[USER=9850]@Gene Kooper[/USER]
At least Colorado is fairly clear in distinguishing between an "engineer" and a "Professional Engineer". Oregon can't seem to see the difference.
He poked the bear, the bear nicely said stop that, but he kept poking the bear.
Holy Cow, post: 425804, member: 50 wrote: [USER=9850]@Gene Kooper[/USER]
At least Colorado is fairly clear in distinguishing between an "engineer" and a "Professional Engineer". Oregon can't seem to see the difference.
Well, maybe so, maybe not (Note the highlighted text). Here is the section on unlawful practice.
2-25-105. Unlawful practice - penalties - enforcement
(1) It is unlawful for any individual to hold himself or herself out to the public as a professional engineer unless such individual has complied with the provisions contained in this part 1.
(2) It is unlawful for any individual, partnership, professional association, joint stock company, limited liability company, or corporation to practice, or offer to practice, engineering in this state unless the individual in responsible charge has complied with the provisions of this part 1.
(3) Unless licensed or exempted pursuant to this part 1, it is unlawful for any individual, partnership, professional association, joint stock company, limited liability company, or corporation to use any of the following titles: Civil engineer, structural engineer, chemical engineer, petroleum engineer, mining engineer, mechanical engineer, or electrical engineer. In addition, unless licensed pursuant to this part 1, it is unlawful for any individual, partnership, professional association, joint stock company, limited liability company, or corporation to use the words "engineer", "engineered", or "engineering" in any offer to the public to perform the services set forth in section 12-25-102 (10). Nothing in this subsection (3) shall prohibit the general use of the words "engineer", "engineered", and "engineering" so long as such words are not being used in an offer to the public to perform the services set forth in section 12-25-102 (10).
I agree with the highlighted portion completely. Now, if Oregon could see that same distinction, it would be nice.
Paul in PA, post: 425780, member: 236 wrote: To be specific he recorded and kept times of yellow light duration. No where in the Oregon law does it state time keeping is the work of a professional engineer. If so they would be fining paid timekeepers at racetracks, football games, et cetera. It is a good thing Oregon does not license Professional Physicists or he could be fined for determining that the light was yellow and not red or green.
I recall a physics problem in college, Student A was cited for going through a red light. Student A said he was going so fast that the light appeared to be green and he provided calculations o the judge. Given the speed of light, red light and green light wave lengths, how fast was Student a traveling?
I cannot recall if I got it right, but I do remember they graded on a curve and I had tests were 50% was an A and 35% was passing. You worked hard to get partial credit for actually knowing what you were supposed to do to solve the problem, even if your answer was wrong. A right answer with no calculations could get you nowhere.
Paul in PA
He crossed the line when he expressed an opinion based on research and consultation, calling himself an engineer. To the public, an engineer has reviewed and researched the problem, found an error and potentially a solution. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, the gentleman is not licensed to make those judgement, as an engineer, in Oregon.
No different then say a good I-Man from say Sweden finding one of your pins, taking some measurements, disagreeing with your solution and offering his opinion of the situation, right or wrong, did this I-man practice land surveying as defined?
He should not have needed a license to be able to make his personal determination of right and wrong. He should only need the license if he was selling his opinion to a paying client. No one was paying him for his opinion. We have a wonderful Constitution with a nice list of amendments that should not be repressed willynilly by bureaucrats who are embarrassed by their own behavior.
Holy Cow, post: 425822, member: 50 wrote: I agree with the highlighted portion completely. Now, if Oregon could see that same distinction, it would be nice.
Yeah, I'm probably splitting hairs. I am a PLS and Professional Geologist in Colorado. Despite having a BS in Engineering and passing the EIT 32 years ago, I only use the term engineer in the education section of my resume. Otherwise, folks would likely think I'm also a PE if I included the generic term, "engineer".
I don't know if Oregon has a sunset provision for their licensed professions. I found a 1999 report by the Minnesota State Auditor that said Oregon repealed their sunset legislation back in 1993.
Here is an excerpt from the NCEES Model Law.
150.30 Grounds for Disciplinary ActionÛÓUnlicensed Individuals
A.
In addition to any other provisions of law, the board shall have the power to fine and recover costs from any unlicensed individual who is found guilty of:1. Engaging in the practice or offer to practice of engineering or surveying in this jurisdiction without being licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Act
2. Using or employing the words ÛÏengineer,Û ÛÏengineering,Û ÛÏsurveyor,Û ÛÏsurveying,Û or any modification or derivative thereof in his or her name or form of business activity except as licensed in this Act.
Carrying three licenses around does weigh heavy on a person. I probably am the most careful with the one that says "Real Estate Salesperson". I could call myself a Realtor@ as I do pay my dues that entitle me to that designation but don't do so because so many view that term and "Broker" as being one and the same thing. I have enough time and education invested to become a "Real Estate Broker" but have no interest whatsoever in doing so. I avoid using all the other names commonly used, by polite people and non-surveyors, to describe those who assist with the buying and selling of real estate.
Article 70 BOARD OF TECHNICAL PROFESSIONS (Edited from the Kansas Statutes Annotated)
74-7029. Unlawful acts; prosecution; assistance of attorney general and district or county attorney.
(a) It shall be a class A misdemeanor for any person to:
[INDENT](1) Practice or offer to practice or hold one's self out as entitled to practice any technical profession unless the person is licensed as provided in K.S.A. 74-7001 et seq., and amendments thereto, or holds a certificate of authorization issued under K.S.A.74-7036, and amendments thereto; [/INDENT]
(b) For the purposes of subsection (a)(1), a person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice or hold one's self out as entitled to practice a technical profession if such person:
[INDENT](1) Practices any branch of the technical professions;
(2) by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way represents the person to be an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, professional geologist or professional surveyor;
(3) through the use of some other title implies that such person is an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, professional geologist or professional surveyor, or that such person is licensed to practice a technical profession; or
(4) holds one's self out as able to perform, or does perform, any service or work or any other service designated by the practitioner which is recognized as within the scope of the practice of a technical profession.
[/INDENT]
Cow,
The board did not fine him for is observations and conclusions. They fined him after he claimed, to the board as well as the general public, that he was an engineer after being warned that he was breaking state law.
He did go to school for it give him a break...
[USER=1188]@John Putnam[/USER]
John,
That's the part that makes no sense. Assuming he is an educated person with a diploma declaring him to be an engineering graduate, then HE IS AN ENGINEER. Apparently, Oregon has decided no one is an engineer unless they are licensed by them as a PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. That is what I disagree with vehemently. The example I provided above citing the faculty of one department in the College of Engineering at Oregon State University should prove the point that one does not need to be licensed by the State in order to be an engineer. The State of Oregon pays those engineers to be engineers who do research profitable to the State and to educate future engineers. Yet by their own definition these highly skilled engineers are not engineers and should be fined for accepting employment that labels them as being engineers.
When someone graduates from Medical School they are not automatically license to practice Medicine and will get a fine if they claim to be.
When someone graduates from Law School they are not automatically license to practice Law and will get a fine if they claim to be.
When someone graduates from Plumbing School they are not automatically license to practice Plumbing and will get a fine if they claim to be.
and etc..........
I don't know why someone with an Engineering degree would be able to represent themselves as a License Engineering with taking a state Exam.
Maybe we all should take one of those easy 4 year online Engineering Majors so we can all call ourselves Engineers.
Dave Karoly, post: 425807, member: 94 wrote: He poked the bear, the bear nicely said stop that, but he kept poking the bear.
This is my take also. They probably told him to cut it out and he ignored them. My take is its pretty silly.
Holy Cow, post: 425846, member: 50 wrote: [USER=1188]@John Putnam[/USER]
John,
That's the part that makes no sense. Assuming he is an educated person with a diploma declaring him to be an engineering graduate, then HE IS AN ENGINEER. Apparently, Oregon has decided no one is an engineer unless they are licensed by them as a PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. That is what I disagree with vehemently. The example I provided above citing the faculty of one department in the College of Engineering at Oregon State University should prove the point that one does not need to be licensed by the State in order to be an engineer. The State of Oregon pays those engineers to be engineers who do research profitable to the State and to educate future engineers. Yet by their own definition these highly skilled engineers are not engineers and should be fined for accepting employment that labels them as being engineers.
I had an electrical engineer from England who worked as my I-man for a while. He couldn't get the state to let him take the test because he "only" spent 3 years in engineering school and didn't take all the "required" courses like English or language or whatever elective the engineering schools here require.
It took him a bunch of remedial classes, jumping through hoops and they finally let him be an engineer.
There are lots of graduate engineers who work as engineers, and never get a PE.
They are engineers as far as I can tell, they just have to work under someone with a PE who signs for them.
MightyMoe, post: 425869, member: 700 wrote: I had an electrical engineer from England who worked as my I-man for a while. He couldn't get the state to let him take the test because he "only" spent 3 years in engineering school and didn't take all the "required" courses like English or language or whatever elective the engineering schools here require.
It took him a bunch of remedial classes, jumping through hoops and they finally let him be an engineer.
There are lots of graduate engineers who work as engineers, and never get a PE.
They are engineers as far as I can tell, they just have to work under someone with a PE who signs for them.
Worked with a gent in the late nineties that had been an engineer for their highway department in his home country of India. When he first arrived in the US he procured a job in Pennsylvania (I believe). And (according to him) his PE license was obtainable through application and examination there. But his wife's education (the reason they moved to the US) brought them here to Oklahoma. During the time they moved something happened to the accreditation of his alma mater and he no longer qualified for examination. He was a sharp civil engineer particularly in hydraulics and materials. His professional abilities were hindered because of his lack of PE licensure and we snatched him up for my "office" help. He knew Eagle Point inside and out. I could give him an ascii file in the morning and he'd have the whole ball-of-wax finished that afternoon, complete with 3D surfaces. Unlike some folks he marveled at the PLSS network and how we kept track of property records. I urged him to work toward his PLS license.
He did have a hard time with spelling here in Oklahoma. We were working on a road widening job here on Tecumseh Rd. I noticed on 17 p&p sheets of one of our submittals he had changed the road name to "Tecumesh" because he was convinced I had misspelled it in my notes. We had a good laugh about Indian names, and Indian names...;)
Holy Cow, post: 425801, member: 50 wrote: One daughter had a double major in English and Communications. Told her I thought they were the same thing.
Two words...Finnegan's Wake
James Fleming, post: 425877, member: 136 wrote: Two words...Finnegan's Wake
Ha! And that is one of the more readable passages ...
Here is what Oregon says in their newsletter:
2929 ÛÒ Mats Jarlstrom
The Board issued a Default Final Order against Mats Jarlstrom for engaging in the practice of engineering without being registered as a professional engineer in Oregon. Mr. Jarlstrom claimed to be an engineer to OSBEELS, the City of Beaverton, Washington County Sheri , and other organizations when providing engineering algorithms and calculations to change tra c light timing. The nal order was issued against Mr. Jarlstrom assessing a $500 civil penalty for violations of ORS 672.020 and 672.045, engaging in the practice of engineering without proper registration, and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 820- 010-0730, using the title of engineer without identifying the jurisdiction in which he is registered.
Page 6:
http://www.oregon.gov/Osbeels/docs/Newsletters/20170401_Examiner_web.pdf
I'm not familiar with Oregon's rules but this seems to be a civil, not criminal, matter. In California practicing without a license is a misdemeanor (criminal).
See page 4 of the linked document for more detailed discussion:
https://www.oregon.gov/Osbeels/docs/Committees/LEC/Minutes/201608_LECMinutes.pdf
And it is a civil penalty.
