Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Uniform Licensing Requirements?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Is this for real?  I find it hard to imagine that anyone would actually
expend energy on such an assinine proposition.

Paul Feather PE
San Diego, CA


Charles Greenlaw wrote:

> At 10:03 PM 4/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >The state licensing boards are needed to protect the public. How is
making
> >me take the test again protecting the public?
> _________________________________________________
>
> The state licensing boards all use that phrase, "protect the public", as
> their justification. It is their "refuge", and in the same context as is
> patriotism, in that old aphorism applied to political agendas, "Patriotism
> is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
>
> Additional state licensing board purposes, less highly touted, also exist.
> None of these boards are in the grass-growing business, but protecting
local
> "turf" appears to have been of keen interest in a lot of their policy
> formulations.
>
> Not just live grass, but the kind that's dead is also protectable "turf"
> these days. According to the agenda package for their latest meeting, the
> California PE Board is now seeking legislation to prevent Professional
> Engineers from other states from retiring, letting all their PE licenses
> expire, moving to California and then, without practicing anymore or
> offering to practice (which is already illegal) calling themselves RETIRED
> Professional Engineers.
>
> This legislation would allow a current California PE having 20 years
tenure
> under the California Board to pay a one-time fee to receive, upon
surrender
> of one's wall certificates, a so-called "retired" license, that permits
one
> to use the title "Retired PE", but not to ever practice again without
taking
> and passing the PE Exam anew. This doubtful privilege would not be
available
> to PE's moving into California and retiring soon afterwards, or in advance
> of coming here. Board members speak openly and without irony that they
don't
> want PE's from elsewhere coming to California and being able to call
> themselves Retired Professional Engineers, unless, apparently, they
maintain
> an active California PE License in retirement.
>
> Undoubtedly there is an important protection of the public at stake here.
> Those non-practicing geezers from out of state can really mess up the
public
> if they say what they are.  As usual, the public is too ignorant and
> gullible to have asked to be protected from out of state retirees; the
Board
> however knows this risk and is riding to the rescue.
>
> Charles O. Greenlaw  SE    Sacramento CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>