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

Re: Obtaining SE License endangered by new Board Rule

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mike, first I will reply directly, then add a paragraph on how we are
permitted to participate in the Board's rulemaking process in a way that we
can appeal to a reviewing authority over the Board's head. I have used this
process many times over the last 10 plus years, and many abusive regulatory
attempts have thereby been stymied, and many others improved to be less
objectionable. It is one legitimate avenue to influencing the regulatory
burdens in our professional lives. 

At 07:48 AM 06/30/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>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.
Mike, Nancy Eissler is one of the state civil service staff employees of the
Calif Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, and whose c.s.
title or rank is "Associate Governmental Program Analyst." She is assigned
to the Board's Enforcement Unit, which is staffed entirely with
non-licensee, non-attorney persons, all of whom appear (when they attend
committee meetings) to be be female. 

Nancy Eissler seems to be assigned to hobnob with personnel of the state
Attorney General's office who serve the Board from time to time in various
matters such as prosecuting accused licensees, defending the Board in
lawsuits filed against them, and for legal advice in concocting new
regulations. Her job-description title is "Attorney General Liaison Analyst,
Enforcement Unit." 

She has for some years been the Board's customary author of all new
regulations related to disciplinary matters and to regs on what what
licensees have to do in their practices. And that's the case now.

According to Board-issued biographical material, Ms Eissler has a bachelor
degree in linguistics from UCLA, but no other credential. In principle, I
avoid being a critic of Board staffers below the level of Executive Officer,
on grounds the buck doesn't stop with them. However nothing about the
wordsmithing skills or legal acumen shown over a number of years by this
particular staffer has improved my regard for UCLA or for Board standards of

Board Rulemaking is by law open for comment by any interested person,
meaning anyone plausibly affected by the proposed rule. The rulemaking file
must contain all public comments properly received, and is reviewed (in the
manner of a building code plan review) by the Office of Administrative Law
for conformity to procedure and to six code-like criteria, among which are
an expressly stated Necessity for the regulation, and Clarity in its
provisions: do those persons who will be compelled to comply understand what
complies and what does not? Additionally, a rule must be Consistent with
laws and other regulations on the same subject matter, and be within the
agency's statutory Authority to adopt.  OAL may disapprove the rule for
failure to meet these standards, and public comment is relied on to identify
such failings. Toward that end, there is a very informative pamphlet
available from OAL in Sacramento for a few dollars, called "California State
Guide to Public Participation in the Regulatory Process." I recommend it
highly to any engineer who cares about PE Board regulatory targeting of us.
OAL recently shot down a big passel of PE Board "Policy Resolutions" on
grounds they were actually underground regulations that the Board failed to
take through the required regulatory process. An interested person had
complained to OAL; we really can make a dsifference.

Charles O. Greenlaw SE   Sacramento CA