Have you ever submitted comments on a proposed highway, or any project proposed by any government? Have your comments included numbers, calculations, graphs, discussions of a technical nature? As a citizen, not as a certified expert such as an engineer?
Yes? Then be glad you don’t live in North Carolina.
Why? Because the state’s big kahuna engineer at the department of transportation might decide your comments are so good that you’re breaking the law by submitting them. He might claim you’re practicing engineering without a license — and ask the state board of engineering to slap your overreaching hands.
Can’t happen, you say?
Well it just did. Matt Yeglesias mentioned it yesterday, but for the blow-by-blow account of how and why NC’s top traffic engineer, Kevin Lacy, retaliated against a persistent critic, computer science Ph.D. David Cox, read Bob Geary’s story in the Indy Week (be sure to look for the great photo illustration):
In the long-running saga of where and how to widen Falls of Neuse Road in North Raleigh, Cox and NORCHOA have been trying to convince the N.C. DOT that two additional traffic signals at strategic locations near their homes would make the busy road a lot safer.
The DOT’s response? Not only are the residents wrong, they’ve also broken the law by challenging DOT’s conclusions as mere citizens.
In December, State Traffic Engineer J. Kevin Lacy filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors against Cox. Lacy alleged that a critique of DOT’s position, written by the group and mailed by Cox to his congressman, U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, among others, qualified as illegally practicing traffic engineering without a license.
The examiners board notified Cox in a letter dated Dec. 28 that he is under investigation, because “Allegedly, this document”—the critique—”should have been prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer” and was not.
“The only plausible explanation for this complaint,” NORCHOA fired back in a letter to the board Jan. 11, “is as a blatant attempt at a strategic lawsuit against public participation”—a SLAPP suit—intended “to silence NORCHOA going forward.”
The four-page NORCHOA report is clearly labeled as work “Submitted by the Residents of North Raleigh.” In it, the residents did argue that City of Raleigh engineers, whose licensed work was accepted by DOT, should’ve considered potential future traffic volumes on Falls of Neuse Road after the widening project is complete—rather than base a determination about traffic signals on data before the widening.
I suppose it’s not surprising that some engineers defended Lacy, but most commentators thought it was a case of a bureaucrat run amok.
If the complaint isn’t thrown out by the examiners board — it should be dismissed as improvidently granted; not even given a hearing — it surely will be litigated to Cox’s favor as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. This incident has First Amendment written all over it.
But it’s also an object lesson in how angry, arrogant, irrational, and vindictive certified professionals can become when mere citizens challenge expert opinion by employing their own, sometimes formidable, intellectual skills. Ever suggest to a physician that “you’re wrong and here’s why?” Or disagree with a lawyer or an educator? Or with a Montana road engineer? After such an encounter one often walks away thinking it’s easier to get a straight answer out of a politician.
But to my knowledge, no teacher has ever tried to silence a critic by accusing that critic of teaching without proper certification. And I cannot imagine a state legislator claiming that a lay scholar’s legal analysis of a bill constitutes practicing law without a license.
Kevin Lacy is exploring new ground. He’s going to find it’s quicksand.