Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: PE Stamps on Drawings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'd like to take exception with part of this one Dennis.

I'm no politician and I'm uninterested in achieving any political status, yet I
think the process is very fascinating. Politicians deal with making things
happen (legislatively) and in that arena there are so many "rules" as to how to
make things work, outsiders have no chance of digesting their behavior as
anything short of self serving and perhaps evil.

Consider the nature of their business. You'd probably enter this career with a
desire to serve the public and work toward effecting changes for the betterment
of life. Somewhere along the line you need to accomplish something if only to
stay interested in your life choice so you learn how to work the system. Not
necessarily giving up all your principles, just how to inch along in the
process.

And you need to deal with making choices. Not all ideas are fully baked when
they float up from committees and come up as legislation, but some issues are
just too important to "study" further, delaying the forward movement that you
know should happen.

A case in point is the current position of many structural engineers in Utah
regarding the need for uniform treatment of hazardous unreinforced masonry
buildings (indeed all existing buildings). We presently have no consistent
regulations regarding existing buildings and are working toward adoption of a
Uniform Code for Existing Buildings. As many of you may know, the present update
of the 1997 UCBC evolved into the 2000 UCBC then the 2000 UCEB (Existing
Buildings) and is now floundering as a complete ICBO document. Here in Utah we
decided to pursue the UBC adoption process with the 2000 UCBC document and
established an agenda to get things moving. With the recent turn of events, we
are presented with so many path choices it easily can zap any momentum we've
established thus far. Our "in the interest of time" position stems from the
extraordinary amount of building reuse due in large part to the impending 2002
Winter Olympics.

In some respects I feel we need to deal with any "problems" that may exist with
the adoption of one code over another but certainly think that moving forward on
an issue such as this will outweigh any inaction. Perhaps this issue differs
substantially from what you and Mark are discussing as I confess to not having
read the entire thread (thoughtfully). Yet I see need for emphasis where
emphasis is due. Your points about "process" are well taken and I agree with the
need for taking stock. In another post you offer an excellent idea (web page
issues) so I'm grateful of your efforts to help effect a change. It's this one
tiny "in the interest of time" issue to which I offer up my opinion.

Barry H. Welliver

SEConsultant wrote:

> Mark,
> That's an interesting phrase - "In the interest of time." I think this same
> interest is the haste that may have contributed to other problems we are
> having. At some point we need to halt the process and start reviewing
> whether the "process" has gotten out of our control.
> I think that allowing exceptions to the rules of process is a dangerous
> precedence to set. There are far too many involved in the "process" to allow
> any one component to be by passed in the "interest of time".
> I respectfully disagree with you on this one, my friend.
>
> Regards,
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:MarkD(--nospam--at)DandDEng.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 3:59 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: PE Stamps on Drawings
>
> That's true, Dennis. But sometimes, in the interests of time, action has to
> occur before a consensus is reached. In this case, no one was aware of this
> proposed rule change until the last minute. It is better to take a position
> that most PE's would clearly support than to wait for the obvious to become
> official.
>
> Mark Deardorff
>
>