Posted on 04/27/2017 2:34:41 PM PDT by artichokegrower
I am honored to be among such wit...this is the stuff that makes Freepers...hats off to everyone on this thread.
That aside, Washington state and Oregon...two former rugged, explorer, raw materials and trading states...how did they succumb to such commie woosiness?
You don’t know what you are talking about.
I don't think it was broad and vague at all. It was probably very specific -- like the laws and regulations in my own state. Simply using the word "engineer" to describe your professional capabilities in the context of a matter that is within the professional purview of a licensed engineer is considered a violation of these regulations in my state if you are not licensed in this state.
“A PE is required to have the word “Engineer” or “Engineering” in a company name.”
I worked my entire career with “Engineer” on my company position and never had a PE.
You said may. I said may.
Why are you not coming down on the side of constitutional free speech?
My state has what is called an "industrial exemption" for engineers who work in private industry on projects that are subject to the proprietary design standards of the employer. For example, you can be an automotive engineer for the Ford Motor Company without a P.E. license ... but you might want to exercise caution about how you refer to your job title if you operate outside the company and interact with a public agency.
The P.E. license is really focused on matters related to buildings and infrastructure that are subject to public review by a government. Most (if not all) aspects of car design are not, but a traffic signal certainly is.
Because this may not be a "free speech" issue at all.
Go back to my previous example. Is it a matter of "free speech" if I call myself an attorney and I have no professional training as an attorney at all?
Because he had a colorable right to complain in his circumstances. He was resting on well developed logic and evidence. Not on “engineering opinion.” The Board could well have disregarded any claim to be an engineer in a statutory sense without dismissing his argument on same basis.
It’s like anybody may argue in a court for his very own case — lawyer or not.
One may always act as one’s own attorney. Sacrosanct.
That's why this may not really be a free speech issue at all. It's all going to be decided based on the letter of the law in Oregon, and I can tell you that state licensing boards are getting much more strict about these things because of situations like this.
It's like anybody may argue in a court for his very own case — lawyer or not.
That's true. But that doesn't mean you can render a legal opinion in any court case.
The exception that should apply here as a citizen using the roads is his own personal interest. The right to petition for redress is sacrosanct. His engineering may actually be better than the so called Engineers’ and the constitution gives him the right to argue it to his own interest.
“1) In order to safeguard life, health and property, no person shall practice or offer to practice engineering in this state unless the person is registered and has a valid certificate to practice engineering issued under ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties).”
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.020
He didn’t practice any professional engineering in this case. It’s overreach.
When I travel to California and see these HOV lanes I kinda laugh. The number of times I’ve been in very slow traffic and there’s this lane almost nobody is using. All the stopping and starting is the WORST from an environmental point of view - yet there’s this lane that could alleviate the congestion.
Where is your evidence? Are you assuming that the board did not infer a claim to be an Engineer from his discourse on engineering?
Yes this is free speech. The right sense of engineer needed to be understood.
That's the key right there. It all depends on how this is treated under Oregon's case law.
In my state, describing myself as an "engineer" in any public correspondence is considered the equivalent of practicing or offering to practice as a licensed engineer. Admittedly, I live and work in a state that is among the more strict when it comes to this sort of thing.
And you distort. He offered logic. Not an “opinion.”
You are supporting Kafka.
But what when the judges are placed in question? Must the law be an ass?
No. I assume the board inferred a claim to be an engineer on the basis of his description of himself as an engineer. I don't know if that was made clear in this article, but that's how it was described in another one posted here on FR last night.
Do you have a primary source besides some anonymous sayso?
Also is not the process stultified when it should be clear that some unofficial definition is intended? This is City Hall defining opposition away as judge, jury, and executioner.
This article seems to have much more detail about the story. The title is self-explanatory as far as what the licensing board "inferred" from the guy's correspondence.
This is not a free speech issue -- because he would have faced no penalty from the state licensing board if he had simply said, "I am a Swedish dude" or something like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.