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 14:48:06 GMT
IteUrsi(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-03-01 01:46:50 EST, chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com wrote: > > << They're no more high principled than the codes of professional conduct > you're obligated to adhere to as an engineering registrant. As a Minnesota > registrant I'm obligated to snitch on anyone I have good reason to believe > has violated any statute involving the practice of professional engineering. > That covers a lot of ground. > Florida specifies as actionable such things as expressing an opinion publicly > without being informed or being competent to form such an opinion; permitting > use of his/her name in connection with a fraudulent or dishonest business > venture; failure to notify proper authorities if engineering judgement is > overruled resulting in a threat to public > safety. There's your strategic plan, already written into the law all us PE's > said we'd uphold. Realistic enough for you?>> > > The above argument actually supports my skepticism better than any examples I > could have come up with. These statutes and canons of ethics have been on > the books for decades. Why, then, have the levels of professionalism > remained so low? A major reason is that, for most people, laws don't change > behavior - incentives do! On the one hand, there is an incentive to obey the > registration laws because we don't want to be disciplined or have our > licenses revoked. On the other hand, there is an incentive for financial > survival or even a modicum of success, and if we don't take a flexible > approach to these laws, those who do will eat our lunch. The first incentive > is a weak one at best because the risk of punishment is so low - see my > posting yesterday to R.L. Foley on the woeful record of the California board > (BORPELS) in prosecuting unprofessional performance. The second incentive is > strong in most folks, and needs no elaboration. I don't see anything on the > horizon to change the calculus of these two incentives anytime soon. The > "plan" offered above, however solid its legal underpinnings, is unrealistic > because it ignores the human element. People often have a feel, intuitively > or through experience, about which side of the risk/reward line is most > advantageous in a specific set of circumstances, then place pretty sensible > bets most of the time. > > A reality check for Chris: Request the Minnesota and Florida boards to > provide you with a list of registrants who were disciplined or had licenses > revoked in the past two years for providing incomplete, incompetent or just > plain crummy design documents and services to clients (the standard of care > issue, not mal/misfeasance cases). Although they are unlikely to have hard > data, also ask if they would venture a guess on how many of these cases were > initiated as a result of leads from other licensees (snitches). If > disciplinary cases exceeded a handful, and if the snitch cases exceeded one, > I'll be mighty surprised. California, with probably some 50K active CE and > SE licenses, had lower case numbers than that. > > The challenge remains to develop a better balance between group interest and > self interest so that almost all registrants will have sufficient incentives > to support and comply with the spirit of the laws noted above. It is a very > daunting challenge, appropriate for the bright minds that inhabit this > listserv to tackle. I look forward to reading your contributions. > > Franklin Lew, SE > So, how would you propose we solve this? Regards, Bill Allen --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [22.214.171.124]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA24313 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 10:50:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from darius.concentric.net by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id ga005076; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 08:45:13 -0800 Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [126.96.36.199]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.5/(97/02/12 3.22)) id LAA14468; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:43:04 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Errors-To: <ballense(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Received: from BAllen (61023d0007la.concentric.net [188.8.131.52]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.5) id LAA29603; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:43:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33185C6B.6CF1(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 08:42:19 -0800 From: Bill Allen <ballense(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: Re: building code minimums for wood frame References: <970301052925_44270933(--nospam--at)emout11.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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