ORS 672.005(1)(b) simply describes 'stuff an engineer does', in terrifyingly broad strokes.
If "professional services or creative work" could be read as "services or creative work, either of which are done for money," perhaps it would be okay?
If "professional services or creative work" could be read as "services or creative work, either of which are done for money," perhaps it would be okay?
'As used in ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties), unless the context requires otherwise:'
It's terrifying because you are reading bits of it out of context and extrapolating incorrectly to the broadest scope imaginable. I perform some of the activities on this list on almost a daily basis just in the normal course of making things and being an artist (the old-fashioned variety slapping paint on canvas). I have exactly zero fear of ever being prosecuted for unlicensed engineering activities.
How you should be reading it: ORS 672.005 described things that an engineer does as part of their work. Then you go on to look at ORS 672.007 which talks about how
(1) A *person* is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.
You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public. In programming terms, you're worrying about the value of a variable without considering its scope.
Forgot to mention that all emphases are added by me.
If the argument is "he said he was an 'engineer' and he isn't licensed", that's fine. And the Board's Final Report contains a lot of language establishing that, and for that he can be fined.
But the Board's Report goes out of its way to say that ORS 672.005(c) and ORS 672.002 define "practicing engineering" as quite close to just "calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public", and that just practicing engineering in this manner without registration is not allowed. Check Section 14 of the Final Report. It makes no reference to "purporting to be an engineer": it's "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
If you tell people you are not a doctor, and you do doctor things, then there's no misunderstanding, and nothing to fine
But if you tell people you are a doctor (or let people think you are), when you are not, and you do doctory things, then there's trouble.
It seems reasonable to me that it requires both the misunderstanding and the potential to create public harm for it to be a crime/fine-able.
In your metaphor "doctor" is a protected term in many jurisdictions, so merely claiming to be a medical doctor is a crime. And practising medicine without a licence is similarly illegal, even if you make it clear that you're not a doctor.
But instead of pitching his idea as a simple concerned resident he went back to claiming to be an engineer a couple of months later. That's not a mistake because the issue had already been clearly explained to him. He's not a victim.