Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Forensic Engineers (Arizona)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In California, the current biennial fee is $125 per license.  For a Structural Engineer, that amounts to $250 biennially since a civil license is required also. 
 
Bill Cain, S.E.
Berkeley CA
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Hodgson & Associates <ghodgson(--nospam--at)bellnet.ca>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:31:56 -0400
Subject: RE: Forensic Engineers (Arizona)

Just out of curiosity what are your annual fees? In
Ontario, each registered engineer must pay $250 Can
plus tax and there are 67000 members.  On top of that,
each company or corporation including an individual
engineer who is incorporated must have a Certificate of
Authorization which is also $250.
Gary

On 6 Apr 2006 at 8:40, Polhemus, Bill wrote:

> ________________________________
> 
> From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Forensic Engineers (Arizona)
> 
>  
> 
> In investigating it further, it turns out that the issue is there is a
> move to require those representing themselves as "forensic experts"  to
> be registered (as something) in Arizona. 
> 
> Specifically, this is directed to those doing the "just before the
> statute of limitations runs out"  condo inspections. 
> 
> My personal feeling is that they should be registered as something
> (engineer, architect, maybe even home inspector),  but there doesn't
> seem to be a need to have them registered in the state they are doing
> work. 
> 
> Registration anywhere sets a minimum bar.  The other side's lawyer
> should be able to discredit the testimony of an expert that is clearly
> not qualified based on his or her resume. 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
>  
> 
> Similarly, here in Texas they created a "Wind Insurance" pool, analogous
> to flood insurance available at the Federal level, for those who wish to
> insure their homes against wind damage in the coastal areas of the state
> where often the cost of private insurance is prohibitive.
> 
>  
> 
> In order to qualify, one's building-residential or commercial-must be
> built to a "special" building code put together by the state (in rather
> haphazard fashion, but htat's my opinion), and inspected and "passed
> off" by an inspector certified by the state's department of insurance.
> 
>  
> 
> The problem I have with it is, this "certification" is independent of
> the state's licensure laws for engineers. In essence, they're saying
> that they have a separate standard for qualification for this sort of
> inspection, yet one of the criteria is licensure as a P.E. Yet the
> remaining criteria are simply related to registering with the state and
> paying a fee. No other testing, no other technical qualification.
> 
>  
> 
> To me, if you're a P.E., you're already qualified. We already have one
> of the highest-if not THE highest-fees for renewal of licensure in the
> U.S. It's just another stream of revenue for the state.
> 
>  
> 
> Just keep this in mind when you see stuff like what you describe in
> Arizona. Often, public safety and welfare has little or nothing to do
> with it.
> 
>  
> 
> 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********