Who is Nancy Eisller (sorry I am in GA)? What kind of authority does she have?
Charles Greenlaw wrote:
> There is an impending onerous Board Rule that in application either harasses
> SE Firms or endangers those who aspire to become SE's in California.
> Last December, I informed this list that there is a proposed amendment to
> the Calif PE Board's Rule 411 that will require every licensed engineer in
> the office who worked on the design of a project to stamp and sign each
> drawing sheet that he or she had any "responsible charge" contribution to.
> If more than one engineer contributed to what is shown on a given sheet,
> each person would have to sign and stamp that sheet.
> As the proposal now stands (in defiance of adverse testimony the Board
> received from many list members last December) all persons stamping will
> have to do so "in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to
> the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work."
> "When signing and sealing documents containing work done by, or under the
> responsible charge of two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each
> licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a
> notation describing the work done under each licensee's responsible charge."
> There is no way to know what "clearly" means in this usage: clear to whom?
> Who is the judge of whether the manner and notations are clear enough?
> Failing to satisfy makes one a violator and subject to disciplinary action.
> Many responses to this proposal appeared, most objecting to the burdensome
> hassle, uselessness, and probable futility of describing who did what,
> accurately and "clearly" enough. Most also indicated that ordinarily, only a
> principal of the firm stamps and signs the firm's work products, after
> reviewing the work of engineers further down the firm's heirarchy, even
> though those engineers were in responsible charge during most of the design
> Certainly, if this Rule 411 amendment is finally adopted in its present
> form, all SE firms will find incentive to circumvent the risks and
> annoyances in this multiple-signing rule by denying that any person but one
> at the top is in responsible charge of preparing the documents. Others who
> contributed would be deemed subordinates who assisted the signing principal.
> The downside to that gambit is that civil engineers in structural firms are
> compelled by Rule 426.11 to show three years of "professional practice in
> responsible charge of structural engineering projects" in order to apply to
> be licensed as structural engineers. But if only the SE firm's principal
> signs as being in responsible charge, the PE Board can claim that the civil
> engineer was not practicing in a qualifying way, as his or her stamp and
> signature did not appear to so indicate. Further, a firm principal who
> supplies a reference to the Board that the civil engineer was in responsible
> charge risks disciplinary action for not telling the truth, or
> alternatively, for not having the documents signed and stamped by all those
> in responsible charge.
> Those who want to see the text of this rule proposal should immediately
> phone Nancy Eissler at the Calif PE Board at (916) 263-2241 (her desk) or
> (916) 263-2222 (office receptionist) or Fax 916-263-2246, and request to be
> faxed a copy of the Jun 20, 2000 Notice of Availability of Modified Text for
> Rule 411.
> You may state your objections to this Rule 411 in writing to the Board
> office, attn Nancy Eissler, but they must be received by 5pm on Wed July 5,
> 2000. Faxes are acceptable.
> Definitions of "responsible charge" are in the PE Act at sec 6703, and in
> Board Rule 404.1, which can be read via http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels
> As an aside, I have received from one of our list members a copy of a June
> 27 letter from this same Nancy Eissler which indicates she alone is
> responsible for interpreting the PE Act to find that that ALL civil
> engineering documents, no matter how preliminary, must be signed by the
> person in responsible charge of their preparation. In a legal brief on
> another matter the Board filed with Superior Court, the Board claims that no
> interpretation or committment by a Board staffer is binding absent express
> Board approval.
> Charles O. Greenlaw SE Sacramento CA