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

Re: Recent Ruling by California Board of Registration for Prof.Engineers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Surely, I have misunderstood this ruling!

This is a huge departure from my understanding of both the letter and the
intent of licensing law, and the purpose for Boards of Registration.  Isn't
the Board supposed to protect the public?  I even thought that the Board
was supposed to be concerned for the interests of the engineer.

What better way to protect the public than *not* sign a drawing until it's
ready for construction!

When an engineer signs a drawing, it's a certification.

If I understand this ruling correctly, I am grateful that I'm not licensed
in California.  I don't propose to sign a drawing, preliminary or
otherwise, until it's ready to issue.

This ruling, if allowed to stand would mean an Architect couldn't send me a
print.  I couldn't send him a print.  The owner of the project could not
receive concept prints for approval.  The contractor could not have
something "preliminary" for him to plan his work.  It would require that
all multi-discipline engineering design be done in a single office, since
only certified drawings could be exchanged.

I was going to say something about a "can of worms", but "snake pit" sounds
more appropriate.

I see, "SEAOC will continue to appeal this finding with the Board".  I
think a bringing suit against the Board for damages would more appropriate.

Please forgive the Rant!  I didn't *even suspect* our Licensing Boards were
staffed by the Federal Government.

Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561

> From: Ron O. Hamburger <ROH(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Cc: Lee(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Recent Ruling by California Board of Registration for
> Date: Friday, June 16, 2000 10:18 AM
> In a recent administrative action, the California Board of Registration
> Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors found a Civil Engineer to have
> practiced negligently for failing to sign a series of preliminary
> 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
> guilty of a violation of the business and professions code in that he had
> 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
> 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,
> preliminary or otherwise, must be signed by a professional engineer.
> SEAOC will continue to appeal this finding with the Board.