Is “survey” strictly defined by law, to make it clear what activity is permissible and what is not? What is the point of quoting the law (in this thread) if the words quoted are defined elsewhere, or not at all, or arbitrarily on a cases-by-case basis?
But unless he’s signed his name on something or accepted money or you know, started rewiring traffic lights himself, he hasn’t actually performed any work, just stated an opinion. He has no obligation to anyone and no-one has any obligation to him. Why should he be held liable for something he didn’t do?
This is silly, the guy did not act as a professional engineer, and he has a 1st amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The law is unconstitutional if applied in this manner (which I can determine because I am a Supreme Court Justice).
The word is defined elsewhere, but in this case your carrying heavy groceries example is protected under ORS 672.060(6) because it was connection with or incidental to the operations of the person (you) and not offered directly to the public.
But he did sign his name on his recommendation for re-timing the lights, under the auspices of being an engineer. This is what got him in trouble, not complaining about the timing. He put forth an engineering recommendation and stated he was an engineer, giving credence to his recommendation. The Board and the State have an interest in ensuring that people who do this are in fact licensed. I have no problem with the Board’s action.
A lawyer is a lawyer wherever she goes, and may say so in social settings - but may only practice law in a state or jurisdiction in which she’s admitted to the bar.
But I think (based on reading the thread) we’re talking about lack of a Professional Engineer certification while attempting to perform engineering services independently. IIRC when you offer your own services and sign off on the work as a PE, you are assuming some degree of legal responsibility for the results of your work. Thus also some requirement for bonding/insurance. I am a degreed engineer, but not a PE. I am employed by a corporation who assumes legal responsibility for the work of myself and other engineers.
In my experience the most common PE cert holders are civil engineers and engineers who review and sign off on product safety tests e.g. UL listing.
My point is that the board said he couldn’t call himself an engineer…
“The Board also told Mats that he couldn’t refer to himself using the word “engineer” either. Most people would probably agree that “engineer” is a sensible way to describe Mats, given his education, experience, and skills. (He has a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden, and he’s worked in a range of technical fields for decades). But in Oregon, none of that matters; the word “engineer” is off-limits to everyone who is not a state-licensed professional engineer.”
I think that is overreaching. I agree that he shouldn’t work as an engineer in Oregon without obtaining the credentialing. But as I said above, do you only call yourself (your specialty) where you live and practice?
There are similar state laws in each state governing holding yourself out as a certified public accountant (CPA). Generally you have to have passed the national CPA exam, apprenticed under another CPA and have a license to practice in the state where you practice. Holding yourself out as a CPA includes using the letters on your business card, stationary, resume, etc. There are many people that pass the exam, but never complete the other requirements and call themselves CPA’s. Or maybe they were CPA’s at one time, but they let their licenses lapse because they go to work in private industry and don’t need it but continue to hold themselves out as CPA’s.
State boards of accountancy across the country enforce the laws vigorously all the time. It’s part of protecting your brand and industry.
That’s a lot more serious than practicing engineering without a license. There are many hard-working but poor Scandinavians who can’t afford even one umlaut, and this guy goes around flaunting umlauts like they were confetti scattered all over his name. Sad.
What do you think engineering consultants do? They offer opinions. That is what they do.
If you read the order you can clearly see that they are defining “work” to mean “engaging in the practice of engineering” and not restricted “receiving money” so your argument is not valid.
No one has said he is “liable.” That seems to be your creation.
He represented himself as an engineer to the TV station and others in presenting his engineering solution to a traffic control system. The state of Oregon says you can’t do that.
