Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Plan check submittals and shop drawings[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 19:35:59 -0800
Some clarifications: This thread returned to life recently (Nov 5, Guy Fawkes Day) with a point of rather narrow application: that for purposes of administering California's special and stringent building code for public school construction pursuant to the Field Act of 1933, the special requirements as to who must sign for what have fallen into an uncertain interpretation at the hands of the State Architect. The State Architect's views as understood by an unidentified subordinate of his were summarized in a previous posting, and that summary reads as though the State Architect perhaps has some odd notions, and that maybe there will be a conference with a higher ranking subordinate structural engineer to resolve what's what. Since then, the purported views of this state official with respect to the "responsibility" of an architect, in the unique Field Act setting, have become the launching pad for a generalized discussion on the responsibility and professionalism of architects and engineers in their various roles, and in various states and provinces. But really, there has been no solid foundation laid for such a discussion, no agreed-upon starting point nor question to resolve. And as a certain President undergoing deposition might reasonably say, "what's your definition of "responsibility" for purposes of this inquiry?" My earlier posting that has been cited approvingly was to the effect that the California PE Board, which has no connection with the office that enforces the Field Act, at one time warned that overstamping in compliance with the Field Act was a violation of the PE Act, but the PE Board no longer believes so, and is making no trouble on this anymore. The Disclaimer Statements offered to the PE Board back then were only a sop to them to help satisfy or circumvent the then- obdurate PE Board Executive Officer and a certain influential Boardmember. It worked, but that does not necessarily mean that such disclaimer statements were really required then, let alone now. They were an expediency, that's all. I was there. If there's an enduring general lesson, it is that all too often public officials and their staffs set policy, not faithfully to what existing laws and administrative regulations say, but whimsically or arrogantly according to their own personal notions of "how things ought to be", without bothering to learn and follow the law. It happens all the time at the PE Board, and may well be the case with the State Architect's views, or those of his subordinates. It's very difficult to counter and correct misbegotten policy, and Guy Fawkes's method remains out of favor. Even when following the law, it should be remembered that the laws regulating the practice of Engineering and of Architecture vary from each other within most states, and from one state or country to another. To argue from different state board offices or different state capitols is to argue from different "premises". Charles O. Greenlaw, SE Sacramento CA
- Prev by Subject: Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- Next by Subject: please read this.
- Previous by thread: Plan check submittals and shop drawings
- Next by thread: Allowable Bending stress for WT's