4 ms·
Important details from the press release: - Marohn renewed his license before the licensing board presented a complaint against him. - License lapses like thi
by 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 agoThe late renewal is not retroactive licensure. Such a thing does not exist.
- tptacek 5y agoThe timeline is clear in the lawsuit. The South Dakota person's complaint preceded Malohn's reinstatement of his license.
- burlesona 5y agoThat 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 agoYeah, 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?