"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:

On 19 Oct 2003 03:45:31 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:


What's wrong with going after those engineers who are obscuring the
technical facts of BPL?


You seem to be missing an essential point: the "client" of an
engineer is the employer. If the employer does not complain of
unprofessional conduct, there's no case.


That's neat. The employer can violate all sorts of statutes, and
involve the engineers, and no one but the employer can do anything about
it! VERY neat!



Similarly, the licensing boards take action only if there is a
complaint of unprofessional conduct from one with standing, namely
the employer.


So the adversly-affected public can have no standing in complaining
about the fraudulant acts of licensed persons-actions that directly
affect the public???

What sort of a system of regulation is this? It's almost useless!
It licenses professionals to act contrary to law and standard industry
professinal process!


Actually there are very few cases where an engineer even needs to be
licensed. An electrical engineer working for a utility probably does not
need to be licensed.

[snip] So you're saying the the public is afforded no protection whatever
in licensing matters unless individuals compl;aining are are directly
involved. Nice!


Again, it is unlikely that the engineers working for the utility have to be
licensed so the licensing board couldn't do anything anyway.

So inform the stockholders of this fiasco and let them handle it.
If they are made aware of the facts it would seem they would be
interested in at least looking into the matter since their investment
dollars are at risk.

As usual the law is written to protect everyone except the public.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE