Lawsuit Challenges Oregon Law Prohibiting Mathematical Criticism Without a License
In a nutshell, a man used math to criticise Oregon’s red-light cameras. The state said that using math to express your opinion is engineering, and since the man (who holds an electrical engineering degree) is not licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Oregon, he was practicing engineering without a license.
That’s not precisely what happened.
What appears to have happened, according to Järlström’s own lawsuit, is that he e-mailed the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. In his e-mail, he identifies the issues he perceived existing with traffic light timing and identifies himself as an engineer, specifcally by saying “I’m an engineer,” and by calling himself an engineer. The Board responded by informing Järlström that the Board has no authority over traffic lights but that the Board does have authority over engineering laws, and that Järlström was breaking those laws by “use of the title ‘electronics engineer’ and the statement ‘I’m an engineer.’” Järlström is not a licensed professional engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction.
The issue, in other words, is not that he used math. It’s that he argued, in effect, that people should listen to him because he’s an engineer, and Oregon, like many other states, licenses professional engineers.
Because Järlström is not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer, the Board warned Järlström to “stop any further references until you become registered with the Board.”
He continued, however, by among other things contacting local media (KOIN TV) and then forwarded to the Board the e-mail he had sent to KOIN. In his cover message, Järlström explained that “[y]ou might enjoy seeing this too” and stated “I’m an excellent engineer . . . .”
Now, he has a fair complaint: can Oregon reserve the word “engineer” for licensed engineers?
But he’s not being charged for using math. He’s being charged for calling himself an engineer when he’s not a licensed engineer.
I’m surprised but I checked and apparently it is against the law in Oregon to call yourself an engineer if you don’t have a state license.
The term “engineer” is legally defined in Oregon law; it’s “an individual who is registered in this state and holds a valid certificate to practice engineering in this state”. And the “practice of engineering” is defined very broadly:
So while the law may be crazy, it does appear Jarlstrom broke it.
Plus, he broke the one man/one umlaut rule. That’s an affront to democracy!!
I bet you can’t walk a crocodile on a leash here either.
It’s an interesting story. The writer does take it to a bit of an extreme.
“As Mats learned first-hand, however, Oregon’s Professional Engineer Registration Act also restricts and punishes ordinary people for their most basic acts of protest, civic engagement and political speech.”
IMHO the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying is overreaching its authority. I believe the common practice in the US is that if you are a lawyer in one state, you are not misrepresenting yourself anywhere, if you refer to yourself as a lawyer. If I’m registered to practice on state A then I can only only practice in state A, but I can call myself a lawyer anywhere. I’m sure Bricker knows if this is in fact the case.
There is another twist to this story in that Mats has never held an engineering license in the US. He has a bachelors in electrical engineering from Sweden.
I have a dog in this fight. I am an RN. I have heard many, many, people call themselves "nurse" who have never received any any formal nursing education.
I believe this to be the most common misrepresentation of professional credentials around. It is a crime to misrepresent yourself as a nurse in many states,
here’s a state by state list , however, if you are an actual nurse,you can call yourself a “nurse” anywhere. You can only* practice* in states that you are licensed, but I don’t think anyone has ever had a Board of Nursing go after them for correctly identifying themself as a nurse.
I surprised they let you wipe your own ass! They won’t let you pump your own gas.
In other words, in Oregon, if I walk to the grocery store and want to stop at the library on the way, and I decide no, the library is too far, and uphill, I’ll just skip it, and I go straight home with my bag of groceries, because I impulsively bought a couple of heavy things, then under Oregon law I am a criminal, guilty of
© Surveying to determine area or topography.
Yes, that’s exactly how it works in the world of Misinterpret The Law And Try To Score Points Using Insane Hypotheticals Even A Sovereign Citizen Would Be Unwilling To Credit.
Does this mean computer programmers in Oregon can’t call themselves “software engineers”?
Those are other words, but they are not words that accurately convey the law as applied in Oregon.
In case you’re wondering why you’re not: ORS 672.060(6) provides:
Do you have other questions?
Seems like there are actually two problems here: first, that the definition of “practicing engineering” is extremely broad, and could include “doing math” on things like traffic lights; and second, that he described himself as an engineer, which is true in a dictionary sense, but just not an Oregonian professional engineer.
Both seem ridiculous to me. “Practicing engineering” should not include public critique. And while reserving the name “Professional Engineer” seems fine, laying claim to a plain “engineer” is silly given that there are many people with engineering degrees but not PE certification.
The second is the dispute at hand. The first isn’t; if you don’t hold yourself out as an engineer and don’t offer your professional services to the public, the law carves out exceptions. Public critique is not prohibited; public critique wearing the word “engineer” is. Not saying that’s how it should be, mind you – just saying that’s the only issue in play.
It appears that they only charged him regarding the second one, but that they threatened him with fines and jail time regarding the first:
If Mats continued to “critique” traffic lights, he could face thousands of dollars in fines and up to one year in jail for the unlicensed practice of engineering.
I don’t agree that the claims are an “and”. From Little Nemo’s quote:
Note the or in red. The (c) condition alone is sufficient. Your later excerpt doesn’t seem to change matters:
Being public critique, the work as such was offered to the public. Even had he not used the word “engineer”, it seems to me that he could have still been charged with practicing engineering without a license.
You might be right.
I am trying to find a copy of the board’s final order, but if they did threaten him merely for public critique and not for the title law. . . I don’t see how that survives a First Amendment challenge.
On Tapatalk so I can’t paste nicely, but here is the link. http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-Final-Default-Order-IJ084769xA6322.pdf
I’m not going to tap out a long reply, but I can see why they fined him. It’s not simply that he critiqued the problem, he used engineering methods to evaluate a traffic safety issue and then represented himself as an engineer while claiming that he had developed a new solution based on an algorithm he had invented.
One of the actions he took, which was cited in the order, was that he had sent his solution to a sheriff so that they could change the timing of the lights.
That sounds like performing traffic safety engineering to me.
Well, you can’t mate an umlaut without breaking some regs.
Very nice!
I have a degree in electrical engineering. My employer, the federal government, uses the word “engineer” in my job title. I’ve written “engineer” on my state and federal tax forms for the last several decades. But since I’m not licensed as a P.E. (Professional Engineer), I’d be breaking the law if I hung out a shingle stating that I’m an engineer for hire.
It’s worth noting that these boards are not government entities, but essentially call in the law for enforcement when they see an infraction (although in this case, it’s the state itself who’s doing the enforcing).
I recall some state engineering boards raising a fuss when Microsoft used the term “Certified Network Engineer” in promoting their courses.
I always thought that the distinction made by those boards was that you couldn’t advertise your services as an engineer on the market unless they’ve licensed you.
Since this guy wasn’t asking to be paid, I think the state is being awfully heavy-handed.
I assume he would’ve been in the clear if he’d simply stated that he has an engineering degree?