Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: addseaoc(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 30 Jul 1997 14:47:29 GMT
In a message dated 97-03-01 14:01:40 EST, chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com wrote: << ...most sanctions (5-10 per quarter) range from mandatory ethics training to suspension for a period of years. ... Enough reality for you?>> These numbers gloss over a distinction I previously made about disciplinary actions. California also publishes reports, which I receive. If the range of transgressions that licensees in my state are successfully disciplined for are representive, very few of those 20 to 40 cases each year Minnesota will be on charges related to inadequate or incompetent design services, or rubberstamping. The more common charges are over things such as misrepresentations to customers, not following requirements for consumer notification/protection, misleading advertising, failure to record required surveys, inadequate maintenance of records, practicing without a license or with an expired license, etc. In states that only issue a generic PE license, charges of practicing outside of area(s) of competence may more frequent due to greater temptations to engage in figureheading or rubberstamping. These mal/misfeasance cases and cases involving procedural/statutory violations are beside the point, however large their numbers may be in your state. THE FACT IS, FEW ENGINEERS ARE DISCIPLINED FOR ACTUALLY DOING POOR ENGINEERING! Remember, we are talking about " ... the engineer who accepts $500 to produce two sheets of calcs and a sketch he seals." This level of due diligence is unlikely to result in charges by a board, especially if the structure is in a category that is exempt from the practice act, such as residences. In the remote event charges are brought, they are even less likely to succeed. Punishment for poor engineering is, unfortunately, less a reality than a virtual reality. <<As a registrant, we are obligated to put the public interest paramount. It ain't no 'strategic plan' just the fact of registration.<< But it's obvious that many registrants don't feel obligated to consistently put the public's interest first, and they suffer little or nothing over it. The reality is that the long arm of the law doesn't reach as far as we may like in nabbing scofflaws. And few of us will have the stomach to be volunteer policemen. There was a case some years ago in which a principal in a well known office asked the state board to evaluate the competence of a principal in another well known office (both in California). The case was very nasty, replete with charges of discrimination, defamation, unethical business practices, and counter charges of incompetence. It made the pages of ENR several times. The case dragged to an inconclusive and unsatisfying close, with both parties bruised and bloodied, and no victors other than the lawyers who pocketed big fees. In this increasingly litigious society, this case should give food for thought, and pause, to those who may consider making a referral to the board that could result in someone losing his license and livelihod. An aggressive defense that impugns the referer's motivations, integrity and competence should not be surprising. Progress in achieving the common goals of the engineering profession - compliance with the spirit of our licensing laws and canons of ethics - won't start until a significant percentage of us voluntarily subscribe to them. In my opinion, at least 75% must do so, or the 26+% outside the fold will provide enough capacity for the bottom feeders to continue to depress the fee and quality levels and distort ethical business practices. It's problematic whether that level can ever be achieved. Franklin Lew, SE --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [188.8.131.52]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26491 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 16:29:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from emout04.mx.aol.com by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id oa005110; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 14:24:47 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA23378 for seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:22:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:22:31 -0500 (EST) From: IteUrsi(--nospam--at)aol.com Message-ID: <970301172230_-2109101063(--nospam--at)emout04.mail.aol.com> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: Re: building code minimums for wood frame Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- Next by thread: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame