And what constitutes practice? Say the California licensed attorney writes to the Oregon Engineering Board regarding yellow light timings in Beaverton using his/her Oregon vacation home return address, signing Esq. Legal free speech or misrepresentation?
I was referring to practicing law, in that post, so either appearing in court, or giving legal opinions about the light, such as whether the city was breaking the law, although, it's likely that it would still be moot if there were no actual client, which is the distinction that law licenses have, as opposed to engineering licenses, where even without a client, you can be charged with practicing without a license.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Here is the article in the libertarian journal Reason. The article seems to accept that the term "professional engineer" is protected. We are arguing about what an "engineer" is.
The problem is that he was analyzing traffic signals AND identifying himself as an engineer. If he had analyzed traffic signals and claimed to be a housewife, the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying would have had nothing to object about. If I pontificate about stuff and claim to be a professional, I am establishing my credibility. The State Board has a point, even if they are overzealous about protecting the title.
"Surely a signature ending in your title (Esq, MD, PE, etc) doesn't equate to practicing in your given profession?"
Yes, it does, at least, in California, you are not allowed to call yourself a "PE" unless you are licensed in the locale you are using that title.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
"The regulation of the title 'enginneer' (sic) is more burdensome than necessary to protect the public from the unlicensed practice of engineering," wrote Beckerman. "The record demonstrates that the threat to free expression is not merely hypothetical."
The key phrase here is "more burdensome than necessary". The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying has some authority to dictate who the engineering professionals are. They exceeded it.
I think that aside from the issue of free speech, is whether someone professing to be an engineer and providing engineering advice in front of a public body would be considered an expert witness. In most legal settings an engineering expert witness has to be a licensed professional engineer. In the case above, the person may have been trying to improve his status above what it actually is. A misdirection?
1) Was he purporting to be something he was not? Is he he allowed to call himself an engineer in a public setting, without being a licensed PE in the jurisdiction? The court said yes he is, and it seems we're all in agreement that the decision was correct. To have ruled otherwise would potentially put us all in a risky position, I think. If he did not have a degree in engineering, it would be a somewhat less straightforward debate.
2) Was he 'practicing engineering'? By some very broad definitions, you could say he was. I would say it's too broad of a definition, based on what I've read of his activities. I think it was an overreach by the Board to classify his actions as such.
Even if you view it as him acting as an expert witness for himself, I believe, in general, it's up to the judge or the jury to decide if someone purporting to be an expert in some matter before the court is really an expert. Opposing counsel can question their expertise, but I don't believe there are legal repercussions for the purported expert if the jury or judge doesn't believe them to be really an expert.
Even if you view it as him acting as an expert witness for himself, I believe, in general, it's up to the judge or the jury to decide if someone purporting to be an expert in some matter before the court is really an expert. Opposing counsel can question their expertise, but I don't believe there are legal repercussions for the purported expert if the jury or judge doesn't believe them to be really an expert.
Why isn't more emphasis placed on the designations of being a P.E. or being Chartered? As an engineer, I have a much different expectation of someone and their abilities and responsibilities when they have those designations. If someone is unlicensed, I don't automatically make any assumptions about them. I have met old unlicensed engineers who struggled with simple lighting calculations and those well known in industry who never bothered to get license because it offered them little benefit where they were at.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
Edit: I should add, even though that is the 'letter of the law', I have never known anyone to get a ticket because the light turned red while they were in the intersection.
Thanks for showing restraint, beej67. Couldn't be worse than getting serious questions from people in Minneapolis about whether we had indoor plumbing or rode horses to school in Wyoming.
The concrete jungle is way overrated. I would trade my car for a horse if I could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
I was in Minneapolis for 4 years; didn't mind the city too much. The 'Minne-snow-ta' weather is another matter - it wasn't bad from the middle of April to the middle of May, but the other 11 months were either too hot and muggy or too cold and clammy, and the snow stays all winter. I'll take the wind here over that any day of the week.
HamburgerHelper -- because the public at large does not even know that engineering licensure is a thing, let alone the differences between any of the alphabet soup designations we use.
Interesting story, stevenal. Think their strong apology to Alley is related to the chance (albeit a slim one) that he could end up in a political position that would affect the OSBEELS one day? Or maybe they just don't want to run afoul of the Oregon DOJ again...
