I'm pushing for safe streets. Some engineers want me to go away.
Photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash
For the second time, a fellow professional engineer has filed a complaint against me with the state licensing board. For the second time, my license to practice engineering is now under formal review. For the second time, I am threatened with losing my professional licensure and, with it, the credentials that give me the opportunity to pursue a career in engineering.
And for the second time, the inspiration of the complaint is opposition to my writing, speaking, and my overall push for reform within the engineering profession. This is a sorry state of affairs.
In Minnesota, professional engineers essentially regulate themselves through a board established by the state. The board sets criteria for obtaining a license to practice and maintaining that license over time. To acquire my license, I had to obtain a civil engineering degree, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, work for four years under the guidance of a licensed engineer, then pass the Professional Engineering exam and pay a registration fee. Every other year there is a renewal fee along with a continuing education requirement.
Five years ago, the complaint against me was for “misconduct on the website/blog Strong Towns.” The engineer who filed the complaint was a former fellow with the American Society of Civil Engineers and was, at the time, part of an advocacy group in Minnesota lobbying the legislature for more transportation spending. He argued that my writing at Strong Towns was in violation of Minnesota Rules, specifically the provision that states:
A licensee shall not….. engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the licensee's fitness to practice the profession.
With the complaint, he included copies of articles I wrote. One addressed the negative safety implications of the standard American engineering approach when applied to streets. Another voiced my opposition to additional funding for transportation until systems for prioritizing projects could be reformed. In his view, these opinions rendered me unfit to practice engineering.
I was surprised by the formal complaint, but not the sentiment. I have had many engineers tell me I am not only wrong but a danger to the profession. I have received screenshots of private forums where my ideas are debated, with many arguing that I should lose my license. Granted, I do not believe this is a majority opinion and there are many engineers who openly support Strong Towns, but the threat of losing your license for speaking out is real and it stifles open debate. We even started a column here with a fake pseudonym—R. Moses—to allow engineers who fear losing their license a place to speak openly.
The rules invite this kind of abuse. A small minority of engineers resistant to change can use the formal complaint process to intimidate others into silence. After all, here is what Minnesota Rules 1805.0200 require for the personal conduct of licensed engineers:
A licensee shall avoid any act which may diminish public confidence in the profession and shall, at all times, conduct himself or herself, in all relations with clients and the public, so as to maintain its reputation for professional integrity.
Does questioning the process used for building streets diminish public confidence in the engineering profession? Does challenging how speed limits are set? Does pointing out the flaws in traffic projection models? Does disagreeing with transportation lobbyists who want more money for engineers and their projects? Does identifying the values that underly the standards of the profession undermine the reputation and integrity of those who apply them?
I have been told they do, that the conversations we have had at Strong Towns would be better held within the private venues and forums provided by the various professional engineering societies. Those who think this suggest I should be working within the system to bring about reform instead of airing dirty laundry in the public eye. It is obvious why that would be more comfortable for practitioners, but do these public conversations undermine public confidence?
Five years ago, the licensing board dismissed the complaint; however, they notified me that “the complaint will be held in the Board’s archives and is available should additional evidence warrant that the file be reopened.” That might be standard language, but it is hard to not read it as ominous.
I was notified last week that a second complaint has now been filed. This one is both more frivolous and more serious. The complaint alleges that I have been representing myself as a licensed engineer when I am not. It also alleges that I may have practiced engineering without a license. These are both very serious charges with the potential for some large penalties. They are also problematic for me because, in a narrow sense, the first allegation is true.
Minnesota State Capitol. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Every two years, I receive a notice in the mailing reminding me to renew my license. My family and I moved homes in July 2016, a month after my renewal. I didn’t update the licensing board of my new address, didn’t receive my renewal notice in June of 2018, and didn’t apply for renewal on time. I did later discover my mistake and renewed my license within the allowable timeframe, including paying a late fee penalty. My license is now current through June 30, 2022.
So, technically, there was a period of time when I was representing myself as a licensed engineer when, in fact, I was unaware that my license had expired. This didn’t keep the board from renewing my license when I applied for reinstatement. Will it now result in some sanction due to this formal complaint? That is yet to be determined.
I said there were two allegations in this new complaint. The second one—that I may have practiced engineering without a license—is completely frivolous. I have not signed any plans, prepared any specifications, or done any other work that requires an engineering degree to perform. It is worth noting that the complaint filed against me cited my writing and speaking, providing many examples of each, but made no attempt to reference any engineering work. In other words, this is not about my engineering work; it is solely about my advocacy work, with the fact that I happen to be an engineer presenting a convenient mechanism to make an example of me and intimidate others.
Subtext: This is what happens when you speak out of turn. If you don’t want to lose your license and livelihood, keep quiet and work within the system.
You might assume that, if someone had a license for 18 years and was a high-profile, active, outspoken member of your profession, they would not intentionally allow their license to lapse. If you were really worried about the way that person was representing themselves in regards to their licensure, you might even reach out to them to let them know that their license was expired. That would seem a collegial thing to do.
Instead, in the complaint the individual details his long process of researching me, communicating multiple times with the licensing board, and building a case that mine was a “deliberate effort to mislead the public” about my credentials. From the complaint:
Mr. Marohn talks about being a policy expert, the type that reads law and ordinance. It is not reasonable to assume that Mr. Marohn was not aware that use of the term Professional Engineer, PE, or other similar representations while not licensed, is a violation of law. It is also clear that both Mr. Marohn and Strong Towns, through speaking tours and fundraising activities, benefit from using the claimed licensure. I urge the board to investigate as it sees fit, and to send a clear message that frauds of this sort are not to be tolerated.
Being me, I called the guy making the complaint and asked him why he did not give me the professional courtesy of letting me know that my license was expired, why he chose a formal complaint instead. He told me he feared I would take steps to remedy the situation before the complaint could be served. Unbeknownst to him, I already had.
This isn’t about the integrity of the engineering profession. This isn’t fear that someone unqualified will be designing and building critical infrastructure systems. This is about one thing and one thing only: sending a message, to me and to any other engineers who might be tempted to speak up.
If you speak up, we will use whatever means we have to attack you.
The complaint committee hears my case in September and will recommend what should happen with this latest complaint. I think it is extremely unlikely they will attempt to take away my license, but I’m not sure what they will do beyond that. Either way, I’m not going anywhere. The Strong Towns movement is growing rapidly—we will reach over 2 million people in our audience this year—and we’re not going anywhere. The conversation around engineering reform is not going away.
And rest assured, regardless of what happens to me, the list of licensed professional engineers questioning the current system is growing exponentially. Major reforms are coming. At this point, it is only a matter of when. We welcome everyone—engineer and non-engineer alike—to support the Strong Towns movement and be part of this conversation for change.
Charles Marohn (known as “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) is the founder and president of Strong Towns and the bestselling author of “Escaping the Housing Trap: The Strong Towns Response to the Housing Crisis.” With decades of experience as a land use planner and civil engineer, Marohn is on a mission to help cities and towns become stronger and more prosperous. He spreads the Strong Towns message through in-person presentations, the Strong Towns Podcast, and his books and articles. In recognition of his efforts and impact, Planetizen named him one of the 15 Most Influential Urbanists of all time in 2017 and 2023.