So any person can go about in Oregon calling themselves a Surveyor
I've told people that I am a Surveyor; and they've asked me if I go door to door asking stupid questions...
An 'engineer' is pretty obvious, but a surveyor could be a lot of different things.
I was working on a boundary in a residential neighborhood the other day and the neighbor came out and asked what I was doing. I told him I was surveying the neighbors property and he asked what that was.
There's a lot of people out there that are clueless...
So any person can go about in Oregon calling themselves a Surveyor
I've told people that I am a Surveyor; and they've asked me if I go door to door asking stupid questions...
An 'engineer' is pretty obvious, but a surveyor could be a lot of different things.
I was working on a boundary in a residential neighborhood the other day and the neighbor came out and asked what I was doing. I told him I was surveying the neighbors property and he asked what that was.
There's a lot of people out there that are clueless...
I hold that the term "Engineer" is a least as inexact as "Surveyor".?ÿ In fact the ruling in this case refers to that inexact meaning. An "Engineer" can also be the guy who drives the train. Or the guy down in building maintenance.?ÿ
Our state law needs to be changed by eliminating a single word from ORS 672.002(2). BTW- Washington Law contains very similar language which equates "Engineer" with "Professional Engineer":
RCW 18.43.020
Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Engineer" means a professional engineer as defined in this section.
(2) "Professional engineer" means a person who, by reason of his or her special knowledge of the mathematical and physical sciences and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, acquired by professional education and practical experience, is qualified to practice engineering as defined in this section, as attested by his or her legal registration as a professional engineer.?ÿ
Your post implied the the hangup was that our universities demanded he take some useless class. It doesnt work that way.?ÿ Applications are not reviewed by educational institutions, they are reviewed by boards under the laws imposed by thier legislatures. If those boards begin issuing licenses outside those laws they will lose thier jobs and possibly the ability of the board to regulate.
I have no doubt there were hoops to jump through, but still believe it better to frame it with the history and facts.
IMO the Oregon board was in defense mode over the current trend to eliminate regulation. The over-reaction backfired and the courts ruled properly.?ÿ
....IMO the Oregon board was in defense mode over the current trend to eliminate regulation. The over-reaction backfired and the courts ruled properly.?ÿ
10 years ago, when things were slow, I attended several meetings of the board as an observer for PLSO. I got put on the boards mailing list for sub-committee meeting agendas, minutes, and such, and am still on it.?ÿ
I was there enough to be on a first name basis with the board members of that day. The makeup of the board has rolled over a couple of times since then, so none of the current members are known to me, or me to them. I do have some personal knowledge from outside the boardroom of the personality who was the board chairman at the time this "engineer " ruling was issued. I will say that the board was always very concerned with the letter of the law, and their duty to enforce the law, as written.?ÿ Every discussion included a word by word dissection of the relevant passage of ORS and OAR. And that personality I referred to - an air force brat and a career DOT department head- is a person very much inclined to go by the book. I'm quite satisfied that what drove this decision was a careful reading and literal interpretation of ORS 672.002 et. seq. , and nothing more.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Texas went thru the change to reflect surveyors as Registered Professional Land Surveyors about 30?ñ years ago to clerify the distinction between what we do and what Engineers, layout crews and pipeliners, DOT and others do.
We even got our license certificates upgraded with our new graphics to reflect the change.
For the rules and laws to reflect the political correctness of reality, the wordings of the law need to be changed to describe those changes.
There ain't no common sense hardly ever used pertaining to what legal dogs sniff around and come of with. Mostly their time is spent finding cracks in the law to explain things to suit their needs per day and event.
Your post implied the the hangup was that our universities demanded he take some useless class. It doesnt work that way.?ÿ Applications are not reviewed by educational institutions, they are reviewed by boards under the laws imposed by thier legislatures. If those boards begin issuing licenses outside those laws they will lose thier jobs and possibly the ability of the board to regulate.
I have no doubt there were hoops to jump through, but still believe it better to frame it with the history and facts.
IMO the Oregon board was in defense mode over the current trend to eliminate regulation. The over-reaction backfired and the courts ruled properly.?ÿ
I didn't imply it, that's exactly what happened, except I didn't say useless courses, I did said courses he already had with more rigor in the UK prior to Uni.?ÿ
Of course the university didn't drive the board's actions, but the board wouldn't accept the UK degree so he had to get a stateside engineering degree without needing to take any STEM classes, if I remember correctly he had to take bowling, it was the one gym class he could do at night after work.?ÿ
If the boards wish to change the rules to allow foreign degrees and work experience to count for comity, at least to take the PE, that's up to them, if not, no big deal to me.?ÿ
?ÿ
OSBEELS has since halted the investigation and placed the investigator on leave.
Well that brings into focus what is going on.
