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.

 

[Ingenuity]

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

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

 

[monkeydog]

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

 

[msquared48]

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)

 

[fel3]

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

 

[CWB1]

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.

 

[JAE]

"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

 

[IRstuff]

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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

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

 

[CheckerHater]

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

 

[hokie66]

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

 

[Ron]

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

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.

 

[xnuke]

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 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Terratek]

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?

 

[JNieman]

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.

 

[CheckerHater]

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

 

[CheckerHater]

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_slat...w_lights_makes_8_million_off_new_tickets.html

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

 

[JNieman]

@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.

 

[hydrae]

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

 

[JNieman]

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.

 

[LionelHutz]

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

 

[JNieman]

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