech" issue. When professional licensure is involved, that licensure should be respected....including the laws that govern it. The "engineer" involved here gave an opinion, which he has a right to do; however, he gave it in a public forum without appropriate experience and education; thus violating provisions of the engineering law. Further, he held himself out as an engineer in the public realm....infringing upon one of the disciplines of engineering that requires licensing.

Nowhere in the article is there any provenance of his opinion. Did he compare to established AASHTO traffic standards? There are actually criteria available for signal timing. Did the municipality violate those? If so, why? Was the City Engineer or Public Works Director informed prior to his public outcry?

I cannot support the premise of a violation of his free speech when he clearly violated several aspects of engineering laws within his state. I am also of the opinion that the state law does not inhibit free speech....it just protects the public from potentially invalid public statements with respect to learned, validated engineering opinion.

I happen to enjoy being an engineer. I also believe in the laws to which engineers must comply with respect to licensure and protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public. I get extremely concerned that our profession is being eroded to the point that anyone can practice "engineering" in any form they want.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"And when does a full service gas filling ever result in “maintenance checks by attendants”? What utter stupidity."?

Perhaps Oregon is a throwback to the 1955 segment of Back to the Future. There once was a time that the service station would check your fluid levels and check your tire pressure.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"Increases self-service dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance..."

This is a primary example of nitwit nanny state laws that think they are doing something good and valid. If the quick-shop hire checks your oil (if they know how) then voila! Your car is maintained and thank-the-state we have avoided "endangering both the customer and other motorists" Yay!

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Ron,

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

I think large sections of this law, if this case is appealed to a high enough court, will be thrown out for being vague in what actions are prohibited.

"Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects."

If nothing else there are multiple interpretations of which actions are interdependent based on the poor sentence structure and punctuation. It's possible there is some legal means to parse that word salad, but it seems written to create confusion.

Whether it is gasoline pumps or engineering services, it certainly looks like Oregon is protectionist in excess of actual public need and leans more toward special interests in these areas. Even making a sandbox falls under prohibited activities.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (Ron)


I've given this some thought and cannot conceive that this is even remotely a "free speech" issue. When professional licensure is involved, that licensure should be respected....including the laws that govern it. The "engineer" involved here gave an opinion, which he has a right to do; however, he gave it in a public forum without appropriate experience and education; thus violating provisions of the engineering law. Further, he held himself out as an engineer in the public realm....infringing upon one of the disciplines of engineering that requires licensing.

You seem to think "engineering law" trumps constitutionally protected rights, but it is (and should be) the opposite. You say he has the right to voice his opinion and criticize government procedure, however you add an "EXCEPT" in regards to engineering law, however the debate is whether or not such a law can trump one of the basic tenets of our constitutional framework. That is the source of disagreement, I believe, and what really comes down to a difference of opinion, as none of us are Supreme Court Justices and likely not Constitutional Scholars. I know I'm just a Monday Morning Quarterback on the topic, at best. I have a particular outcome I'd like to see win out, but I understand the opposing viewpoint as well. I simply think it would do society greater harm to stifle the ability to criticize anyone applying mathematics principles to criticize the government publicly.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (JNieman)

I simply think it would do society greater harm to stifle the ability to criticize anyone applying mathematics principles to criticize the government publicly

I think there is more potential for harm by letting just anyone spout off in public that they are an engineer and start making design recommendations. And no, a degree is simply not enough to qualify one as an engineer! This guy might have gotten an A in calculus, but does he know all the subtleties of traffic engineering? Is the actual traffic light timing even something controlled by licensed engineers? Or could a city employee with nothing more than a GED read this “engineers” analysis and start changing the timing?

This guy’s criticism of the traffic lights is not what is in question here. It is his repeated attempts to add credential to his analysis by claiming he is an engineer that earned him a fine. He was warned several times, and pointed to the specific statues he was violating. He could have chosen to take the professional route and either get licensed himself, or engage a licensed engineer that agreed with him to interface with the public/government.

For the record, I am a big proponent of smaller government. There are far too many things our government sticks their nose into. Oregon and the entire Left Coast are some of the worst offenders. However this is one case where I think the state is correct.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

@PMR06, I feel like I'm repeating myself, however, did you see the post from 28 Apr 17 13:18?

They took it far beyond "he called himself engineer" which I honestly wouldn't have cared about them fining him over.

They purported that anyone using math or attempting technical analysis is engaging in engineering, as a completely separate accusation from him claiming an allegedly-false title.

To reiterate: I wouldn't disagree with Oregon fining him for claiming 'engineer' status even though I don't think it should only apply to those registered. (There are simply too many legitimate engineering professions that do not require or benefit from State licensing) I only disagree with the dangerous idea that only a licensed P.E. shall submit mathematics-based ideas for public discussion. The guy even consulted a progenitor of the formula he critiqued, who SUPPORTED his efforts. He sought peer review. He was supported by the actual professionals. Yes, it would have behooved him to have someone sign off on his analysis to avoid conflict, however, I see no danger to the public.

When you start criminalizing ideas spoken publicly, it's dangerous. They should stick to controlling the use of 'engineer' as a title. They should avoid attempts to lump general applied mathematics into their control.

ETA, I couldn't refrain from commenting on this:

Quote (PMR05)

Is the actual traffic light timing even something controlled by licensed engineers? Or could a city employee with nothing more than a GED read this “engineers” analysis and start changing the timing?
So it's ok for any person with a GED to be in control of a city's traffic control devices but the danger is in someone proposing peer-reviewed ideas for discussion regarding yellow light timing? I think your prioritization of dangers is a bit upside down.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

The whole mess started because the OR PE board didn't like that he called himself an engineer so it should have ended with the OR PE board fining him for calling himself an engineer.

Trying to drum-up extra violations to seemingly just make the claim longer and better justified is wrong. They chose to completely ignore the intent of the word practice in the laws. Despite how anyone argues it, the intent of the word practice is to mean that you're getting paid or compensated in some manner for doing the work by others who believe you're licensed to perform that work.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (JNieman)

did you see the post from 28 Apr 17 13:18?

Yes, I've read it several times, along with all the documents presented here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fin...

"submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification"

He wasn't holding up a banner in front of city hall saying he doesn't like the traffic lights. Had he received a fine for that action, I'd be right there with you fighting for his 1st amendment rights. In this case he apparently analyzed the current system, critiqued it, came up with what he thinks was a better way to do it, and presented it to the city with the end goal that they change the timing.

Quote (JNieman)

I see no danger to the public

Quote (JNieman)

So it's ok for any person with a GED to be in control of a city's traffic control devices but the danger is in someone proposing peer-reviewed ideas for discussion regarding yellow light timing?

My example is a plausible event that could result from this. Some city worker reads this and starts tweaking the light timing because an engineer said it was a better way. I'm not justifying who has keys to the timing controls, I'm just presenting a real life scenario of how someone in the public could place faith in the recommendations of an "engineer" and start making changes to a system directly linked to life safety.

Quote (JNieman)

Yes, it would have behooved him to have someone sign off on his analysis to avoid conflict

Thank you.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"Some city worker reads this and starts tweaking the light timing because an engineer said it was a better way. I'm not justifying who has keys to the timing controls, I'm just presenting a real life scenario of how someone in the public could place faith in the recommendations of an "engineer" and start making changes to a system directly linked to life safety."

Two issues here.
> Tweaking traffic light timing is a non-trivial exercise, as changing a single light can have ripple effects all over the city which the traffic light workers know.
> While we may presume that these traffic light workers are idiots, swayed by alt-engineering, they're smart enough to know that CYA demands approval and direction from higher-ups. And those, in turn, require blessing from a validated traffic engineer.

There's no doubt in my mind that the laws, as written, overstep PE boards' legal mandate to protect the public. However, there are entrenched interests who think the laws don't go far enough. Unless there's a rogue judge, it's unlikely that much will change.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote:

I think there is more potential for harm by letting just anyone spout off in public that they are an engineer and start making design recommendations. And no, a degree is simply not enough to qualify one as an engineer!

Realistically there is no danger in anyone making design recommendations. Danger only exists in the final design approvers being unqualified, therefore there is exactly no danger in anyone calling themselves an engineer doing exactly as this man did. If you look to the medical and other professions there are many instances such as "doctors (Phd) of holistic XYZ" that the public and professional boards have little issue with.

I do agree with you however that a degree alone should not be qualification enough to sell engineering services to the public, there needs to be enough experience to have good judgment and know one's own limitations. Sadly, our modern licensing process is a joke and many seem hell bent on protecting the system. Four years and a test gives us many 25 year old junior engineers who can legally sell services with virtually no experience, scary thought that is preferable to someone like Mr Jarlstrom openly telling his unrelated degree and experience in other fields, and giving a research-based opinion. I have worked with many titled "engineers" with physics, math, business, and engineering degrees outside their working niche, also been responsible many times for PE consultants and design contractors. The former are much like interns in that they tend to stay within the limitations of their own experience. The later OTOH often are CAD jockeys with a fancy title.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

What does someone call themselves if they have an engineering degree and engineer but don't have a license? What do others call them?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Trained but not certified

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"What does someone call themselves if they have an engineering degree and engineer but don't have a license? What do others call them?"

Probably something that starts off with, "BS" winky smile

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

JAE
No Joke, that is quoted directly from the Oregon Revised Status
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/o...

As for other states, I think New Jersey also does not allow self service
In other states you have self service and full service with a significant price difference
In Oregon a similar price difference at AM/PM Arco as mini service and Chevron as full service

Again back to issue at hand

How can anybody fight the City and red light camera contractors in their attempts to generate revenue via the red light cameras without spending more money on consultants and lawyers than the fines?

Has the city tweaked the yellow duration to a shorter time to increase this revenue? they might have by default when the intersection size increased, and if they did so, did they consult an engineer with specifics to the durations?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

So, if I attempt self-service AND also attempt to calculate how much fuel I need, that's probably GULAG?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

In my professional opinion, as a former licensee in the State of Oregon, the State Board of the State of Oregon has over-reached its authority, and needs some firm limits set by the courts. I believe this censuring will also be found to be unethical.

Pumping gas is another issue, but has nothing to do with first amendment rights. Censuring free speech does.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

hydrae…

Every time I travel to Oregon, I am frustrated by the law prohibiting self-service gasoline pumping. In my 42 years of driving--mostly in California, but also in more about 35 other states--I have never once set myself on fire performing self-service gasoline pumping. Nor have I set myself on fire when I poured gasoline into the tank of my lawnmower or my edger.

So, if I may translate:

§480.315 "The State of Oregon hereby make a bunch of false and unsubstantiated claims about the hazards of self-service gasoline pumping, discrimination, etc. If we make the list long enough and we whine enough about the fools in other states, maybe someone will believe us."

§480.341 "If you live in a low population county, we don't care about you. You are free to personally tackle the extremely hazardous task of self-pumping your own gasoline. If you set yourself on fire, good luck. Low population counties have limited emergency services."

§480.349 "We care a little more about motorcyclists than residents of low population counties, but not a whole lot more. You can self pump your own gasoline, but only after the 14 IQ attendant hands you the pump handle."

Fred

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I wasn't aware that you could get full service at a gas station anywhere in the lower 48. do they wash your windows too? with the extremely adverse weather in Oregon, dirty windows are a serious safety risk and self service clerks cannot be held responsible for maintaining a squeegee in working condition especially with the slick pavement and when they get stolen all the time.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Gasoline, bureaucratic red tape, ethical dilemmas in engineering... Reminds me of a story. This is the mamby-pamby side of the story:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Plus+station+o...

What the article does not tell you is that the operator of the gas station tried to respond immediately to the leak as soon as the leak was detected, but they were blocked by city of Calgary administration, who would not issue a permit to dig. The excavation required a road to be dug up, hazardous waste management, and the gas station operator got wound up in red tape, forbidden from digging out the leaking fuel tank. Months later, the tank was still underground, the leak was still spreading, and neighboring houses were starting to smell it in their basements. They had the equipment on site ready and waiting to go all that time.

STF

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Wow, just wow.

The scariest words in English language: "I am from the government and I am here to help"

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

So, no police, fire, military, or even water, sewage, or road repair, then?

You know what's even scarier, it's when an airline tells you they're committed to a "great passenger experience."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"You know what's even scarier, it's when an airline tells you they're committed to a "great passenger experience.""

Yeah, they will throw you off the plane if you don't like it.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

It sometimes works both ways.

A very interesting guy in Saint Louis built a museum called the City Museum. It started out as a collection of building details from demolished buildings but soon became an increasingly wide collection of those things people develop a nostalgia for plus recycling of industrial discards in a most interesting fashion. The most impressive part is that it is all very much hands-on and containing many items no committee would approve.

He eventually got himself a Ferris wheel which he assembled on the roof (former heavy industrial building). The Saint Louis city hand-wringers didn't like it much, mostly I think because the City Museum had become a huge attraction that, unlike the Zoo and other such facilities, had no city control. Anyway, the city issued an order to tear it down. His lawyers looked at the order and found the city required a permit to tear it down, so the city issued a permit. Then his lawyers found that the permit was not issued properly because the demolition permit required (IIRC) a reference to the original building permit. So the city was forced to issue a building permit to complete the demolition permit. Ooops. Now that he had a building permit the city had no authority to force him to take it down.

The Ferris wheel is still there.

Sadly the guy who started it is dead, most likely murdered, but crudely staged to look to the incurious as an accident. Interesting people get interesting enemies.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I'm a practicing engineer in Ontario for 30 years and I take absolutely no offense at this guy's actions. I heard a radio interview with the man himself. (Full disclosure: I own a vehicle, which I drive on public roadways, frequently encountering red lights.)

Common sense: this guy was acting in the public interest; he was not offering engineering services to the public nor passing himself off as one.

Reality check: if Oregon Engineers are really so concerned about this problem they should go after the many thousands of computer code writers tacking the word 'engineer' onto whatever it is they do. Call up the architects association while you're at it. There are plenty of non-engineers stealing my bread every day practicing welding engineering. Charging this guy just reeks of bureaucratic vindictiveness. They should instead thank him for drawing attention to an ongoing deficiency.

That said, I'm not sure a free speech angle was the best approach for his defense. (The 'free speech' argument has been used to excuse almost anything, from superpacs to hate radio to unlimited access to porn for children.)

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"he was not offering engineering services to the public nor passing himself off as one"
>> He did that at least twice in written communications with the board. Moreover, as the law is written, he was clearly doing both. That is the crux of the lawsuit.

Quote (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007)

2015 ORS 672.007¹
Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping

(1) A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.


" they should go after the many thousands of computer code writers tacking the word 'engineer' onto whatever it is they do"
>> They are most likely covered by the industrial exemption

Quote (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060)

(6) The performance of engineering work by a person, or by full-time employees of the person, provided:
(a) The work is in connection with or incidental to the operations of the person; and
(b) The engineering work is not offered directly to the public.


According to below, if he did the work at home, then his fine was illegal.

Quote (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060#annotations)

Individual who sends letter containing professional engineering advice does not practice engineering on prop­erty owned or leased by individual. Topaz v. Board of Examiners for Engineering, 255 Or App 138, 297 P3d 498 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I think he should have been warned to not use the name, but his claims should not be dismissed.

the fact is bad design of lights costs many lives. putting cameras in place gives this city revenue but actually discourages fixing the problem, costing more lives. the city and its engineering department are basically now on notice for wrongful death suits, and even if they win the suit I personally hold them accountable, and you should too.

1. light timings are often too short, more cycles is more likely hood of crash but more money (more cycles more red light tickets, conflict of interest).
2. there becomes much less incentive to promote traffic circles or flashing red solutions, which remove cameras.
3. lagging reds do not get promoted even though they are shown to save lives (and decrease tickets...)
4. green light cycle times do not increase during snow events, which improves efficiency (and again reduces tickets)
5. cameras are too seldom used to improve traffic flow by adjusting cycle times based on actual conditions. (somewhat decrease in tickets)

the crux of the issue is the ticket on red +0.00 seconds and you have to have cleared the intersection, other countries use red +0.5 seconds(or other times) with no requirement to clear. to me usa law is crazy because it seems inefficient(though likely intended to be more safe).

to stop discussion on lights is wrong, maybe this guy should not lead the discussion but neither should the city (conflict of interest) or the media. the NHS or some body should set the rules and the cities follow them.

disclaimer i have never gotten a red light ticket or a speeding ticket.

here is all my comment karma
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/67jqj...

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Well with that many reddit internet points, he can't be wrong.
/s

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

As a sometimes motorcycle rider, red light cameras are problematic to safe riding practices (better to be "wrong" and alive). Disclosure: I'm an "engineer" but not an "Engineer".

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"the crux of the issue is the ticket on red +0.00 seconds and you have to have cleared the intersection, other countries use red +0.5 seconds(or other times) with no requirement to clear. to me usa law is crazy because it seems inefficient(though likely intended to be more safe)"

Or, it's intended to generate revenue. Note that the "LAW" is actually a bunch of "laws," none of which specify details like "red +0.00 s." Prior to red-light cameras, it was solely at the discretion of the officer(s), resulting in total variability in ticketing. Red-light camera timing is primarily a revenue generation tool in most cities, particularly when it's offered for free by the camera suppliers, with a revenue-sharing arrangement. Setting the timing to "red +0.00s" simply ensures that the camera supplier gets their return on investment faster.

On the other side of the coin, yellow lights, today, tend to be ignored, as red-light enforcement is quite rare.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"IRstuff (Aerospace)26 Apr 17 14:30
He lost out because Oregon has no industrial exemption: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060.

Seemed to me that he was blatantly pushing the envelope. Had he keep to something like "BSEE 1982 Uppsala University" he could have gotten away with it. He's pi$$ing into the wind, since it's Oregon law, and the board is probably indemnified for following the law."

Both #5 and #6 are industrial exemption of a sort. Actually, #6 is the big one that is. "Person" in the exemption has the meaning as in ORS 670 which refers to the state standard definition in ORS 174.100 which basically means an individual or organizational entity such as a corporation, partnership, etc.

#6 is the main industrial exemption like the computer electronics engineers at Tektronix or the semiconductor engineers at Intel. This is because Oregon doesn't have a proper licensing program for these professions because licensing programs involves the wrong kinds of education and testing and pools of questions for engineering in these professions. No one needs to know how about plumbing engineering to design a semiconductor. Engineers working on the plumbing systems in an Intel plant would need to be an MEP engineer that is licensed but not the semiconductor engineer designing a microprocessor. If we are going to license these other 'engineering' disciplines as well as software engineering, then the training needs to be the correct form of education, experience background, and correct testing and NO.... the NCEES exam for software engineering is not the right kind of exam because the exam isn't for software engineering but what is actually a very narrow form of systems engineering. If anything, software engineering or software systems engineering shouldn't require an P.E. license except if the system involves a life-safety or critical system where there maybe an elevated risk of physical harm of the public if incompetently performed. The software engineers working on the next version of Microsoft Excel or Word or a video game platform as you may find in an online video game involving a server-client model, or even those in the video game industry should not require a Professional Engineer license. All that does is draws attorneys to sue the individuals which are working under direction of their corporate superiors including the venture capitalists financing the software projects who would be the ones ordinarily responsible as they usually have ownership stake in the business. The purpose of the architect & engineers law was about life, safety, welfare, and general health of the public.... you know.... prevent another Great Chicago fire by improved construction standards designed to prevent spread of fires, and minimize risk of bridges and dams collapsing and causing physical harm to persons and persons' properties. This is the legislative intent. Licensing was intended for those reasons not to be a vehicle of a group of people to establish an oligopoly or regulate like a guild or union club. There has to be justification for licensing. In fact, over-broad restriction of common words is technically a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No state shall adopt or enforce any law abridge (any law or regulation that to effect restricts or lessens...) the privileges and rights of the United States Constitution. By overzealous controlling of generic terms like engineering and general overly generic word uses is in itself a violation and to some extent is illegal.

Generally, if anyone in certain fields are deem to be such where there is serious potential for serious harm of people or properties of people that can not be addressed by alternative means such as product testing requirements, standards and codes, etc. should be sufficient ground for licensing based regulations to be in place but only when there is.

Regulating beyond that scope on a person is overreach. All that it does is drive industries out the state and causes unemployment and there simply isn't the general resources to police those industries. The licensing board can not investigate every tom, dick, and harry of every single occupational field that can be interpreted to fit into such broad definition like that used to describe practice of engineering in Oregon. If you read that, it can be interpreted to apply to any occupation including manufacturing. These laws have to be constrained to reasonable levels by general scope of original legislative intent. There is many 'engineering' fields that are not a significant risk to HSW that needs to be regulated by licensing programs. Considering we have these cookie cutter and somewhat arbitrary licensing requirements for certain fields that may not appropriately apply to other fields. For example, that F.E. exam is inappropriate for 90% of software engineers because 90% of software engineers works on software projects for general consumer markets not life-critical or safety critical systems. I can see a P.E. license for software engineering for software engineering of safety critical systems but there is a point where that has to be NARROWLY defined and appropriate testing applied. Exemption for software engineers not involved in software engineering of safety critical or life-safety systems. Safety critical software engineering.... yes. General software engineering on such non-critical systems where failure would not likely result in harm to persons' or persons' property or natural environment abroad.

When we look at industrial exemption, these are intended to exempt professions of some level of 'engineering' (which by state definition basically means any form of applied science and math) that isn't within the intended scope of engineering licensing on basis of HSW of the public. Engineering such as semiconductor engineering of consumer electronics or software engineering, without a Professional Engineer license, for consumer software products usually do not arise to a sufficient nexus of potential harm to public health, safety, and welfare to constitute the need for occupational licensing. Even consumer electronics needs to pass some certifications like FCC regulations, CE certification, etc. to meet general standards and in itself would not arise to requiring licensure to design and engineer and manufacture consumer electronics.

I had written comments to OSBEELS when they tried to put software engineering under professional engineering licensing. I opposed an blanket approach to the issue. I can support very focused areas of software engineering and focus licensure as a practice matter. Lighten up on the general title of 'software engineering' and focus on what point in software engineering rises to a level that needs to have a P.E. license. In my opinion, software engineering of safety-critical systems, life-critical systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety-critical_syst... ) would be what I think would constitute licensing requirements being reasonable.

Outside of that, I don't think it constitutes a need for licensing. What is important to keep the eye on the ball is the point of licensing is to protect the public from unqualified people designing/engineering whatever..... where if there is a failure.... there is a significant risk of death or injury, environmental harm, and/or severe damage or loss of equipment & property. Most important are the risk of death or injury of people, environmental harm, or damage/loss of property beyond the item or object itself. I rather a computer destroy itself, not the rest of the house/building or city block or city as a whole if it failed. Where damage risk upon failure has significant probability to go beyond the self-destruction of the item itself where it would likely cause severe damage or loss to other equipment, building at large, environmental harm, or death/injury of people, then I can see engineering license.

You know.... basic common level prudence... (common sense). I oppose over-regulating because that's basically police state full of you can't do this and that. You have to go through a process that would cost an arm, a leg and testicle to go through just to be poorly paid, sued left and right by every attorney every day just because they all think you have a bottom-less supply of professional liability insurance... all jacking up your insurance premium. No thank you.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
So the "correct" way to go about this would be for the dude to say, "I'm a physicist, and I caught you guys dorking with the stoplight timing to fleece the public with your stoplight cameras. Here's the math." And then Oregon probably would have said, "your math doesn't count because you're not a traffic engineer."

At that point, what's the guy to do? He caught the government red handed extorting the public. Nobody is even questioning that. But the state's response is simply to poison the well. If he claimed "physicist" instead of "engineer" on his business card, the state still has the option of poisoning the well, just in a different way.

In my mind, being critical of engineering, using sound science, absolutely should be free speech.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

But to play Devil's advocate, using the term engineer to describe yourself in a state where engineer is a protected term is asking for trouble. I don't think he's the silliest one in this sorry tale, but no one looks like a genius either.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (GregLocock)

I don't think he's the silliest one in this sorry tale, but no one looks like a genius either.

So would you say he's like: "an RPN calculator with no Enter key"?

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Or an RPN calculator with an Equals key?

STF

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Looks like he's not done chasing them. Now that they are no longer bullying him, he's still going after them to never bully anyone else.

Good on him.

Professional Engineering is helpful and of benefit, but needs to be confined to matters of contract, not public statement. If someone makes an accurate assessment, they should not need a license to be able to share it.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (3DDave)

...but needs to be confined to matters of contract, not public statement.

I think this is a crux of the issue. In all of the 24 states that I'm licensed in, most have regulations on using the term "engineer" or "professional engineer", etc.

The goal of these regulations, in my view, has always been to help protect the public against charlatans seeking to have people hire them to do engineering type services when they may not actually have the credentials to do so. This is a good thing.

But limiting the use of "engineer" when folks are just making public statements, campaign ads, or doing math, is an attempt to protect the engineering profession's reputation, not the public safety.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Or even inaccurate assessments.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

As I said before, here's a guy looking for a fight. He won, but he's still fighting on. He even wrote the proposed judgement seeking to declare the Oregon statutes and rules forbidding the unregistered practice of engineering unconstitutional on their face. Link Public safety be damned and free speech prevails.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Good outcome. Hopefully this movement will spread across the country.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I think the real winner here is Holiday Inn Express. A night's stay there, coupled with no rules on who can claim expertise and suddenly everyone is a surgeon, an engineer, whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCTaUFXpP8

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Well...a "good" outcome if there is still a level of protection against people claiming to be engineers and selling services to the public when they are not licensed engineers.

This guy perhaps showed that this particular board got a bit out of line but I could see the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction - which would not be good.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
I have no problem with regulating the use of "Licensed Engineer". But fining people who for using the term "Engineer", which has been in common use for hundreds of years before these boards came along, has always struck me as asinine. Some of these boards appear to be living in an alternate universe where they think they are the supreme rulers.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Thanks beej67 for posting the link. I am glad they guy won.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"Licensed", "registered", "certified": Apparently all forms of protected speech under the first amendment and available for all to use however they wish.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2
I've a different perspective on this and regret Jarlstrom's win. Amendment 10 empowers states to regulate themselves where the federal government doesn't. Therefore, I see Jarlstrom's win as a loss for the ability of states to regulate themselves. Each state has the right to make its own laws to govern the people of that state.

By the 1920's, dentistry was a regulated profession in Colorado. In the 1920's, a California dental company was expanding its business into Colorado. They hired 5 dentists, who claimed to have the proper education and licensure from the state. When complaints were lodged with the Board regarding botched oral surgeries, etc., an investigation was launched. They discovered that none of the 5 dentists in Colorado were educated or licensed. That prompted the State of Colorado to declare all professions, which included engineering. Can just anyone claim to be a dentist, Medical Doctor, JD, CPA, etc.? Why should engineering be any different? Most states define engineering and what constitutes the practice of engineering just as they do for other professions. Constitutionally, that is their right.

In Old Town San Diego, the sheriff's office has a lot of history dating to the early 1800's and the establishment of laws to prevent unfair, dishonest, etc. behaviors and these were established long before California was a territory of the USA.

Given that history as well as recent history with the Peanut Company of America, Blue Bell Ice Cream, Con Agra, Imperial Sugar, BP, etc., I think engineering needs to be regulated to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Public means everyone by definition and is the Board's usage of public. We act as those public somehow means people we don't work with but "someone else" or "others" such as those in public works.

Engineering needs to up its game. The AMA bit the bullet about 10 years ago, which was not a popular act, to require all Medical Doctors to be licensed by the state thereby negating their version of the industrial exemption practiced in hospitals. Attorneys, per mine, fought a similar battle, primarily against Big Insurance, regarding who qualifies for the designation of "attorney" and their right to use "attorney." Per my attorney, it was a long, hard fought battle but they won. Good for them!

Laws don't grow in vacuums. They grow because people cannot regulate themselves enough to not harm others. That is one fundamental purpose of government, i.e., prevent harm.

When my cousin was Speaker of the House in Louisiana, I went to a committee meeting with him. Some of his constituents were trying to establish a different kind of bank and had to get a new bill passed to do it. They were not successful because it would have negated a previous bill that was established after some of the financial meltdowns that harmed a lot of people. That law protected the depositors in banks and they couldn't, in good conscience, allow consumers to be exposed to harm. They followed my cousin out of the committee room to press their case further. He patiently listened and explained to them again what just happened and why. Louisiana has 5 committees that prospective bills have to wind through before reaching the House floor for a vote. That tells me due diligence is done for each bill passed.

Everything needs checks and balances because people are fallible and we drive everything. I don't see government as any more corrupt than businesses, charities, etc.

History is important. Knowing how government works is important.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

3
I am an engineer. I trained as one, I'm educated as one, and I work on a daily basis as one. I am not a LICENSED engineer, but I am an engineer nonetheless. If I hold myself out as practicing engineering in public safety-related projects, then I expect to be fined, arrested, etc. But if I perform any engineering process that is NOT public safety-related, stay out of my business.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

While I understand Pam's position, I think that the issue has to do with how a perceived problem is being solved.

I think we can all agree that the primary problem occurs when unqualified/incompetent people attempt to extract money from the public for services not really rendered. This occurs in a number of professions, such as engineering, medicine, law, etc. In all cases, licensure has been the "solution" and a cadre of laws have been created to define who should get licensed, and how. That's all fine and good.

However, only in engineering is there a possibility of performing engineering, such as for my own employer, where licensure is neither needed nor desired. Therefore, it's clear that the one-size fits all approach to licensure is really not applicable to engineering, particularly since the industrial exemption encompasses probably 3 to 4 times the number of actual licensed engineers. That makes it a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I think that PE laws need to be completely overhauled so that ONLY people who are attempting to sell services to the public without licenses are violating the law. All other engineers should be allowed to call themselves engineers, as befitting their education and experience, and so long as they're not selling their services to the general public, all should be good.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

1. If a person is claiming themselves as licensed engineers authorized to practice "engineering" within the state that requires licensure then yes the person should be fined. There is also consumer protection laws that outlaws misrepresentation.

2. Title laws should be restrictive to specific titles containing the words "Licensed" or "Registered". Lets not forget that licensing was a construct of the early 20th century like the architect laws and most other laws adopted at the time were adopted at the time through illegally conducted closed to the public meetings without full state-wide notifications to the state's citizens in sufficient advanced notice or by simply not issuing public notice.

3. Licensing laws violates the 14th Amendment of the United States.
"Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note: semicolons denotes independent clauses as is in English grammar rules. It basically means the equivalent below when grammatically re-structured as complete independent sentences without losing meaning under grammar.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These two means EXACTLY the same meaning. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Abridge means "to reduce" or "to lessen". In other words no shall shall make or enforce any law that places restrictions on the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The Bill of Rights defines a set of privileges called "rights" and the Constitution, in addition to the fundamental three human rights (life, liberty, and property), also defines immunities. These licensing laws by their very nature is unconstitutional because it is a policing on what people can say or express.

We might ask, how can we protect the public if we can't violate the 14th Amendment in order to adopt these consumer protection laws. The idea that you have to police the public and treat them as children incapable of making prudent decision making such as verifying the person's previous works or getting third party viewpoints and getting multiple opinions for example is running afoul of any sense that any adult can be of competent capacity for handling matters as an adult. If adults can't be competent in assessing and validation of people then maybe people can't be charge of making their own decisions.

Since it isn't exactly popular to remove licensing laws even for this gentleman's case. In my opinion, if I work in the domain of exemption doing structural calculations for single family residential structure.... is it not really engineering? Why can't I refer to it like it really is even if I am not licensed as a Professional Engineers. The title laws should be revised a little bit to be explicit to titles containing the word "Licensed" or "Registered" in the title. This way, we don't waste our time and energy going after people merely using the word engineer or engineer. We have to find a balance between protecting the public from someone trying to commit fraud and being a "title nazi". In my opinion, we need to find a balance. I'm a building designer and from time to time I do structural calculations and other applications of math science, physical science, and engineering sciences. Why? ORS 672.060 provides an exemption. Am I technically engaging in practice of engineering? If you read the definition under ORS 672.005, as broadly as those very ambiguous terms of the definition, I would have been practicing that since the 1980s as a computer programmer/software developer/etc. because my role encompasses "special knowledge" of mathematical, physical, and engineering science to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design, and services during construction, manufacture, or fabrication for the ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/o...

Therefore, I would have been doing this kind of work in some form or manner over the past 30 years. For some reason, licensing has never been a part of software development work in Oregon. The qualifications for becoming a Professional Engineer is not even suitable or qualifies a person to develop software applications. It just doesn't work well. They don't make good video game developers but even video games involves the use of mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences but it is also a highly creative work involving many different skills. In the past 15 years or so, I have been involved in building design of SFRs and light commercial projects. In some fashion, I am required to apply the use of math for example, as well as understanding of physics and engineering sciences. Yet, I'm not required under ORS 672.060 to have a license as an engineer. Sure, there are times when an structural engineer or an MEP engineering firm would be prudent. With such wide and ambiguous terms of the definition of practice of engineering, you can virtually apply that to encroach licensing requirement on every occupation. This would be asinine at some point and would be met with extreme resistance.

We have to not let OSBEELS become a vehicle to personal agendas of some members of the profession to try to encroach and use it and these laws as a means of outlawing out competitors.

I avoid using the terms engineering in contracts but isn't my doing structural calculations technically practice of engineering. If we get too literal with definition, I can also make the argument that title law restrictions do not apply to work in the exempt domain because ORS 672.060 begins with -- "ORS 672.002 to 672.325 do not apply to the following:"

" (10) A person making plans or specifications for, or supervising the erection, enlargement or alteration of, a building, or an appurtenance thereto, if the building is to be used for a single family residential dwelling or farm building or is a structure used in connection with or auxiliary to a single family residential dwelling or farm building, including but not limited to a three-car garage, barn or shed or a shelter used for the housing of domestic animals or livestock. The exemption in this subsection does not apply to a registered professional engineer.

(11) A person making plans or specifications for, or supervising the erection, enlargement or alteration of, a building, or an appurtenance thereto, if the building has a ground area of 4,000 square feet or less and is not more than 20 feet in height from the top surface of lowest flooring to the highest interior overhead finish of the structure. The exemption in this subsection does not apply to a registered professional engineer."

In short, I could say, ORS 672.020 does not apply to me.

However, Oregon's consumer protection laws would bar me from representing myself as licensed. Therefore, I wouldn't claim to use the title "Professional Engineer" but for some reason, engineering would be incidental to my work as a building designer as it is for Architects. However, I may be authorized to do things in connection with projects outside the state or country which is outside the legal jurisdiction of Oregon and I would legally have the right to offer and perform services in those jurisdiction that may otherwise not be authorized to be done in connection with projects with intended locations in Oregon.

For what it is worth, OSBEELS much like OBAE has to be careful to not exceed rational boundaries. I find 'turf wars' between our professional peers (whether licensed or not) to be tiresome and not helpful. The word "professional" does not mean licensed but can have statutory definitions which are strictly intended to define the intended meaning for interpreting a set of laws so the intent of the legislative author(s) can be understood and hopefully, consistently treated.

At the end of the day, these laws lives on grace of allowance to continue to operate because it can be challenged at the Constitution level. Therefore, we have to protect the public while respecting the Rights of each individual. I can't assume the adults that I can contract with are of less intelligence and ability to comprehend than a pre-school kid. Adults should have reading comprehension capacity to read and understand law as well as read and comprehend what I wrote in this message. They should be able to read and comprehend Moby Dick, books by Charles Dickens, and more. They should be able to read and understand anything I wrote.

Therefore, it should be clear to any adult of legal capacity to make decisions for themselves what the intent and meaning. They should not automatically come to conclusion that they are licensed. Especially if it is actually stated. It's clear in my post that I am not licensed as an engineer and even as a building designer, I may utilized or apply engineering practices to my design process as it is incidental to my work as a building designer. As I am also a software developer,programmer, and software architect & engineer as it applies to development of software applications, video games, utilities, etc. all the way back to the Commodore 64 and TI-99/4A and other computers at the time. No one in those days were concerned with getting some state license as "Professional Engineers" as these licensing boards for P.E.s were really for disciplines such as Civil, Structural, M.E.P., and similar such work as they would be applied to the physically built environment. They were not really involved in any way or form to software.

They are typically predicated on different bodies of knowledge with some overlap in some ways. After all, isn't Physics and Math typically a general ed requirement at colleges? There is also the principles of engineering incorporated in software work because this knowledge area were incorporated by various professionals of the field over the years going back to mid-20th century with the mainframes. In my experience with matters of being a software developer, the traffic light issue is a easily solvable matter. For one, timing. Not all vehicles are made equal. They don't accelerate at the same rate nor do they break at the same rate (defining breaking distance). I'm not a traffic engineer but I am sure there are methods for assessing but also, engineers needs to incorporates "factors of safety" so they don't cause situations to get too dangerous. Things to keep in mind, drivers tends to accelerate during a yellow not decelerate because drivers are impatient. They don't want to be stuck having to stop. Perhaps, we also have to consider incorporating sensors of some kind in the intersection so that traffic isn't allowed to enter via the green light until the intersection is cleared so it is safe for new traffic to enter and cross the intersection. In effect, safety is to SLOW down and instill patience to the patient. Make it clear they don't get a Green "GO" before it is clearly safe so there is no "T-bone" accidents and the likes. The point is safety not trying to move more traffic per hour. Don't sacrifice safety for stupid notion of the public wanting to get to their destination quicker. They don't get it that their life is worth more than getting to the job site on time, for example. We have to be prudent. If we need to move volume of public quickly like in an emergency, like in cases of moving people traffic out of a building then proper means of egress and straighter paths of egress to exits as well as appropriate egress widths.

I don't recall all aspects of the issue but I believe it is fair and should be accepted and as professionals, we shouldn't be so stuck up and arrogant that a person can't learn how to do engineering. There isn't any special knowledge in the engineering sciences, physical sciences, and mathematical sciences that a person can't learn. Perhaps, they legally can't engage as an engineer but OSBEELS does have path to licensure through experience but if a person is trying to present a concern and their observation and their mathematical results and so forth especially to the board, they shouldn't be portrayed or treated as 'villains' to the profession. No. If anything, the T.E.s should have taken time to observe the calculations and check things out themselves. Even licensed, you can make mistakes or overlooked something that someone with fresh eyes might notice even if unlicensed. Don't let ego get in the way. I sensed, the engineers on the OSBEELS and their ego got hurt and they got angry and fined this person.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Well....I guess this might fall under TL/DR.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

2

Quote (RickAstoria)

There isn't any special knowledge in the engineering sciences, physical sciences, and mathematical sciences that a person can't learn.

Not true by any means! If this were so, then any person in Elementary Education, Political Science or any of hundreds of other non-technical majors should be able to take and pass differential equations, physics with calculus, thermodynamics, dynamics or a variety of other basic engineering coursework. I don't want anyone designing a building I'm in whether it is the electrical, mechanical, structural or civil aspects of that building, without having proved a basic sufficiency in engineering capability....i.e., licensing.

Don't you think that if licensing laws were a violation of the 14th amendment that they would have been stricken long ago? Not so.

I don't mean to be unkind, but I suspect you are not capable of being licensed, hence your resentment. If you are writing engineering software that computes engineering parameters, you are practicing engineering without a license in my opinion. That's actionable in most states as a statutory violation. As engineers who use software, we are REQUIRED by law to verify that the software is computing proper engineering parameters based on our input.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"If you are writing engineering software that computes engineering parameters, you are practicing engineering without a license in my opinion. That's actionable in most states as a statutory violation. As engineers who use software, we are REQUIRED by law to verify that the software is computing proper engineering parameters based on our input."

This is absolutely not true. In California, we, the unwashed, are exempted for work performed for our employers. I'm certainly not arguing against licensure, but, I am arguing that the laws, as written, are overly burdensome, as I am clearly an engineer, both by education and experience. I don't sell my services to the public, so I should be allowed to call myself "engineer" and refer to my work as "engineering." The prohibition of which is a violation of my 1st amendment rights.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

IRstuff...I should have been more clear about the software....software that does independent design of engineering works constitutes the practice of engineering. Not all engineering software does so. States variously decide what constitutes "engineering works". There are many "exempt" engineering functions that do not require licensing, but as you have correctly implied, if certain engineering services are sold "to the public", then licensing is required. I'm not sure that licensing laws are necessarily overly burdensome, but in many instances they are somewhat misguided.

I agree that you and many others on this site are engineers by education and experience and rightly deserve to be designated as such. You have chosen a career path that does not put you in a position of directly offering certain engineering services to the general public. Absolutely nothing wrong with that in any respect. You are certainly no less an engineer for choosing that path.

Conversely, there are those who want to practice engineering without appropriate qualifications or experience in a "public" capacity, that often puts the "public" at risk. The "public" is not capable of discerning appropriate qualifications of an individual to perform such services, so licensing (with all of its inequities, foibles, and problems) is one step in the process of protection of the health, safety and welfare of the "public".

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I agree with Mats Järlström that the State of Oregon is abridging his right to free speech. He has a right to complain about the signal timing and anything else he d@#n well pleases to complain about. Traffic fines bring in money for governments and when someone threatens a revenue stream the politicians aren't going to roll over. They'll try to shut you up any way they can.

However, I disagree with RickAstoria about the constitutionality of licensing laws.

If we want to be Constitutional Originalists it's highly unlikely that the writers of the Amendment envisioned licensing laws for professionals, since these laws didn't exist then. The amendment was written because some believed the 13th Amendment alone wouldn't do enough to protect former slaves.

RickAstoria is mixing a free speech case with a State's right to enact licensing laws. A licensing law doesn't deprive any qualified person the privilege of a license without due process of law (it's in the 14th Amendment americanflag)

Quote (nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; )

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

IRstuff...I should have been more clear about the software....software that does independent design of engineering works constitutes the practice of engineering. Not all engineering software does so. States variously decide what constitutes "engineering works". There are many "exempt" engineering functions that do not require licensing, but as you have correctly implied, if certain engineering services are sold "to the public", then licensing is required. I'm not sure that licensing laws are necessarily overly burdensome, but in many instances they are somewhat misguided.

I agree that you and many others on this site are engineers by education and experience and rightly deserve to be designated as such. You have chosen a career path that does not put you in a position of directly offering certain engineering services to the general public. Absolutely nothing wrong with that in any respect. You are certainly no less an engineer for choosing that path.

Conversely, there are those who want to practice engineering without appropriate qualifications or experience in a "public" capacity, that often puts the "public" at risk. The "public" is not capable of discerning appropriate qualifications of an individual to perform such services, so licensing (with all of its inequities, foibles, and problems) is one step in the process of protection of the health, safety and welfare of the "public".


Writing the software... lol. No, if the software was an A.I. and could compute the engineering equations that does independent design of engineering then isn't it the computer running that software that you issue fines to? Would you go after the persons who engineered the TI graphic calculators because if a person knows elementary algebra, physics and reads a few books on the principles of engineering, they could use even a calculator to compute the equations and even use the right equations.

Not true by any means! If this were so, then any person in Elementary Education, Political Science or any of hundreds of other non-technical majors should be able to take and pass differential equations, physics with calculus, thermodynamics, dynamics or a variety of other basic engineering coursework. I don't want anyone designing a building I'm in whether it is the electrical, mechanical, structural or civil aspects of that building, without having proved a basic sufficiency in engineering capability....i.e., licensing.

Don't you think that if licensing laws were a violation of the 14th amendment that they would have been stricken long ago? Not so.


Haven't you heard of engineering text books. If the person knows hows to read and comprehend what they read then they can read any book written in the language(s) they understand and be able to learn from it. Sorry but it has already been written.

Regarding that - "Don't you think if licensing laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment that they would have been stricken long ago?" Laws and how they are interpreted or intentionally misinterpreted even by the Supreme Court and at all levels of the Judicial branch of government is politically charged. It wasn't challenged because courts on these matters are expensive. Answer this question, DOES the licensing laws RESTRICT or otherwise limits a person from expression or speech or publication of ANY KIND and I mean ALL WRITTEN WORKS with regards to engineering? Think this from what a persons right prior to licensure law. When the first amendment right was established, that right was absolutely unlimited. A person can speak and write about anything and any topic without any form of penalty.

Think carefully, isn't designing and engineering and what you produce in drawings, written specifications and other technical communications still communication protected by the 1st Amendment and subsequently by the 14th Amendment?

The simple fact is, they ran into a paradox where they would not legally been able to adopt these laws so they simply disregarded the 14th Amendment because they felt it was acceptable to violate and take away the rights of individuals in order to pacify the outcry and whining that was happening after the Chicago Fire. They created the first Architectural licensing and Engineering licensing was happening soon after. Funny thing considering Chicago and it's immediate surrounding communities at the time (and now) held most of the state's population, there was certain public outcry and obvious incentive with pushes being made to have some kind of state licenses that was being pushed for like 50 years in order so organizations like the AIA (for Architects) would be able to control numbers of who can call themselves (Architects, engineers, etc.) and also the authorization to practice. They were trying to create state-sponsored medieval guilds aka state-sponsored oligopoly. This violated another set of laws that were adopted at the time period... the antitrust laws... first of them being the Sherman Act. States and the Federal government weren't exactly on the same page.

Now, when you read exactly this clause of the 14th Amendment: NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Abridge means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge (visit the link for the definitions. Basically, to reduce in scope or otherwise diminish. In short, to limit the protections of the rights.

Therefore, does licensing law cause limitations on the 1st Amendment? Is it limiting my right to express architecturally and through technical communications such as engineering which was my right to do so since 1789. It was my right to express architecturally. However, my right to express architecturally which is an art form that is protected. If I were to design a 5 story commercial building. It is my artistic expression through the architectural arts and technical communication in the application of the sciences, I would be fined and penalized by governments within the U.S. This is text book definition of violating the 14th Amendment. It would also be a taking of my personal property such as money and potentially a taking of my liberty for a law that is not lawful to have been made or enforce since 1868. Neither architecture or engineering was a licensed profession inside the U.S. or anywhere in the world in 1868.

Having said that, to an extent, in the late 1890s and early 1900s and 1910s and most of 1920s, there wasn't yet established uniformed building codes. There were various local standards at local government level. There wasn't state-wide building codes. People were concerned about public safety and concerned that people designing these buildings were competent. The irony was, the very people who designed the unsafe buildings in the Chicago fire were the very people who were grandfathered into the licensing. Add to that, the profession is more eager to fine and enact disciplinary actions against the non-licensed but when a licensed person does something bad or heinous or otherwise should be grounds for revocation, they get to walk with nothing more than a verbal admonition. No fine. No suspension of license. No revocation. Why is that? How is the public protected when the licensed don't take action against one of their own. It has became a state-sponsored 'club' and really just an oligopoly because they have powers to constrain and limit entry of new people into licensure. If they want to reduce new entry into licensure, all they have to do is increase the amount of education/experience required for entry, make the exams more lengthier and more difficult to pass by raising the bar on what is considered a passing of the exams. It doesn't protect the public. Buildings were suddenly being designed or made safer because of licenses. It was because of regulations like building codes. I'm not against the building codes because its purpose is outright about public safety of the buildings we are in and defines the standards to be met. In effect, it not only provides a prescriptive but also a performance based standards to be expected to be met. These are what should have been established. There is no absolute need for state by state licensing but there can most certainly be a professional certification for architects and engineers as there is for building designers that can be used to promote and distinguish your qualifications to perform the work in addition to your portfolio of works. We just need to have codified standards and adopt them with legal force for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. From that point, those who are particularly qualified would be best fit for professional practice. As it is, already under Oregon law, you don't have to be licensed to be sued for tort, negligence or otherwise.

If you read ORS 12.135 ( https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/12.135 ): a plaintiff (which includes not only natural persons but organizational entities) can take legal action under contract, tort, or otherwise, against another person (which includes organizational entities such as businesses)for damages that arised from the services the person rendered. This includes also design services. This means as a building designer, I am still subject to potential lawsuits for the performance of my services. There is no exemption from being held accountable just because you lack a license. While there is indicated a two year period as a statutes of limitation for injury or damage first discovered.... but they can still in effect apply a suit for negligent injury to person or property under ORS 12.110 and hold that against me if I were negligent. They can in effect do that for a 10 year period. There is still mechanisms under other parts of law for recovery of damages, economic loss and so forth. So in effect, I'd still be subject to various penalties under court as a licensed person would be. Other states could or have applied similar laws in their legal system so that unlicensed persons don't just walk. The application of the right laws to be used against the person is still important and that is why competent lawyers should be used when suing a person. If a person is not licensed, they cite the laws appropriately against the unlicensed person(s) while they cite the right laws against a licensed person(s). In any case, a person shall be held accountable for their actions regardless of license. In my opinion, that is fair.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not out there removing the engineers or architects licensing laws. It should be recognized that the laws lives on a grace that it hasn't been challenged completely to the point where it completely unravels licensing of architects.

Now back to the part on software programming. If I were to write a computer program that has the functions to compute required beam sizes and so forth? It's mathematics. Whether as an employee or as a business owner, if I were merely writing the software with programming routines that performs the calculation of the mathematic equation for determining the size of a beam. You're an engineer, you might not know how to write a computer program to save your butt. As a programmer, I would have to write the program so that it works. It does help to have an understanding of engineering principles. My experience as a building designer does help. Now, if I were to use that engineering software to compute the 'parameters' like what size beams is required to support a uniformed distributed live load of 50 pounds per square foot with beams spanning 10-ft. between supporting columns and beams are at 8-ft. on-center spacing. Therefore, a roughly 10ft x 8-ft. tributary area or 800 sq.ft. of tributary area with 50# per sq.ft. So the beam has to support, say 40,000 pounds along it's length or 4000 pounds per linear foot of the beam. The software needs to calculate the cross-section requirement. Lets assume the requirement being a wood beam. If the software calculates this, am I practicing engineering for writing the software? No more than Microsoft would be writing Microsoft Office. However, if I were to use the software on a non-exempt project as a building designer then yeah. Oregon doesn't have software engineer license. If they wish to do that, I would probably fall squarely in the grandfathering because most of us don't work as employees of licensed engineers. We usually began our careers in our field for working with a variety of software companies or starting our own as soon as we are able to write computer software applications. Here's the rub, to do so would cause software companies to lay off workers in the state or the U.S. and move that to overseas or elsewhere. In effect, causing economic damage to the State. It is kind of an industrial exemption but as a proprietor, it's in a gray area.

However, in my locality, a building official we had would require that I do the structural calculations by hand not just a computer software 'spit out'. Therefore, when doing structural calculations of building systems of a single family residential dwelling, those calculations are literally done old fashion paper & pencil showing the mathematical steps of calculating the equations used. You don't need to do that. You just need to show your math. Therefore, it is probably not that unheard of engineers just letting the computer software do its spit out and then affix their stamp and whether or not they checked the numbers is not verifiable as there is no paper trail to verify that the math was verified. Playing at risk, some of them do. I hope you aren't one of those who plays at risk like that and check the math and have some record of doing so.

I can do the math by hand. While, I could write the program even in BASIC and have it printed out even on an old Commodore 64 and dot matrix if I wanted to.

Showing the math is a good policy in my opinion and computer software doesn't really show it.



BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I was very happy to hear of Mats' success in arguing his case as that particular board's overreach was simply unethical IMHO.

Personally I believe the system of engineering licensure in the US needs a drastic overhaul to reinstill lost competency and ethics. Our present system and testing might've worked in 1967 but in 2017 its somewhat of a bad joke. Folks act as if passing an easy general test or earning a bachelor's was a monumental undertaking. In reality they're both only the utter basics, maybe 10% of what you should know before engaging the public as competent at anything. The only thing worse IMHO is when these same folks deem their work too good for standard peer review or their abilities sufficient to sell without proper experience. The old joke does apply to many of the most ardent defenders of the title - yesterday I cudnt spell injuneer today I is one. Along a similar vein - I drew planes/houses/power lines for 10 years, lemme draw cars/skyscrapers/ICs next bc I saw them in a book once, no worries I can checks my owns werk! Yup, we need to "protect" the public from those unlicensed folks using the word engineer...

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I agree with Mats Järlström that the State of Oregon is abridging his right to free speech. He has a right to complain about the signal timing and anything else he d@#n well pleases to complain about. Traffic fines bring in money for governments and when someone threatens a revenue stream the politicians aren't going to roll over. They'll try to shut you up any way they can.

However, I disagree with RickAstoria about the constitutionality of licensing laws.

If we want to be Constitutional Originalists it's highly unlikely that the writers of the Amendment envisioned licensing laws for professionals, since these laws didn't exist then. The amendment was written because some believed the 13th Amendment alone wouldn't do enough to protect former slaves.

RickAstoria is mixing a free speech case with a State's right to enact licensing laws. A licensing law doesn't deprive any qualified person the privilege of a license without due process of law (it's in the 14th Amendment americanflag)


However, you forgot that due process of law of state does not authorize a state to make or enforce any law that abridges any of the rights set forth under the Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The clause regarding due process regards matters of court in that no person shall be deprived of their life, their properties or be imprisoned without due process of law. In other words, a person shall have a fair trial and be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The state shall not take a person's land without proper process and for proper public use and they shall compensate that person fairly. In other words, they aren't to take your house and land for private purposes and they should pay you for the land at fair value. For example, Dodger stadium and the eminent domain process was in violation of the rights but by the time the courts could hear the case, the stadium was built. It was one of many cases but bottom line, the government shall not take property just because they want it.

No person shall be executed without proper due process of law... a court trial. Due process does not authorize the states to adopt or enforce laws in violation of
the rights a person has under the Constitution. For a state to adopt a law that restricts freedom of speech through occupational licensing which is in effect limiting rights to express, they are in effect violating that clause.... "NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES". You quote due process but due process does not apply to making laws that are designed to reduce the scope of the rights/priviledges and immunities. They think they can apply due process when they are not allowed to. Your interpretation that a state having a right to adopt occupational licensing laws is invalid. There was no occupational licensing laws in 1868. In fact, they had to violate the 14th Amendment in the first place but lets say they go with issues of public health, safety, and welfare. When there is clearly a valid argument regarding the safety of the public health, safety, and welfare that requires licensure where it is not able to otherwise be safeguarded through less restrictive means (such as building codes) then these licensing laws have to be discontinued because the conditions and risks of public H/S/W issues are no more. I would agree with continuation of engineering licensing as long as there is a valid need. Not just a made up horror story but one that is objectively assessed by independent "risk assessors" whose job it is is to determine if the risk of public health, safety, and welfare is really there. In my opinion, registration of engineers is potentially still valid on the HSW matters but it also must be kept contained to regulating engineering disciplines where the work may result in risk to public health, safety, and welfare. In my opinion, software engineering does not necessarily fall into this domain. When it doesn't, software engineering would not fall into this. A particular domain where I can argue the support for licensure is "critical systems engineering"/"safety systems engineering"/"life-critical systems engineering". If software engineers works in this domain, I can argue a support for licensure for software engineers involved in that kind of work. Software engineers who don't, should be left alone. In short, not all software engineers needs to be licensed. Only software engineers doing work that would have significant risk to public health, safety and welfare. The title protected would be... say.. "Registered Software Engineer" or "Licensed Software Engineer" (RSE or LSE). Appropriate experience and exam process would be appropriate in my opinion. It would need its own requirements similar to land surveyors and photogrammetrists and so forth.

Architects might not be so lucky. Most if not the majority of all issues of significant issues regarding public HSW is either offloaded to engineers or is covered by the building codes under prescribed requirements such as means of egress. As it is, interior designers/building designers can address means of egress issues without necessarily requiring to be licensed as an architect. Therefore, it maybe argued that licensure of Architects is largely not valid anymore. Therefore, is the requirements to be licensed as an Architect necessary for their role and the work they actually do? This is rhetorical. The more they don't do the stuff that is HSW related and the more they have it done by other licensed professions, the more they lose the validity of licensure.

I'm not suggesting removing licensing laws altogether but recognize there is potential violation. They could have simply devised regulations for construction of buildings and structures to set minimum standards. Had these licensing really worked to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, then why did building codes have to be created? Why wasn't the professionals so called duly licensed of competence to design without building codes. Now, architects & engineers has to have their plans reviewed by building departments just as unlicensed people are. Perhaps, the people reviewing the plans needs to be licensed and reviewed by qualified licensed plan reviewers and licensed engineering reviewers to review the engineering standards. So anyone working in the building department reviewing the engineering would need a license but those submitting the plans??? It raises the eyebrow for sure. We shouldn't have regulations that don't work or is just a vehicle for creating a state-sponsored guild.... state sponsored oligopolies. If the plans were reviewed by people who knows what they are doing before issuing permits and review plans thoroughly, there shouldn't be a problem. If plans don't meet codes, no permit is issued. If plans meets codes, permit is issued. If the code has a flaw, it is updated.

I can agree with doctors being regulated profession like that. I agree that we can have licensed professions as long as there is valid public health, safety, and welfare matters that can not be addressed by other methods like building code regulations with acceptable standards of pre-permit review of submittal documents and ongoing inspections. I do believe in every case, the protection of public health, safety, and welfare is a duty of every person (licensed and non-licensed) engaged in the designing, engineering, and construction of the built environment. As a building designer, I have that responsibility. Exemption from licensure is not an exemption from responsibility.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I was very happy to hear of Mats' success in arguing his case as that particular board's overreach was simply unethical IMHO.

Personally I believe the system of engineering licensure in the US needs a drastic overhaul to reinstill lost competency and ethics. Our present system and testing might've worked in 1967 but in 2017 its somewhat of a bad joke. Folks act as if passing an easy general test or earning a bachelor's was a monumental undertaking. In reality they're both only the utter basics, maybe 10% of what you should know before engaging the public as competent at anything. The only thing worse IMHO is when these same folks deem their work too good for standard peer review or their abilities sufficient to sell without proper experience. The old joke does apply to many of the most ardent defenders of the title - yesterday I cudnt spell injuneer today I is one. Along a similar vein - I drew planes/houses/power lines for 10 years, lemme draw cars/skyscrapers/ICs next bc I saw them in a book once, no worries I can checks my owns werk! Yup, we need to "protect" the public from those unlicensed folks using the word engineer...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You study books in academia and learn how the equations work. Right? It is more than just reading them. These very books you studied from to learn how to calculate a beam, also has practice questions from which you would practice the process of calculating the beam or other system components. You learn it be reading and understanding the theory and practicing it. A person does not always need to go to college to do that. A person can learn to do that autodidactically. After all, an instructor's job isn't to teach you but give you instructions. The teaching and learning is YOUR job. You're an adult for crying out loud. It's not 'grade school' anymore. The responsibility for learning is your responsibility. What we have for licensing is quasi-arbitrary.

I'm glad that Oregon does have experience based routes as an alternative because getting in huge student loan debts is not an option for everyone. However, if someone with demonstrated knowledge or skills in calculating beams be considered? Why not take into consideration building design certification for 2-3 years credit? Why not take into consideration documented/verified experience calculating structural members of building components under the exempt domain for maybe 1 or 2 years of experience so they can take the FE exam. If they pass that, they get EIT status? Of course, we don't have that. I know that some states don't allow as much work in the 'structural calculation' side as in Oregon so I can understand that can be contentious in other states. As I said, it is quasi-arbitrary. It isn't completely arbitrary but there are aspects that are arbitrary.

Software engineering is another matter altogether and needs a fair discussion on it separate of this thread.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

RickAstoria is mixing a free speech case with a State's right to enact licensing laws. A licensing law doesn't deprive any qualified person the privilege of a license without due process of law (it's in the 14th Amendment americanflag)

To design buildings and structures is an expression. An art. ALL art... ALL expressions are protected under the 1st Amendment. Under Constitution, all citizens are de facto qualified to those rights. Therefore, if I choose to design a 2 MILE high skyscraper, my right to express that through design is being restricted by these licensing laws. These licensing laws are creating classes of people which is EXACTLY what the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was about. We created this country on the principle that all people are created equal. Equal rights. Equal privileges. What licensing is doing is against that principle.

What should have been done is establish regulations setting the minimum health, safety, and welfare standards from which buildings and structures are built to and is reviewed for those purposes. In other words, we shouldn't have been running licensing laws but having a building department. We can most certainly have certifications from our professional societies.

We now have building codes, regulations, and associated standards. Why do we still have licensing? Sure, cities could simply require people working for them reviewing plans to have certifications and experience so that they have some verifiable standard from which their staff will have when reviewing plans for compliance and meeting performance standards before authorizing issuance of permits.

However, things didn't go that way quite that way. There had been movements in the architecture and engineering profession before licensing laws to create a guild/cartel oligopoly so they can limit number of competitors. It is still that mission. Why are some engineers like some architects so afraid of open competition? If the argument is there would be too many competitors, why are they afraid? Wouldn't the low ballers runs themselves out of business? Wouldn't the incapable run themselves out of business?

Why would they work 200-300 hours to design a house (for example) for less than minimum wage? Wouldn't they just quit and get a job at Burger King?


BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I know I am playing devil's advocate a little bit here. I'm not against the hard work of licensed engineers who worked to attain their credentials. I'm not really ready for working on removing the licensing laws as they are. There can be easier discussions like reworking the exemptions like allowing certified building designers to design buildings larger than 4000 sq.ft.... say buildings defined as small commercial structures under ORS 701 or maybe same square footage but up to 3 stories above lowest finished grade. Say, 10,000 sq.ft. but up to three stories but that be amended on the Architect law but don't amend the engineer's exemption. Therefore, requiring these designers to use engineers on those kinds of project where engineering maybe required. I'm more interested in that kind of amendment for certified building designers. Part, it may encourage certifications over non-licensed/non-certified and also works in line fairly well with what registered general contractors are authorized to build. I'm also inclined to expand exemptions for certified building designers to design other residential structures as defined under the ORS 701 for what an RGC would be allowed to build with unlimited sized detached SFRs. While uncertified/unlicensed persons would be limited to 3 story construction that meets prescriptive path of Oregon Residential specialty codes but authorizing B.O.s to requires certain drawings prepared by architects, engineers, and certified designers as they deem appropriate in accordance with the adopted specialty codes. (building codes)

If that kind of debate and discussions could be made, I would be for that.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

@RickAstoria - no one is denying your right to design a 2-mile skyscraper or for that matter trying to design Dr. Zharkov's gravity ray machine; getting a building permit for that skyscraper is a different story.

Why don't you take up law, the money is probably a lot better than engineering. tiphat

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Public means everyone. That is the definition and the way state's use the word. At least Louisiana's Board uses it that way. In other states, perhaps the word public means certain categories of people.

Licensure is not a cartel even though there are many who claim that across many occupations and professions. There is a recent Congressional hearing on this some of you may find interesting. I wish all engineers chose to become PEs, which does not fit the definition of cartel.

When you've moved around some and run your own company, you see abuses. You see all kinds of things.

And as far as competition, every professional attack I have endured came from unlicensed engineers.

There is more to a profession than getting the education, taking the professional exams, and getting board licensed. Those are the first steps for entry into many professions. I've been thinking about this for a few years now due to my involvement with NSPE. I've been reading the law, in view of my experiences, code of conduct, etc. and learning more of the history behind professions. I'm distilling my thoughts. Had I done these exercises years ago, my thoughts would be even more divergent than many here. I don't mind my efforts or the results of them.

I don't see licensure as a competition or engineering as a competition. I see it as a profession and one that needs to grow.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"IRstuff...I should have been more clear about the software....software that does independent design of engineering works constitutes the practice of engineering. Not all engineering software does so. States variously decide what constitutes "engineering works". There are many "exempt" engineering functions that do not require licensing, but as you have correctly implied, if certain engineering services are sold "to the public", then licensing is required. I'm not sure that licensing laws are necessarily overly burdensome, but in many instances they are somewhat misguided."

That's sort of machts nichts; I seriously doubt that any of the CAD tools that MEs use are written by PEs. Moreover, most states don't necessarily even have a PE license for software, or systems engineering, in my case. Furthermore getting a group of SEs or CEs to write code is likely to be a non-starter, simply because SEs and CEs are even trained in writing software, and certainly wouldn't have necessarily entertained writing GUI code in college.

As there are plenty of engineers that Excel and Matlab to solve their engineering problems, I suppose you'd require every engineer who works at Microsoft or Mathworks to be a PE?

The Constitution is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Nothing there about unless it's not "overly burdensome."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

IRstuff,

What about the people who write code for FEA software. All Matlab needs to do is get its arithmetic right. The person using Matlab needs to write their code correctly.

--
JHG

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

@drawoh,

My opinion on the FEA code is that a license shouldn't be required to write it. Licensure happens to protect the general public because without specialized training (the same training required to make them an engineer), they have no way of evaluating an Engineer's claim of competence. That's not true about a licensed engineer using an FEA tool. Someone who is competent, particularly a licensed engineer, can run through a few calculations that they've calculated solutions for and check whether the software is performing correctly. Whether the programming was done by a PE or not, mistakes are still made, so this is the duty of a professional anyway, regardless of how much no one likes having to do it.

Again, licensing is to protect the general public who has no means of checking competence of an engineer, which is why in many states, there is industrial exemptions because even though there are a lot of non-PE engineers in Aerospace and Automotive type industries, they are better equipped to check whether a consultant is competent or not that the general public, and so they don't need the same protections via licensing.

I also agree with IRstuff about the practicality of of getting PEs to program. The problem is that currently you won't find that many PEs writing the software. Which means someone who goes straight into writing code, even if they have an engineering degree, can't get a PE. Until there are many PEs in that field, or we grant some form of "amnesty" to anyone who has been doing it for 4 years and passes the PE exam, it requires someone to first practice in a different field then switch. While their engineering skills may be better as a result, their programming skills may not be. A mistake in either the math or the programming still ends up with software that doesn't function correctly. So, in my opinion the industry will need some change/temporary relaxation of licensing requirements related to the experience portion if they want engineering softwares to be written by PEs.


RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Maybe we should license the cafeteria's lunch lady too since she has a bigger impact upon engineering than the software tools' developers.

Realistically, selling to the public really isnt much different from a legal perspective than selling to private industry. Every project has a responsible engineer and they need to do their diligence. If they dont they run the risk of being sued and/or going to jail depending on the downstream results of their actions/inactions.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

lacajun,

I wonder what it is we are discussing here. The people at Reason magazine are libertarians. They oppose regulation, and restricting work opportunities to guilds, societies and such. This incident is just the sort of thing that pisses them off.

On the other hand, Mats Järlström is accused of taking on the title of "Engineer". That horse escaped the barn a very long time ago. I don't think the Oregon professional engineers or any other professional engineers have a right to restrict the use of that word. I see no evidence that Järlström used the term "Professional Engineer" or PE/PEng, which is protected by law, and for which there is no need for a grandfather clause. The hard-core libertarians probably oppose that too. The Free Market will weed out incompetent bridge builders, along with the idiots who trusted them.

Maybe the engineering community should chose its battles carefully.

--
JHG

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

This is going to drag on for a while - and perhaps the "dragging on for a while" can help distill:
1. The limits of the state in guarding the public against charlatans that would diminish public safety, and
2. The limits of individuals in making exaggerated and/or false claims about their credentials for the purpose of self-gain.

Here's the status taken from a December 5th Oregonian:
The judge said she will issue her findings in two to three weeks.
Both sides can then challenge the findings, and the matter would be referred to U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, who would decide whether to adopt the magistrate judge's decision.


Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Many here are expressing the opinion that engineering licensure laws should be restricted to those who sell their services. Should unlicensed engineers medical doctors and lawyers all be allowed to practice pro bono without restriction?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"Should unlicensed engineers medical doctors and lawyers all be allowed to practice pro bono without restriction?"

>> They still offer their services to the public at large. This is different than the industrial exemption for engineers.

"What about the people who write code for FEA software."

>> What about ANSYS and NASTRAN? I doubt they have licensed software engineers for doing that, nor would they necessarily have licensed MEs for doing the algorithm description documents, particularly since detailed FEA math isn't something one might necessarily expect to find on a PE exam.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I keep seeing "engineering services to the public", but that's an over-encompassing statement, IMHO. If I design and build a wind-up widget, say a clock, then I am performing "engineering" services and should therefore be fined. No public was harmed or will likely ever be harmed by said clock, unless it fell from a shelf onto their head... yet it still falls (no pun intended) under that guise of "engineering" and requires a license.

I would prefer if the requirement for a license be limited to those engineering tasks in which a minimum level of harm might result as of the malfunction of such a design (buildings, power supplies, fuel-powered equipment over some small HP rating, etc.). I'm sure we could slowly carve out fine details and exceptions, but I believe my overall intent is clear.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Dan -- your description is covered in California's industrial exemption, since you are not offering to do a custom design for each customer, but rather, you are selling a physical product that was engineered. There product liability laws that cover things like getting electrocuted by your clock if it were wall powered, for example.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

@RickAstoria - no one is denying your right to design a 2-mile skyscraper or for that matter trying to design Dr. Zharkov's gravity ray machine; getting a building permit for that skyscraper is a different story.

bridgebuster,

Actually they are. In this case, OBAE would on a moments notice levy a $5,000 fine and would have an injunction levied the moment they would here of that. Yeah, it would actually be a restriction on that. OSBEELS would likely follow suit as well. Especially if I were to do structural calculation so as to size beams. Hell, these boards would issue fines against someone who may do that, just to write a book not permits.... but a book. They have done so (not specifically to me or even for anything like a 2 mile tall skyscraper.) They have done it for less extreme cases. There are a litany of cases.

I understand the concern for public health, safety, and welfare as well as issues of permits. I have no issue with the idea of permit process. Sure, there can be improvements but the idea of verifying the work makes sense.


BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

RickAstoria,

The law requires that certain drawings must be stamped and sealed by licensed professional engineers. You are not permitted to assume the title of a professional engineer unless you are licensed by the appropriate board. You can design buildings, bridges and pressure vessels to your hearts content, and you can write books about it. You just cannot apply the stamps and seals required by law to actually build and use them.

--
JHG

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

"You can design buildings, bridges and pressure vessels to your hearts content, and you can write books about it."

Actually, in most states, such as in the OP, the boards disagree with that statement. In California, "Any person practices electrical engineering when he professes to be an electrical engineer or is in responsible charge of electrical engineering work." Therefore, the mere act of performing engineering, and declaring oneself as only, "electrical engineer," even without "professional" is illegal:

Quote (California PE Act 2016)

or in any manner, use the title “professional engineer,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” or “consulting engineer,” or any of the following branch titles: “agricultural engineer,” “chemical engineer,” “civil engineer,” “control system engineer,” “electrical engineer,” “fire protection engineer,” “industrial engineer,” “mechanical engineer,” “metallurgical engineer,” “nuclear engineer,” “petroleum engineer,” or “traffic engineer,” or any combination of these words and phrases or abbreviations thereof unless licensed under this chapter.

Note, however, "software engineer" is not a proscribed title, nor is licensure required.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

I don't see licensure as a competition or engineering as a competition. I see it as a profession and one that needs to grow.

You're in business for yourself? Right. It is a for-profit business entity still subject to basic business 101 principles like supply & demand aka competition supply level to demand level ratio. I've heard this from architects and when you get past all the exaggerated b.s. about public health, safety, and welfare that when you look past the red herring, the real issue is they want to reduce competition because like any competition and matters such as 'price ceiling'... so the more suppliers of any particular service to the demand for said services, the price ceiling (the amount you can get clients willing to pay for) lowers. When there is too little suppliers for the demand, there is also lost business. The key to any business operations is to find a happy medium. When you are a business owner, that IS your job so that you can procure enough work from "paying" clients to keep your firm and staff busy and PAID on a timely manner.

After all the noise about HSW and all that red herring b.s., most of the noise that was from architects were because THOSE architects were either charging too much for what the client market was willing to pay. They complain because others are willing to work for less money per hour. When you're a sole-proprietor or even an LLP or even LLC taxes either as a partnership or like a sole-proprietorship (which is probably what you should be using for a small practice in the first place), it's pass through taxation. What the business earns is your personal income. You just take out for business expenses in taxes and such.

In rural communities, you live on a lower expenses, anyway. You own a home where you pay maybe $3000 to $4000 in property taxes, pay for property insurance, and so forth or rent at maybe $600-750 a month. Billed Hourly Rate at closer to $45/hr. You're not living rich and you shouldn't be. If I'm going to serve regular average income property owners in my locale, then I have to look toward around $100,000 a year gross revenue income. Subtract my business expense and living/operation expense and their deductions in taxes, I should net around $60,000-70,000 and if I take out for health care, I would have maybe $40,000 to $45,000 of net income for food, cable TV/internet, expendable income, etc. If you are going to be working for modest income clients, you just kind of have to be willing to live in more modest means because you can't expect to leach a high end multi-million dollar income off of average income clients. When architects thinks they should be paid $100,000 to design a house for a modest income client, it doesn't work. They end up whining when competition that is gearing their pricing structure to serve those modest income clients and try to legislate their lower priced competitors.

You know.... quit trying to get a personal take home of $100/hr and then bill a $250 to $300 an hour rate. It would take 10+ YEARS for them to pay those fees off their $50,000 a year income.



BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

RickAstoria: I of course can't speak for everyone so I will speak only for myself.

I have no problem with free market determining the price of engineering services. My problem is with someone performing a task they're not qualified for and underbidding me. Someone who doesn't put in the time and money to stay current with new codes, technologies, etc. Someone who cuts corners and provides something below the standard of care required.

Licensing at least provides some attempt at a minimum baseline of qualifications and I certainly hope that many unqualified engineers (and esspecially non-engineers) wont survive long enough when their substandard designs fail to perform. Of course it's not perfect, but it's definitely better than no licensing at all.

I sucks when you spend time budgeting out hundreds of hours, including distributing the cost of your continuing education, distributing the cost of maintaining a license and engineering office; and planning for all the research, modeling, and time involved on-site for that 2-mile skyscraper only to loose a project to Jo Blow Engineering who offers to throw together a design using their 9th edition steel manual and an out of date copy of RISA-2D student edition. They likely even get the client a cheaper building because they don't understand certain failure modes or seismic requirements and their software told them their design works fine.

The sad part is typically the client can't tell that they got bad engineering until somethings fails some years later. At which time the "engineer" might not even be in business any more.

For an example of what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_Building
Quote from that page: "the developers wanted a minimum-cost design to (just) meet the code; no extra reinforcing was to be added or you 'got your hand smacked'."

If my services are worth $20/hr to someone then so be it. However, if I'm spending all this time and money to be a proficient engineer then you bet that I'm not going to do any engineering for less than a certain amount that covers my expenses and also ensures that it's worth it doing the work even if someone ropes me into a lawsuit.

Edit: This isn't to say your point doesn't have merit. Some of the other protectionism aspects do get ridiculous; just look at ASCE's push to have licensed engineers be required to get a masters degree in addition to all the other licensing requirements.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

TehMightyEngineer,

In my business, I may perform some level of the structural calculations and other similar 'engineering' under the exemption under ORS 672.060 under item (10) and (11). As I am based in Oregon. However, these are services incidental to building design and in similar vein as registered Architects. I don't offer those services independently of building design.

Having said that, I also have a software development business and function on all capacities and roles in the software development including software architecture/software engineer. I am the owner of the business. As a general rule, I would be developing a software produce that may or may not be part of a software development consultant process.

Lets say I were to make a software for traffic control. The end user of the traffic control system would be the city or more likely the state or federal DOT. They would have their engineers specifying the timing protocols. As any software developer worth their ass, they would make sure the mathematical equations are correct and there would or should be some input on the specifications by the traffic engineers. As they would be part of the client and therefore client specification. It is my job to then make the software meet the specifications. I don't decide how long the light shall be green, yellow, or red. I don't make those decisions. I may gather those specifications but I don't determine how much time the traffic light shall be red, yellow, or green. They should be validating like on a model. Therefore, I may do the 'software engineering' but that doesn't mean I an doing traffic engineering.

There are people constantly in this world and this country who do not have any special state licensing whose work if done wrong has the potential of impacting the public. What is forgotten is EVERY person has a duty under law to not harm another and a duty of care to avoid harming other people. That is a legal duty. Intentionally harming or intentional disregard of duty of care to the public to not take action that will harm other people or have a substantive risk of doing so is a criminal offense not just a violation or something only under civil lawsuit. While creating software may or may not have reasonably foreseeable risk to the public is inappropriately done, it does not mean there needs to be a state issued license. Before new state licensing is needed, consideration for professions to regulate themselves and in cases of state/federal DOTs accepting and approving a software product on the main traffic system have a model traffic intersection be made and test the timing protocols and use appropriate test procedures. Perhaps, have the software set up so certain parameters can be modified by the DOT according to the recommendations of their traffic engineers. Make sure things works according to how it is expected to work. If they see any issues, provide feedback to the software development consultant or consulting 'firm'.

You don't need to have a license to respect the need to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. You need to know what the stuff of your occupation. If we were to license software engineers in Oregon and Washington, it is probably going to cause a lot of jobs to be moved out of the area. Why? There is a reasonable and understandable distrust of regulatory entities like licensing boards for occupations. They constantly overstep their authority, ALL THE TIME. Why? They don't have any clear understanding where their authority begins and ends. There is no clear delineation and often the board members will constantly try to interpret the laws and rules in any way they see fit to support their agenda. When they are ambiguous, they try to encompass anything and everything under their authority so they can force more people and in term like parasites leaching on the people and their careers. Licensing boards have had a penchant for being like parasitic leaches.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Under no intent would I suggest you work for less than your expenses but you also have to control your expenses in order to meet demands of some areas of the market. Licensing fees and CEUs aren't necessarily that expensive but that may have simply mean you don't have $30K to 45K of disposable income. Clients aren't their for you to buy yourself a $100 Million super yacht. If you are serving predominantly clientele market with average income of around $50,000 a year then YOU need to operate and control your costs so that you can live and operate on a similar level income on the day to day. Any certification or license would be my personal expenses. It doesn't mean I get a $30,000 to $45,000 a year of disposable income. It means that.... say $45,000 should cover my certifications and any occupational license I may have as well as licenses such as driver's license. I would need to earn maybe $100,000 but while a part of that income would be health insurance which I would need to control the expense taken out but I my business license and certain explicit business expenses would come out of the amount beyond the $30K-$50K + $15K-20K in health insurance. The remaining $30K or so should be enough to pay taxes on the income with deductions as well as the business license and so forth. I may have to strive for a more modest health insurance package instead of some luxurious health insurance or get up to $120K a year. I have to live on a more modest level and instead of paying out my ass on the most expensive license. I may end up having to take part of my $30K to $45K a little for my PLI and E&O along with the certification/licenses, and other day to day things including personal life insurance. Yeah, we might have a net disposable income maybe 20-30% more than a minimum wage worker. It's reality. You have to make do with a market and clientele that just doesn't have deep resources for us to have a more luxurious income. We can't all work for movie stars, football superstars and people like Trump and Koch Brothers. Most of us have to live modestly not all that different than how elementary school teachers. We have to accept a different living standards. We can't have a wardrobe of 10 sets of 3-piece Emporio Armani suits and all all that fanciness. We can't be going around driving around in Limited Edition Bugatti Veyron by Mansory Vivere or a Lamborghini Veneno or Aston Matin One-77 or Rolls-Royce Phantom Serenity. We can't be driving around with those million dollar or more cars. We might have to live with driving around in a modest $5000 to $35,000 car/SUV. Maybe it's used. Maybe its new but not the high end stuff. Just something decent looking on a budget. Maybe we drive a Toyota Prius made in the last 5 years. Some vehicles that are older if in good shape. It's called living within ones means.

It's not expecting average income home owners to sacrifice a decade or more of all their disposable income budget under their income to be paying your services along with the loan repayments (yes, a mortgage is still a form of a loan and that is after the project is built when they can refinance their construction loans into a mortgage and benefit on maybe a lower interest rate.

Charging as much as they make in a single year isn't going to bode well in my experience with average income clients.

We can't be living champagne taste life style on a clientele market of average income clients. It's more like beer budget lifestyle.



BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Meanwhile bear in mind you are far more likely to die in a vehicle accident than a building collapse, but vehicles are engineered by non PEs.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Most average income client only has maybe 20% of their income that can do whatever they want with. Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary. Therefore, you shouldn't expect any different as an owner of an LLC. Your income is your share of the LLC's income. That's your personal income that you have to report and pay taxes on. You can take deductions in taxes for business expenses and sometimes for your professional licenses/certifications. For most people earning a $60K income only has maybe 20% of their income being potentially disposable income if they manage their costs efficiently. Takes takes about a third. Then you have property tax/property insurance, basic utilities (or rent in lieu of Property tax, property insurance, and basic utilities), and food taking up another third to about 40%. So figuring 35% for federal & state taxes, then 40% for rent or property tax/property insurance/basic utilities, and for food. That's about 75%. There is still about 5% to 15% for other basic living expenses. If you use your deductions to the most, you can average out maybe 20% for disposable income. That's only about $12,000. Some years, that maybe only 10% disposable income. That is about $6,000.

Most people can't get the construction loans until the plans have been prepared. The way the lending market works, it doesn't cover the pre-construction phase services such as building design services (or architectural services), engineering services, etc. They want construction documents and even at best, it is likely to cover only 80% of the amount needed for construction based on national (not local) cost standards which maybe 80% of the price it really costs locally so it might be only about 2/3 of what they need for construction so they have to get from more than one source loans and maybe some grants. Again, it is for construction phase.

Clients will end up having to pay us out of pocket. Therefore, it you can understand why such clients will be hesitant at paying that kind of money. NOTE: This is primarily representative of the end-user residential (ie. SFR) clients in the average income level. The household income is maybe about $125K but usually only one of the household income sources would be paying for the project.

Until the average income throughout America can earn $100K to $150K without adding to inflation which causes the currency to lose buying power. Unless the ultra rich pays more to employees and keep less for themselves without raising the cost of the products, it isn't happening. We have to accept the fact that we are not going to be charging more than about $10,000 or so for 200 "billed" hours and yes, the total hours spent might actually exceed 200 billed hours because that maybe the amount of time explicitly towards the project in drafting.

We are a hard working profession that works 12 to 16 hours a day. We're not a 9 to 5 job. We have to work possibly more hours effectively than we would if we were flipping burgers at Burger King. This is because we do it not to be rich but for the love of the profession while still making an income that we can have a roof over our head.

You don't make it rich doing a "professional/personal service" business/career. You do that by being making products that you can sell on a global market.

You might have a gross income that is more than a person earns flipping burgers but a good chunk of your gross income goes right back out to Uncle Sam and the State, various business expenses, professional certifications/licenses, health insurance, and all that other stuff that the minimum wage person flipping burgers may not pay for or as much because they get a cheaper package.

We may have to work two or three times as many hours to get the work done. We aren't an easy money professional field.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Meanwhile bear in mind you are far more likely to die in a vehicle accident than a building collapse, but vehicles are engineered by non PEs.
Cheers

Greg Locock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So amazingly true.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Rick:

Quote (Rick)

In my business, I may perform some level of the structural calculations and...

I don't disagree with this post. I might have slightly different opinions on a few points but otherwise I'd say I agree.

Quote (Rick)

Under no intent would I suggest you work for less than your expenses but...

A few parts in this post I want to reply to, see below:

Quote (Rick)

Clients aren't their for you to buy yourself a $100 Million super yacht. If you are serving predominantly clientele market with average income of around $50,000 a year then YOU need to operate and control your costs so that you can live and operate on a similar level income on the day to day....

Again, only speaking for myself, but I balance my approach between what I am willing to do a job for, the risk and complexity of the job, and the market value of the engineering services provided. So, a 2 mile skyscraper will be billed a lot differently than designing a few post for Mrs. Henderson's new deck. If someone is willing to pay me $100 million for an engineering job then I wont turn it down but I wouldn't ask for it.

I don't know about you but most engineers aren't making bank of their clients. I drive a 8 year old Ford Focus, wife drives a 17 year old Toyota Corolla, I live in a modest house, about my only luxury is I fly a small Cessna private plane that I share with a club. I could chase the money but I like what I do and I have enough to be happy and comfortable.

Quote (Rick)

Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary.

They are bad at negotiating with their company if they are paying for them out of pocket (if they're not self-employed). These are business expenses, make the business pay. It's better for everyone financially if they do.

Quote (Rick)

...That's only about $12,000. Some years, that maybe only 10% disposable income. That is about $6,000....

Rick, you keep making these calculations asserting essentially that one should live within ones means and not charge more than a market can bear, but there is a flip side to this. You don't get to hire a doctor or lawyer for $10/hr (unless they're generous or working probono of course). Why? Because there is an investment in time and money to become and maintain those professions. Same for engineering.

For example, pretend I didn't go to college and intern to be an engineer. For me personally this would have saved 10 years and about $40,000 (most engineers are probably in for a lot more money, too). Let us also include the hours spent studying for my licensure exam (lets do this at $10 per hour for my time); 600 hrs x $10/hr = $6,000. Assuming I make the average income for my age/education in a field like IT (or similar technical field), I'd make on average ~$46,000 x 4 years = $184,000. Let's say 80% of that is after tax = $147,200.

Summing all that I get $193,200 and lets subtract frugal living expenses of $25,000 per year for 4 years. We get $93,200.

So, if I had $93,200 when I would have graduated college 10 years ago, at a 4% monthly compound interest rate we end up with $138,945 of lost profit that I could have right now if I worked instead of going to college, and lived frugally while investing money at a mild return rate.

The fact of the matter is I invested time and money to learn my profession rather than go into a trade right out of high school. I was actually getting payed $12/hr to do IT work in high school and could have easily made a career out of it but decided to invest my time and money in a college education to become an engineer. I would hope to be compensated for this investment of my time and money.

If the market can't support it then I've lost my investment. Fair enough. But if the market can support it then like heck I'm going to design a house for a few hundred bucks. You need to pay me for my time invested and if you can't I'll just move on to the jobs that will.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that you incur a lot of liability by doing engineering. Assuming I will eventually be sued I need to ensure that the work I do during my career was worth it for this added risk of a lawsuit.

Bringing this all back around to the original topic. Engineering is a profession; literally. You "profess" your expertise. Thus, we invest this time and money to learn and earn that title. But if any old snake oil salesman, person with a BS in engineering, sales "engineer", or whatever other title self-imposed, tries to muddy the water then we've lost the trust in the profession. Thus, the reason for licensure. You need to have benchmarks to hold out that can be trusted by those outside the profession.

Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone. People can quickly find out if a car if poorly designed and the designer of the car will be punished by the free market. There are also government oversight and other regulations and standards imposed, it's even more restrictive than engineering licensure. But the cost of this engineering is distributed over hundreds of thousands of cars. We can only distribute our engineering overhead to a few hundred jobs at most.

Regarding the original topic, some guy calling themselves an engineer in various circumstances is a tough question without an easy answer. Licensure tries to ensure that nobody can muddy the waters of the engineering profession. Licensed engineers can and should charge for their engineering overhead and liability.

In summary, engineers have to charge what a market can bear but the playing field needs to be level. Licensure helps to ensure that someone isn't competing unfairly because our industry relies so heavily on professing ones competency. That's why we get licensed and that's why we can and should charge more than an unlicensed person. If the economy gets so broken that our services can't be afforded then so be it. But then you'll get shoddy engineering, failures, loss of life and property, and the end result will be a push for oversight and, you guessed it, licensing of engineers.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (Rick)

Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary.

Wait... what?

Quote (Rick)

The way the lending market works... even at best, it is likely to cover only 80% of the amount needed for construction based on national (not local) cost standards

Huh?

Quote (Rick)

we are not going to be charging more than about $10,000 or so for 200 "billed" hours and yes, the total hours spent might actually exceed 200 billed hours because that maybe the amount of time explicitly towards the project in drafting.

Really?

Quote:

We are a hard working profession that works 12 to 16 hours a day.

We do?

Quote:

You don't make it rich doing a "professional/personal service" business/career. You do that by being making products that you can sell on a global market.

Whoops.

Sorry, it sounds like you've had a rough path in your career and business. But I don't think that's indicative of the profession as a whole.


----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote:

Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone.

Comparing building design to automotive design is largely apples and oranges for many reasons but the comparison does raise an interesting question - Are we all as members of "public" truly protected by engineering licensure or is it the legal and monetary repercussions that limit bad engineering? In the auto industry its the second, I've known quite a few non-PEs who've refused to release work due to noncompliance with govt regs and the ever-present threat of fines and/or spending a few years in prison. In those cases licensure really wouldn't protect anybody. Along a similar vein, reading the professional society rags it always seems like when someone is caught faking a PE its after theyve done so for years, never in the permitting and early planning stages of their first design. Admittedly, even the professional media is a bit sensationalistic so maybe those are overlooked for more dramatic stories.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (IRstuff)

Dan -- your description is covered in California's industrial exemption, since you are not offering to do a custom design for each customer, but rather, you are selling a physical product that was engineered.
But what if I am designing a custom clock for each client? It's a harmless product, but it's still considered engineering, and therefore a fineable offense.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

drawoh, some of my friends and political acquaintances are Libertarians so I understand what irritates them. They may get upset and that's OK. I'm in a think tank run by a libertarian. That experience has enlightened me a great deal to the libertarian perspective. I'm not libertarian because of too many of the experiences I've endured. I know people have a great deal of difficulty regulating themselves. Some go to extremes of non-regulation and harm others.

Rick, I understand business competition. There is a broader point.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (I know people have a great deal of difficulty regulating themselves.)


Wouldn't that be a Libertine as opposed to a Libertarian?

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (CWB1)



Comparing building design to automotive design is largely apples and oranges for many reasons...

Cars, aeroplanes and clocks generally are not built to code. Prototypes are built and tested. If you design an aeroplane wing and they put it in the whiffle tree and it survives and you tell them your wife's hairdresser did the structural analysis, nobody cares. When you build bridges and tall buildings, you have one shot at it, with awful consequences for failure. You manage risk by only allowing qualified people to do the work, and by requiring them to follow tested, accepted design methods.

--
JHG

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote:

I've a different perspective on this and regret Jarlstrom's win. Amendment 10 empowers states to regulate themselves where the federal government doesn't. Therefore, I see Jarlstrom's win as a loss for the ability of states to regulate themselves. Each state has the right to make its own laws to govern the people of that state.

Amendment 1 supersedes Amendment 10, by the raw language in Amendment 10.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Dan -- I think you are still exempted:

Quote (California PE Act 2016)

6747. Exemption for industries
(a) This chapter, except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering, shall not apply to the performance of engineering work by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other industrial corporation, or by employees of that corporation, provided that work is in connection with, or incidental to, the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates.
(b) For purposes of this section, “employees” also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

For example, pretend I didn't go to college and intern to be an engineer. For me personally this would have saved 10 years and about $40,000 (most engineers are probably in for a lot more money, too). Let us also include the hours spent studying for my licensure exam (lets do this at $10 per hour for my time); 600 hrs x $10/hr = $6,000. Assuming I make the average income for my age/education in a field like IT or another technical field, I'd make on average ~$46,000 x 4 years = $184,000. Let's say 80% of that is after tax = $147,200.

Lets remember that the IT field model operates on very different economic models. Usually they are providing one-off services. In my experience going back to the 1980s with software development, if I were to do custom software development as a custom software development consultant, there is absolutely no way that most doctors and lawyers could even afford the services out of pocket. The work would have to be for a corporate and government department scale operations. Most software projects can be crowdfunded or financed through venture capital which is not something you'll find at all for architecture/building design. Custom software projects is usually something that often requires anywhere on the order of 20,000 to 200,000 labor hours because of the size and scale of software systems that are invested in. In which case, I wouldn't be doing myself and would have to staff up for project delivery for a project that will likely take 2-3 years to complete and that project specifications have to be updated at least annually in most cases for suitability of the specifications to see if needs hasn't changed substantively in that time frame.

They are bad at negotiating with their company if they are paying for them out of pocket if they're not self-employed. These are business expenses, make the business pay. It's better for everyone financially if they do.

If you are an employee, then you're not self-employed. If you are self-employed, you would be an 'independent contractor'. If you are an employee, it is not a business expense for the employee. I do see that it being beneficial to the business if the business can deduct the licensure or professional certifications as a business expense. There could be a benefit in that end. It may affect the AGI on the tax and thus lower the total tax due but okay. However, when you are in business having to submit estimated tax every quarter, then you could end out overpaying and while the federal and state are quick to collect your taxes, they are slower than a frozen dead snail swimming through molasses placed on the Planet(oid) Pluto in potential vain hope of getting your money back within the next 12 months.

Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone. People can quickly find out if a car if poorly designed and the designer of the car will be punished by the free market. There are also government oversight and other regulations and standards imposed, it's even more restrictive than engineering licensure. But the cost of this engineering is distributed over hundreds of thousands of cars. We can only distribute our engineering overhead to a few hundred jobs at most.

Yes, car designers would be similar to software developers working on a consumer product producer model business. The government regulation and oversight maybe significantly different. That's also why you can pay $20-$200 for a piece of software vs. maybe $20 Million. Your CAD software costs maybe a few hundred to a few thousand because the cost to develop that product divided by the number of units of that software sold each year.... lets just say is not as many as say a video game that you may likely sell copies for $20-$70.

As a building designer, a CPBD certification much like state licenses and the annual cost could only be distributed over the handful of jobs each year.

It is a tougher sell to market your services to clients when the client market in your locality just aren't loaded with upper class or upper middle-class income bracket.

If the market can't support it then I've lost my investment. Fair enough. But if the market can support it then like heck I'm going to design a house for a few hundred bucks. You need to pay me for my time invested and if you can't I'll just move on to the jobs that will.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that you incur a lot of liability by doing engineering. Assuming I will eventually be sued I need to ensure that the work I do during my career was worth it for this added risk of a lawsuit.


I understand. As a building designer (even without a license requirement), I face liability and potentially be sued any time during the statutes of repose & statutes of limitations. This can be upwards of 10 years. In Oregon, at the very least, the work we do, while exempt from state licensure, is not exempt from liability. People whose businesses are working in these exempt domains, professionally, are effective what in some case laws principles are common law 'architects' or 'engineers'. While they can't represent themselves as licensed. They are still nonetheless held essentially to the same standards because they are functionally similar professions and have similar duties and responsibilities. After all, those legal cases with architects and engineers prior to licensing laws still in effect holds also to those unlicensed. So while I may not be required to be licensed as an architect or engineer, as a professional, there is no exemption from being held responsible and that I would held responsible to the same manner over the project as it would be for an architect/engineer with regards to those exempt projects.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Amendment 1 supersedes Amendment 10, by the raw language in Amendment 10.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Amendments to the Constitution are part of the U.S. Constitution and shall be considered in whole. The 14th Amendment further constrains the States from abusing the 10th Amendment. To make it further clear that States shall not adopt or enforce any law that restricts or lessens or otherwise comes to the effect of reducing the privileges and immunities (which includes the rights of the Constitution). Plain and simple. Due Process can not be used or applied to reducing the privileges (for example, the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution) by the state because the due process mechanism to do so would be making laws and enforcing them. This would entirely make moot and effectively neutralize the clause in the 14th Amendment barring states from making or enforcing laws that abridges the privileges and immunities set forth in the U.S. Constitution of any American citizen. In other words, it would make that clause totally a waste of space on paper.

It is an independent clause. Due process of legislation and law enforcements of States can not be used to reduce any citizen's rights by any amount or measure. If I am fined because I designed something because some so called licensing board deems it practice of their profession whether or not it is even submitted to a building department for permits. Licensing boards have fined people just because they have some design of buildings they deemed as non-exempt.

Considering all businesses are operated as people and businesses owned and operated by American citizens would be afforded the same rights and privileges of their owners especially when the business is taxed under pass through taxation and are not considered a separate legal entity from their owners. My own LLC isn't a separate legal entity per se like an incorporated business. After all, fines are usually levied against individuals not the business by the boards. If I had designs presented on my own website that a licensing board feels they are non-exempt, they would more than likely issue a fine even if the work was never issued to a building department (or at least any in the U.S.). Therefore, they would be in effect violating the freedom of speech and press which is the right to communicate in non-tangible and tangible mediums. U.S. Supreme Court has held that illustrations, artwork and similar mediums whether it is technical or not but nonetheless involves some element of art form, as well as written/textual communication, is protected under the first amendment.

For example, if a licensing board were to fine me for speaking on this forum, that licensing board would be facing a legal action of the likes they have never seen. Who knows what the impact that can cause because if I was being issued a fine, I would seek the finest lawyers in the country to take them to court before the Federal and if necessary the U.S. Supreme Court.

The argument for HSW has to be justified by facts.

Professions that can legitimately justify by fact that is within their actual scope of service and those professionals' claims will have to be tested for validity to determine if the profession does legitimately perform those duties and not because the professional individually just happens to have a license as an architect and as a licensed engineer (as an example). They have to fully justify otherwise, those laws can be held to be unenforceable and the States will have to repeal those licensing laws through due process but until repealed, it would be held effectively under permanent injunction.

We have to through proper facts justify the licensing program or it may need to be sunsetted.

I do see more validity of licensing of engineers at this time than I may of architects. Title laws maybe refined a little bit but the practice laws of the disciplines of engineering typically requiring a license, I can see some justification.




BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (bridgebuster)

Wouldn't that be a Libertine as opposed to a Libertarian?

Could be and could not be. smile I like the distinction.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program: http://nspe-co.org/events.php

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

RickAstoria, your (incorrect) understanding of the 14th amendment would prevent states from making pretty much any law, e.g. not allowing me to drive through a red light. The 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause protects enumerated rights within the constitution. Last I checked, being an engineer wasn’t in there.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Don't take the following as a personal attack. It's an intentional argument/debate. An expression.

Freedom of speech means any citizen has the right to communicate and express in any medium. Engineering is an expression and communication. So is architecture.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".... means exactly what the words say. After all, the words takes there meaning from the dictionary. Therefore how can it POSSIBLY mean "States shall be able to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

In other words, HOW THE F... ARE YOU ARRIVING TO AN OPPOSITE MEANING THAN THE WORDS SAY ???? You don't need to be a lawyer to arrive at my conclusion. Perhaps no state shall adopt or enforce any law that lessens the right of the people. There is no definition in the Constitution that can give a state some authority to violate the 14th Amendment. The enumerated rights includes freedom of speech and press which includes the freedom to express. Your licensing boards like the architect boards have consistently issued fines against unlicensed individuals. Lets put a hypothetical scenario, the board receives a complaint from some some anonymous engineer hiding their real identity that may have saw a drawing of a building that maybe non-exempt that I may have designed. It could have been something that was never been submitted to a building department and probably academic or simply artistic or for purpose of self-learning and so forth, that investigator would then recommend a fine and the board for levy a fine. In the hypothetical scenario, there's no health, safety and welfare issue because the design wasn't part of any real project. The board would fine because they feel anyone designing a non-exempt building unless it is for an official classwork from an accredited university, they would issue a fine. What if the design was for a book and not permits for illustrative purposes. Oh wait, the board would still issue a fine because they think only a licensed engineer or licensed architect may write a book on architecture or engineering. Therefore, it would still be a fine levied and would still be a blatant violation of the First Amendment and also 14th Amendment. The illustration maybe done in full 24x36 scale and then be scanned and scaled to size because the drawing would illustrate. If I were to do that, OBAE and possibly OSBEELS would issue a fine. People who tend to serve on licensing boards tend to have an ax to grind with regards to unlicensed persons engaging in any way or form in any closely related profession without getting a licensed first or working as a low paid employee of licensed architects/engineers.

That is part of why they raise their hand for that opportunity when it comes/came up.

You say:

your (incorrect) understanding of the 14th amendment would prevent states from making pretty much any law

Perhaps. Maybe they don't. It still doesn't justify illegal violation of the law. Like any law, if you don't like it, you go through the process to either repeal it and replace it or amend it. In the case of the Constitution, you only have the repeal and replace. Amendments have been repealed before, if I recall correctly. Then a subsequent amendment replaces it. The 14th Amendment can be repealed and replaced with an new Amendment that provides a better language structure that gives the state the authority when there is valid health, safety, and welfare issues and that appropriate due process of proper legislation and enforcement of laws are appropriately handled by due process. As it is written, there is no authority for states to adopt laws or even enforce laws that restricts the Constitution enumerated rights by any degree. There is no, 10% or 20% or any b.s. nexus that defines when a law violates the Constitution because that notion is not grounded in the law. No laws adopted in the Constitution or otherwise supports such notion. If a law restricts the enumerated rights of any person by any amount more than absolute zero percent impact, it is a violation. Any reduction or lessening of the rights is a violation. There is no room for magical interpretation. Where did they come up with the nonsense where they interpret this very clause in the 14th Amendment to have an opposite meaning than what is say as it is written.

Under Federal law, I can be an architect or engineer without necessarily having a state license because the U.S. Code (Federal statutes) does not define or establish any licensing laws. It is not to be confused with laws of specific federal territories/enclaves which is territorial laws of a particular territory such as in the case of Washington D.C. or Puerto Rico.

Since the U.S. Constitution is the highest tier of laws, the Constitution dictates all the lower laws of the Federal Government.

Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that they can adopt or enforce laws that runs against and contrary to enumerated rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Lower laws can not define and establish meaning. The Constitution should be self-evident and define on its own. Arguments have been made to twist or distort the meaning of the Constitution for political reasons because they didn't want the impediment so they try to cheat by violating the Constitution by not total wanton disregard. It is no better than me deciding to practice architecture/engineering in wanton disregard of the licensing laws. Perhaps it maybe unconstitutional but I am also legally bound to use legal procedures to challenge them not simply ignore than as if they don't exist because I don't like the burden.

Even if I disagreed with the licensing laws and challenge the legality under the U.S. Constitution of the licensing law, I still would have to follow and abide by them until the legal due process takes place.

Having said all that, I still live in an environment where licensing laws are enforced and it is not my place as a citizen to disregard the licensing laws. There is rational arguments for licensing of some occupations and some of the professions, the 100 year old rationale doesn't hold up anymore. In case of architectural licensing, the HSW arguments are dubious. You don't have to be licensed to follow the building codes. If you care about being law abiding, you just follow the laws including the building codes. It doesn't take rocket science to do that.


BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Anyway, we sidetracked long enough.

BUILDING DESIGNER - NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Quote (RickAstoria)


Freedom of speech means any citizen has the right to communicate and express in any medium. Engineering is an expression and communication.

...

Is it really?

You have the right to advocate things, and even argue with your city about the timing of stop lights. The whole point of professional licencing and certification is that your right to perform certain tasks is restricted. Certain titles are restricted to qualified people.

Given the participation of Reason magazine, I still don't understand this discussion. Are we discussing the use of the word "Engineer", or are we discussing restrictions on the use of official titles?

--
JHG

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

We're discussing the restriction on the term "engineer" and the anyone's ability to make use of engineering concepts, math, etc., and the ability to publicly lay claim to both.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Freedom of speech means that you have the freedom to say anything you want without government censorship.

It DOES NOT mean freedom from the repercussions of your statements.

For example:

If someone exercises their right of free speech to tell a police officer "Yesterday I robbed the First Trust Bank on Main St." that does NOT provide immunity from prosecution for the crime committed.

This is exactly equal to the engineer thing.

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

IRstuff,

The term "professional engineer" establishes your ability to make use of engineering concepts, math, etc. Some engineers drive trains. I suggest you spend some time on Reason's website to see why this issue interests them.

--
JHG

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

3
"The term "professional engineer" establishes your ability to make use of engineering concepts, math, etc."

No, my 4 years in at engineering university establishes that, as does my 40 yrs in the industry and my job title.

"Professional engineer" means that they're licensed and under the purview of the licensing board.

I have neither desire nor need for either, but I do want to reclaim "engineer" as my title and "engineering" as my job description without fear of persecution by a licensing board.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speach

Ickzackerly. The boards co-opted an existing title and are now engaged in mission creep trying to stamp out its use by other people. Oh except for Microsoft because Microsoft would win by spending cubic dollars.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close