Slashdot Mirror
N.C. Official Sics License Police On Computer Scientist For Too Good a Complaint
snsh writes "When a computer scientist in North Carolina petitioned the state for a new traffic signal in his neighborhood, a transportation official replied with a complaint about what 'appears to be engineering-level work' done by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer." Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, and the one who filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist David Cox investigated for his detailed complaint about a traffic intersection while not licensed as a professional engineer, "I'm not trying to hush him up."
Sorry Mr. Lacy, we require a license to complain about non-compliance to ignorant bureaucratic rules.
I'm sorry, that's it.
America over.
The end.
How will they deal with people who have knowledge even though they're not licensed? Next thing you know, people might start noticing cracks in bridges!
"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Or would they prosecute you for practicing law without a license?
Than citizen volunteers who would dare to do something for free.
If you do ANYTHING that embarrasses a public official, they will retaliate. That's the kind of jackasses they are.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Since when is talking about technology the same as practicing without a license? Asshole in power is being an asshole.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Has this sort of argument been brought up before in other areas? Your complaint to the school board was well-formed, properly formatted and grammatically correct, yet you are not a board-certified English teacher. Perhaps even: You took your car to the mechanic and told him it was a quart low on oil, yet you are not a licensed mechanic.
Come on, is this is the best idea they could come up with to shut down the complaint?
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
What could possibly go wrong?
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
What a bunch of dipshits. Traffic is just a routing / scheduling algorithm, if anything his background in Computer Science should *help* him present his case. God, what morons. He just did all that work for you, it's not like you won't review it anyway. Suck it up and do a review. It's your *job*.
This is not a viral sig. Copy it at your peril.
Annoyed Neighbor @ 3am: Could you please keep it down? Your party is awfully loud and I need to get some sleep
Drunken college students: You can't tell me to keep it down! I'm calling the police on you for doing the duties of a police officer!
So in essence, the complaint is that Cox appeared more competent than an ordinary citizen is allowed.
If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
Don't you have to accept money or be involved in some sort of contractual obligation to risk something like this? Nothing in the article indicates that Mr. Cox misled anyone. The only thing he did, from what I read, was put together a detailed OPINION of reasoning why these stop lights are needed. Granted, they hired an engineer and the engineer said it was not needed, but why is performing your own research a crime?
This is some kind of absurd bureaucratic witch hunt.
Here's the form that you use to report on people suspected of practicing engineering without a license in N.C.
http://www.ncbels.org/forms/ComplaintForm.pdf
What say you that we flood them with complaints about ineptitude?
Seriously, they're investigating the guy because the report was "too good"? Since when do you need a license to be smart? It's no wonder the US is losing ground in the tech and scientific sector.
I think the Internet needs to tell the people in charge exactly how ridiculous that is. Demand an apology at the very least, if not an investigation into the people who are making these accusations.
Here's a link to get you started:
http://www.ncdot.org/
I simply do not believe the second half. There was clearly no attempt to mislead or misrepresent. If the DOT read the paper and failed to find errors, either that's a reflection on their own professional competence or they were not misled in any way. This is purely an attempt to stop citizen activism from members of a group - civil engineers - that particularly dislike any challenge from anyone outside their profession,
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Kevin Lacy should be investigated for practicing assholery without a license, because he appears to be doing professional-level work in that field.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Let me see if I got this right. The state official is concerned because a non-licensed person produced a work product that is of the quality level of a professionally licensed engineer. I was under the impression that the point of such licensing was to ensure that inferior work product was not passed off as quality engineering, yet this government official is complaining because an unlicensed person was able to produce work that looks as good as that produced by a lcensed engineer.
What is revealed is that the point of licensing in this case is to prevent people from competing with those who have been duly selected by the state. Of course, that is really the point of most government regulations, to protect certain government favored groups or businesses from competition.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I love reading criticisms of spelling usage which is completely correct.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
A-freeking-men. The guy is only succeeding in cheapening the appearance of a P.E. - precisely the opposite of what he intended. Lacy should get fired for being unresponsive to legitimate concerns from the citizenry, as well as being a pompous idiot.
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Need a very overdue, very serious attitude correction. We are not subjects to be commanded. We are citizens, which means we employ them, and they ought to obey us, not the other way around. They perform their duties at our sufferance.
Folks, we are long past the time for a reboot of our country. Those who like to play Masters of the Universe with our lives seem to think they can do so with impunity forever, to whatever extreme. But we are not Chinese or Indians or Russians. We are Americans, and freedom is our creed. And we're very heavily armed. Let's remind them and all others around the world why we deserve to be free. Let the Eastern seaboard be lit with the fires from their mansions.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
in TFA he also indicated that, even if the board finds him guilty, the most they'll do is writing him a letter saying "Don't do it again."
To which I think the proper response is "fuck off".
...which is, of course, the best kind of correct. He is now a Level 10 Bureaucrat.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
And the award for best face palm inducing quote goes to:
I'm a software developer, if I use wireshark to discover that my ISP is up to something fishy, will I be sued for practicing network engineering without a license? If I start counting the number of pedestrians crossing a busy street in order to advocate for a crosswalk, will I be sued for for practicing civil engineering without a license?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Lol, this is great
You CAN practice engineering without a license, in fact, it's fine, you just can't sign the document " P.E. " (Professional Engineer) most engineers aren't licensed, because it is primarily used by civil engineers who are designing buildings, bridges, ect. The whole point of a P.E. is enabling you to sign off on documents, official documents that represent build plans for some government facility, or something that legally needs to have a responsible engineer. While it's good to go through the trouble of getting one (Bill Nye has his license) it only qualifies you to sign your work as John Hancock Professional Engineer, or claim to list your services as engineering services in terms of running a business.
Some companies just hire one P.E. to claim their work as engineering, cause they just need one to sign off on everything.
If it's something that's not going to put people's lives in danger if it's misdesigned (i.e. a robot, UAV, toy, printer) normally you don't even need a P.E. to do the work. P.E's are just something that at the end of the day are a legal check to sell engineering work.
and in some states I believe it's enough to just have a degree in engineering to consider yourself a professional engineer (though I know in most you must take a test to attain a license )
Here's a link to the P.E licensing board's website
http://www.nspe.org/Licensure/index.html
You do need to be a PE to design something that is going to be used to construct public works.
But that's not what he did here. What he did was lobby the government on a decisionmaking matter. Anyone can do that, using any information at all, at any time. If his design is accepted it would have to be redesigned by a PE.
What his government officials are doing to him by "investigating" him is a clear violation of his rights. No matter how they try to spin it after the fact.
So what this looks like to me is that in your country, it's a crime to be smart and work hard, on your own time, to try improving your community.
I'm not a bureaucrat nor an engineer, but even without seeing the document I can tell that it was not done by either. It's only eight pages long!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If someone mentions the fountainhead I will hunt you down...
I can assure you that I do Engineer-level work on a daily basis without being a licensed Engineer. In fact, you have to do such work for several years as a requirement to get that license. Some people just need something to complain about.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Whyt he fuck does the new system, in your "Comments" section for your account, take you to the parent conversation when you click on it instead of your fucking post? It's very stupid, is this some new "default" functionality I need to turn off? Seriously, why would I want to dig through a conversation tree looking for _my_ post, instead of being taken right to it?
Cox, the Computer Scientist, should sue Lacy for harming his reputation and making unfounded allegations.
Unless the submitted materials actually made a claim of engineering authority, i.e. a stamped as being approved by a Professional Engineer (PE), then there is nothing wrong. In fact much engineering work is done by junior engineers, under the watchful eye of a PE, and then stamped by that PE as being approved. It is a requirement that you practice under a PE for a number of years to get your PE certification. Nothing is wrong with doing the analysis, only if it is presented fraudulently as an engineering work.
Intelligent analysis that puts a PE to shame should be welcomed. And unless it is being submitted as an engineering document, then sorry there is no foul.
Intimidation pure and simple.
My favorite quote from the article "If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
So, if Cox is found guilty, the punishment will be a letter!
Whew, good thing they didn't threaten to bring out the soft pillows! (Monty Python reference there)
What is the preferred way for the public to submit their arguments? A few hand-drawn sketches on a napkin and maybe a letter full of bad grammar and spelling mistakes?
The submission made no false claims about being prepared by a licensed engineer. Surely, even the most clueless elected officials can verify what is professional engineer work, and what is not? The professional engineering laws exist for that sole reason.
My first amendment trumps your engineering license law: What part of, "Congress shall make no law. . .abridging. . .the right of the people. . .to petition the government for a redress of grievances." doesn't this guy understand?
You don't need a license, and the government cannot require a license, for a person to send in a letter petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. End of story. The government is free to ignore the petition, if engineers deem it to be technically flawed (or even if the engineers agree *grin*), but no law may be used to abridge the right of the people to petition the government which is exactly what this guy did.
Why is it so many government employees seem to lack a basic understanding of the Constitution?
Government employees really need to be reminded that as a condition of being employed by the state that they are held to a higher standard and can be tossed to the wolves for stuff like this, namely:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241
241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 242
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Reading a companion article sheds a little more light on this (at least for me):
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/wake-gop-raps-perdue-and-dot-for-stifling-free-speech
As a professional engineer Mr. Lacy advised the neighborhood to hire another professional engineer to prepare the report. I thought that only lawyers generated business for each other in this manner...
This stinks to high heaven and Mr. Lacy should lose his job over this heavy-handed response.
In fact, a few years ago in Arizona, they had a problem designing the interchange between the US 60 and Loop 101. A Motorola programmer submitted a suggestion to Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) that was brilliant... ADOT gave him a plaque and named him an honorary traffic engineer.... They didn't use his design to plan the new interchange, but used his ideas to base their analysis and design on.
I don't think that he's necessarily trying to shut down this complaint. What he IS trying to do is make sure that the board doesn't look at this document and treat it like an official engineering document -- signed off by a professional engineer. The way in which it is written/presented has a "professional engineering" feel -- but it isn't a professional document and so it shouldn't have the same "sway" a professional document would.
If I read a report written by a doctor on medical research -- it's probably trustworthy. If I read a report written by Joe Nurse that "looks" like a professional medical report -- I might make a mistake and be misled.
Bridges are designed so failure causes excessive sagging. So it be visible to users of the bridge.
Because a bridge which fails in a progressive way is safer than one which snaps. Partly because of engineering reasons, but also because that way, the odds of something odd occurring being noticed are higher.
You can find this on the site http://www.ncbels.org/rulesandlaws.html . Reading this, I believe it is only illegal, if you claim to be an engineer is some way. You have to offer engineering services or directly claim to be an engineer for this law to apply.
89C23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms; penalties; Attorney General to be legal adviser.
Any person who shall practice, or offer to practice, engineering or land surveying in this State without first being licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, or any person, firm, partnership, organization, association, corporation, or other entity using or employing the words "engineer" or "engineering" or "professional engineer" or "professional engineering" or "land surveyor" or "land surveying," or any modification or derivative of those words in its name or form of business or activity except as licensed under this Chapter or in pursuit of activities exempted by this Chapter, or any person presenting or attempting to use the certificate of licensure or the seal of another, or any person who shall give any false or forged evidence of any kind to the Board or to any member of the Board in obtaining or attempting to obtain a certificate of licensure, or any person who shall falsely impersonate any other licensee of like or different name, or any person who shall attempt to use an expired or revoked or nonexistent certificate of licensure, or who shall practice or offer to practice when not qualified, or any person who falsely claims that the person is registered under this Chapter, or any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Chapter, in addition to injunctive procedures set out hereinbefore, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. In no event shall there be representation of or holding out to the public of any engineering expertise by unlicensed persons. It shall be the duty of all duly constituted officers of the State and all political subdivisions of the State to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and to prosecute any persons violating them.
The Attorney General of the State or an assistant shall act as legal adviser to the Board and render any legal assistance necessary to carry out the provisions of this Chapter. The Board may employ counsel and necessary assistance to aid in the enforcement of this Chapter, and the compensation and expenses for the assistance shall be paid from funds of the Board. (1921, c. 1, s. 12; C.S., s. 6055(n); 1951, c. 1084, s. 1; 1975, c. 681, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 612; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1998118, s. 21.)
I do understand it.
Disclaimer: I am currently employed by a Government entity. I worked in the privet sector for 22 year prior to that.
I have not, nor have I ever seen any government official 'retaliate'. And yes, I would call them on it.
Yes, it was probably a dick move.
However, I have seen many times where educated, smart peple try to force what are evffectivly engineered decsion down a cities throat without actually have engineering experience. They fail to take into account many extremely important details, and they speak well enough that the general public thinks they are right. Instead of learnign WHY something is being done the way it is, they just dig their heals in and make absurd arguments. And by absurd I mean provably wrong, But they don't look at the numbers, or try to understand the impact on the myriad of things under the street.
It's sad. Now I am not saying they should have a say, but they need to be rational about it.
Now, if the Computer scientist was trying to push the document and an engineered solution, then yes, he is in the wrong.
You do not want non licensed Engineers doing engineering work. Bad things will come of it.
I wish there was a PE equivalent for Computer programming in my state. well, in all states, really.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/sites/drupalblogs.newsobserver.com/files/docs/dcoxAnalysis%20of%20Traffic%20Signal%20Warrants%20for%20Selected%20Intersections%20of%20Falls%20of%20Neuse%20Road.pdf
Reviewing North Carolina Law 89C23 which tells you that you aren't supposed to "practice" engineering without a license, along with 89C3 which gives the definitions of the terms used like "practice" you will find that a person has to make the claim to be a "professional engineer" {see section (6)a of 89C3} for their activities to be construed to be the "practice of engineering".
Laws are written this way to point out that while most anyone can technically fill a job title of "engineer" if they have the smarts at your local company making widgets, you are not allowed to provide "engineering services" to the public. What that usually means is that you are not allowed to design things that affect public safety. You are however fully within the law to work as an engineer for IBM, Caterpillar, Boeing, etc. Usually even if a company has engineering services, few engineers are actually licensed, they just work under the direct supervision of the license engineer who takes ultimate responsibility for the design.
With this in mind, unless David N. Cox made the claim that he was a licensed engineer or was providing engineering services, he and others like him are within the letter and spirit of the law. I read nowhere in the article that he made the claim he was an engineer, nor sealed/stamped the report/calculation/designs he provided as part of his petition. Unless he made the claims or sealed/stamped the articles associated with his petition and the article simply failed to state that, I believe Mr. Cox is probably innocent of the allegations made against him.
The chapter of the North Carolina Law relevant to this is found at this web location. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0089C
The NC engineering board will tell, but I am going to guess that they will rule in favor or Mr. Cox.
The guarantee that they have knowledge would be found in the details of the report. If the report is well designed, it will have the assumptions that went into the conclusions. Those could be verified by an independent source.
In this instance it sounds like the citizen activist group is challenging the assumptions used by the engineering firm that did the original work. Unless the N.C DOT is brain dead, they won't use the citizen activist report as part of the design documents for the proposed project without doing their own additional research. They need to see if the assumptions of the citizen activist report are reasonable and investigate the assumptions for accuracy. There is always a chance that the engineering firm made mistakes, perhaps through faulty data.
It would be interesting figuring out WHAT a PE would be liable for in this case. Could they be held accountable for holding up a flawed project if their analysis is more accurate than the engineering firm?
As long as he is not purporting to be a professional engineer in the offering of the services, he may perform engineering. He may not seal the work, or offer to perform professional services, but he may perform research and write reports on technical topics.
Either way, there is nothing in the article that states Cox was suggesting he was a PE. Lacey needs a public reprimand as a disgrace to the engineering profession. It's that kind of engineer that gives us all a bad name. The goal of engineering is progress and safety, not bureaucratic parochialism.
If there are legitimate concerns, he should have the data to back up his studies. Have him open the calcs for the project and see if their contractor really did miss that stuff. It happens - engineers are human, too. Is he so obsessed with being right that he's willing to risk lives to make a point? If I make a mistake, I sure as hell want someone to point it out so that I can fix it before concrete goes into the ground. Even if you discount the public safety aspect, it's cheaper to build something right the first time than to have to build it twice.
An interesting aside is that PE boards can generally only tell him not to do it again, and refer the case to the AG for prosecution (which the AG usually ignores as not being interesting enough to prosecute) . My understanding (I'm a NC PE, as well as four other states, but do 99% of my services in Virginia) is that the PE board can only discipline and fine members (i.e. PEs), not the general public.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Tuttle, Heating Engineer at Your Service That was the first thing I thought of when I heard about this.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
This is stupid on so many levels it boggles the mind. I'll have to limit to just a few:
If this guy decided to start selling traffic analysis to the city, then he should be stopped. However, the individual who did this work was not doing it for a profit therefore the complaint is meaningless. With the proliferation of the internet, anybody can easily obtain and use once obscure and hoarded knowledge. If someone takes the time to research and complete a well thought out and presented argument, it is incumbent on the city to respond in a well thought out manner. If he made a mistake, reply and point it out at the level he or she is engaging you on. Obviously in this case, someone in the city got caught with their pants down and doesn't like it. There are a lot of cocky people out there who think that they are gods gift to... (fill in the blank)... and that they are irreplaceable. They don't like it when they are shown up. People need to realize that no matter how highly skilled and how much education you have, OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT YOU DO TOO! ( Sometimes even better than you;) )
If this complaint is allowed to stand, the precedent it sets is scary: Any government councilor had better not question the engineer of any project. Same goes for the public at large. At least nobody better complain using any sort of intelligent argument.