Wayne Nutt is an engineer. He graduated with a degree in engineering from the University of Iowa in 1967, and he promptly went to work as an engineer. He spent most of his time working in North Carolina, mostly for DuPont, using his expertise to do things like designing piping systems and helping with international technology licensing. Since his retirement in 2013, Wayne has not done any engineering—he hasn’t designed or built things—but he is still an engineer at heart, and so he talks about engineering a lot: When he spots math errors in public documents, he speaks up. When he thinks people are mischaracterizing engineering reports, he speaks out. And when he can answer a question that he thinks is important, he answers it.
And that is what has gotten him into trouble. Wayne never needed a license to work as an engineer. Because he worked for big manufacturers for his whole career, everything Wayne did (like everything most engineers do) fell under North Carolina’s “industrial exemption” and did not require a license. But according to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, talking about the sort of work Wayne did does require a license.
Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry. Wayne still had a copy of the leading sourcebook on his bookshelf, and the analysis itself seemed pretty easy—at least for Wayne.
But it was also—according to the Board—illegal. After Wayne’s deposition in the case, where he truthfully testified that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, someone complained to the Board that he was practicing engineering without a license, which is a criminal misdemeanor.
It might seem impossible to “practice” engineering by sitting in a conference room answering questions, but, shockingly, the Board seems to think Wayne crossed a line. The Board’s position is that offering any testimony that requires “engineering knowledge” is illegal without a license—even if someone truthfully discloses their credentials, and even if a judge wants to hear the testimony.
But that is wrong. In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to. We do not rely on government to decide who gets to speak. The Board’s position gets that important principle backwards. That is why Wayne has joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a major First Amendment lawsuit against the Board, designed to vindicate the basic principle that the First Amendment protects our right to hear useful speech on difficult topics and that the Board cannot silence Wayne simply because his opinions are based on his knowledge of engineering.
North Carolina's Board of Engineering suing retired engineer for correcting their math - 2+2=5
- Iniciador del tema MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 13 de Nov, 2019
As much as professional licensure schemes are a bureaucratic racket, they do serve a valuable function for society's good. I'm hesitant to say he shouldn't be fined if his testimony is considered practicing engineering under the law.
Professional licensing exists for public safety reasons. It isn't just permission to do a thing. Instead it's essentially a state sponsored guild and monopoly. Licensing boards exist to verify credentials, maintain current standards, and hand out punishments when the lives of the general public depend on those things.
The big thing that is kinda being missed in this discussion is not only are licensed engineers legally responsible for their work, they're ethically responsible to the licensing board. Doing something legal but unethical could get you punished or result in a loss of license. That's kinda an important tool. You may hear about ethics with doctors more often but as has been said before, licensing for engineers is exactly the same motivations as doctors.
The reason most "engineers" aren't licensed is simply because most engineering work isn't happening on large works subject to government regulations requiring a PE to sign. And when that is the case, you don't need more than a few PEs to review and sign the work. The industrial exemption is simply the licensing board acknowledging that not everything that is reasonably called "engineering" is safety critical. So OK, you can call your MacBook designers engineers as long as they're not doing things they need to be licensed for and aren't implying or pretending they're licensed.
I can see the rationale for considering testifying in court as being practicing engineering. For one thing it's asserting youre an expert without belonging to the group of state enforced monopoly experts. For another thing being unlicensed means he has no outside enforcement of ethical behavior. Being an expert for his own son's case for example is a possible ethical issue.
Professional licensing exists for public safety reasons. It isn't just permission to do a thing. Instead it's essentially a state sponsored guild and monopoly. Licensing boards exist to verify credentials, maintain current standards, and hand out punishments when the lives of the general public depend on those things.
The big thing that is kinda being missed in this discussion is not only are licensed engineers legally responsible for their work, they're ethically responsible to the licensing board. Doing something legal but unethical could get you punished or result in a loss of license. That's kinda an important tool. You may hear about ethics with doctors more often but as has been said before, licensing for engineers is exactly the same motivations as doctors.
The reason most "engineers" aren't licensed is simply because most engineering work isn't happening on large works subject to government regulations requiring a PE to sign. And when that is the case, you don't need more than a few PEs to review and sign the work. The industrial exemption is simply the licensing board acknowledging that not everything that is reasonably called "engineering" is safety critical. So OK, you can call your MacBook designers engineers as long as they're not doing things they need to be licensed for and aren't implying or pretending they're licensed.
I can see the rationale for considering testifying in court as being practicing engineering. For one thing it's asserting youre an expert without belonging to the group of state enforced monopoly experts. For another thing being unlicensed means he has no outside enforcement of ethical behavior. Being an expert for his own son's case for example is a possible ethical issue.
- Registrado
- 3 de Mar, 2021
That he made sure to specify that he wasn't licensed is literally the only defense he has here, yes. Who knows? He might win his 'free speech' lawsuit. But you can bet that the board's argument is going to be that "if he's not a licensed practicing engineer, why was he giving expert testimony on an engineering problem"?
(And that the litigant was his son will also surely raise some eyebrows. I'm not sure there's a hell of a lot they could do there, though. Even if you squint really hard you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that it looks like an actionable conflict of interests. And besides, this retired engineer is in luck! After all, he's specifically not sworn himself to a code of ethics, so who cares?)
Not Really Here
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Dic, 2019
It actually exists to allow the government to do less work checking for safety.
- Registrado
- 16 de Dic, 2019
Because he's a fucking expert, you dumbass. He didn't testify on any of the bureaucratic bullshit like approval stamps and best practices you'd need a licensed engineer to comment on, but instead cold hard fucking math he used as part of his goddamn career. You noticed how none of you are disputing that bit? Or the fact he double-checked his work against the book all men like him, and presumably the ones at fault in this incident, are supposed to use as their baseline? He's literally going "These people didn't do things by the fucking book, and I have several decades of practical experience that lets me demonstrate how."
- Registrado
- 3 de Mar, 2021
But he's not an expert according to the board, you sped. You know, the people suing him? Whether or not he's qualified to comment on an engineering problem in a public deposition is literally the point of the lawsuit, and the board is arguing in the negative.
We're not disputing it because it's not the point. Everyone's in agreement that the original engineers working on the pipes fucked up (obviously, because if they hadn't there wouldn't have been flooding) and that it was such an obvious fuck-up that a retired engineer noticed.
The contention is whether or not he was allowed to give such testimony in the first place. There's a good case on both sides of that issue. Sure, this retired engineer's work history probably does qualify him to testify on the issue in a court deposition and if his argument to the board was that he, specifically, should get a pass, then I'd probably agree (although for real, just get the license?).
But that's not what he's arguing. He's arguing it as a 'free speech' issue: that apparently protected titles shouldn't matter and everybody should be allowed to represent themselves as an expert on engineering (or medicine, or...) without legal protections, without swearing to uphold a code of ethics and standards, and without anyone holding them to account when they fuck up. (Sure, this 77-year old retired engineer is probably right about the math this time. But what happens when he's wrong? Does he just get to hide behind "well I specifically said I wasn't licensed, so..."? There are good reasons to have a licensing board for stuff like this, it's not just monopolistic gatekeeping.)
- Registrado
- 13 de Nov, 2019
Nobody is disputing it because it's irrelevant to why he was fined. If the law considers court testimony on an engineering question to be practicing engineering, then he is subject to action from the licensing board for doing so while not being licensed. He can be right, he can do the math and show people what was wrong, the court can accept his status as an expert, and the licensing board can fine him for it if he isn't licensed. The key issue is the testifying, if a licensed engineer checked his work (like would have happened in his job) and testified to it instead this wouldn't be an issue.
He has a right to say "your shits fucked up and I have proof" but does he have a right to say that in a court under oath as an expert? The engineering board is saying he doesn't per the law.
The thing is this sounds dumb in this specific example but there is a good reason for the rule to be the way it is. Since this is a court case and nobody's life is depending on his math and there are ways to handle it within the court I don't think the board needed to get involved. That doesn't mean they are wrong to get involved.
- Registrado
- 16 de Dic, 2019
And everyone is saying they're dumb as fuck because boards are filled with a bunch of self-justifying jackoffs.
Its literally not even "the law" mandating this, just a regulatory board that wants to ensure only people who have dealt with their accreditation bullshit are legally allowed to give testimony on matters they have practical, vocational knowledge of. You know what happens if he loses this fight? All of his incredibly factual testimony gets thrown out because it was illegal testimony.
Gee, I wonder who would have complained?
- Registrado
- 3 de Mar, 2021
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they're in the wrong here. That's what the lawsuit will determine.
I really don't get why so many of you seem to have such a problem with credentials and the regulatory boards that are set up to ensure that the credentials actually mean something.
Yeah, people involved in lawsuits are catty and don't fight fair. More news at 11.
- Registrado
- 16 de Dic, 2019
Gee, if only the guy was claiming to be a credentialed mem- OH WAIT HE ISN'T.
- Registrado
- 13 de Nov, 2019
You're right, he isn't claiming to be licensed. He's claiming to be an expert while openly admitting to not being licensed. He may very well have the requisite knowledge, the law in NC doesn't appear to care about that if he isn't licensed. I think his giving expert testimony on an engineering issue counts as "holding out to the public of any engineering expertise by unlicensed persons".
The regulatory board may be a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats who only want to ensure they get paid, but at least in doing so they set some standards for qualification, ethics, and responsibility. This is what the State wants to ensure remains undiluted and that's the reason the State gives these licensing boards power to regulate their professions.
My intentions here are to at least shed light onto why this is the way things are, even if it isn't perfect. There should be a counter to the knee-jerk reaction the article hopes you take. I don't think the law is dumb, I think this man is in violation of it, but if there is one thing I am certain of is that everyone involved in this case sure is an idiot.
-The lawyer son for using his unlicensed dad instead of literally anyone else and now risking his case.
-The "not an engineer" engineer who thinks an asterisk next to his name makes it ok to act as an expert. And for some reason never even bothered to just get the license.
-The probably licensed engineer who fucked up the calculation or just rubberstamped some pajeets shit work.
-The judge for allowing this to happen, especially if he ignored an objection from opposing counsel and thought that his opinion on the expert question was the only one that mattered.
-The defense for being a bunch of tattlers.
-The engineering board for pushing the issue when the court system is capable of sorting out the issues.
-IJ for taking up this case as a 1A claim instead of sticking to asset forfeiture where they belong.
- Registrado
- 20 de Oct, 2019
Probably the mandatory Gender Studies class you can't pass unless you say a man is a woman and trans people are oppressed. Academia shouldn't be allowed to be the gatekeeper to your right to work. Because the day is already here for many degrees where you can't go through that gate without the right political beliefs (or willingness to bow down and say the words).
Meth Kennedy
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 16 de Dic, 2019
That's what it is and they are faggots.
Spooky Doot Skelly
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Dic, 2020
this is really the crux of the issue. It is really easy to get your PE license if you know your stuff. The only requirements to take the exam is to have your FE passed (that can be taken at any time and is piss easy) and have 4 years of work experience under someone who is licensed. Given the fact that his worked signed off on his plans/calcs, they must have had a PE somewhere on board otherwise that company is fucked.
He probably had decades to take the exam and was just too lazy to do so. understandable, there are plenty of engineers who are incredibly talented but not licensed as they just don't give a fuck, but seriously it's worth it just to prevent shit like this from happening. It may seem bureaucratic but it actually gives you leverage over state entities that you wouldn't have otherwise. Being able to order around government leeches because you have a piece of paper is fucking amazing.
- Registrado
- 7 de Oct, 2014
You know they know they are in the wrong when they punish you for pointing out they are wrong.
Bullying 101
Bullying 101