Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speech 62

[Terratek]

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/2017/04/beaverton_man_claims_oregon_st.html

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.

 

[HamburgerHelper]

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".

 

[mtu1972]

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

 

[IRstuff]

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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[stevenal]

#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.

 

[IRstuff]

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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hendersdc]

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.

 

[JNieman]

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.

 

[JAE]

This is so extremely stupid.

The guy's attorney says this:
[blue]""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."[/blue]

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

 

[IRstuff]

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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CheckerHater]

This article -

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government

- 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

 

[stevenal]

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.

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.

 

[msquared48]

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)

 

[CWB1]

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!

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.

 

[XR250]

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"

 

[msquared48]

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)

 

[JAE]

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

 

[JNieman]

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

 

[hydrae]

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

http://www.oregon.gov/Osbeels/docs/Newsletters/20170401_Examiner_web.pdf

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

 

[hokie66]

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.