Regular
readers will recognize the name StrongTowns.
It’s an urbanist advocacy group out of Minnesota which focuses on the
financial non-sustainability of many infrastructure concepts, particularly
transportation projects. When I make similar arguments, especially when directed toward
the American Society of Civil Engineers, I’m following in the footprints of
StrongTowns.
The founder
and continuing leader of StrongTowns is Chuck Marohn. Like me, Marohn is a Registered Civil
Engineer. Thus, it was with unease that
I received a group email from Marohn a few days ago that included this paragraph,
“Last week I found out that I had a complaint filed against me with the state
board of licensing. This is the first
step towards getting my license revoked. It was filed by a former ASCE fellow and
current member of the Move MN transportation lobby. It alleged that my advocacy through Strong
Towns amounts to professional misconduct, that my actions damage the integrity
of the engineering profession.”
Marohn promised
more information would be forthcoming.
The information came the following day in a post on the StrongTowns site. I don’t recommend reading every article that that
I link, recognizing that readers have many demands on their time. But I strongly recommend this link, both for
the Marohn’s update on the complaint and for his response to the basis for the
complaint. I applaud his commitment. And, because of our shared profession, I
relate to his umbrage.
For those
who don’t follow the link, the complaint was found to be generally groundless,
but the licensing board warned that the file would be retained in case
additional information was uncovered.
With the
complaint largely rejected, some might dismiss the situation as one malcontent
individually pursuing an ill-conceived and inappropriate course of action and
therefore not of general concern.
However,
over the course of my engineering career, I’ve been involved in enough
situations to know that the complaint against Marohn isn’t a unique
circumstance. It may be a more disturbing
manifestation than other situations, but it’s part of a pattern.
Let me share
a few stories from my career. However, I
should first hasten to say that I worked for several fine organizations and
with numerous fine individuals, many of whom remain friends. The anecdotes below reflect that outliers,
not the typical engineers. But there are
enough outliers that they can’t be ignored.
For
instance, I was once asked by a principal of the firm where I worked to become
the firm’s representative with a particular civic organization. I demurred, noting that the organization held
a number of views on land use and economic development that I didn’t
share. In response, I was told that, as
long as I received a paycheck from that firm, I wasn’t allowed to have those
opinions. I disagreed. We parted uneasily, but I never became involved
in the civic group.
Another
time, in a meeting of senior managers, the eldest member of a firm and a
well-respected presence, announced that a shared value of the firm was a
particular set of core political beliefs.
Although they were beliefs that I didn’t share, I chose not to challenge
that statement. And when I glanced
around, I saw mostly nods of agreement.
A few weeks
later, I mentioned to the firm president that I’d found the comment inappropriate. He assured me that it has been intended as a
joke, although I’d noted an absence of levity in either the speaker or the
audience.
But perhaps the
worst incident occurred on a day when I was in another state, awaiting the kickoff
of a football game between my alma mater and a conference foe. My phone rang. It was my wife, quite unhappy with me,
wondering why I’d given approval for a mayoral candidate to post a campaign
sign in our yard. Although she always
votes and holds well-reasoned political opinion, she prefers not to broadcast
her beliefs with yard signs. When she
called, she was on our front porch, holding a local developer and the candidate
at bay. They had come armed with a sign,
hammer, and nails.
While looking
for a quiet place beneath the stands where I could talk, I was able to discern that
the developer had approached the office manager where I worked, suggesting
support for the candidate. The office
manager has agreed that everyone who worked for the firm should support the
candidate, so gave direction to put campaign signs in all of the employees’ frontyards. He saw no need to check with the employees
for their concurrence.
We eventually
resolved that the developer wouldn’t mount the sign, but would leave it on the
front porch for me to sort out upon my return.
And everyone then departed, all somewhat disgruntled.
(As it turned
out, future conversation wasn’t required.
A family dog had quietly watched the contretemps. After all had left, and despite being
house-trained, one Christmas tree incident notwithstanding, he lifted his leg
on the campaign sign. Rufus is no longer
with us, so we’re unable to ask whether his act was a lack of support for the
candidate, a disdain for the political process, or a show of solidarity with my
wife. But it effectively defused the situation.)
And even to
this day, I’m regularly confronted with prejudices what beliefs I must hold as
a result of my engineering license.
Despite having written this blog for more than three years, folks regularly
assume that, as an engineer, I must support the new freeway interchange, the new
big box store, or a proposed subdivision sprawling up a nearby hill. All three assumptions are usually wrong and shouldn’t
have been made in the first place.
These
comments aren’t intended to put myself on some kind of Je Suis Chuck martyrdom
pedestal with Marohn. For one, however
unsettling, my stories don’t strike at the core of my professional identity the
way that a challenge to Marohn’s professional license did at his. For another, both Marohn and I, even if our licenses
were wrongfully revoked, could still put food on the table and roof over the
heads of our families.
Instead, the
stories are intended to illuminate pervasive and limiting stereotypes about
engineers. Marohn, I, and thousands more
have survived rigorous academic training and government licensing to become
professional engineers. Those licenses
give us the authority to decide how to bridge canyons or how to deliver potable
water to millions of people. Those are
worthy goals and I’m proud to have professional brethren solving those
problems.
But some of
us have taken the skill set gained through academia, licensing, and practice to
tackle a different problem, how to create a world in which our fellow citizens
can live safely, affordably, and with joy and how to bequeath that world to the
next generation. It’s also a worthwhile goal
and one that should be supported. But
challenges to licenses and pigeonholing assumptions aren’t supportive. They’re the reverse.
And that’s
messed up.
In my next
post, with the Petaluma Urban Chat conceptual design effort on the Sonoma Marin
Fairgrounds nearing a climax, I’ll offer some thoughts on how land-use changes
are effected, often incrementally but equally often cumulatively.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment