Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_the_user | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

The late renewal is not retroactive licensure. Such a thing does not exist.

The timeline is clear in the lawsuit. The South Dakota person's complaint preceded Malohn's reinstatement of his license.

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.

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?

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-li...

Sure. What point are you trying to make with the connection? This is a different state, with different licensing laws, and a different scenario.

It was a First Amendment ruling which applies to all states and jurisdictions regardless of their licensing laws.

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.stron...

So this case will have to push a bit further than that previous one, although the precedent may help.

> 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.

> The ruling came from the federal district court for Oregon. As such, it's only binding for the district.

No, trial court rulings aren’t binding precedent even on the same trial court.

> If a federal court in another district comes to a different conclusion, then an appeal to the circuit court might happen

Appeal to circuit courts from district court are a matter of right, a split between districts is immaterial not only as to whether such an appeal is filed but also to whether it is heard.

> 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.

At this level, a circuit split is traditionally a factor which weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing an appeal (as its appellate jurisdiction is generally discretionary), but it is neither in itself either necessary or sufficient. But, yes, it is only when the Supreme Court rules that precedent is universally binding rather than persuasive.

> For now, the ruling is only binding in the District of Oregon

No, for now it is only binding between the parties to the earlier case (and only as regards the specific facts of that case), under the principle of res judicata rather than stare decisis which makes decisions binding on particular (or all) courts.

> under the principle of res judicata rather than stare decisis

Thanks for the clarification.

1) He is not a professional engineer. And it only takes a bit of time and probably about $500 to become a PE. His not taking the time to become a PE speaks mountains. The $500 was a "nuisance fine" because he was being a pain in the ass with his complaints without being a PE.

2) He is funded and supported by some heavily suspect people.

I 100% agree with everything you're saying. Saying he was being a pain in the ass is being nice about it. The case was a terrible one for testing the limits of what a professional licensing organization can do. However, it's now legal precedent and almost certainly impacts the Strong Towns case.

> However, it's now legal precedent

Not binding precedent on any court that would hear the Strong Towns case.

Correct. The only court in the US that could issue a decision binding in both cases would be the Supreme Court, should any appeals make it that far. However, courts can and do look to existing opinions in case law.

1) The case in question is about "engineer", not "professional engineer". The legal system agreed with him, so I'm not sure what your complaint is?

2) That's very vague. Can you elaborate?

Take a look at who bankrolled him through the legal case.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you be more clear? I looked at the ij.org link as well as the linked case document, and don't see anything nefarious?

Institute for Justice: "a non-profit libertarian public interest law firm"[1]

"William H. "Chip" Mellor and Clint Bolick co-founded the organization in 1990 with seed money from libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch"[2]

Mellor served as president of the free-market think tank Pacific Research Institute.

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1025471447963533520

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/magazine/the-unregulated-...

Thanks, that's helpful. I have no love for the Koch brothers or libertarians in general, but TBH I think this is a "broken clock is right twice a day" scenario. After reading the case PDF, I'd have to agree with the decision that "engineer" is such a vague term that it shouldn't be restricted like that. It's like trying to limit calling yourself a "thinker" or something. I can see how the radical anti-government folks picked up on that case. FWIW, if he had tried claiming he was a "licensed professional engineer", I would definitely see that as a false/fraudulent claim that the state absolutely has the right to disallow.

Regardless, thanks for actually listing names of who's involved. No offense intended to the GP, it just annoys me when people use terms like "heavily suspect people", as that casts aspersions without actually saying who or what. Your links were much more helpful.

I'm no libertarian, but two things free-market absolutists have strong arguments about are local infrastructure financing and occupational licensing. When it comes to the Kochs, you don't have to take the bad with the good. You can just take the good. You don't even have to say thanks (I sure won't).

>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.)

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com