Government Threatens Retired Engineer With a Crime for Doing Math 39

[drawoh]

Institute for Justice [—] YouTube

I am Googling him here, and it appears he has presented himself as an expert witness. Do chemical engineers understand flooding, piping and stormwater?

--
JHG

 

[MTNClimber]

If I took that attitude I'd prob have been run out of industry as a junior engineer and certainly not had half the successes I enjoyed.

Maybe that’s why you are disagreeing with us who are in agreement with the board? In the US, civil engineers (and all the subset disciplines) are required to stay within their capabilities. If you are suspected to be practicing outside of your expertise you can lose your license. That doesn’t mean you can’t learn to do something new, become proficient in it, and then start offering it as a service. But that typically requires years of working under someone that is considered competent.

All the old timers like to show off their Professional Engineer stamps that don’t have a discipline associated with it. In theory they could stamp any type of engineering drawings. Of course this led to people rubber stamping things and is part of the reason stamps now have disciplines printed on them.

My state doesn’t even allow me to publicly comment on another engineers work without being paid to do so.

As to Nutt not being a CE, how do you know he doesn't have relevant CE experience? I wouldn't be surprised to see a Chem or other (uncivil? ) E in operations designing containment, drainage, pumping, or other similar systems.

You wouldn’t be surprised a chemical engineer understood how to design a site specific stormwater system? Do you think he knows what storm intensity and duration to design the system for? Is he familiar with the local regulations? Does he even know how to calculate the flow going into a catch basin? My guess is probably not, which leads me to believe he’s not an expert.

 

[IRstuff]

Nutt specifically mentions Cameron Hydraulic Data, which covers pipe flow and pumping; I don't see much beyond that

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

 

[cvg]

The Cameron Hydraulic Data Book is a Flowserve Corporation publication
and, as in the previous nineteen editions, is published as an aid to engineers
involved with the selection and application of pumping equipment.

Wayne still had a copy of the leading sourcebook on his bookshelf...

Cameron is hardly the civil engineers "source book" for drainage. any drainage engineer worth his salt would know that Chow, Brater and King and HEC-22 among others might be a lot more relevant

 

[CWB1]

Maybe that’s why you are disagreeing with us who are in agreement with the board? In the US, civil engineers (and all the subset disciplines) are required to stay within their capabilities. If you are suspected to be practicing outside of your expertise you can lose your license. That doesn’t mean you can’t learn to do something new, become proficient in it, and then start offering it as a service. But that typically requires years of working under someone that is considered competent.

Funny you mention bc I often make that exact argument. Both on this board and otherwise, many CEs proudly proclaim that their license allows them to practice in niches that they have no experience. Those folks are also usually selling their one-person firm to the public as capable of anything/everything and often argue against the ethical requirement for engineering review. Interestingly enough, the guild does nothing to address either issue despite various societies repeatedly pushing for enforcement of both. The other aspect of that issue is the huge variety of work most point to as evidence of "experience" and "expertise." If an industrial team were to design a large home or small commercial structure for example, we'd split the work between engineers with one specializing in foundations, another in framing, another siding, another roofing, etc bc that level of deep expertise is the standard for the 80%+ stateside. Much less and folks will question your ethics in industry. Go overseas and you'll find that taken to another level, particularly among the Europeans who we often joke have an engineer for every fastener. In the civil industry stateside however many CEs are the proverbial jack of all trades, designing based on comparatively little experience resulting in no real expertise and using antiquated methods.

You wouldn’t be surprised a chemical engineer understood how to design a site specific stormwater system? Do you think he knows what storm intensity and duration to design the system for? Is he familiar with the local regulations? Does he even know how to calculate the flow going into a catch basin?

No, yes, yes, and yes. Its not uncommon for operations' staff to have significant experience in facilities' design. Its also not uncommon for medium and large companies to have every variety of expert imaginable on-staff from historians to medical doctors to meteorologists to international security experts.

 

[Capt. Karnage]

Fascinating discussion here. If I'm ever asked to testify as an expert, I will make sure to consult my states laws on engineering licensing. The discussion is getting a little heated, but I do want to throw in my high-level two cents. Being a EE I certainly don't have any expertise in Civil, Structural or Chemical, but to me the issues at stake are less of the technical nature itself but how engineers are treated in general. I kind of agree with both sides of this argument to some degree so much as:

1. Mr. Nutt was technically in violation of the law per the way the NC law is written with the caveat that I make that statement based on the excerpts I have read here. There could be an exemption elsewhere not being mentioned that I'm unaware of, or maybe a law specifically pertaining to witness testimony but from what's here it looks pretty clear cut that he was in violation.

2. However, to those arguing for him, I agree that I don't think he had an ill intent, or any potential to cause damage, and relative to the lawyers and lay people, he was an "expert" who knew more on the subject than they did. It does not appear that his calculations were incorrect, and I don't think he misrepresented himself. He didn't claim to have any certifications or experience he didn't actually have (AFAIK). He was an engineer, even if not licensed (as am I and probably most of the people on this forum). If everyone was prosecuted for technically violating a law, almost everyone here would be paying large fines and/or sitting in jail or prison right now for violations we probably make every day, unaware we're even violating the law. Due to the specificity of laws not covering all possible cases, often courts and law enforcement will use the "intent" or "spirit" of the law as guidance and in practice, and I don't think Mr. Nutt was in violation of the "intent" or "spirit" of this law. I think the board is being overbearing in insisting on enforcing it in this case. I also think attempting to enforce this law on Mr. Nutt is petty and sets a bad precedent for engineers everywhere, who fear we could be silenced even if we are speaking with knowledge we have that would be pertinent to the case. I agree that the law shouldn't apply here (even though it does) and if the witness is not credible, then it's up the the opposing side to show the witness is not credible. If he can honestly help the case, he should be able to without fear of reprisal.

3. I also agree that IJ is taking the free speech argument too far. It's a growing trend lately that people feel to spout out all sorts of unqualified information and when called out on it, say they have the right to free speech and therefore can say anything they want. There are limits, especially if someone can get hurt in whatever way (physically, financially, or emotionally[Talking serious emotional scars here from things like brainwashing, sexual harassment, etc., not simple hurt feelings]). When your "speech" starts interfering with someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness then a line has to be drawn. One the extreme end, everyone can agree that things like death threats, bomb scares, other malicious speech is not protected speech. Claiming to be something you're not (e.g. an engineer or other expert) should not be considered free speech [Again, I don't think Mr. Nutt was actually claiming to be something he's not]. As much as I think the board prosecuting Mr. Nutt sets a bad precedent, a win for IJ based on this argument also sets a bad precedent.

4. The way the law defines an engineer is asinine and it should be changed. Most engineers I know don't fit into the category. Granted, most fit under the "exemption" and therefore can claim to be engineers, but if it means they can't claim to be an engineer in court when they do have applicable expertise it's bunk. It should have a definition of qualifications for an engineer, and perhaps separate definitions of licensed vs. unlicensed engineers.

5. Someone suggested an engineer must have a graduate degree? I have a Bachelor's and though most Masters and PhDs I know are very smart people and certainly have particular areas of engineering they are much better engineers than me in, my 18 years of experience make me better in the particular areas I have practiced. I think an accredited degree or license should be part of the requirement, but if we put up too many more fences, we create more problems. Also I know purely Academic Masters and PhD engineers that have great theoretical knowledge but little ability to apply it to the real world. Something more engineers with just Bachelors degrees who found jobs right after college and worked them for years tend to be better in. I also know electricians who never went to college that would make great engineers. I'm not knocking any of these qualifications, just saying we all have our different abilities and are all "engineers" of different capacities. And anyone, regardless of paper credentials, has the capability of being incompetent at their job. I have met many of like that, too.

That being said, and though I agree some sort of qualification needs to be defined for an engineering expert, life is weird and funny and gray rather than black and white. Some people are hard to categorize, or typecast as they might say in the acting world. So I also want to share a story.

A few years back I met the most brilliant electrical engineer I've ever worked along side in my entire life so far. No one that worked with him would disagree he was brilliant. He solved problems no on else was able to figure out. The success of one of the biggest projects I was on (biggest so far for me at the time) was due in large part to him. His one issue may have been he was always talking over people's heads in ways they couldn't understand. To that end, part of my job became translating what he was saying to something more digestible by management (or even some of the other engineers). He taught me a lot about electrical engineering, particularly about controls and programming. A lot of people assumed he was a PhD in electrical engineering. Some people mistakenly called him "doctor" (he was quick to correct them if he heard them say that). He had the respect of many actual PhDs in the field and as far as I know, everyone that worked with him. But he never misrepresented himself. His credentials and his full resume were available to everyone working with him. He had a Bachelor's in chemical engineering (and many years of controls experience that are a story too long for here). I still stand by the statement that he's the most brilliant electrical engineer I ever met and I would trust my life to his engineering expertise.

 

[phamENG]

Capt. Karnage -

Excellent post.

The master's degree may be a bit more specialty specific. In the Civil world, we finish school and, for the vast majority of us, we go one of 5 or 6 ways and never look back. You dig into your specialty and that's that. A license is essentially required to get beyond entry level if you're going to work in design (I only know of one exception...I'm sure there are more, of course). So while all of the knowledge is useful to some degree, most civil engineers could cover all of the theory they use in their day to day jobs in about a year to a year and a half in college. My suggestion re: requiring a master's degree expands that and allows us to dig a little deeper into the theory of our specialty before hitting the street. From my observations, it's the lack of theoretical grounding combined with limited mentor-ship that leads junior engineers to simply regurgitating code sections and prescriptive design tables. Or worse yet - incorrectly applying them because they don't understand how they were developed or where they came from.

A trend I see coming out of a lot of these posts is a split between people who work mostly in building and civil design and those who work in mechanical, electrical, industrial, manufacturing, etc. So, essentially those who work in fields dominated by licensed consultants vs. exempt engineers working for manufacturers, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but there's clear bias in most of our opinions - mine included.

 

[drawoh]

Capt. Karnage,

I am the one who brought up graduate degrees. For the record, I am an engineering technologist with a three[‑]year diploma. I am certified by a professional body.

We wind the clock back to your university days, and this time, you majored in History. and nineteenth century French literature. Then you went to law school.

Eighteen years later, you are a judge, and I am in your court claiming to be qualified to give expert testimony on some branch of engineering. You know diddleysquat about engineering. I actually know a couple of people who graduated from engineering, and then they went into law school. Perhaps I am claiming to be a medical expert, or an expert on child abuse. The whole point of expert testimony is that in context of the science, the judge, the attorneys and the jury are laypeople. In the absence of an expert, they must examine all the facts and then draw conclusions on their own. The expert is going to tell them what it all means.

[ul]
[li]Education [—] does a bachelor's degree set you apart?[/li]
[li]Experience [—] You need lots of it, and probably successful results to point to.[/li]
[li]Peer review [—] Somebody out there that we trust, respects you. [/li]
[/ul]

Maybe you don't need everything on the list. Two out of three? Now we can insist on the doctorate!

--
JHG

 

[geotechguy1]

What if you meet the criteria, and you're a civil engineer, but the expert testimony is about pavement design, retaining wall design, or loads on pipes (areas generalist civil engineers frequently stake a claim to), but your opponent brings some goetech engineer with 70 years experience to court and says those three areas are actually all fundamentally geotechnical in nature so your expertise as a civil engineer isn't worth much?

 

[hokie66]

geotechguy1,
That is for the court to decide. But the other side is taking a chance that the court will consider their old geotechnical engineer as just an arrogant old fool. After experts are accepted by the judge to give expert testimony, the content and tone of testimony will matter to a jury.

 

[IRstuff]

your opponent brings some goetech engineer with 70 years experience to court and says those three areas are actually all fundamentally geotechnical in nature

That's the nature of competing expert opinions, though; while engineering is probably more solid, the variety of building and structure designs imply there's more than one right answer, sometimes.

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

 

[geotechguy1]

I agree, and they should let the court decide in this case as well.

 

[Capt. Karnage]

I had written up a long, point-by-point response to things, but it was quite long and boring and I'm sure it would just get TLDR'd.

Long story short - one thing I didn't address was the quality of the testimony. It was lacking. He was a witness of convenience so I agree the lawyer didn't do his job adequately. It was "hey, my dad's an engineer, he knows about this stuff" and didn't search for a better witness when he should have. For that, his client should be upset, and the judge and opposition have every right to question his expertise on the subject.

However, where my point is at is I don't believe that by stepping in to be the expert witness - of which he was RELATIVELY an expert compared to a layperson - that he did something criminal or in any way worthy of criminal punishment. I think he was doing his honest best and thought he could help and nothing he stated was actually wrong AFAIK. He wasn't trying to deceive in anyway.

How do we vet an "expert" is a much broader and complicated question that doesn't have any easy answers and our current system is woefully inadequate. The current system, in most cases, is too lax and ill defined. However, defining it too much could restrict actual experts from being able to testify because they don't meet the exact wickets of the definition. I think NC's definition happens to be problematic in both directions - it is too restrictive by requiring a certification not all otherwise qualified engineers have, and if interpreted the way the board does, could restrict a large number of qualified engineers from ever testifying. However, at the same time is too lax because it doesn't address specialties or having actual expertise in the specific field used for testimony. It's just (generically) certified or not, which is not a good measure of a "subject matter expert" with the broad scope of what "engineering" is today.

 

[IRstuff]

I've noticed that real-life lawyers are clearly not in the same league as Perry Mason; nevertheless, questioning by the lawyers, from either side, should establish the witnesses' bona fides, as well as questioning the appropriateness and applicability of the witnesses' experience.

In particular, this witness, Nutt, should have been cross-examined sufficiently to show that he had zero actual experience in the specifics of the case, seemingly relying only on one textbook's rather generalized equation. Likewise, he would seemingly have not examined any discovery material, such as the actual plans and drawings of the system in question. I can't imagine he actually did anything good for the plaintiffs' case.

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]

BER Case

 

[hokie66]

I have been an expert witness several times, and hope my favorite definitions of an expert do not apply to me:

1) Drip under pressure
2) Guy from out of town with a briefcase

 

[SPDL310]

In particular, this witness, Nutt, should have been cross-examined sufficiently to show that he had zero actual experience in the specifics of the case, seemingly relying only on one textbook's rather generalized equation. Likewise, he would seemingly have not examined any discovery material, such as the actual plans and drawings of the system in question. I can't imagine he actually did anything good for the plaintiffs' case.

I agree with you that Nutt may not be the most effective witness, but the question here is on of availability and access. In the ideal world Nutt would tell his son the case passes the smell test, and would recommend finding a licensed civil engineer to testify. In an ideal world all clients would have access to the same quality of lawyers and expert witnesses, but in reality the plaintiffs bringing this case probably don't have the $5-10K upfront to pay a licensed civil engineer willing to be a witness to review and comment on the design of the drainage system in question. Nutt's son the lawyer probably doesn't have it either. In order to lodge a legal compliant some level of technical testimony is required. There should be some minimum bar for that technical testimony, but that is generally is and should be decided by the courts. I believe that Nutt meet that bar in this case given the fact that he was being actively deposed. Can he accurately comment on technical minutia of a drainage system? Probably not as has previously been pointed out, but what he is capable of is showing an order of magnitude rough estimate of what would reasonably be required to protect surrounding homes. If he is way off base the defense will be able to adequately show that with the defendants assistance.

The board chose to assist the defendant in this case with an arguably retaliatory action. It appears petty of both the board and the defendant. Other developed nations don't have professional engineering licensure laws, and their buildings and roads aren't collapsing. Their streets aren't flooding. So what purpose does a licensing board serve?

 

[phamENG]

Other developed nations don't have professional engineering licensure laws

To which developed nations are you referring?

 

[GregLocock]

Hokie 1) ex as in has been, spurt as in drip under pressure.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[SPDL310]

To which developed nations are you referring?

Apparently not the ones I was thinking of. I was thinking of the UK and EU, but their registering system is similar to US licensing boards upon further investigation. Apparently I was wrong in that assumption. My libertarian leanings still lead me to question the usefulness of many occupational licensing boards including engineering. In the case of engineering I believe that licensure requirements requirements especially in the civil engineering sphere where almost everything needs to be stamped leads to a guild like system which is propped up by underpaid unlicensed junior engineers toiling away to gain the experience to meet licensure requirements. Those same junior engineers are then locked into a narrow scope of practice once they become licensed.

I will stand by my statement that the behavior of the defendant in this law suit and by extension the local board was less than exemplary. The defendant reported Nutt in an arguably punitive manor. The board likely would not have investigated claims by the defendant if they were leveled at a direct competitor or an ex-employer, due to the conflict of interest. The fact that the board doesn't consider that when the individual reported is an opposition witness to the individual reporting him is concerning to me.

The NSPE article that stevenal linked has the following to say about appearing to testify as an expert:

Nevertheless, as a general proposition, it is generally acknowledged that an individual may be qualified as a technical expert by a court without possessing the minimum legal recognition as demonstrated by a professional license. Both state and federal courts adhere to this rule, and thus it would appear that unless a particular state licensing law prohibited individuals from performing services as an expert, there would not be any legal impediment to prevent an unlicensed individual from functioning as an expert.

I personally believe that the wording of the NC licensure law should not be interpreted to mean offering public comment or testimony constitutes practicing engineering as defined by the statute. The secondary clause which you emphasized earlier is informed by the preceding section which defines what practice and service mean.

Any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience, in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of land and water, engineering surveys, and the observation of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications, including the consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design for either private or public use, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the planning, progress and completion of any engineering services.

A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering, within the meaning and intent of this Chapter, who practices any branch of the profession of engineering; or who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represents the person to be a professional engineer, or through the use of some other title implies that the person is a professional engineer or that the person is licensed under this Chapter; or who holds the person out as able to perform, or who does perform any engineering service or work not exempted by this Chapter, or any other service designated by the practitioner which is recognized as engineering.

Emphasis mine

Edited to remove double quote.