Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!![Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "Seaoc@Seaoc. Org" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:37:31 -0800
- Cc: "Hassan Zarenejad" <Hassanz1(--nospam--at)aol.com>, "Williston Warren IV" <billw4(--nospam--at)pbs1.com>, "Pat Buskovich" <fireball(--nospam--at)infinex.com>, "SEAOC" <seaoc(--nospam--at)aol.com>, "Don Gilbert" <seaosc(--nospam--at)aol.com>
I received my copies of the March 1998 Plan Review. First off I'd like to congratulate SEAOC on producing a very good looking and informative newsletter. I do have strong opinions on two of the articles and warn the reader that this post is long. "SEAOC SUPPORTS BORPELS POSITION ON SE EXAM" I support an exam that more rigidly addresses the provisions of Chapter 16 of the UBC and comparable national codes. I don't feel that an engineer practicing in Missouri, for example, needs to have any less knowledge of lateral force distribution than an engineer in California. I believe that no area of this country is free from the effects of seismic or wind. Therefore, it is important, in the very least, to have an understanding of the forces which govern. A national exam will allow an engineer reciprocity in other states as well as unify compliance for those who wish to move where the work is. I believe that BORPELS and NCEES need to combine efforts, utilizing the strengths of each, to unify the exam process. It's no surprise to most that I am an advocate for two-tiered structural engineering licensing. In this respect, I am seriously concerned about the tone of the last paragraph of this article. It states: "As SEAOC continues to look at the registration/licensing of structural engineers in California and the nation (in cooperation with the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations), the findings of this Subcommittee may help point us in a direction which we may wish to consider. The report points out that most states are now using the NCEES Structural II Examination as the first licensing examination an applicant takes. The BORPELS Subcommittee found this examination is not specifically developed for use as a "mastery examination." A 'masters' level would be for licensed engineers wishing to pursue registration or title authority to distinguish a level of competency substantially above entry level licensing. The report further points out that in fact, "The California Structural examination is defined by its use as a "mastery examination" for purposes of the structural engineering title." Viewing the practice of structural engineering in terms of two levels of competency may provide us with fertile ground for further discussions on the licensing/registration for structural engineers." I object to the term "Entry level" exam. An exam should NOT be given that would allow the use of any title nor grant any authority to any person who has not proven an acceptable level of competency in the field of practice. Entry level implies room for error and the need to be supervised, novice and beginner - certainly not the picture of an engineer competent to practice under sole proprietorship. With respect to those titled SE, the only difference in testing should be in the additional special knowledge (code compliance) required of the practice on essential facilities and structures above 160 feet (or heights as designated by governing codes). The implications in this article originate from the assumption that the existing CE exam is adequate for engineers who have not specified a field of expertise. The purpose of a two-tiered system is not simply to leave the public in jeopardy of the bottom-feeders who decide to cross lines of competency in order to profit from natural disaster. Nor should it simply elevate the mastery and clarity of the SE title to set it farther apart from those equally qualified to practice "structural engineering". The real purpose of a two-tiered title should be to limit the applicant who wishes to practice structural engineering and test those skills necessary to prove competency in this field. Let the Civils who wish to devote their practice to land have full use of the CE title, if only for the sake and clarity needed for the general public to understand the difference in titles. This fosters protection and eliminates confusion by non-professionals. Before we solve the problem of what title to designate on a two-tiered system, those decision and policy makers must understand that the change in examination procedure must start at the very basic level for the simple, but most important reason - the protection of the public. Therefore, I would request that the members of the Professional Activities Committee re-define their goals to our membership in clearer and more definitive rhetoric. I also suggest that the membership not allow a position to be taken by SEAOC without debate as to what the members actual expect of the agreement between BORPELS and NCEES. Next: The following article was released to the public during Engineer's Week, February 22-28, 1998. It was published in "SEAOC Plan Review" for March 1998 (which I received today). Included below the date of the article (February 18, 1998) were the lines "For further information, contact Allen Goldstein, SEAOC Executive Director" and his phone number. I have taken the liberty to scan and reproduce the article here so that those outside California and those not a member can follow my comments. **************************************************************************** "EARTHQUAKES ARE INEVITABLE NATURAL HAZARDS,NOT INEVITABLE NATURAL DISASTERS On January 17, 1994, the Northridge earthquake in California took the lives of 57 people, left nearly 9,000 people injured and caused over $20 billion in damage. One year later, in Kobe, Japan, the great Hanshin earthquake struck. The devastation that followed amounted to over 5,000 dead and over $200 billion in damage. Recent earthquakes, including these two devastating ones, have demonstrated that structural engineering solutions can mitigate and prevent damage and destruction. According to Allen Goldstein, Executive Director of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), "Structures, including bridges and buildings, that had been originally designed or retrofitted by structural engineers to better respond to seismic forces, in fact, performed better than those that had not." Mr. Goldstein points out, "Structural engineers subscribe to the principal that though earthquakes are inevitable natural hazards, they need not be inevitable natural disasters." Ken Luttrell, SEAOC's President explains, 'performance-based engineering describes a system of engineering alternatives directly aimed at improving the seismic performance of buildings, mitigating the disastrous effects of earthquakes. Quite simply, performance-based engineering describes engineering procedures to obtain buildings of predictable and defined performance in response to a given magnitude of earthquake hazard." The SEAOC idea is to provide the building owner with design alternatives that go beyond the non-collapse and life safety baseline that exists in current building codes. Engineers define "performance" in terms of a limiting damage state. Damage to structural elements, non-structural elements, building contents and site utilities are all considered in establishing the performance level. The building owner is able to consider the potential earthquake hazard to the building and a level of financial investment to obtain a predictable level of performance in the face of the defined hazard. According to Mr. Luttrell, "Improving the seismic performance of new and retrofitted structures is not so much a question of finding the right design solution, but more a question of finding the right incentive to stimulate the property owner into investing in the future." Luttrell and the engineering professionals at SEAOC acknowledge the economic reality of persuading building owners to spend more dollars on the design of a building than is now legally required. However, they believe that by providing understandable choices and a reasonable expectation of what those dollars are buying, more decisions will be made to invest in design alternatives. In the long term, structural engineers believe these initial investments will save additional lives and billions of dollars in damage from future earthquakes. **************************************************************************** I take exception to this article for multiple reasons. It starts out as an advertisement for Structural Engineers and indirectly negates 50% of the SEAOC membership who are qualified to practice on the building noted in the statement. I especially take exception to the inaccuracies of the first two paragraphs and the spokesman - the SEAOC office manager. Nowhere in Mr. Allen Goldstein's title or biography does it alert the public that he is not an engineer but rather an employee hired and maintained by professional dues. The blame is not Goldsteins, but Ken Luttrell's - the current president of SEAOC who has appointed Goldstein as spokesman for our profession. Goldstein obviously does not know the difference between Civil and Structural Engineers - or believes that only a Structural Engineer is qualified to provide this type of service to the public. Possibly Goldstein believes that only a Structural Engineer is capable of performing the service PROPERLY. Luttrell allows Goldstein to redefine the limits of practice within our profession. Goldstein is as any layman - a perfect example of ignorance in the distinction of Civil and Structural engineers. Luttrell has allowed Goldstein to establish new guidelines that the public can faithfully follow in choosing the professional that they may feel is uniquely qualified to serve them. The travesty is the allowance of our board of directors at state level to let Goldstein perpetuate the ignorance and perform a disservice on the same members they expect to extract a dues increase from. I am personally appalled at my representatives at state level to have allowed this article to be release to the public with such blatant inaccuracies. It is an insult to the paid members - both Civil and Structural. Worse, Luttrell allows Goldstein to perpetuate restraint of trade by incorrectly portraying Structural Enginers as the only professional authorized OR qualified to perform such work. Who do you believe the public will hire the next time they require our services? The board of directors may downplay the importance of a message like this, but a large percentage of SEAOC members have been debating and trying to work out reasonable solutions to problems related to the authorization of title in our profession. The boards disregard for our efforts is evident by allowing the release of this statement without consideration for its effect upon the members and for not allowing the members to review a document which can effect our ability to obtain work from the public. I personally take this as a kick in our professional ass. Irrespective of the general public, it is inexcusable for those who represent us to believe that they can break the same ethics that they expect the members to adhere to. They restrict Civils from using the title Structural Engineer yet allow this statement to be released to the public that perpetuates misrepresentation of the SE title by implying unlawful exclusions. I can forgive the layman who mistakenly reports this error in the press, but this is a prepared statement by professionals - worse yet- who are elected to support us. The fact that the members of SEAOC have not seen the draft of this public statement until one month after its release is appalling. SEAOC has had the ability to place any and all documents such as those contained in the Plan Review on the SEAOC server for three years. There is no excuse for their actions on this matter and I hope that those decision and policy makers who read this have the guts to apologize to each member of our profession who they have elected to negate. This is my medium to express my opinions and I hope I have the support of the list members. At some point, I will need to decide who deserves the money I allocate for dues - SEAOC, CELSOC, ASCE etc. SEAOC may or may not get my vote, but as of today, they are on very shaky ground. If membership is the only card I hold that will awaken those asleep at the wheel then it may turn out to be an effective deterrent to this kind of inexcusable behavior. I hope that those of you who do agree have the guts to follow your conviction. We have little recourse to this kind of indifference once the damage has been done. Voting against offending board members does little to repair the damage, however, taking our dues elsewhere may be a suitable deterrent. There is something terribly wrong with SEAOC when they work so hard to destroy the careers of 50% of the members who they expect to extract $10.00 more from - are they worth it? I'm not so sure anymore. Respectfully, Dennis Wish PE La Quinta, California wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com ICQ# 6110557 http://wwp.mirabilis.com/6110557 "Silence is the virtue of fools." Francis Bacon
- Prev by Subject: RE: SEAOC $10.00 dues increases objection
- Next by Subject: RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- Previous by thread: RE: I don't get it....
- Next by thread: RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!