quadrille rules and all! Needless to say, we reported the Architect to the
State Board which, expectedly, did nothing. We did the calculations and the
Architect did the drafting. He wanted us to sign, but we refused. Hence the
forgery.
Mark E. Deardorff, SE
R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
9815 Carroll Canyon Road
Suite 206
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 858-444-3344
Phone: 209-863-8928
Cell: 209-765-5592
mark@rstavares.com
www.rstavares.com
CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential and
proprietary information and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected
by law. It may be read and used solely by the intended recipient(s), and any
review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and delete this e-mail, including any attachments, from your system
immediately without reading, copying or distributing them. Thank you for
your cooperation. R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
proprietary rights they may have in the information.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Richardson [mailto:h.d.richardson@shaw.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Texas PE
>
> Fellow engineers,
>
> I think that the real issue here is not whether or
> not the document in question has an electronic stamp, a faxed
> stamp, a photocopied stamp or, in fact, no stamp at all. The
> real issue, in my opinion, is whether the document is
> legitimate or a forgery.
>
> I have had my stamp forged in the past. In my case
> the deed was done by photocopying the signed stamp from
> another document onto transparent stick-on material; the
> stick-on stamp is then applied to any document.
> Admittedly, this does require that photocopied documents are
> acceptable, however, drawings are almost always reproductions
> with the engineer's stamp on the original; and color
> fax-scanner-copiers are now very low in price and very
> readily available. As evidence, my own combination color
> scanner, fax machine, copier, bears the "Brother" brand name,
> cost only $296.00, and produces copies that are virtually
> indistinguishable from the original.
>
> I think this type of forgery may be related to the
> consideration "Is engineering a product or a service?" If
> engineering is to be considered a service (my own personal
> belief) then how the stamp is applied, or even whether there
> is a stamp or not, is irrelevant. I think the only real way
> to prevent forgeries is for the authority having jurisdiction
> to the identity of person submitting the design for
> permitting, to confirm that the person is, in fact, a
> registered professional qualified to oversee the work, and to
> have the person sign a statutory declaration that (s)he is,
> in fact assuming full responsibility for the project.
>
> Anyway, please excuse my ranting. I feel strongly
> about this subject!!
>
> Regards,
>
> H. Daryl Richardson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thor Tandy" <vicpeng@telus.net>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Cc: "Ed Huston" <huston@smithhustoninc.com>; "Gillian Pichler"
> <gpichler@apeg.bc.ca>; "Peter Mitchell" <mitchell@apeg.bc.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:14 PM
> Subject: RE: Texas PE
>
>
> > There are companies out there that specialize in electronic
> > sealing/signing
> > software. Here at the Assoc. of Profess. Engineers of BC
> (APEGBC) they
> > already have commissioned such a company. All the issues
> aired so far in
> > this thread have been addressed and the powers that be are
> satisfied that
> > it
> > is secure enough.
> >
> > If you want more detail on the rigorousness/effectiveness
> of the software,
> > call the APEGBC at 1-604-430-8035 and ask for Peter
> Mitchell or Gillian
> > Pichler.
> >
> > I understand we are poised to make it available to our membership.
> >
> > Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng
> > Victoria, BC
> > Canada
> > vicpeng@telus.net
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rand W Holtham [mailto:RHoltham@CBI.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:54 PM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Texas PE
> >
> >
> > The intention (IMHO) of the anti-electronic signature is that the
> > responsible Engineer had at a minimum touched the
> engineered document and
> > that some other person did not issued the document without
> the consent of
> > the responsible engineer. The electronic signature makes
> rubber stamping
> > infraction just too easy. So a faxed copy of a seal
> document is legitimate
> > as I see it as much as a photocopy of a stamped document is legit.
> >
> >
> > Rand
> >
> >
> > "Jerry Coombs" <JCoombs@carollo.com>
> >
> >
> > The original document must be signed, sealed, and
> *transmitted*. It may
> > be
> > followed by a facsimile of whatever sort, but there must be
> a real paper
> > trail to the original, to the person distributing them.
> One fuzzy area
> > that is not explicit, but seems acceptable, is to fax a
> sealed addendum,
> > correction, etc; but these should really be followed by a
> hard copy, too.
> >
> >>>> "Jordan Truesdell, PE"
> <seaint1@truesdellengineering.com> 8/15/2007
> > 6:22 AM >>>
> > I've been away for a bit, and didn't get a chance to reply
> earlier. Does
> > this mean that you cannot fax a sealed document? And for
> the prohibition,
> > does it apply to sending the document or to the validity of the sent
> > document?
> > Jordan
> >
> >
> > Jerry Coombs wrote:
> > If you can't find a blank, I may be able to strip
> name/ number from
> > mine and send. Keep in mind that it is NOT ALLOWED in
> Texas, as in
> > many states, to transmit a signed stamp electronically.
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release
> Date: 7/30/2007 5:02 PM
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********