6 ms·

This September, Wiley & Sons will publish Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: A Strong Towns Approach to Transportation, a book written by Charles Marohn that

This September, Wiley & Sons will publish Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: A Strong Towns Approach to Transportation, a book written by Charles Marohn that is deeply critical of the standard approach to transportation used by many American engineers. The complaint here is literally that the strongtowns founder has criticized other engineers. That's it (edit: the complaint also involves a technicality motivated by this criticism, see below). The thing about this situation is that, in the US, a large number decisions that are effectively "policy", questions of how we live, wind-up buried inside supposedly technical/professional regulations - zoning, codes and other standards. This situation means that attacks for "violations of technicalities" easily wind-up the means by which special interests maintain their position.

tptacek 5y ago
No? The whole complaint, with the backstory, is linked to the article. Marohn was a practicing civil engineer until 2012; he kept his license in good standing until 2018, when it lapsed; between 2018 and 2020, he gave talks identifying himself as a professional engineer despite not having a license in good standing; someone complained (in May 2020); he reinstated his license (in June 2020); the licensure board fined him; he sued. He has my sympathy in this case and I hope he wins, but the details are more complicated than your summary suggests. It's pretty basic stuff, as I assume a lot of us know, that part of the deal with licensed engineering professions is that you have to have the license to represent yourself as such --- people are always coming up with dopey arguments that the same applies to software engineers.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Edited above - the first complaint was for criticizing engineers, the second was saying he was an engineer during the time his license had lapsed. So sure, technically more was involved in the complaint. Effectively, the complaint was about the criticism.
- sharemywin 5y ago
  They also want him to agree he: The final order requires Marohn to agree that he made an “untruthful statement,” a “false statement,” and “engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation.”
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Sure. I think it's a fight worth having. I'm in his corner. But it isn't a simple matter of Malohn being charged literally with criticizing engineers; he gave a talk and wrote a blog post that pissed someone off, they looked him up, he was unlicensed, they complained.
    - brudgers 5y ago
      It is a fair bet that the complainant was more pissed off by the misleading claim of license than the content of the writing. It’s the difference between a difference of professional opinion and a difference of professional ethics. The analogy is the difference between a lawyer encountering ordinary bad legal advice on the internet and encountering bad legal advice on the internet by a person claiming to be a lawyer.
- burlesona 5y ago
  Important details from the press release: - Marohn renewed his license before the licensing board presented a complaint against him. - License lapses like this are common and there's a standard procedure for "late renewal" which Marohn followed, including paying a late fee, and the board accepted the renewal.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    The late renewal is not retroactive licensure. Such a thing does not exist.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    The timeline is clear in the lawsuit. The South Dakota person's complaint preceded Malohn's reinstatement of his license.
    - burlesona 5y ago
      That is correct, and I edited my comment to remove ambiguity. What I meant was to emphasize that Marohn was not aware of a complaint against him until after his license had already been renewed, as the MN board pressed action after the license renewal had already taken place. The complaint that led to the board action did happen during the lapse period.
  - pavon 5y ago
    Yeah, this will be an interesting case, and touches on several issues. Does the Minnesota law prohibiting misrepresenting oneself as a professional engineer apply only when performing work that requires a license, or in all facets of life? If the later, does the First Amendment allow such restrictions on speech? Does the fact that enforcement of minor administrative lapses in licensing is unevenly biased against activist speech push it over the threshold? On the other hand this may end up turning on less interesting details, like did the board's order misrepresent the facts, and were they overstepping their authority by requiring him to agree to sign a statement that was not (entirely) true? In face of a lawsuit will they finally come to a settlement with wording that both parties can agree upon?
- cratermoon 5y ago
  Remember Mats Järlström? He was an engineer, but not a "licensed professional engineer" who complained about traffic light timings, and the state board tried to fine him $500? https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
  - loeg 5y ago
    Sure. What point are you trying to make with the connection? This is a different state, with different licensing laws, and a different scenario.
    - paxys 5y ago
      It was a First Amendment ruling which applies to all states and jurisdictions regardless of their licensing laws.
      - pavon 5y ago
        Yes, although if I recall, that case turned in large part on whether the law could restrict calling oneself an engineer in general as opposed to misrepresenting oneself as a Licensed Professional Engineer. In this case, Marohn was unambiguously representing himself as a PE, for example in this article that was written during the period in which his license has lapsed (see author bio at bottom of page): https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/12/12/four-ways-traffic-engineers-thwart-public-will https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.stron... So this case will have to push a bit further than that previous one, although the precedent may help.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        > applies to all states and jurisdictions Federal courts and precedents don't work that way. The ruling came from the federal district court for Oregon. As such, it's only binding for the district. If a federal court in another district comes to a different conclusion, then an appeal to the circuit court might happen. Michigan and Oregon are in different appellate circuits (6th and 9th, respectively) so if there were different rulings in each circuit, and an appeal to the Supreme Court succeeds and the court rules, only then does the ruling become binding across all states an jurisdictions. For now, the ruling is only binding in the District of Oregon.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >dopey arguments that the same applies to software engineers Which used to be a thing but were so unpopular they were discontinued. Whether this lawsuit is silly or not, it's hard to be completely unsympathetic to the idea that someone claiming a specific professional certification who does not in fact have it is in the right. (While being completely in the camp that one can call themselves an en engineer is they want to.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 5y ago
> in the US, a large number decisions that are effectively "policy", questions of how we live, wind-up buried inside supposedly technical/professional regulations - zoning, codes and other standards. While I see your point, I would state it somewhat differently: in the US, there are, roughly speaking, two opposing viewpoints on "policy" about "how we live": (1) The viewpoint that a central authority should figure out some "best" way to live, and impose it on everyone, or at least everyone in a significantly-sized geographic area, via technical/professional regulations, zoning, codes, etc. (2) The viewpoint that individual people, or groups of people who have something in common, should figure out how they want to live and set themselves up that way, and decisions about how various people and groups who happen to be in the same geographical area interact should be made by negotiation and consensus among the people and groups who are affected. Input can certainly be sought from technical professionals to inform those decisions, but at the end of the day, the people who make such decisions should be the people who have to live with the consequences. And to the extent that top-down, large-scale policies play a role, it should be to ensure that individuals and groups have the tools they need to make such decisions for themselves. What strikes me about this dispute, as with pretty much all such disputes that I have seen, is that both sides adhere to viewpoint #1; they just have different views on what the "best" way to live is that should be imposed on everyone. Practically nobody in such discussions even considers viewpoint #2 at all.

tptacek 5y ago

No? The whole complaint, with the backstory, is linked to the article. Marohn was a practicing civil engineer until 2012; he kept his license in good standing until 2018, when it lapsed; between 2018 and 2020, he gave talks identifying himself as a professional engineer despite not having a license in good standing; someone complained (in May 2020); he reinstated his license (in June 2020); the licensure board fined him; he sued. He has my sympathy in this case and I hope he wins, but the details are more complicated than your summary suggests. It's pretty basic stuff, as I assume a lot of us know, that part of the deal with licensed engineering professions is that you have to have the license to represent yourself as such --- people are always coming up with dopey arguments that the same applies to software engineers.

joe_the_user 5y ago
Edited above - the first complaint was for criticizing engineers, the second was saying he was an engineer during the time his license had lapsed. So sure, technically more was involved in the complaint. Effectively, the complaint was about the criticism.
sharemywin 5y ago
They also want him to agree he: The final order requires Marohn to agree that he made an “untruthful statement,” a “false statement,” and “engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation.”
- tptacek 5y ago
  Sure. I think it's a fight worth having. I'm in his corner. But it isn't a simple matter of Malohn being charged literally with criticizing engineers; he gave a talk and wrote a blog post that pissed someone off, they looked him up, he was unlicensed, they complained.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    It is a fair bet that the complainant was more pissed off by the misleading claim of license than the content of the writing. It’s the difference between a difference of professional opinion and a difference of professional ethics. The analogy is the difference between a lawyer encountering ordinary bad legal advice on the internet and encountering bad legal advice on the internet by a person claiming to be a lawyer.
burlesona 5y ago
Important details from the press release: - Marohn renewed his license before the licensing board presented a complaint against him. - License lapses like this are common and there's a standard procedure for "late renewal" which Marohn followed, including paying a late fee, and the board accepted the renewal.
- brudgers 5y ago
  The late renewal is not retroactive licensure. Such a thing does not exist.
- tptacek 5y ago
  The timeline is clear in the lawsuit. The South Dakota person's complaint preceded Malohn's reinstatement of his license.
  - burlesona 5y ago
    That is correct, and I edited my comment to remove ambiguity. What I meant was to emphasize that Marohn was not aware of a complaint against him until after his license had already been renewed, as the MN board pressed action after the license renewal had already taken place. The complaint that led to the board action did happen during the lapse period.
- pavon 5y ago
  Yeah, this will be an interesting case, and touches on several issues. Does the Minnesota law prohibiting misrepresenting oneself as a professional engineer apply only when performing work that requires a license, or in all facets of life? If the later, does the First Amendment allow such restrictions on speech? Does the fact that enforcement of minor administrative lapses in licensing is unevenly biased against activist speech push it over the threshold? On the other hand this may end up turning on less interesting details, like did the board's order misrepresent the facts, and were they overstepping their authority by requiring him to agree to sign a statement that was not (entirely) true? In face of a lawsuit will they finally come to a settlement with wording that both parties can agree upon?
cratermoon 5y ago
Remember Mats Järlström? He was an engineer, but not a "licensed professional engineer" who complained about traffic light timings, and the state board tried to fine him $500? https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
- loeg 5y ago
  Sure. What point are you trying to make with the connection? This is a different state, with different licensing laws, and a different scenario.
  - paxys 5y ago
    It was a First Amendment ruling which applies to all states and jurisdictions regardless of their licensing laws.
    - pavon 5y ago
      Yes, although if I recall, that case turned in large part on whether the law could restrict calling oneself an engineer in general as opposed to misrepresenting oneself as a Licensed Professional Engineer. In this case, Marohn was unambiguously representing himself as a PE, for example in this article that was written during the period in which his license has lapsed (see author bio at bottom of page): https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/12/12/four-ways-traffic-engineers-thwart-public-will https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.stron... So this case will have to push a bit further than that previous one, although the precedent may help.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      > applies to all states and jurisdictions Federal courts and precedents don't work that way. The ruling came from the federal district court for Oregon. As such, it's only binding for the district. If a federal court in another district comes to a different conclusion, then an appeal to the circuit court might happen. Michigan and Oregon are in different appellate circuits (6th and 9th, respectively) so if there were different rulings in each circuit, and an appeal to the Supreme Court succeeds and the court rules, only then does the ruling become binding across all states an jurisdictions. For now, the ruling is only binding in the District of Oregon.
ghaff 5y ago
>dopey arguments that the same applies to software engineers Which used to be a thing but were so unpopular they were discontinued. Whether this lawsuit is silly or not, it's hard to be completely unsympathetic to the idea that someone claiming a specific professional certification who does not in fact have it is in the right. (While being completely in the camp that one can call themselves an en engineer is they want to.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pdonis 5y ago

> in the US, a large number decisions that are effectively "policy", questions of how we live, wind-up buried inside supposedly technical/professional regulations - zoning, codes and other standards. While I see your point, I would state it somewhat differently: in the US, there are, roughly speaking, two opposing viewpoints on "policy" about "how we live": (1) The viewpoint that a central authority should figure out some "best" way to live, and impose it on everyone, or at least everyone in a significantly-sized geographic area, via technical/professional regulations, zoning, codes, etc. (2) The viewpoint that individual people, or groups of people who have something in common, should figure out how they want to live and set themselves up that way, and decisions about how various people and groups who happen to be in the same geographical area interact should be made by negotiation and consensus among the people and groups who are affected. Input can certainly be sought from technical professionals to inform those decisions, but at the end of the day, the people who make such decisions should be the people who have to live with the consequences. And to the extent that top-down, large-scale policies play a role, it should be to ensure that individuals and groups have the tools they need to make such decisions for themselves. What strikes me about this dispute, as with pretty much all such disputes that I have seen, is that both sides adhere to viewpoint #1; they just have different views on what the "best" way to live is that should be imposed on everyone. Practically nobody in such discussions even considers viewpoint #2 at all.