From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:50:15 -0700
At 08:42 AM 06/29/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>If I recall correctly, Ed Turner was an engineering in a city building
>department out in either Idaho or Montana. The city hired a non-engineer
>to head up the engineering department. Mr. Turner was asked to seal some
>drawings that he didn't have (or felt he didn't have) responsible charge
>for. He refused. He was then either fired or forced out (cannot quite
>remember) for not sealing the drawings. He sued on the premise that
>sealing the drawings would have violated the state PE act (not to mention
>That is what I recall from memory. Since I am a pack rat, I have keep the
>message that had a web page deticated to his case and defense. The web
>Hope this helps.
>Scott Maxwell, PE, SE
Scott, you remember well. It was in Idaho. I visited that website early in
April, and was apalled at the wimpy positions taken by the Idaho P.E. Board
on enforcing their PE Act in the matters at issue.
I just revisited that website, and see in the Strother Law Office letter of
Nov 16, 1999, that former Idaho Falls City Engineer Mr Turner is in
malpractice litigation against his former attorney. Mr Turner's case against
City of Idaho Falls in 1998 resulted adverse to him, and the matters at
issue in that case are being presented all over again as an essential
element of the new case against his attorney of back then. Apparently this
new effort has just come out so as to vindicate Mr Turner's original
position against City of Idaho Falls. The website has not yet been updated
to reflect this outcome, however.
I still regard the Idaho P E Board as having abjectly failed to enforce the
clear meaning of their license law, and as having left Engineer Turner to
enforce it on his own at his own expense. He initially failed in the process
due to derelict legal counsel, and apparently prevailed, at least in
principle, in a second battle.
Charles O. Greenlaw SE Sacramento CA