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.

 

[beej67]

Looks like he won.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/07/licensing-board-admits-they-cant-silence

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[3DDave]

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.

 

[JAE]

...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

 

[btrueblood]

Or even inaccurate assessments.

 

[stevenal]

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.

 

[Compositepro]

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

 

[PMR06]

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

 

[JAE]

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

 

[Compositepro]

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.

 

[fel3]

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

 

[stevenal]

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

 

[lacajun]

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

 

[MacGyverS2000]

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

 

[IRstuff]

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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

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

 

[IRstuff]

"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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

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

 

[Ron]

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".

 

[CWB1]

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...

 

[lacajun]

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

 

[IRstuff]

"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 forum1529 Entire Forum list

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

 

[drawoh]

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