PE Newsletter · 2020. 1. 7. · PE Newsletter Published by the Texas Board of Professional...

PE NewsletterPublished by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, No. 30, Spring 2002

1917 IH-35 South, Austin, TX 78741

Highlights and Significant Activities

Texas Board of Professional Engineers

Sunset - The agency is under review for the first time since 1981.See enclosed article for a description of this process and link to theTBPE Sunset Self-Evaluation Report. See page 2 for details.

Legislation - Two legislative actions directly affect the Board.Teaching of engineering is now exempt from licensure and TBPE isone of three agencies with exemplary performance selected to par-ticipate in the Self-Directed, Semi-Independent Agency Project. Seepage 3 for details.

Meeting with Texas Board of Architectural Examiners - A jointmeeting was held on October 18, 2001 to develop a system to resolveany issues and overlap between the two Boards. A joint committeewas formed to oversee issues, coordinate Board interaction, and as-sign task resolution to selected members from each Board.

New and Improved Website! - In July, Janet Sherrill joined theBoard staff and has been updating the looks and functionality ofthe TBPE website. Please take a look (www.tbpe.state.tx.us) andgive us your feedback.

Texas A&M Bonfire - The Board continues to investigate thisTexas tragedy and expects resolution soon.

Continuing Education - The Board recommended a mandatoryprogram in the Sunset Self-Evaluation Report. See the article onpage 4 for details.

Board Policy Statements, Advisories, and Ad Hoc Committees -Although the Board’s mission does not necessarily dictate involve-ment in purely technical issues, the Board works closely with pro-fessional societies and interested persons to try to develop guid-ance concerning the practice of engineering for professional engi-neers and the public. Some standing issues are listed later in thispublication.

New Staff - Along with Janet Sherrill (Operations Team Leader),the Board welcomes Janie Beltran (Executive Administrative Assis-tant), Barbara Owens (General Counsel), David Lusk, P.E. (Directorof Licensing), Amy Lopez (Licensing Team Leader), Diana Bennett(Licensing Specialist), Angelena Martinez (Licensing Specialist)Charles Finch (Investigator) and Charles Pennington, P.E. (Engi-neering Specialist) to the agency to fill this past year’s vacanciesand organizational change positions.

New and Revised Fees - The Board approved several increasesto fees at the June 13, 2001 Quarterly Board Meeting, which becameeffective September 1, 2001.

Additional fee increases, new fees and reduced fees were ap-proved by the Board at the October 17, 2001 Quarterly Board Meet-ing, which become effective December 1, 2001. See page 4 for de-tails.

New Board Chair - On September 1, 2001 the agency welcomednew Board chairman James R. Nichols, P.E. See page 2 for OutgoingChairman, Dave Dorchester, P.E.’s, remarks and page 3 for Nichols’plans for his chairmanship.

Board Rules Updates - A chart explaining all rules which havechanged and the reasoning behind the changes is included on page 6.

EIT Guidelines Set by NCEES - The National Council of Examin-ers for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) developed guidelinesfor enhancing skills and gaining experience as an Engineer-in-Train-ing. See page 8 for details.

Licensing StatisticsExamination Results: 2000 2001

Examinees Pass Rate Examinees Pass RateFundamentals (FE) 2097 1408 2486 1742Principles & Practices (PE) 1167 638 1082 668

Licensing Statistics: 2000 2001Total Licensed (Average) 47,833 48,156Newly Licensed 1453 1604

Board Members

James R. Nichols, P.E., Chair ......................... Fort Worth

Brenda Bradley Smith, P.E., Vice-Chair ............. Houston

Robert M. Sweazy, Ph.D., P.E., Secretary ......... Lubbock

E. D. “Dave” Dorchester, P.E. ............................... Midland

Edmundo R. Gonzalez, Jr., P.E. ..................... Brownsville

Govind Nadkarni, P.E. ................................Corpus Christi

Danny R. Perkins ................................................ Houston

Vicki T. Ravenburg, CPA .............................. San Antonio

Executive Staff

Victoria J.L. Hsu, P.E. .......................... Executive Director

Randi Warrington ............................. Executive Assistant

Barbara H. Owens .................................. General Counsel

Janie S. Beltran .......Executive Administrative Assistant

Paul D. Cook ........... Director of Enforcement/Operations

David J. Lusk, P.E. ........................... Director of Licensing

PE Newsletter 2 Spring, 2002

The Sunset Review process is an as-sessment of the need for a state agency tocontinue its existence. It is a unique oppor-tunity for the Legislature to scrutinize all stateagencies subject to the Texas Sunset Actand make fundamental changes to anagency’s mission or operations if required.

The Sunset process sets a date on whichan agency will be abolished unless legisla-tion is passed to continue its existence. TheLegislature delayed the date of sunset re-view of the Texas Board of Professional En-gineers from 1993 to 2003 due to the agency’sexcellent reputation. The Board is one of 29state agencies scheduled for Sunset Reviewin 2003.

The Board completed the initial phaseof the review process in August when theSelf-Evaluation Report was submitted to theSunset Advisory Commission. You may re-view this report by accessing:

www.tbpe.state.tx.us/Sunset2003SER.doc.Over the course of the next year, staff

members from the Commission will work ex-tensively with the Board to evaluate the con-tinued need for the agency, propose any nec-essary statutory or management changes,and develop legislation necessary to imple-ment any proposed changes.

The Sunset staff will also solicit inputfrom interest groups and professional orga-nizations, and the public is encouraged toprovide input and discussion about theagency’s functions as well.

The Commission will then prepare its re-port containing statutory and management rec-ommendations. Once this phase has been com-pleted, the Commission will conduct a publichearing on each agency under review.

During the public hearing, the Sunset staff

Agency Undergoes Sunset ReviewBy Randi Warrington, Executive Assistant

will discuss its recommendations. The agencywill formally respond to the recommendations,and the public is allowed to comment on thereport and the agency’s operations and poli-cies. The Commission then meets to decidewhether to abolish or continue the agency’sexistence. Legislation to continue the agencymust be submitted to the Legislature for enact-ment during the 78th Legislative Session, whichconvenes in January 2003.

To find out more about the Sunset Re-view process or to request being placed onthe Commission’s mailing list to receive meet-ing schedules, agendas, staff reports anddecision materials, contact the Commissionstaff at (512) 463-1300 or email:[email protected].

Additional information can be obtainedfrom their website at: www.sunset.state.tx.us.

Message from Outgoing Chairman

pally the Senate Finance and House Appro-priations Committees.

I want to take this opportunity to highlycommend the Board as it has reviewed a greatmany of its policies and procedures duringthe past year. The Texas Board continues tobe recognized nationwide for many of its pro-gressive and forward looking policies andsteps it has taken.

The Boards’ recognition of software en-gineering and subsequent licensing of soft-ware engineers has attracted nationwide andinternational attention. A number of univer-sities have instituted software engineeringdegree programs and the AccreditationBoard of Engineering and Technology, Inc.,has recognized these programs and is nowready to review courses for accreditation.

Along with outreach to the engineeringeducators of the state, the Board has alsovisited with prominent graduate engineersin the state to encourage their licensure. Forexample, the Board expects to review theapplication of astronaut Bonnie Dunbar inthe near future. Licensing such prominent,capable persons can greatly aid our visibil-ity to the general public.

I completed my term as Chairman of theBoard on August 31st and I want to look backat the past year from several fronts. It hasbeen an exciting and challenging year forthe Board in several ways.

The Texas Legislature was in sessionfrom January until May and this producedseveral bills that directly affected the TexasBoard. It also called for a number of appear-ances before various committees but princi-

By E.D. “Dave” Dorchester, P.E., Outgoing TBPE Chairman

The Board was recently invited to at-tend the annual meeting of the Associationof Professional Engineers, Geologists andGeophysicists of Alberta (the licensing bodyof Alberta, Canada) to present to them someof the progressive things the Texas Boardhas done in the past few years, includingour efforts in the licensing reciprocity agreedupon by the NAFTA MOU. We feel this is areal compliment to the Board.

I take this opportunity to thank theBoard for its support and more than any-thing to welcome the new Chairman of theBoard. Mr. Jim Nichols, CEO of Freese andNichols in Fort Worth brings a lifetime ofexperience in the engineering field to theBoard. I can think of no one more dedicatedto the engineering profession and with moreexperience than Jim Nichols. WELCOMEMr. Chairman!!

Editor’s Note: See the website at: www.tbpe.state.tx.us/execdir.htm forVictoria Hsu’s view on the Sunset Review process and semi-independence.

Did you know that by law you arerequired to report any employer or

address changes to the Board?The form is available at

www.tbpe.state.tx.us


The 77th Texas Legislature enacted twobills that resulted in changes to the TexasEngineering Practice Act and the operationsof the Board.

Senate Bill 1797 became effective June17, 2001, and exempts engineering profes-sors from the licensure requirements of theAct if they are performing research or in-structional work within the scope of theirinstitution of higher education.

The bill also provides that the teachingof engineering may not be considered asthe practice of engineering. The bill doesnot exempt engineering educators offeringengineering consulting services to the pub-lic in Texas.

Even though some engineering facultymembers are now exempt from the licensurerequirements, the Board and EngineeringDeans in Texas will continue to encourageall faculty members to become licensed pro-

fessional engineers.To promote licensure among engineer-

ing faculty, the Board has simplified theapplication process for engineering educa-tors. See the article entitled Licensure ofEngineering Educators on page 8 for moreinformation about the abbreviated applica-tion process.

Senate Bill 736 became effective Sep-tember 1, 2001, and provides the mecha-nisms necessary for the Board and twoother exemplary regulatory agencies - theBoard of Public Accountancy and the Boardof Architectural Examiners - to implementthe Self-Directed, Semi-Independent (SDSI)Pilot Project originally established by theenactment of Senate Bill 1438, 76th Legisla-tive Session.

This legislation was indeed a revolu-tionary step taken by the Texas Legislatureand the Board is honored that it was given

the opportunity to exercise greater au-tonomy over its operations during the two-year trial period.

The pilot project removes the Boardfrom the legislative appropriation processand allows it to operate outside the provi-sions of the General Appropriations Act.

The Board’s primary goals under theSDSI project are to provide exceptional cus-tomer service and to develop alternativemethods to increase its efficiency and ef-fectiveness in the delivery of its services tothe regulated community and general pub-lic.

The pilot project does not alter the mis-sion of the Board nor does it remove theBoard from compliance with the Govern-ment Code including the Texas Open Meet-ing Act and the Public Information Act, andthe governor will continue to appoint theBoard Members.

Texas Legislature Enacts Two New Bills Which Affect AgencyBy Randi Warrington, Executive Assistant

Message from Incoming ChairmanBy James R. Nichols, P.E., Incoming TBPE Chairman

The Texas Board of Professional Engi-neers will be embarking on several new ac-tivities which will have a significant impacton the way the Board conducts its busi-ness and deals with our customers, the pub-lic, and the professional engineers in Texas.

During the past year, the Board em-ployed the Management Advisory Servicesof the State Auditor’s office to conduct areview of our mission and strategies. As aresult, extensive interviews were con-ducted with the staff and Board Members.

Focus groups were formed and valuablerecommendations were made and imple-mented.

We recently finished rulemaking to im-prove the procedures for licensing whichwill make our agency much more user-friendly than in previous years. The Boardis committed to working with our custom-ers and streamlining our processes as muchas possible.

Our agency entered a new era in itshistory on September 1, 2001 when it be-came one of three agencies to participatein the Self-Directed, Semi-IndependentAgency Project Act. This will be a pilotprogram allowing the agency to exercisegreater autonomy over operations for atwo-year period. The goal of this projectwill be to increase efficiency, effectivenessand provide improved public service.

During the next two years, the Boardwill receive all of its funding from fees forlicensure, registration, and services pro-vided. We will determine our own budgetrather than go through the legislative bud-get process. We will have greater flexibil-ity in determining more effective services

to better protect and serve the public. Ourselection to be a part of this pilot programis an indication that the TBPE has the con-fidence and trust of the Legislature to con-duct our business without close scrutinythrough the budget process.

During the coming year, we will be pre-paring for the Sunset Review in 2003. Ourlast Sunset Review was in 1981, and sincethat time many changes have been madeby the Board to uphold and regulate theprofession and practice of engineering inthe State of Texas. The Self-EvaluationReport was filed with the Sunset AdvisoryCommission in August, and we anticipatea significant amount of activity as we pre-pare for the Sunset Review.

The coming year will be one of the mostchallenging periods in the history of ouragency as we enter into the Self-Directed,Semi-Independent Agency Pilot Projectalong with the preparation for the SunsetReview. I am confident that we will turnthe challenges into opportunities, and wewill emerge a better and stronger agencymeeting the needs of the public and theengineering profession.


Message from the Executive DirectorBy Victoria Hsu, P.E., TBPE Executive Director

ContinuingEducation - TheDebate Continues.

On December 11, 2001, I attended myfirst Sunset Commission meeting on licens-ing agencies. The first announcement wasthat a mandatory continuing education pro-gram would most likely be recommended tothe Legislature for professional licensingagencies.

Many comments were received on themerits or the redundancy of mandatory con-tinuing education for professional engi-neers:

It would mean both expense and revenueloss.

We estimate to need at least four addi-tional staff to audit the records. Withoutauditing, the program may as well not exist.It means extra workspace, storage space,and employee overhead, etc. In the past,every time we had any significant programchanges about 5,000 licensees dropped out.It means almost a million dollar loss of fundsto the state.

There is no extra value added on engineers’technical expertise.

Engineers who are serious about theirprofession educate themselves on a con-tinuous basis anyway. How does extrarecord keeping better protect the public, if

it is only record keeping?

It is necessary to remain current on regu-lations and rules.

It is very sad to see a fellow engineerbeing disciplined, but at the same time it isvery disturbing to know that some engi-neers do not remain current in related regu-lations and cause damage to the public.

Continuing education will benefit the im-age of professional engineers.

Other professionals such as doctors,lawyers, accountants, and architects are re-quired to have continuing education classes.

More training in ethics, interpersonalskills, communication, management orcommunity service is vital for the successof engineers and in turn benefit the public.

There are jokes about engineers. It’sbeen said that you might be an engineer,if…… buying flowers for your wife or spend-ing the money to upgrade your RAM is amoral dilemma;… you carry on a one-hour debate over theexpected results of a test that actually takesfive minutes to run;… you have ever introduced your kids bythe wrong name;… you think that when people around youyawn it’s because they didn’t get enoughsleep;… your idea of good interpersonal commu-nication means getting the decimal point inthe right place; and… the thought that a CD could refer to fi-nance or music never enters your mind.

Reciprocity for engineers

Many other states have a mandatorycontinuing education requirement. Havingone in Texas would facilitate reciprocity.

Some benefits realized by other states thatimplemented a continuing education

program:

• Renewals could be more timely. Somestates generate automatic audits oncompliance of the CE program when therenewal is late.

• An increase in participation could beseen in professional society activities.

• The engineers’ image could be improvedbefore the public. Explanations for whythere is not a CE requirement would nolonger be necessary.

• It could bring people to think abouteducation. People could be promptedto think what it means to them.

• It could bring some engineers “out ofthe woods”. Some engineers did notknow about the significant rule changesuntil CE was implemented.

I believe there is no real education if theeducation does not respond to the need.As engineers, we touch a wide aspect ofthe public’s lives. We are readily distin-guished from other professions by our per-manent concerns for public safety.

A mandatory continuing education pro-gram would link what an engineer is sup-posed to be to what an engineer is requiredto be. A mandatory program would high-light what an engineer is presently doing todeserve the title of a licensed engineer.

This program could distinguish us fromnon-licensed engineers. If a program is go-ing to be mandated by the Legislature,through codifying what we have been do-ing, we will be able to refocus both theengineer’s and the public’s attention to thevision and image of a “dream engineer.”

We would like your input to establishthe scope and content of this program.Please contact me directly atVictoria [email protected].

Effective January 1, 2000, allengineering firms that offer services

to the public shall be registeredwith the board. For information,

refer to our website atwww.tbpe.state.tx.us.


By David Lusk, P.E., Director of Licensing

Howdy! I hope you are all encouragingyour engineering co-workers and businessassociates to pursue their professional en-gineering license.

I recently accepted the Director of Li-censing position to oversee the licensureprocess at the Board. There have been a fewother personnel changes in this divisionsince the last newsletter and I want to intro-duce the new team leader, Amy Lopez, andher experienced staff: Gloria Bedford, Bar-bara Mayfield, Myrtle Jackson, AngelenaMartinez, and Diana Bennett. We aspire toprovide those requesting licensure withprompt, courteous, and efficient service.

In the last year, the Licensing Divisionof the Texas Board of Professional Engineersperformed a self-audit to identify opportuni-ties to better improve and streamline the li-censure process. The Management Advi-sory Services (MAS) group of the StateAuditor’s Office facilitated this task.

At the end of the audit, the Board di-rected the agency staff to implement therecommendations suggested by MAS. TheBoard and staff appreciate the participationand efforts of all those who have helpedreview and suggest improvements to thelicensure process.

Some of these recommendations includedeveloping better guidance for applicantsand references to improve consistency andgain better information and revising BoardRules and policies on application require-ments and processing.

In reviewing the experience required forlicensure, a focus group was assembled withrepresentatives from many of the disciplines.This group reviewed the existing rules andworked to define and categorize various en-gineering activities. By further defining en-gineering experience, staff can prepare guid-ance documents to assist references in evalu-ating the experience records and determin-ing if the experience is creditable.

In conjunction with these streamliningefforts, the Board approved severalchanges to the Board Rules that pertain tolicensure. Most of these changes will clarifyBoard policy or rules or aid in processingapplications at a faster pace.

The most significant change is that an

application will not need circulation to theP.E. Board Members unless a reference hasbrought the applicant’s qualifications intoquestion or unless an applicant is request-ing waiver of an examination.

In previous rules, an application was cir-culated if the applicant had less than 6 yearsexperience, which was a majority of the ap-plications. This change should minimizeapproval time significantly.

Also, to reinforce the commitment for theexamination as a tool to demonstrate com-

Licensing News

Employee excellence awards were presented to members of the licensing division of TBPEon March 15, 2001 in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the agency. Picturedfrom left to right are; Barbara Mayfield, Gloria Bedford, Amy Lopez and Myrtle Jackson.

Agency New and Revised FeesThe Board approved several in-

creases to fees at the June 13, 2001 Quar-terly Board Meeting, which became effec-tive September 1, 2001.

The annual renewal fee for the P.E. li-cense was increased to $30, the Fundamen-tals of Engineering (FE) Examination feefor graduates was increased to $75, andthe Principles and Practice of Engineering(PE) Examination fee was increased to $125.The FE fee for students remains $50 andthe Structural II P&P fee remains $400.

Additional fee increases as well as newor reduced fees were approved by theBoard at the October 17, 2001 QuarterlyBoard Meeting, which become effectiveDecember 1, 2001.

The annual firm registration fee for

petency, the Board modified the waiver ruleto not allow someone to waive an examina-tion if they have failed that examination inthe previous four years.

I would also like to thank those who havevolunteered to administer the examinations.Anyone interested in volunteering to helpadminister the examinations may contact mevia the agency email address:[email protected]. I look forward toa progressive year for professional engineer-ing.

sole proprietors that are not incorporatedwill be $25. The firm registration fee forall other entities remains at $75. The pen-alty fees for late renewal of a P.E. licensewill be $50 for a license that has been ex-pired for up to 90 days and $100 for a li-cense that has been expired for longer than90 days. The fee for engineer-in-trainingcertification will be $15. New fees beingimplemented by the Board include a reac-tivation fee for an administratively with-drawn application for licensure of $50; areturn check processing fee of $25; sealimprint late fee of $25; and a proctoringfee of $75 for out-of-state examinees.There will also be a return transcript fee of$20 for individuals requesting that theBoard return their original transcript.


Corrected several grammatical errors and clarified that the Board is authorized tocharge fees for services necessary for the performance of its duties.Revised the awkward language concerning the Fundamentals of Engineering examina-tion, clarified that official transcripts are only necessary to substantiate qualifyingdegrees for licensure, added naval architecture/marine and building architectural tothe list of recognized engineering disciplines, and extended the period of time anapplication will be held pending receipt of all documentation from 30 to 45 days.Revised awkward language concerning the examination requirement for licensureand submission of an application to the Board.Clarified that a professional engineer who has not worked directly with or super-vised an applicant for licensure may review and judge the applicant’s experience andserve as a licensed engineer reference.Clarified the format and content of the supplementary experience record and defineddesign, analysis, implementation, and/or communication as an acceptable combina-tion of engineering experience criteria for licensure, removed teaching experiencefrom the list of engineering activities as a result of Senate Bill 1797, 77th Legislature,and clarified experience credit for post-baccalaureate engineering degrees.Clarified that applicants must have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or one of themathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to fulfill the educationalrequirements for licensure under the Act, §12(a)(1).Clarified that an applicant using a degree from a non-accredited engineering programto qualify for licensure must furnish an evaluation of the degree from a commercialevaluation service approved by the Board and clarified that the executive director maywaive the evaluation if the degree program has been deemed substantially equivalentby the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board ofEngineering and Technology (EAC/ABET) or an EAC/ABET-accredited institution.Defined the submission requirements for transcripts necessary to meet theeducational requirements for certification or licensure.Clarified the language regarding a waiver of examination(s) and the availability ofthe Principles and Practice of Engineering examinations by the National Council ofExaminers for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES).Recodified as new §131.137 in Subchapter H - Licensing.Recodified as new §131.138 in Subchapter H - Licensing.Recodified as new §131.103 in Subchapter F - Examinations.Recodified as new §131.104 in Subchapter F - Examinations.Established the policies and procedures for an examination analysis in accordancewith NCEES’s uniform policies and procedures.Established the corrective measures available to the Board when an examinee doesnot abide by the NCEES policies and procedures for the administration of theexaminations.Incorporated the new streamlining procedures for reviewing, evaluating andprocessing an application for licensure.Repealed due to extensive modification of the section.

Established the procedures for processing administratively withdrawn applicationsfor licensure.Revised to move the personal interviews conducted by the full Board to theLicensing Committee, which will then provide a report at the full Board withrecommendations.Revised awkward language concerning the submission of a wallet-size portraitphotograph.Established the eligibility requirements for certification as an engineer-in-training.Established the administrative procedures for obtaining certification as an engineer-in-training.Established the authority for the Board to implement enforcement of the provisionsconcerning firm registration.

Purpose

Applications for a Professional

Engineer License

Applications – General

References

Experience Evaluation

Educational Requirements for Applicants

Degrees from Non-Accredited Programs

Transcripts

Engineering Examinations Required for aLicense to Practice as a Professional Engineer

Engineer-in-Training (Repealed)

Engineer-in-Training Certificates (Repealed)

Board Rule Updates

Examination Analysis (Repealed)Examination Irregularities (Repealed)Examination Analysis (New)

Examination Irregularities (New)

Reviewing, Evaluating and ProcessingApplicationsProcessing of Non-ApprovedApplications (Repealed)Processing of Administratively WithdrawnApplications (New)

Personal Interviews of Applicants

Issuance of License

Engineer-in-Training (New)

Engineer-in-Training Certificates (New)

Firm Compliance

§131.31

§131.52

§131.53

§131.71

§131.81

§131.91

§131.92

§131.93

§131.101

§131.103§131.104

§131.113

§131.112

§131.114

§131.116

§131 137

§131.138

§131.162

§131.105§131.106§131.103

§131.104

§131.111


June 14, 2000 Board MeetingMunishwar Kumar Arya, P.E., Hous-

ton, Texas – File D-998 – It was alleged thatArya prepared three sets of detention ponddesign plans in connection with a motelconstruction project that were not in com-pliance with local codes; that he failed tosign and affix his seal to some of the plansheets; and that the plans bore only thetitle block of a firm that did not have a Texaslicensed professional engineer as a full-timeemployee. It appeared that these actionswere not in keeping with generally acceptedengineering standards and procedures, in-dicated a lack of competency in detentionpond design and aided and abetted theunlawful representation of the ability to of-fer engineering services to the public ofTexas. The Board accepted an Agreed BoardOrder signed by Arya for a three-year pro-bated suspension of his Texas engineer li-cense.

Norman L. Cooper, P.E., Canyon Lake,Texas – File D-1088 – It was alleged thatCooper, in the capacity of an expert wit-ness, failed to personally verify the actualdepth of piers that had been installed un-der the foundation of a residence; there-fore, it appeared that his statements in hisdraft expert witness report concerning the

Enforcement NewsDisciplinary And Administrative Actions Since June 2000

pier depths were misleading and his actionswere not in keeping with generally acceptedengineering standards and procedures. TheBoard accepted an Agreed Board Ordersigned by Cooper and his attorney for aFormal Reprimand and assessed him a $500administrative penalty. Cooper also agreedto submit a plan of action incorporatingcorrective measures implemented to preventsimilar violations in the future.

*William Blair Ellis, P.E., Scroggins,Texas – File D-1125 – It was alleged thatEllis signed and sealed documents thatwere submitted to the Texas Natural Re-source Conservation Commission (TNRCC)depicting proposed changes in groundstorage tanks for a water distribution projectwhich were not in compliance with TNRCCrules. The Board accepted an Agreed BoardOrder signed by Ellis and his attorney for aFormal Reprimand.

*Richard Butler Klein, Delray Beach,

Florida – File D-1139 – The Florida Board ofProfessional Engineers accepted the vol-untary surrender of Klein’s Florida engineerlicense as a result of an investigation con-ducted by the Florida Board concerning al-legations that Klein violated Florida law inhis capacity as the structural engineer ofrecord and threshold inspector for a con-struction project in Florida. Since the FloridaBoard viewed Klein’s surrender of hisFlorida license as a disciplinary action andhe was also currently licensed as a profes-sional engineer in Texas, he was subject todisciplinary action by the Texas Board. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byKlein and his attorney for a ten-year sus-pension of his Texas engineer license; how-ever, should he complete an engineeringethics course by December 14, 2000, thesuspension would be reduced to five years.

*William Leo Parrent, Jr., P.E., Plano,Texas – File D-174 – It was alleged thatParrent indicated on plans that the founda-tion design for a residence was based uponPost-Tensioning Institute (PTI) recommen-dations; however, the geotechnical reportwhich formed the basis of his design wasactually conducted 19 months prior to hisdesign for a property several blocks away;

Licensing is vital to the general practiceof engineering. It is no less vital to the edu-cation of individuals who plan to enter gen-eral engineering practice. The Board is awarethat in many ways teaching engineering isunique to engineering practice. As a result,the Board has adopted certain rules to gov-ern and also accommodate and facilitate li-censing among engineering faculty.

During the 77th Legislative Session, theAct was modified to remove “teaching ofadvanced engineering courses” from thepractice of engineering and now offers en-gineering educators an exempt status. TheTexas Board of Professional Engineers stillbelieves that it is important for engineeringeducators to serve as role models for engi-neering students and strongly encourageseligible engineering faculty to gain licensure.

In addition, licensure functions as a pledgeto the public; this pledge enhances the repu-tation of the profession and, in turn, betterserves the public.

Embracing the recent legislation, theBoard recognizes that experience gained byfaculty extends beyond “teaching.” Aca-demic workloads involve higher “educa-tion” in many forms and shall be consid-ered acceptable engineering experience inan application for an engineering licenseby an engineering faculty member. This ex-perience includes scholarly activity suchas publishing papers in technical and pro-fessional journals; making technical andprofessional presentations; publishingbooks and monographs; performing spon-sored research; reporting on research con-ducted for sponsors; supervising research

Licensure of Engineering Educatorsof undergraduate and graduate students,postdoctoral fellows, or other employees;providing counseling, guidance, and ad-visement for engineering students; andperforming certain other types of formal orinformal functions in higher education.

In addition, an engineering educator maywish to provide expertise outside the uni-versity environment. When an engineer’swork is his or her personal responsibilityoutside the responsibility of a corporationor a university, this individual is subject tothe same rules and regulations as any otherengineer offering services to the public. TheBoard cautions those engineering educatorswho consult outside the university environ-ment to remember that this consulting ser-vice is subject to the requirements of the Actand requires licensure.

By David Lusk, P.E., Director of Licensing

By Clif Bond, TBPE Supervising Investigator

Continued on Page 8

“It shall be misconduct or anunlawful act for a license holderwhose license has been revoked,

suspended, or has expired, to signor affix a seal on any document orproduct.” Board Rule 131.166(e)


Practical Application ofEngineering Theory:

Analysis and reports; design andsynthesis; testing methods;implementation methods; systemsapplication; specification writing andinterpretation; knowledge andunderstanding of codes, standards,regulations, and laws that governapplicable engineering activities; andconstruction observation or inspection.

Project Management Skills:Planning; scheduling; project

decision-making processes;budgeting; construction contractdocuments; procurement ofprofessional services; constructionprocedure and bidding procedures;supervision; project control; and riskassessment.

General Guidelines for Engineers-in-TrainingThe National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)

developed guidelines for enhancing skills and gaining experience.

that he admitted that the foundation wasunder designed; that his failure to providecalculations to support his design indicatedthat he may never have performed them;and that there may have been a conflict ofinterest regarding his role as a foundationdesigner and his ownership of a concretecompany. The Board accepted a ConsentOrder signed by Parrent for a three-yearsuspension of this Texas engineer licensewith the final 30 months to be fully pro-bated contingent upon his payment of a$4,000 administrative penalty and his sub-mission of a plan of action incorporatingcorrective measures implemented to preventsimilar violations in the future.

*Mosoud Seyed Khoshnoudi, P.E., Irv-ing, Texas – File D-1175 – It was allegedthat Khoshnoudi provided professional en-gineering design services in connectionwith residential foundation design and ex-terior wall systems during a period whenhis Texas engineer license was expired. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byKhoshnoudi for a two-year probated sus-pension of his Texas engineer license con-tingent upon his payment of a $2,000 ad-ministrative penalty.

Theodore Banks Eyrick, Ph.D., P.E.,San Antonio, Texas – File D-1183 – It wasalleged that Dr. Eyrick conducted an engi-neering inspection for his client in Decem-ber 1998; but did not provide his client withhis inspection report until February 2000.This indicated that he was not acting as afaithful agent for his client and his actionswere not in keeping with generally acceptedengineering standards and procedures. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byDr. Eyrick for a Formal Reprimand.

Aerobotics Industries, Inc., Euless,Texas – File B-14141 – It was alleged thatthis firm’s use of the words “Engineering”and “Engineers” in its advertisements andstationary, and its listing under the head-ing of “Engineering-Professional” in a lo-cal telephone directory during a period oftime when it did not have a Texas licensedprofessional engineer as a regular full-timeemployee, were unlawful representations ofthe ability to offer and/or provide engineer-ing services for the public of Texas. TheBoard accepted an Agreed Board Ordersigned by Frank Carbone, the firm’s presi-dent, and the firm’s attorney, assessing thefirm a $2,000 administrative penalty.September 8, 2000Board Meeting

*Earl R. Knight, Sr., P.E., Angleton,Texas – File D-1136 – It was alleged Knightaffixed his seal to a Texas Department ofInsurance (TDI) Form, WPI-2, indicatingthat he performed the construction reviewand inspection of a residence and certify-ing that the structure was erected in com-pliance with the Southern Standard Build-ing Code (SSBC) wind load requirements.After TDI performed a subsequent inspec-tion of the residence finding that the struc-ture did not follow SSBC prescriptive con-struction requirements, Knight was askedto provide calculations to justify his certifi-cation. However, he failed to provide therequested information. It was also allegedthat Knight did not become involved withthe inspection process until after the resi-dence had already been framed and

Enforcement News - Continued from Page 7sheathed on an existing foundation; there-fore, he could not have inspected the resi-dence during its construction. The Boardaccepted an Agreed Board Order signed byKnight for a three-year suspension of hisTexas engineer license with the last twoyears to be probated contingent upon hispayment of a $1,000 administrative penalty.

John Dee Burleson, P.E., Cross Plains,Texas – File D-1149 – It was alleged thatBurleson signed and affixed his engineerseal to electrical and mechanical engineer-ing plan sheets for an addition and changesto an existing office building that were pre-pared by the electrical and mechanical con-tractors and not by him or under his directsupervision. It was also alleged that themechanical plans did not meet minimum ven-tilation rate requirements required to com-ply with the 1997 International MechanicalCode. The Board accepted an Agreed BoardOrder signed by Burleson and his attorneyfor a one-year probated suspension of hisTexas engineer license contingent upon hispayment of a $1,000 administrative penaltyand submission of a written plan of correc-tive measures implemented to prevent simi-lar violations in the future.

Communication Skills:Accumulation of project knowledgethrough interpersonal com-munications; transmission of projectknowledge to project team membersand others; and observation of, andinvolvement in, communication ofengineering issues to project decisionmakers.

Social Implications ofEngineering:

Promoting and safeguarding thehealth, safety, and welfare of thepublic; follow a code of ethicspromoting high standards of integrityin the practice of engineering; anddemonstrate awareness of con-sequences which may result fromengineering work and a desire tomitigate potential negative impacts.

Continued on Page 9

“The issuance of oral or writtenassertion in the practice of

engineering, which are fraudulent,deceitful or misleading or no whichin any manner whatsoever tend to

create a misleading impressionconstitutes misconduct.” Board

Rule 131.152(b)


*Daniel Francis McInnis, P.E., FortWorth, Texas – File D-1198 – It was allegedthat McInnis altered boundary informationon survey plats for a subdivision that hadbeen prepared by a licensed surveyor, af-fixed a copy of the surveyor’s seal to theplats and submitted the plats to county of-ficials for approval without the knowledgeof the surveyor. The Board accepted a Con-sent Order signed by McInnis for a one-year probated suspension of his Texas en-gineer license contingent upon his paymentof a $1,000 administrative penalty.

Otto Eugene Orsak, Jr., P.E., Austin,Texas – File D-1169 – It was alleged thatOrsak signed and affixed his Texas engi-neer seal to two sets of design plans duringa period when his Texas engineer licensewas in an expired status. It was also allegedthat Orsak failed to notify the Board of achange in his mailing address at the time itoccurred. The Board accepted an AgreedBoard Order signed by Orsak for a one-yearprobated suspension of his Texas engineerlicense contingent upon his payment of a$500 administrative penalty.

Raul Pedro Flores, McAllen, Texas, FileD-884 – It was alleged that after Flores’ Texasengineer license had been suspended dueto a previous enforcement action and priorto the suspension being lifted, he contin-ued to represent himself as an engineer, dis-played the word “Engineering” in his busi-ness name on company signs and subdivi-sion design plans representing his firm asan engineering business when there wereno other professional engineers as full-timeemployees and continued to practice engi-neering. It was also alleged that Flores failedto respond to repeated requests from theBoard for his response addressing theseallegations. As a result of a Formal Hearingbefore the State Office of AdministrativeHearings, the Board accepted the Proposalfor Decision from the Administrative LawJudge and issued Flores a Final Order sus-pending his Texas engineer license for oneyear.

Johnson City Independent School Dis-trict (JCISD) and John D. Lands, Superin-tendent, Johnson City, Texas – G-583 – Itwas alleged that JCISD engaged in a build-ing construction project without employ-ing the required Texas professional engi-neers for the design and engineering con-struction supervision and accepted plans,specifications and other related documentsthat were not prepared or sealed by a Texaslicensed professional engineer. It was also

Enforcement News - Continued from Page 8alleged that after being alerted to the factthat the project required professional engi-neering services, JCISD continued with theproject without having a professional engi-neer and only hired a professional engineerto review the construction after the projectwas completed. The Board accepted anAgreed Board Order signed by RandyBrodbeck, Chairperson, JCISD, and Landsrequiring JCISD to immediately employ aTexas licensed professional engineer whenrequired by law for future projects, to notenter into future proposals/solicitations/contracts with firms to provide engineeringservices unless those firms have a full-timeemployee who is licensed as a professionalengineer in Texas to perform or directly su-pervise any engineering work provided toJCISD and that JCISD will only accept en-gineering plans and related documents thatare prepared by a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer. JCISD was also assessed a$1,000 administrative penalty and was re-quired to submit a written plan of correc-tive measures implemented to prevent simi-lar violations in the future.

Ameridian Technologies, Inc., Hous-ton, Texas – File B-14214 – It was allegedthat prior to hiring a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer as a regular full-time em-ployee, this firm advertised itself as a “Geo-physical Engineering Consulting Business”able to offer and/or perform “ConsultingEngineering” services and publicly identi-fied the title “Engineer” for employees whowere not licensed as professional engineersin Texas. It was also alleged that an engi-neering study regarding a seismic test in-vestigation was conducted by an employeeof this firm who was not licensed as a pro-fessional engineer in Texas. The Board ac-cepted an Agreed Board Order signed byVito Saccheri, President of the firm, assess-ing the firm a $1,000 administrative penaltyand requiring that the firm submit a writtenplan of corrective measures implementedto prevent similar violations in the future.

H. Michael Ladd dba EP&C Engineer-ing & Technology Group, Dallas, Texas –File B-14528 – It was alleged that Ladd usedthe word “Engineering” in his businessname as disclosed in a newspaper adver-tisement and indicated in a company pro-file that he and his business offered engi-neering services which he stated would beperformed by Texas licensed professionalengineers under a contractual relationshipwith his business. Board records did notshow that Ladd was licensed as a profes-sional engineer in Texas nor that he had aTexas licensed professional engineer as aregular full-time employee. The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by Ladd tocease and desist from any and all represen-tations that he or his business can offer orperform engineering services in Texas, toimmediately delete the word “Engineering”from his business name and to immediatelycancel and not enter into future proposals/solicitations/contracts to provide engineer-ing services in Texas until such time as Laddbecomes licensed as a professional engi-neer in Texas or his business hires a Texaslicensed professional engineer as a regularfull-time employee. Ladd was also orderedto pay a $500 administrative penalty.

Jack W. Pool, San Antonio, Texas – FileB-14651 – It was alleged that after his Texasengineer license had expired and becamenon-renewable, Pool practiced engineeringand represented that he was a Texas li-censed professional engineer by signingand affixing his Texas engineer seal to adocument submitted to the Texas NaturalResources Conservation Commission. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byPool to cease and desist from any and allrepresentations that he can offer and/or per-form engineering services in Texas and fromaffixing his Texas engineer seal to any andall documents issued in Texas until suchtime as he becomes duly licensed as a pro-fessional engineer in Texas. Pool was alsoordered to pay a $2,500 administrative pen-alty.

Orson Andrew Rogers, Webster, Texas– File B-14455 – It was alleged that after hisTexas engineer license had expired and be-came non-renewable, Rogers practiced en-gineering for the public of Texas as an em-ployee of four separate Texas engineeringfirms. The Board accepted an Agreed BoardOrder signed by Rogers to cease and de-sist from the practice of engineering inTexas, from any and all representations that

Continued on Page 10

A “Peer Review” program wasrecommended in the self-evalua-

tion report. This program canencourage engineering safety

through specialized enforcementdecisions. Would you like to

participate if we form this pro-gram? Please contact the Board at

[email protected]


he can offer and/or perform engineering ser-vices in Texas, from use of the designation“P.E.” after his name and from affixing hisTexas engineer seal to any document is-sued in Texas until such time has he be-comes duly licensed as a professional en-gineer in Texas . Rogers was also orderedto pay a $250 administrative penalty.

Glen G. Gregory, Jr., Jenks, Oklahoma– File B-14700 – It was alleged that after hisTexas engineer license had expired and be-came non-renewable, Gregory practiced en-gineering and represented that he was aTexas licensed professional engineer byaffixing his Texas engineer seal to a sitedrainage plan sheet for a Texas project. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byGregory to cease and desist from the prac-tice of engineering in Texas, from any andall representations that he can offer and/orperform engineering services in Texas andfrom affixing his Texas engineer seal to anydocument issued in Texas until such timeas he becomes duly licensed as a profes-sional engineer in Texas. Gregory was alsoordered to pay a $2,500 administrative pen-alty.

Roger David Dietz, Plano, Texas – FileB-14757 – It was alleged that after his Texasengineer license expired and became non-renewable, Dietz established a business thathad “Engineering” in its name and that atthe time the business was formed did nothave a Texas licensed professional engi-neer as a regular full-time employee, repre-sented himself as a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer by using the designation“P.E.” after his name on business cards, per-formed engineering services for the publicof Texas and affixed his Texas engineer sealto engineering documents. The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by Dietz tocease and desist from the practice of engi-neering in Texas, from using the designa-tion “P.E.” after his name and from any andall representations that he is a professionalengineer or that he can offer and/or per-form engineering services in Texas untilsuch time as he becomes duly licensed as aprofessional engineer in Texas. Dietz wasalso ordered to pay a $2,000 administrativepenalty.

Jesse Dewaine Bogard, Houston, Texas– File B-14575 – It was alleged that after hisTexas engineer license expired and becamenon-renewable, Bogard practiced engineer-ing for the public of Texas as an employeeof two separate firms and that he repre-

sented himself as a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer by using the designation“P.E.” after his name and/or affixing hisTexas engineer seal to engineering docu-ments issued in Texas. The Board accepteda Consent Order signed by Bogard to ceaseand desist from the practice of engineeringin Texas, from using the designation “P.E.”after his name, from affixing his Texas engi-neer seal to any document and from anyand all representations that he is a profes-sional engineer or that he can offer and/orperform engineering services in Texas untilsuch time as he becomes duly licensed as aprofessional engineer in Texas. Bogard wasalso ordered to pay a $3,000 administrativepenalty.

December 8, 2000Board Meeting

James M. Purdy, P.E., Dallas, Texas –File D-1222 – It was alleged Purdy failed tosign, date and affix his Texas engineer sealon mechanical and plumbing plans for a dor-mitory development project prior to theirrelease to the public, nor did he properlycaveat the plans to identify himself as theresponsible professional engineer, the rea-son for releasing them without being sealedand the limitations on their use. It was alsoalleged that Purdy did not list his firm’s titleblock on the plans which created a mislead-ing impression about the individual or en-tity responsible for the engineering infor-mation. The Board accepted a Consent Or-der signed by Purdy for a Formal Reprimandand assessed him a $1,000 administrative

penalty.Stanley Ray Fees, P.E., Kingsville, Texas

– File D-1224 – It was alleged Fees preparedplans and a certification letter that weresubmitted to a city that contained mislead-ing information regarding the number, sizeand location of exiting trees in a proposedconstruction area. It was also alleged thatFees submitted a signed and sealed con-currence letter to the same city for the sameproject stating that the drainage work hadbeen properly completed when in fact it hadnot been completed. The Board accepted aConsent Order signed by Fees for a FormalReprimand and assessed him a $1,000 ad-ministrative penalty.

ESC Polytech Consultants, Inc., Hous-ton, Texas – File B-14364 – It was allegedthat the web page for this firm representedthe ability to offer and/or perform a varietyof engineering services. It was also allegedthat the firm submitted documentation tothe Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT) indicating that it had a Texas li-censed professional engineer as a full-timeemployee in an attempt to have the firm cer-tified to be considered for future TxDOTengineering projects. Board records did notshow that the firm had a Texas licensed pro-fessional engineer as a regular full-timeemployee. The firm denied the allegations.As a result of a Formal Hearing before theState Office of Administrative Hearings, theBoard accepted the Proposal for Decisionfrom the Administrative Law Judge and is-sued the firm a Cease and Desist Order toimmediately discontinue offering to prac-tice engineering and/or the actual practiceof engineering for the public of Texas untilsuch time as the firm hires a Texas licensedprofessional engineer as a regular full-timeemployee. The firm was also ordered to paya $3,500 administrative penalty. After theBoard’s order was challenged in DistrictCourt, the matter was remanded to the Boardfor further proceedings and the partiesagreed to an Agreed Final Order finding thatESC violated the Engineering Practice Actand assessing an administrative penalty of$300.

Ronald E. Walker, dba Failco ServicesInternational, Cypress, Texas-File B-14516– It was alleged that Walker’s company let-terhead stationary represented that his com-pany provides safety engineering services.

Enforcement News - Continued from Page 9


A Practice Review Program wasenvisioned and recommended to

the Sunset Commission to increaseprofessional accountability andprofessional development. Theprogram could be implemented

several ways: as a random audit oflicensed engineers, as a request

from a licensed engineer to reviewan existing practice, or as an

enforcement tool to review ques-tionable engineering practices forthose who have been disciplined.

This program could also be used asa tool to confirm a person’s “ex-empt” status from the licensure

requirements of the Act. Tocomment on this recommendation,

please contact the Board [email protected]


It was further alleged that Walker testifiedin an oral deposition that he performs safetyengineering services and he had performedsuch engineering services in connectionwith an analysis of an accident investiga-tion. Board records did not show thatWalker was licensed as a professional en-gineer in Texas nor that his company had aTexas licensed professional engineer as aregular full-time employee. The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by Walkerto cease and desist from any and all repre-sentations that he can offer and/or performengineering services, to immediately deletethe word “Engineering” from his company’sletterhead stationary and to cancel any cur-rent and not enter into future proposals/solicitations/contracts to provide or performengineering services in Texas until suchtime as either he becomes licensed as a pro-fessional engineer in Texas or he hires aTexas licensed professional engineer as aregular full-time employee. Walker was alsoordered to pay a $500 administrative pen-alty.

Harry E. Hendricks, dba K & L Engi-neering, San Antonio, Texas – File B-14618– It was alleged that Hendricks identifiedhimself as a Texas licensed professional en-gineer by using the designation “P.E.” afterhis name on a test report bearing the word“Engineering” in his company name. Boardrecords did not show that Hendricks waslicensed as a professional engineer in Texasnor that his company had a Texas licensedprofessional engineer as a regular full-timeemployee. The Board accepted an AgreedBoard Order signed by Hendricks to ceaseand desist from any and all representationsthat he and his company can offer and/orperform engineering services for the publicof Texas, to immediately delete the word“Engineering” from his company’s nameuntil such time as he hires a Texas licensedprofessional engineer as a regular full-timeemployee and to immediately discontinuethe use of the designation “P.E.” after hisname on any and all documents issued inTexas until such time as he becomes li-censed as a professional engineer in Texas.Hendricks was also ordered to pay a $1,000administrative penalty.

Lubbock Labs, Inc., Lubbock, Texas –File B-14804 – It was alleged that prior tohiring a Texas licensed professional engi-neer as a regular full-time employee, thisfirm provided letters to a public universityin response to requests for proposals indi-

Enforcement News - Continued from Page 10cating the firm met ASTM E 329 qualifica-tions and that it had an “in-house” Texaslicensed professional engineer. This firmwas subsequently awarded contracts toperform required engineering services(based upon these letters). The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by TomDelavan, President of the firm, assessingthe firm a $1,500 administrative penalty.

Ronald H. Norton, Houston, Texas –File E-2717 – It was alleged Norton repre-sented that he was licensed as a profes-sional engineer in Texas in a resume andused the designation “P.E.” on a cover let-ter to the resume which was submitted to apotential employer. Board records did notshow that Norton was licensed as a profes-sional engineer in Texas. The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by Nortonto cease and desist from any and all repre-sentations that he can offer and/or performengineering services, to immediately dis-continue the use of the designation “P.E.”after his name and to discontinue identify-ing himself as being a Texas licensed pro-fessional engineer until such time as he be-comes licensed as a professional engineerin Texas. Norton was also ordered to pay a$1,500 administrative penalty.March 15, 2001Board Meeting

Raul Pedro Flores, McAllen, Texas –File D-850 – It was alleged that Flores failedto respond to inquiries from the Texas Wa-ter Development Board (TWDB) regardinghis lack of progress as consulting engineerfor wastewater collection and treatmentprojects for four south Texas communities,which resulted in TWDB terminating fund-ing applications. Flores’ lack of actioncaused unnecessary delays to needed up-grades to the wastewater collection andtreatment systems in these communities andmay have contributed to dangerous condi-tions affecting the public health, safety andwelfare. It was also alleged that Floresfailed to promptly respond to the Board’sinquiry regarding this matter. The Boardaccepted a Consent Order signed by Floresand his attorney for a six-month suspen-sion of his Texas engineer license, afterwhich the suspension will be probated foran additional two years.

Don Keith Paris, Pasadena, Texas – FileD-1140 – It was alleged that Paris signedhis name and affixed his Texas engineer sealto mechanical, electrical and plumbing en-gineering design plans that were not pre-

pared by him or under his direct supervi-sion, but were prepared by individuals whowere not licensed professional engineers.Therefore, it appears Paris aided and abet-ted the unlicensed practice of engineering.It was also alleged that Paris was not quali-fied by education and/or experience to per-form or directly supervise mechanical, elec-trical and plumbing engineering designs.These actions were not in keeping with gen-erally accepted engineering standards andpractices. The Board accepted a ConsentOrder signed by Paris and his attorney for athree-year suspension of his Texas engi-neer license with the final 30 months to beprobated contingent upon his payment ofa $2,000 administrative penalty.

Robert Leroy Plowfield, Jr., WinterPark, Florida – File D-1235 – The FloridaBoard of Professional Engineers issued aFinal Order to Plowfield approving a 90-daysuspension of his Florida license, followedby a three-year probation, for submittingincomplete and deficient design plans for amulti-story commercial building in Florida.As a result of this action, the TennesseeBoard of Architectural and Engineering Ex-aminers accepted a Consent Order signedby Plowfield for a six month suspension ofthis Tennessee engineer license. Basedupon the actions taken in Florida and Ten-


TBPE Executive Director, Victoria Hsu, P.E.and Licensing Director, David Lusk, P.E.visited with Joe Adare of Bastrop ISDregarding mold issues in public schools.


nessee, Plowfield’s Texas engineer licensewas also subject to censure; therefore, theBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byPlowfield for a three-month suspension ofhis Texas engineer license.

Thomas John Wiener, Roswell, Geor-gia – File D-1258 – It was alleged that Wienerfailed to fully comply with a Board Order bynot completing the Basic Studies in Engi-neering Ethics Course from Texas Tech Uni-versity, which was required by the ConsentOrder signed by Wiener and accepted bythe Board on June 20, 2000. The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by Wienerfor a six-month suspension of his Texasengineer license.

* Richard W. Peverley, P.E., Houston,Texas – Files D-1212, D-1230 and D-1240 –It was alleged that Peverley had performedengineering inspections of three residencesfor which he was paid. However, Peverleydid not issue the reports for these inspec-tions to the clients until four, nine and eightmonths after the respective inspections hadbeen completed. When one of the reportswas finally issued, it contained numerouserrors and discrepancies regarding the size,foundation and floor plan of the residenceresulting in a misleading report. Peverley’sactions did not appear to be in keeping withgenerally accepted engineering standardsand procedures, did not reflect that he wasrespectful of his client’s needs nor that hewas acting as a faithful agent of his clientand suggested a level of negligence. TheBoard accepted an Agreed Board Ordersigned by Peverley and his attorney for atwo-year probated suspension of his Texasengineer license contingent upon his pay-ment of a $3,000 administrative penalty.

Billy Walter Hudson, P.E., Grand Prai-rie, Texas – File D-1205 – It was allegedHudson signed his name and affixed hisTexas engineer seal to a parapet wall de-sign that resulted in a potential for endan-germent to the public because the designdid not include any reinforcement supportfor resistance to lateral wind loads, whichappeared to have contributed to the col-lapse of the wall. It was also alleged thatthe wall design was not performed byHudson nor under his direct supervision.These actions were not in keeping with gen-erally accepted engineering standards orprocedures. The Board accepted an AgreedBoard Order signed by Hudson for a three-year probated suspension of his Texas en-gineer license contingent upon his paymentof a $2,000 administrative penalty.

Eloy Vera, P.E., Roma, Texas – File D-1217 – It was alleged that a subdivision platprepared by Vera did not contain informa-tion in English and Spanish such as his cer-tification of compliance and cost estimatesregarding sewer and water service facilities.It was also alleged that eight lots were soldprior to the subdivision being legally plot-ted. These actions were contrary to stateand local government codes, regulations,rules or ordinances. The Board acceptedan Agreed Board Order signed by Vera andhis attorney for a one-year probated sus-pension of his Texas engineer contingentupon his payment of a $1,500 administra-tive penalty.

* Bob L. Gatewood, P.E., - Houston,Texas – File D-1219 – It was alleged thatGatewood signed and affixed his Texas en-gineer seal to a letter that was submitted toa city certifying that special inspection ser-vices had been performed for the roofingsystem on a construction project and thatwelds and screw placements conformedwith construction documents; however,subsequent inspections performed afterroof decking material was removed dis-closed that welds were either missing, un-dersized or were of poor workmanship.Because these errors were not identifiedbefore the roof had been installed, the cli-ent incurred additional expenses to correctthe deficiencies. Therefore, it appearedGatewood’s certification letter was mislead-ing and that he was not acting as a faithfulagent of his client. These actions, whichwere not in keeping with generally acceptedengineering standards and procedures,were contrary to city codes and ordinancesand created an endangerment to the lives,health, safety and welfare of the public andsuggested a level of incompetence. The

Board accepted an Agreed Board Ordersigned by Gatewood and his attorney for athree-year probated suspension of his Texasengineer license contingent upon his pay-ment of a $5,000 administrative penalty andsubmission of a written plan of correctivemeasures implemented by him to preventfuture violative actions similar to thosewhich precipitated this matter.

Earl L. Kirkpatrick, P.E., Ft. Worth,Texas – File D-1252 – It was alleged duringa period while his Texas engineer licensewas in an expired status, Kirkpatrick signedand/or affixed his Texas engineer seal to 21letters, 17 reports and 6 sets of plans andspecifications for various Texas projects.The Board accepted a Consent Ordersigned by Kirkpatrick for a one-year pro-bated suspension of his Texas engineer li-cense contingent upon his payment of a$750 administrative penalty.

Mark Rather Eichstadt, P.E., PortAransas, Texas – File D-1247 - It was al-leged that Eichstadt failed to fully complywith a Board Order by not completing theBasic Studies in Engineering Ethics Coursefrom Texas Tech University, which was re-quired by the Agreed Board Order signedby Eichstadt and his attorney and acceptedby the Board on March 10, 2000. The Boardaccepted a Consent Order signed byEichstadt and his attorney for a Formal Rep-rimand and assessed him a $500 adminis-trative penalty.

Backyard Amenities, Inc., MontBelview, Texas – File B-14341 – It was al-leged that Brad Stephens, the company’spresident, designed seven swimming poolsand affixed a copy of a Texas professionalengineer’s seal and signature that he hadobtained from another source to the plansheets which were submitted to a city forpermitting. Board records did not show thatStephens was licensed as a professionalengineer in Texas nor that his company hada Texas licensed professional engineer as aregular full-time employee. The Board ac-cepted an Agreed Board Order signed byStephens to cease and desist from any andall representations that his company canoffer and/or perform engineering servicesand from the actual performance of engi-neering services until such time as the com-pany hires a Texas licensed professionalengineer as a regular full-time employee, andto immediately discontinue the use of theTexas professional engineer’s seal and sig-nature on any and all documents. Stephens



“The engineer shall not express anengineering opinion in depositionor before a court, administrativeagency, or other public forumwhich is contrary to generally

accepted scientific and engineeringprinciples without fully disclosingthe basis and rationale for such an

opinion. Engineering opinionswhich are rendered as expert

testimony and contain quantitativevalues shall be supported by

adequate modeling or analysis ofthe phenomena described.” Board

Rule 131.153(c)


also agreed to hire a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer to perform “after-the-fact”engineering inspections and issue certifi-cation reports for the five swimming poolsthat were permitted and constructed. Thecompany was also ordered to pay a $5000administrative penalty.

Hill Environmental Research Organi-zation, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma – File B-14737– It was alleged that this company providedtwo engineering reports to different clientsin Texas regarding vapor recovery systemsthat were not performed by or under thedirect supervision of a Texas licensed pro-fessional engineer. Board records did notshow that this company had a Texas li-censed professional engineer as a regularfull-time employee. The Board accepted aConsent Order signed by Joel Hill, thecompany’s president, to cease and desistfrom offering to perform or the actual per-formance of engineering services and fromany and all representations that his com-pany can offer and/or perform engineeringservices for the public of Texas until suchtime as he hires a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer as a regular full-time em-ployee. The company was also ordered topay a $1,000 administrative penalty.

Robert Stump, Webster, Texas – File B-14841 – It was alleged that Stump preparedan engineering design plan for a swimmingpool and affixed a seal to the plan sheetthat identified himself as a professional en-gineer. Board records did not show thatStump was ever licensed as a professionalengineer in Texas. The Board accepted aConsent Order signed by Stump to ceaseand desist from the actual practice of engi-neering, from any and all representationsthat he can offer or perform engineering ser-vices and from identifying himself as anytype of engineer not authorized by law.Additionally, he was ordered to immediatelydestroy the seal that identified him as a pro-fessional engineer. Stump was also orderedto pay a $3,500 administrative penalty.

Communication Services, Inc.,Scottsdale, Arizona – File D-1245 – It wasalleged Gray Communication Services, Inc.,a subsidiary of this company, was acting asthe “architect/engineer” for communicationfacility projects in Texas and was respon-sible for releasing preliminary design plansprepared by its employee and consultantengineers that did not identify the respon-sible engineer or design professional, thepurpose for their release and the limitationson their use. The Board accepted a Con-

sent Order signed by G. Dale Gray, thecompany’s president, ordering the com-pany to pay a $500 administrative penalty.

Davis Software, Inc., Dallas, Texas – FileB-14074 – It was alleged that this companyused the word “Engineering” in its nameon its company stationary and used theword “Engineers”on its internet web site,and represented that the engineering ser-vices provided by the company were per-formed by or under the direct supervisionof a Texas licensed professional engineer.Board records did not show that this com-pany had a Texas licensed professional en-gineer as a regular full-time employee. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byTim Davis, the company’s president, andits attorney, to cease and desist from offer-ing to perform or the actual performance ofengineering services and from any and allrepresentations that the company can offerand/or perform engineering services for thepublic of Texas and to immediately discon-tinue the use of the words “Engineering”and “Engineers” on its stationary, web siteand other advertisements until such timeas the company hires a Texas licensed pro-fessional engineer as a regular full-time em-ployee. The company was also ordered topay a $2,000 administrative penalty.

Mark Jensen, Irving, Texas – B-14943– It was alleged that Jensen representedhimself as being a professional engineer inTexas by affixing his State of Michigan en-gineer seal to the title page and three sche-matic floor plan drawings in an engineeringreport that was prepared under the directsupervision of a Texas licensed professionalengineer for a Texas client. Board recordsdid not show that Jensen has ever been

licensed as a professional engineer in Texas.The Board accepted a Consent Ordersigned by Jensen to cease and desist fromany and all representations that he can of-fer or perform engineering services untilsuch time has he becomes licensed as aprofessional engineer in Texas and to im-mediately discontinue the use of his Michi-gan engineer seal on any and all documentsissued in Texas. Jensen was also orderedto pay a $1,500 administrative penalty.

Independent Testing Laboratories,Houston, Texas – B-14858 - It was allegedthat this firm represented an ability to pro-vide engineering services and that it had aTexas licensed professional engineer as anemployee in a proposal package submittedto a city in response to a request for quali-fications concerning a project that requiredengineering services. Based upon thecompany’s submittal, it was awarded thecontract. Board records did not show thatthis company had a Texas licensed profes-sional engineer as a regular full-time em-ployee and the Texas professional engineernamed in the company’s submittal con-firmed that he was not an employee of thecompany. The Board accepted a ConsentOrder signed by Leland S. Bisbee III, thecompany’s president, and its attorney, tocease and desist from offering to performor the actual performance of engineeringservices and from any and all representa-tions that the company can offer and/or per-form engineering services for the public ofTexas until such time as the company hiresa Texas licensed professional engineer as aregular full-time employee. The companywas also ordered to pay a $1,500 adminis-



Board and Committee Meeting ScheduleRegular Quarterly Board Meeting

NCEES Southern Zone Meeting

Enforcement Committee

General Issues Committee

Licensing Committee

TSPE Annual Meeting

Regular Quarterly Board Meeting

NCEES Annual Meeting



March 7, 2002

April 4-5, 2002

April 22, 2002

To be determined

May 6, 2002

June 10-14, 2002

June 11-12, 2002

August 7-10, 2002

September 5, 2002

December 5, 2002

Austin, TX

Baton Rouge, LA

Austin, TX

Austin, TX

Austin, TX

Arlington, TX

Arlington, TX

La Jolla, CA

Austin, TX

Austin, TX


trative penalty.June 13, 2001 Board Meeting

* David J. Marquez, El Paso, Texas –File D-1223 – It was alleged that the NewMexico Board of Registration for Profes-sional Engineers and Surveyors had re-voked Marquez’s New Mexico engineer li-cense on September 1, 1993; however, hesigned, dated and affixed his Texas engi-neer seal to an engineering document forhis Texas client for an engineering projectin New Mexico. This would constitute theunlicensed practice of engineering in NewMexico. It was also alleged that this docu-ment contained engineering calculationsthat were not performed by Marquez norwere they performed under his direct su-pervision. The Board accepted an AgreedBoard Order signed by Marquez and hisattorney for a five-year suspension of hisTexas engineer license with the final fouryears to be probated contingent upon hispayment of a $2,500 administrative penalty.

Cleveland Leonard Shepard, Jr., Hous-

ton, Texas – File D-1232 – It was allegedthat Shepard failed to fully comply with aBoard Order by not completing the BasicStudies in Engineering Ethics Course fromTexas Tech University which was requiredby the Agreed Board Order signed by himand accepted by the Board on March 10,2000. Based upon his failure to completethe ethics course by June 13, 2001, the Boardaccepted an Agreed Board Order signed byShepard to suspend his Texas engineer li-cense until such time as he provides theBoard with documentation confirming hissuccessful completion of the course andassessed him a $500 administrative penalty.

* Victor Silvas Medina, P.E., CorpusChristi, Texas – Files D-1242 and D-1248 –It was alleged that during a period while hisTexas engineer license was in an expiredstatus, Medina signed and affixed his Texasengineer seal to a foundation engineeringinspection report for a residence. It wasalso alleged that during this same expiredstatus period, Medina signed and affixedhis Texas engineer seal to 90 Texas Depart-

ment of Insurance Building ConstructionCompliance forms. It was further allegedthat Medina failed to promptly respond tothe Board’s inquiries regarding these mat-ters. The Board accepted an Agreed BoardOrder signed by Medina for a two-year pro-bated suspension of his Texas engineer li-cense contingent upon his payment of a$2,500 administrative penalty.

* Jon Norton Strange, P.E., Houston,Texas – File D-1254 – It was alleged thatStrange accepted an assignment to designthree athletic tracks and 32 tennis courtsfor a school district and apparently copiedengineering designs and specifications forthis project that had been prepared by an-other Texas licensed professional engineerfor a similar project at another location.Strange signed and affixed his Texas engi-neer seal to the copied documents. It wasalso alleged that Strange was not qualifiedby education or experience to perform thisengineering design assignment in a ad-equate or competent manner. The Boardaccepted a Consent Order signed by Strangefor a one-year probated suspension of hisTexas engineer license contingent upon hispayment of a $2,000 administrative penalty.

ICI Construction, Inc., Dallas, Texas –File B-14902 – It was alleged that a formeremployee of this company, who was not aTexas licensed professional engineer, madeengineering changes to the shoring sys-tem of a retaining wall that were not in ac-cordance with the original engineering draw-ings that had been prepared by a Texas li-censed professional engineer. The Boardaccepted a Consent Order signed by DonnieLindstrom, the company’s Director of Op-erations, to cease and desist from the prac-tice of engineering until such time as thecompany hires a Texas licensed professionalengineer as a regular full-time employee.The company was also ordered to pay a$2,000 administrative penalty.

Bruce Hall, Calgary, Alberta, Canada –E-2737 – It was alleged that Hall representedhimself as a professional engineer by usingthe designation “P.E.” after his name ondocuments sent to Texas clients and indi-cated he was or had been licensed in as aprofessional engineer Texas on his resume.It was also alleged that Hall practiced engi-neering by performing calculations, mak-ing interpretations and issuing conclusionsregarding the analysis of turbine generatorperformance. Board records did not showthat Hall has ever been licensed as a pro-fessional engineer in Texas. The Board ac-

Enforcement News - Continued from Page 13cepted a Consent Order signed by Hall tocease and desist from the practice of engi-neering, from any and all representationsthat he can offer or perform engineering ser-vices in Texas and from using the designa-tion “P.E.” after his name on any documentissued in Texas until such time as he be-comes licensed as a professional engineerin Texas. Hall was also ordered to pay a$5,000 administrative penalty. October 17, 2001 Board Meeting

* Jesse Eugene Coleman, Jr., P.E., FortWorth, Texas - File D-1229 - It was allegedthat during his testimony as an expert wit-ness in a lawsuit, Coleman made statementsregarding the effect of pier to beam contactand foundation level tolerances that ap-peared to be misleading and were not sup-ported by adequate modeling, calculationsor analysis and without fully disclosing thebasis and rationale for his opinions. TheBoard accepted an Agreed Board Ordersigned by Coleman for a five-year probatedsuspension of his Texas engineer licensecontingent upon Coleman’s agreement thathe will cease and desist from practicingstructural engineering during the probated


General Guidelines forEngineering Mentors

• Provide guidance,encouragement, andsupport to an Engineer-in-Training (EIT).

• Assure that the EIT isgaining experience andcapability in each of theareas outlined above.

• Be sufficiently familiar withthe details of the engineer’swork, either through directsupervision or ongoingdirect contact, to be able toverify and certify that eachportion of the engineer’swork experience qualifiesas acceptable experience.

• Assist the EIT in these areas:leadership, experience,ethics, values, anddevelopment of engineeringprinciples.

“Engineers shall only seal workdone by them or performed under

their direct supervision ... Uponsealing, engineers take full

responsibility for that work.”Board Rule 131.166(c)


period.* George Gutierrez II, P.E., San Anto-

nio, Texas - File D-1274 - It was alleged thaton June 6, 1995, Gutierrez signed and af-fixed his seal on a letter stating that a resi-dential septic system had been constructedin 1973 in accordance with rules that ex-isted at that time and certified that the sys-tem was functioning adequately. However,inspections of the septic system performedby a registered sanitarian and a city publicworks department employee disclosed thatthe system was not constructed in accor-dance with state regulations, was a healthhazard due to raw sewage being exposed tothe atmosphere and could not be permittedbecause sewage was being illegally dis-charged. Therefore, it appeared thatGutierrez’s letter was misleading and hefailed to identify a potentially dangeroussewage disposal situation that was not inkeeping with generally accepted engineer-ing standards and procedures. The Boardaccepted a Consent Order signed byGutierrez for a two-year probated suspen-sion of his Texas engineer license.

* Melvin Gary Glass, P.E., El Paso,Texas - File D-1278 - It was alleged that Glasssigned and affixed his Texas engineer sealon electrical design plans prepared by hisemployees who were not licensed profes-sional engineers for an elementary schoolproject that contained numerous errors andcode violations and were not in conform-ance with the school district’s standardpractices. Based upon the numerous defi-ciencies, it appeared that Glass was notqualified by education or experience to per-form electrical engineering himself or to re-view and take responsibility for the electri-cal engineering design work performed byhis employees. The Board accepted a Con-sent Order signed by Glass for a two-yearprobated suspension of his Texas engineerlicense contingent upon his payment of a$4,000 administrative penalty and his sub-mission of a written plan of corrective mea-sures he will implement to prevent similarviolations in the future. Glass also agreedthat during the probation period and afterthe provisions of the Consent Order arefulfilled, he would not practice electrical en-gineering or affix his seal to electrical engi-neering design plans until he passes theNational Council of Examiners for Engineer-ing and Surveying Principals and Practiceexamination in electrical engineering.

Lyndon M. Curry, P.E., Port O’Connor,Texas - File D-1295 - It was alleged that Curry

Enforcement News - Continued from Page 14submitted a WPI-2 Form to the Texas De-partment of Insurance (TDI) certifying thatconstruction of a building addition com-plied with ASCE-7-93 wind load provisions;however, TDI inspections disclosed thatCurry certified the construction prior to itscompletion. Based upon this inspection,TDI requested that Curry provide calcula-tions to support his certification, which hedid not do. Therefore, it appeared the WPI-2 Curry submitted was misleading and hisfailure to provide TDI with his calculationswas not in keeping with generally acceptedengineering standards and procedures. Ad-ditionally, it appeared that Curry was offer-ing and performing consulting engineeringservices as a sole proprietorship withoutbeing registered with the Board as a con-sulting engineering business entity. TheBoard accepted a Consent Order signed byCurry for a Formal Reprimand.

Paul A. Mendoza, Austin, Texas - FileB-15103 - It was alleged that Mendozasigned his name and affixed his Texas ar-chitect seal to structural, mechanical, elec-trical and plumbing design plans for therenovation of a commercial building. Basedupon the size of the building, the structural,mechanical, electrical and plumbing designswere required by law to have been per-formed by a licensed professional engineer;therefore, Mendoza’s preparation of thesedesign plans constituted the unlawful prac-tice of engineering. The Board accepted aConsent Order signed by Mendoza and hisattorney agreeing that Mendoza will notpractice engineering outside the exemptionslisted in the Texas Engineering Practice Actand will refrain from making any and all rep-resentations that he can offer and/or per-form engineering services until such timeas he hires a Texas licensed professionalengineer as a regular full-time employee oruntil such time as he becomes a Texas li-censed professional engineer. Mendozaalso agreed to pay a $1,000 administrativepenalty.

William James Rich, Laredo, Texas -B-15105 - It was alleged that Rich preparedthree geotechnical reports that included en-gineering recommendations for foundation

options. Board records did not show thatRich was licensed as a professional engi-neer in Texas; therefore, his reports repre-sent the unlawful offer and/or attempt topractice engineering. The Board accepteda Consent Order signed by Rich to ceaseand desist from offering to perform or theactual performance of engineering servicesand from any and all representations thathe can offer and/or perform engineering ser-vices for the public of Texas until such timeas he becomes licensed as a professionalengineer in Texas. Rich also agreed to pay a$500 administrative penalty.

CDI Engineering Group, Inc. (CDI),Houston, Texas - B-15114 - It was allegedthat Lanny Ottosen, a CDI employee whowas not licensed as a professional engi-neer in Texas, signed an engineering reporton behalf of CDI that was submitted to aCDI client. Board records did not show thatOttosen was licensed as a professional en-gineer in Texas nor did the report identifyany of CDI’s Texas licensed professionalengineers as being responsible for the en-gineering information contained in the re-port. Therefore, it appeared Ottosen unlaw-fully practiced engineering through hispreparation of the report and unlawfullyrepresented his ability to offer and/or per-form engineering services. The Board ac-cepted a Consent Order signed by James E.Musick, Vice President of Operations, CDI,to cease and desist from allowing CDI em-ployees who are not licensed as profes-sional engineers in Texas to sign and issueengineering reports or from any represen-tations that its unlicensed employees havethe ability to offer and/or perform engineer-ing services for the public of Texas untilsuch time as those employees become dulylicensed as professional engineers in Texas.CDI also agreed to pay a $2,000 administra-tive penalty.

David Huerta dba Design NetworkGroup (DNG), Houston, Texas - B-15126 - Itwas alleged that DNG advertised itself asan architectural/engineering firm with over20 years of engineering experience and sub-mitted an invoice to a customer claiming tohave provided engineering services andcharging for an “Engineer” and an “Engi-neer Seal.” Board records did not show thatHuerta was licensed as a Texas professionalengineer nor that DNG had a full-time em-ployee who was licensed as a professionalengineer in Texas. Therefore, the advertis-ing and invoice represented an unlawful


“The engineer shall not performany engineering assignment for

which the engineer is not qualifiedby education or experience to

perform adequately and compe-tently ...” Board Rule 131.153(B)

Texas Board of Professional Engineers1917 IH-35 SouthAustin, TX 78741

offer and/or attempt to practice engineer-ing. The Board accepted a Consent Ordersigned by Huerta to cease and desist fromany and all representations that he or DNGcan offer and/or perform engineering ser-vices, to delete any references of engineer-ing from his advertising and to end any cur-rent or future contractual obligations toperform engineering services until such timeas he hires a Texas licensed professionalengineer as a regular full-time employee.Huerta also agreed to pay a $750 adminis-trative penalty.

Gomez-Mendez-Saenz, Inc. (GMS),Brownsville, Texas - B-15170 - It was al-leged that site grading and drainage plans

for two projects were submitted to the Cityof Brownsville, one set bearing RudyGomez’s signature and architect seal andthe other bearing David Saenz’s signatureand architect seal. The size and scope ofthe respective projects required that Texaslicensed professional engineers preparethe grading and drainage design plans.Board records did not show that Messrs.Gomez or Saenz were licensed as profes-sional engineers in Texas nor that GMShad any regular full-time employees whowere licensed as professional engineers inTexas. Therefore, it appears these individu-als unlawfully performed engineering ser-vices and their respective plans were anunlawful representation of GMS’ ability tooffer and/or perform engineering services.The Board accepted a Consent Ordersigned by Gomez, President, GMS, tocease and desist from the practice of engi-neering and from any and all representa-tions that GMS can offer of perform engi-neering services until such time as GMShires a full-time employee who is licensedas a professional engineer in Texas. GMSalso agreed to pay a $2,000 administrativepenalty.

Gerald F. Obermeyer, El Paso, Texas -E-2759 - It was alleged that on October 2,2000, Obermeyer prepared, signed, and af-fixed his Texas engineer seal on a referencestatement on which he indicated he wascurrently licensed in Texas and used thedesignation “P.E.” after his name. Boardrecords showed that Obermeyer’s Texas en-gineer license expired on December 31, 1993;therefore, the use of his Texas engineer sealand the designation “P.E.” were unlawfulrepresentations of being a Texas licensedprofessional engineer. The Board accepteda Consent Order signed by Obermeyer tocease and desist from any and all represen-tations that he can offer and/or perform en-gineering services, to discontinue his useof the designation “P.E.” and from affixinghis Texas engineer seal on any documentuntil such time as he becomes re-licensedas a professional engineer in Texas.Obermeyer also agreed to pay a $500 ad-ministrative penalty.

* Indicates individuals who either agreedto complete a correspondence course in en-gineering ethics as part of closure of case, oras a contingency for probation.


“... only licensed persons shallpractice, offer or attempt to

practice engineering ... or in anymanner use the term “engineer” as

a professional, business orcommercial identification, title,name, representation, claim or

asset, ...” Section 1.1 of the TexasEngineering Practice Act (Act)

STANDARD PRESORTUS POSTAGE

PAIDAUSTIN, TX

PERMIT NO. 2637

Date post:	24-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

PE Newsletter · 2020. 1. 7. · PE Newsletter Published by the Texas Board of Professional...

Documents