Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: SE Test

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

Keith-

 

I think we’ve beat this horse to death. I think we agree more than you think.

 

No, I’m not suggesting more bureaucracy. IMO, it WOULD be nice if CA would tighten up the licensing laws to be more similar to AZ. That is about the only area where I would like to see the laws “cleaned up”.

 

I was suggesting that negligence is prosecuted after the fact when someone takes on a project outside their area of expertise, but only if something goes wrong. In that case, lack of ethics is regulated.

 

What I AM suggesting (but I’m preaching to the choir here) that more character be used and those folks who are not qualified to take on a project, not to do it, even if they ARE licensed to do so.

 

Conclude whatever you wish. Just don’t put that “more bureaucracy” label on me. It doesn’t fit. Neither does “Good Guy” (all the time). Don’t like taxes either. The points I am suggesting I restated above. No more, no less.

 

And, no Ivory Tower Syndrome here. I can’t understand how my specific examples have been extrapolated to this extreme interpretation of my position.

 

I also am not suggesting that a problem of any kind is “spiraling out of control”. Don’t know where you got that. However, there are real world examples to back up my examples.

 

If everyone had the same position you stated in your last paragraph, this topic would be a non-issue.

 

Let’s move on. Shall we?

 

‘Nuf said. It’s Friday afternoon and the weather is nice. At least here it’s nice.

 

Regards,

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)

V/F (949) 248-8588

San Juan Capistrano, CA

http://members.cox.net/ballense/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith De Lapp [mailto:keith(--nospam--at)kdlengineering.com]
Sent:
Friday, November 07, 2003 12:04 PM
To:
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: SE Test

 

Bill, we have to be practical here.  If obtaining a CE or SE license doesn't demonstrate some minimum level of competency, then why do it at all?  Are you really suggesting that every sub discipline within civil and structural (and the other branches mentioned in my earlier email) be independently classified, tested and regulated?  For what purpose?  The current system has checks and balances.      The PE act states you can't practice in areas outside your area of competency.  Therefore, can the hydrologist design a building?  No, not legally nor ethically.  Does that stop them from signing a set of plans?  No.  If something goes wrong or if the client files a complaint, there is a system in place to deal with that.  Negligence "is" prosecuted after the fact.  It isn't a perfect system but it seems to work.  I don't believe more regulation is necessarily the answer.

 

Looking at the BORPELS enforcement action publication the problem while it exists doesn't appear to be spiraling out of control as your argument suggests.  Your comment "...until I (as well as others) think that I have the necessary background to do it on my own..." sounds like you want a governmental system in place to regulate competency.  If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, you would have to take every construction trade out there and further divide it into sub classifications.  An example would be a concrete contractor who does nothing but tilt-up panels and wants to do a cast-in-place garage would have to obtain a separate license.  Breadth of practice exists in every profession.

 

Bill, what concerns me most about conversations like this, is that we have a certain element within our profession that wants to further limit the practice of our profession.  For what purpose I ask?  Is it to protect the public, or is it to secure ones place in the profession.  If it's the former then I would ask what is the magnitude of the harm?  And how does Bill Allen propose to solve it?  If it is the latter, then it sounds very much like an Ivory Tower syndrome.  I would like to know the motive behind your position and ask that you state it here for everyone to read.  In your previous email you said "...People taking on projects they're not qualified to do hurts us all. We all know why they do it. Work is light. Can't say "no". The problem with working in a new material, region, project type, etc. is quantity of "unknowns" due to lack of experience. This lack of knowledge tends to drive the fee down (again, hurting us all) and problems in the field up (again, hurting us all). I can't say I've never done it, but I don't plan to do it anymore."  This remark suggest to me that the Ivory Tower syndrome may be at play.

 

Bill, before you blow a gasket, let me tell you I mean no disrespect towards you.  You seem like a good guy and I (as a lurker) have followed your, as well as other engineers participation on this forum for many years and have learned a lot.  But for me this topic is a bit like taxes.  We keep raising and creating new taxes for "good causes" (dubious in my mind) but then some time down the road when we feel we are over taxed, we turn and look at each other and say "How did this happen, wasn't anybody watching?"

 

I believe that the profession and the state has licensed me as a professional in civil engineering.  With that comes a code of conduct and ethics.  I believe that as a professional, I want to maintain the liberty of deciding which engineering markets I would like to pursue.  If additional expertise is required then I will obtain it.  I believe that I have to satisfy my professional ethics (in regards to competence subject at hand) that I have responsibly performed my duties in the interests of public safety and my client.  I don't think we need a regulating body further verifying competence.  It is of course true that some engineers will take advantage of the system.  But there is already a system in place to deal with that.  And I believe it works.

 

 

Keith De Lapp, P.E.

KDL ENGINEERING