Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: This is totally inappropriate for this listserve..[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: This is totally inappropriate for this listserve..
- From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 02:30:09 -0800
There are some points made in this thread about the improprieties being revealed in the White House which, when coupled with the recent calls in other threads to "get involved", relate not too inappropriately to California P.E. interests and advocacies. The incident involved high-placed people in the Calif Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors only a few years ago. And comparable excesses of self-serving power are as easily engaged in today. __________________ >25 years later, I remain an embarrassed American with what is going on in Washington. >Bill Allen > We don't really know if he ever inhaled and/or inserted, so who are we to judge? >Stan Caldwell > Personally, what and with whom he does (it) while on his own time and with his own equipment is none of my concern >Dennis Wish >In my personal opinion, I believe the office of the Presidency should also exhibit some degree of honor > Bill Allen > Why not set high standards for high jobs? >Jim Warne __________________ In 1991 and 1992 it became widely rumored among those who followed the doings of the Calif Board of Registration that three of the male Board Members were engaged in close personal relationships of the private sort with three of the leading, supervisory female staff employees. The three Board Members had all been Presidents of the Board. Various opinions along the lines of those quoted above were voiced, but nobody wanted to do anything. It was very clearly unthinkable that any professional association would be willing to take a stand on such an issue. It was equally apparent that no Board Member would upset the superficial pleasantries among one another by objecting. Meanwhile pieces of evidence accumulated that supported the substance of the rumors. And intentional efforts were made to see if after-hours activities unrelated to Board business were taking place. They were. There had already occurred bitter disputes among factions of Board members, one faction including the three believed to be in relationships with staffers, and the other faction not so favored. The disputes concerned regrading on appeal of the 1989 and 1991 Calif. Land Surveyors Exam. The Land Surveyor Board member's efforts to get credit belatedly given for correct answers was opposed by Board staff, whose exam contractor had at first blundered, and later was intentionally misled by staff as to the basis for the appeal, so that a revised grading plan would not happen. The Land Surveyor Member found out and pulled no punches. The Board Members associated with the staffers rushed to the ladies' defense, and the scene got worse until the Department of Consumer Affairs conducted a full-blown, year-long internal investigation using professional investigators. It supported the position of the Land Surveyor Board Member. An opportunity to go public about the Board Member/Staffer relationships came up in May of 1992, when the Department of Consumer Affairs held all-day public hearings where any person could speak to all the top people in the department, plus the Agency chief above, on any matter under the department's purview. And that's where the beans got spilled. It did take a follow-up document to explain in terms of conflict-of-interest why the alleged relationships if true should not be condoned or tolerated. To the credit of then-Director Jim Conran, the allegations were looked into, and apparently what was verified mattered some, because the three career staffers were all working elsewhere before December of that year. A new Executive Officer was installed. The balance of factions among Board Members abruptly changed as well. (Only one Board member from that time remains on the Board, and the present regime is different yet.) The part I remain convinced of is that no amount of consensus building in any professional society would ever have resulted in any official action by that group. Talking about it on the listserve would result in more people knowing something about it, just as the gossip in 1991 did. But it will always remain to a few individuals among those who find out, and who are bothered enough, to do the things that make the difference. Charles O. Greenlaw, S.E. Sacramento CA
- Prev by Subject: Re: This is totally inappropriate for this listserve..
- Next by Subject: Re: This is totally inappropriate for this listserve..
- Previous by thread: Re: This is totally inappropriate for this listserve..
- Next by thread: Re: This is totally inappropriate for this listserve..