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

RE: Recent Ruling by California Board of Reg

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I haven't taken the time to find out how California Board members are
selected.  However, I am surprised to see that of 13 seats on the
Board, 7 are "public", one is a land surveyor, and there is one
engineer in each of the following areas: structural, geotechnical,
electrical, mechanical, and civil.  The seats for "Civil Engineer" and
"Land Surveyor" are vacant, so even if all of the regulated
professionals vote the same way, the "public" can overrule them; this
would still be true if the vacant seats were filled.

Perhaps if past clients of the professional members were polled it
would quickly become apparent that the Board members themselves have
similarly "practiced negligently."  For your information, the board
members are as follows:

Vincent Di Tomaso, P.E., Electrical Engineer (vice-president)
Gregg Brandow, S.E., Structural Engineer
James W. Foley, Jr., P.E., Geotechnical Engineer
Quang D. Vu, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Vacant, Civil Engineer
Vacant, Land Surveyor

Kathryn Hoffman, Public Member (president)
David Chen, L. Ac., O.M.D., Public Member
Andrew J. Hopwood, Public Member
Stephen H. Lazarian, Jr., Public Member
Marilyn Lyon, Public Member
Myrna B. Powell, Public Member
Millicent Safran, Public Member

Roger Turk wrote:

Unbelievable!  And these board members are supposed to be your peers?

after Ron Hamburger wrote:

>>In a recent administrative action, the California Board of
Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors found a
Civil Engineer to have practiced negligently for failing to sign a
series of preliminary construction documents.  The documents consisted
of preliminary drawings for a retaining wall structure.  The drawings
had been given to a client to illustrate the type and
scope of work of a proposed site improvement and had the words
"Preliminary" and "Not for Construction" clearly indicated on them.
The Board found the engineer guilty of a violation of the business and
professions code in that he had not signed the documents.

SEAOC acted on behalf of the engineer and filed an affadavit citing
that preliminary documents were frequently produced by design
professionals as a means of facilitating discussions with clients and
other design professionals on project requirements and that it was
typical not to sign such documents, specifically as one means to avoid
representing that the information shown was complete or suitable for
construction or other reliance.  The Board found
SEAOC's argument non-persuasive.

Please be advised that under this ruling, any engineering document,
draft, preliminary or otherwise, must be signed by a professional

SEAOC will continue to appeal this finding with the Board.<<