Disciplinary Actions Against Licensees (M-Z) - Last Updated June 2007

This page contains summaries of disciplinary decisions finalized between 1987 and June 2007. The Board is in the process of preparing the summaries for decisions which becamed effective between June 2007 and June 2010. Summaries are posted once the decision is final. Summaries regarding actions which result in revocation or surrender of the license remain on the web site indefinitely. Summaries regarding actions which result in suspension or probation remain on the web site for five (5) years after the completion of the suspension or probationary period. Summaries regarding actions resulting in reproval/reprimand remain on the web site for five (5) years after the effective date of the decision. All disciplinary actions taken by the Board are matters of public record; for copies of the actual decisions on which these summaries are based or for information about any disciplinary actions that might no longer be posted on the web site in accordance with the above schedule, contact the Board's Enforcement Unit at BPELSG.Enforcement.Information@dca.ca.gov.

Beginning in June 2010, the Board is posting copies of Final Disciplinary Decisions on its website. Click here for the list of and links to the Final Disciplinary Decisions.

You may use your browser's BACK button to return to this list to look for additional names, or you may scroll through the entire list of articles. For summaries of disciplinary actions from A-L, click here.

NOTE: Due to budgetary constraints, the Board is unable to timely update this page with information regarding current actions. Please contact the Board's Enforcement Unit at (916) 263-2284 or BPELSG.Enforcement.Information@dca.ca.gov for current updates.

NIZAM-ALDINE, ZUHAYR also known as NIZAMUDDI, ZUHAYR; ALDINE, ZUHAYR; and ALDINE, ZACK
 
SON, HYUN S. also known as SON, JAMES
 
 
 
 

MacNEIL, DANIEL P.
Land Surveyor L 6961
ccusation 777-A
Effective April 14, 2006: Revoked, revocation stayed; four years on probation

Accusation 777-A alleged that Daniel Paul MacNeil was subject to discipline for negligence and incompetence in his practice of land surveying when in June of 1999, he performed a boundary/property line survey of a residential property in Pasadena, California. It was alleged that the survey incorrectly concluded that the wall that was thought to be along the easterly property line of the lot was in fact 2.2 feet east of the true position of the line, encroaching upon the neighboring property, and that MacNeil based the survey on an incorrect marker for survey at the northeast corner of the lot. A Record of Survey was filed and recorded in January 2000, but it allegedly failed to compare recorded and measured distances to the east to support the solution proposed by the map. It was also alleged that MacNeil did not consider alternate solutions which accounted for the change in boundary. The Accusation further alleged that, in October 2003, MacNeil recorded a Certificate of Correction to his Record of Survey, but the list of corrections was not mathematically correct, and he failed to file a new record map to correct his erroneously filed and recorded Record of Survey after he located additional evidence.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, MacNeil admitted the truth of the charges and allegations except the allegation that his list of corrections failed to be mathematically correct. His license was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and MacNeil was placed on probation for four years with certain terms and conditions including that he take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination; successfully complete and pass a board-approved course in professionalism and ethics for land surveyors, and take and pass two Board-approved college-level land surveying courses. Within three years of the effective date, MacNeil must pay $3,312.50 restitution to the consumer, and provide proof of such payment to the Board. In addition MacNeil must reimburse the Board $3,694.50 for costs of investigation and enforcement.


MANNING, BRUCE JOSEPH
Civil Engineer C 38456
Accusation 672-A
Effective January 18, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed. 30-day actual suspension. Four years on probation.

Accusation 672-A alleges that Bruce Joseph Manning, of Temecula, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code section 6775. In 1996, Manning was hired to prepare the structural calculations and construction drawings for an animal barn to be built in Fresno. He submitted a report of his calculations and unsigned, unstamped plans he had prepared. Based upon the calculations and plans Manning provided, construction of the barn was commenced by a general contractor, but the barn could not be built according to the plans, which were incomplete and inaccurate. A different civil engineer was retained to revise and complete the calculations, prepare appropriate plans, and oversee construction of the project. This caused substantial additional expense to the property owners and construction of the barn was delayed by more than a year. Manning's conduct was negligent and incompetent.

Additionally, the Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors suspended Manning's Nevada State Engineer's license in 1997. The two-year suspension was for submission of incomplete, unclear, and unprofessional plans for a project in that state. The Nevada Board stayed the suspension and imposed probation for two years. Under Business and Professions Code section 141, a disciplinary action taken by another state for an act substantially related to the practice regulated by the California license may be a ground for disciplinary action by the California Board.

In a stipulation in settlement and decision, Manning admitted to all of the allegations and agreed to the Board's penalty. His license was revoked, but the revocation was stayed and Manning was placed on probation for four years. Among the terms and conditions was a 30-day actual suspension beginning January 18, 2000. Manning was required to notify all clients and employers of this disciplinary action. He was ordered to complete educational requirements in the area of his violation, pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination and the California Seismic Principles examination, and make restitution of $5,000 to the property owners. He was also required to have a licensed physician submit an assessment of his physical condition and ability to perform the duties of a professional civil engineer. If the physical examination reveals he is not physically capable of performing the work of a civil engineer, Manning will be suspended from the practice of civil engineering until his doctor reports that he is physically able to resume those duties.


MANSOUR, MANHAL M.
Civil Engineer C 43760
Accusation 576-A
Effective September 25, 1995: License revoked, stayed; 120-day actual suspension, five years on probation
Effective August 26, 1996: Stay of revocation vacated, LICENSE REVOKED

Effective September 25, 1995, the Board issued a Decision Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Accusation 576-A against Manhal Mansour was filed on August 1, 1994, and set for hearing on March 29, 1995, at which time a settlement agreement between Mansour and the Executive Officer of the Board was entered into the record before an Administrative Law Judge. Mansour affirmed his agreement to each and every term of the settlement set forth in the record and ordered in the decision. Mansour, without objection or good cause, failed and refused to sign the agreement which was reduced to a formal writing and mailed to him at his address of record on March 29 and May 12, 1995.

Accusation 576-A alleged that Mansour subjected his license as a civil engineer to discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) for fraud, misrepresentation and/or deceit, violation of contract, negligence, and/or incompetence in his professional practice. Specifically, it was alleged that, in February 1990, Mansour induced the consumer to enter into a contract for engineering and architectural services through the use of deceit, misrepresentation, and/or fraud, in that he represented that he was a principal of a large architectural firm with offices in Sacramento and Modesto, and that he employed a number of other licensed architects and engineers. In fact, no such firm existed, the business locations belonged to other businesses, and no other licensed individuals were employed by Mansour.

The accusation further alleged that, in March 1990, Mansour entered into a contract with the consumer for all architectural plans, soil testing, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services necessary for the completion of a commercial building project in Rocklin. This contract required that Mansour prepare a statement of probable construction costs and to work within specified time frames. Mansour subsequently violated the contract in a material respect by failing to complete the project within the contracted time frame, and by causing further delay by miscalculating the pad location with respect to existing oak trees. He also materially underestimated the project costs. Additionally, the accusation alleged that the plans and calculations Mansour prepared did not conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Specifically, the accusation alleged the following errors:

1. The roof plan drawings and calculations do not use the same pounds per square foot of gravel for a ballasted roof;

2. There were no calculations done for wind loads on the canopy area at the front entrances of the various stores in the project (the area is constructed of a light-weight wood roof with metal covering); the structural designer did not consider the uplift wind forces;

3. The structural designer did not check the capacity of the precast concrete walls and the pilasters for the lateral forces from the wooden mezzanine during a seismic event; further, he did not check the additional vertical load on the wall/pilaster footing(s);

4. The structural designer provided no sketches of how the various lateral forces were collected and transferred to the various resisting elements on the roof; there are some re-entrant corners as well as some connecting details that should have been addressed in sketches regarding their seismic resistance;

5. There are no analyses of any of the structural details that cannot be selected from a structural connector product catalog;

6. The glulam beam hanger specified in the drawings will not physically fit in the space provided;

7. The seismic analysis did not consider the effects of the various skewed walls;

8. The foundations were not checked at the various openings, nor was a soil pressure diagram provided to check that the foundation material is adequate during a seismic event; the footing at the end of each panel is called out, but is not reflected on some parts of the foundation drawings.

Additionally, it was determined that Mansour knowingly and voluntarily agreed to accept the terms and conditions of settlement and that he made no specific objection to the formal written settlement agreement; he simply failed or refused to sign it. Therefore, pursuant to the admissions made by Mansour and entered into the record on March 29, 1995, it was determined that Mansour is found to have violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) as alleged in the accusation and that cause for revocation of his license exists.

Effective September 25, 1995, the Board ordered the Civil Engineer License, C 43760, issued to Manhal Mansour revoked. However, said revocation was stayed, and Mansour has been placed on probation for a period of five years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions is a 120-day actual suspension of his license, beginning on the effective date of the decision and continuing through January 23, 1996. Additionally, Mansour was required to reimburse the Board for its investigative costs in the amount of $4,000 within one year of the effective date of the decision. Other conditions require Mansour to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination within 60 days of the effective date of the decision; to take and pass a college-level course in professional ethics and two college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation within two years of the effective date of the decision; and to provide proof to the Board, within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, that he has notified all clients and employers of the decision in this matter.

On July 26, 1996, the Board issued a Default Decision in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation. The Board found that Mansour violated the terms and conditions of the probationary order.

Effective August 26, 1996, the Default Decision vacated the stay of revocation and ordered Mansour's license as a civil engineer revoked.


MANUEL, LORETO MONTA (Click here to see the related disciplinary action against Fred Guenther)
Land Surveyor L 5045
Accusation 409-A
Effective March 13, 1995: REVOKED
Effective December 9, 1998: Petition for Reinstatement Denied

The Board has taken disciplinary action against Land Surveyor License L 5045 issued to Loreto Monta Manuel. The Board ordered Manuel's license revoked, effective March 13, 1995.

The Board determined that Manuel violated Business and Professions Code sections 8780(a), (c), (e), and (f) for failing to follow applicable laws and regulations in performing a survey, negligence in performing a survey, incompetence in performing a survey, and aiding and abetting Fred Guenther in violating the Professional Land Surveyors Act.

On June 22, 1998, revoked former licensee Fred Guenther, who obtained a special power of attorney from Loreto Manuel, signed and filed a Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License on Manuel's behalf.

On September 18, 1998, Guenther appeared before the Board; Manuel was not present. Guenther told the Board that Manuel would promise the Board to pay his fees, keep the Board informed of his whereabouts, and undertake certain corrective actions relating to the property in Brisbane which led to the 1995 revocation, but no supporting evidence was presented. The Board found that Manuel presented no evidence of rehabilitation and that there was no showing that he understands why his license was disciplined or that he will not conduct himself similarly in the future. The Board denied the petition for reinstatement.


MARQUOIT, LESLIE CURTIS
Civil Engineer C 17810
Accusation 745-A
Effective December 10, 2004: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 745-A alleged that Leslie Curtis Marquoit of Danville, California, was subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code sections 6775 (c) and (f) for negligence in the practice of engineering and aiding and abetting Stephen Montel in the unlicensed practice of civil engineering.

At a hearing before an administrative law judge on March 15, 2004, and July 20, 2004, it was found that Marquoit assisted Stephen Montel, an unlicensed individual, to unlawfully engage in the work reserved for licensed professional engineers. Montel entered into a contractual agreement with owners of a restaurant to prepare construction plans for a utility building attached to the restaurant. Montel traveled to the site to view it, take measurements, and prepare the drawings. He submitted his plans to the City of Newark. The plans were rejected due to failures or defects in the construction plans. In a letter dated May 30, 2001, Montel was directed to correct the original plans and to return three copies of the documents along with written responses to the inquiries from the inspection department. The building inspector's letter detailed more than a dozen points of reference in the plans that required correction to comply with state and local building requirements. Montel resubmitted the plans with few or no changes. This second set of drawings was issued a second rejection letter, dated September 12, 2001, pertaining to the substandard quality of the construction plans. Again, Montel resubmitted the plans with few or no changes. The third rejection notice, on November 20, 2001, informed Montel that a qualified architect or civil/structural engineer would be required to sign and stamp the construction documents, which had to be competently and legibly prepared. The letter set out specific instructions that had to be adhered to in revising and correcting the construction plans that Montel had submitted. Within a few weeks, Montel returned to the Newark City Building Department with supposedly revised construction plans, which had Marquoit's professional stamp and signature. The Building Official for the City of Newark, wrote a letter to Montel dated December 11, 2001, advising that the fourth code compliance review for the plans would not result in approval and directed that the restaurant owners must directly hire an architect or engineer to prepare the drawings. Because Marquoit's name appeared on the fourth submittal, the Building Official sent a copy of the letter to him, as well as to the Board. The Building Official also filed a formal complaint with the Board regarding Marquoit.

At the hearing, the weight of the evidence established that Marquoit did not physically draw, write, or execute the fourth set of plans. He did little more than remove or erase Montel's name and affix his signature and professional stamp to the fourth set of plans. The construction plans he signed and sealed were incomplete and illegible. Effective December 10, 2004, the Board ordered Marquoit's license revoked but stayed the revocation for three years, during which time he is on probation subject to terms and conditions including that, within two years of the effective date, he must complete and pass two Board-approved college-level courses as well as a Board-approved class in professional ethics. He also must take and pass the Seismic Principles examination.


MARSHALL, CRAIG L.
Civil Engineer C 45951
Accusation 657-A
Effective May 10, 1999: Revoked, revocation stayed; 15-day suspension, two years on probation
Effective August 28, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed, probation extended for one year
Effective May 24, 2002: Probationary conditions extended until December 31, 2002

The Board has taken disciplinary action against Civil Engineer license C 45951 issued to Craig L. Marshall of Las Vegas, Nevada for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b). In a stipulated decision and order, Marshall admitted he is subject to disciplinary action for negligence and deceit in the practice of professional engineering.

In 1997, Marshall entered into a stipulation with the Utah Licensing Department admitting to critical engineering problems concerning his work on a 1993 project in Salt Lake City.

In 1998, the Nevada State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors initiated an action against Marshall's Nevada license for performing engineering work without his employer's consent. During the hearing and under oath, Marshall initially represented that he did not have a license to practice engineering in California. He later retracted this false statement during the hearing.

As of May 10, 1999, Marshall's California license is revoked, but revocation is stayed and Marshall is on probation for two years with terms and conditions, including the requirement that he obey all laws including full compliance with the disciplinary orders of the Utah and Nevada licensing agencies. His license is suspended for fifteen days and he is required to complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, a college-level course related to the area of engineering work described in the Utah Licensing Department Decision. He is also required to successfully complete a Board-approved course in professional ethics and take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination.

In October 1999, the Board petitioned to revoke Marshall's probation for failure to renew his license and failure to obey several of the probationary conditions. He did not observe the suspension order, did not complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, did not reimburse the Board for investigative and enforcement costs, did not provide evidence that he has complied with the Utah and Nevada disciplinary orders, and did not provide evidence of sending a copy of the Board's Decision and Order to everyone with whom he had an engineering-related contractual or employment relationship. At the hearing on the petition to revoke probation, Marshall stated he did not receive actual notice of the effective date of the Stipulation (May 10, 1999) until late September 1999. However, his failure to receive a copy of the stipulation and other correspondence from the Board resulted from his own failure to formally notify the Board of a change of address of record as required by Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 412. In addition, Marshall took no action to comply with his probationary terms between the date he was notified and the date of the hearing. Effective August 28, 2000, Marshall's prior probation and his civil engineer license number C 45951 were revoked. However, the revocations were stayed and probation was extended for one year under the previous terms and conditions, with the addition of a fifteen-day suspension of his license (August 28 - September 12, 2000). Marshall provided proof to the Board that he complied with the Utah and Nevada disciplinary orders. He must complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, one college-level course, approved in advance by the Board, specifically related to the area of engineering work described in the Utah Licensing Department decision. He must reimburse the Board for investigative and enforcement costs of $875. Among other conditions, Marshall must, by September 27, 2000, send evidence to the Board that he has provided a copy of the Board's decision to all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship involving the practice of professional engineering in California.

Effective May 24, 2002, the Board issued a Decision in the Matter of the Second Petition to Revoke Probation against Marshall. It was found that Marshall failed to timely submit an appropriate college-level course for the approval of the Board or its designee and failed to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved college-level course as required by the previously ordered and modified probationary conditions. Marshall had complied with all of the other probationary conditions. The Decision ordered Marshall's Civil Engineer License revoked effective December 31, 2002, unless prior to that date, he completed a Board-approved college-level course and reimbursed the Board $1,792.00 for its investigative and enforcement costs in this matter.


MARTIN, MICHAEL STEPHEN (See also Citation 5071-L)
Land Surveyor L 4598
Accusation 501-A
Effective October 31, 1994: License revoked, stayed; 90-day suspension, five years on probation
Effective March 23, 1998: License revoked, stayed; probation extended two years

The Board has taken disciplinary action against Land Surveyor License L 4598 issued to Michael Stephen Martin. Martin admitted that he was subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8780(a) in that he was guilty of negligence in the practice of land surveying on three separate projects.

This decision, effective October 31, 1994, ordered the revocation of Martin's land surveyor license. The revocation was stayed, and Martin was placed on probation for a period of five years under certain terms and conditions. As a condition of probation, his license was suspended for 90 days beginning on the effective date of the decision and continuing through January 29, 1995. In addition, Martin was required to cause the map related to one of the three projects, which is in the possession of the Placer County Surveyor, to be recorded. Martin was also required, within two years of the effective date of the decision, to successfully complete and pass a course in professional ethics approved in advance by the Board or its designee. Additionally, he was required to provide the Board with proof, within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, that he had notified all clients and employers of the disciplinary action. Another condition of probation required Martin to reimburse the Board in the amount of $6,960 for the costs of its investigation.

Effective March 23, 1998, the probation granted to Michael Stephen Martin of Foresthill, California, in Decision 501-A was revoked and then extended for two additional years until October 31, 2001. His Land Surveyor License L 4598 was also revoked, but revocation was stayed. Martin had been required to complete a course in professional ethics no later than October 31, 1996. He did eventually complete the course, but did not provide the board with evidence of completion until December, 1997. The Board also ordered Martin to reimburse the Board $664.50 for reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement of the original terms of probation.


MASUDA, KEITH DOUGLAS (See also Citation 5045-L)
Land Surveyor L 6819
Civil Engineer C 53439
Accusation 737-A
Effective September 3, 2004: Land Surveyor License revoked, revocation stayed; 90-day actual suspension; four years on probation

Accusation 737-A alleged that Keith Douglas Masuda of Truckee, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Sections 8780 (g) and (d), 8762(b), 8772, 8725, 8726, 8729, and 8792 of the Business and Professions Code. In May of 1991, Masuda contracted to provide a land survey of approximately six acres in Placer County. He set some monuments while conducting the survey and was paid in full but never properly marked those monuments or filed the survey with the county. Furthermore, at the time he entered into the contract for the land survey, he was not licensed as a Land Surveyor, although he operated a business, Masuda Associates, which offered land surveying services. In September 2003, the property owner made a written complaint to the Board that Masuda had not filed a record of survey for the 1991 survey. The complaint was investigated, and, in March 2001, Masuda was contacted by a Board agent who recommended that he clear up the matter by filing a record of survey within 90 days. Masuda agreed to do so but did not until February 2004. He claimed that the record was now through the map checking process and ready to record but still not recorded. He did not provide documentation of this claim.

Effective September 3, 2004, the Board issued a Decision in which Masuda's Land Surveyor License L 6819 was revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and Masuda was placed on probation for four years under certain terms and conditions. The Board suspended Masuda's license for 90 days, and he was ordered to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination within 60 days. Furthermore, during the first two years of probation, Masuda was ordered to complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, three Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the areas of violation. He was ordered to file or record, as appropriate, the required record of survey for the property in question within 30 days of the effective date of the decision and provide the Board with verifiable proof that this has been done. Additionally, Masuda was ordered to pay $7,814 to the Board for the reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement.


McCORKLE, CHARLES
Civil Engineer C 26589
Accusation 695-A
Effective February 11, 2001: LICENSE SURRENDERED

The Board issued a Decision and Order in which McCorkle stipulated to surrender his license. In addition, McCorkle agreed not to reapply for licensure as an engineer or surveyor in California for at least three years from the effective date of the surrender. McCorkle will have to meet all current requirements if he reapplies for licensure, including filing a current application, meeting all current education requirements, and taking and passing any and all written examinations required of new applicants. Accusation 695-A alleged that Charles Patton McCorkle of San Francisco entered into a written contract with a consumer to perform necessary engineering required by the City of Napa, and compliance with the Building Department, so the consumer would gain approval by the City to obtain a permit for building a house.

McCorkle signed and affixed his stamp to two separate sets of plans and submitted them to the City of Napa Building Department in order to obtain a permit for building the house. The plans were returned to McCorkle because they were insufficient for issuance of a building permit. The two sets of plans submitted to the City of Napa Building Department lacked necessary structural details for construction of the house. This allegedly constitutes negligence and incompetence. McCorkle admitted to the truth of the charges.


McGUIRE, EARL (Click here for Accusation 738-A)
Civil Engineer C 16463
Accusation 648-A
Effective January 19, 1999: Revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 648-A alleges that Earl McGuire of Camino, California, was negligent in preparation of the design drawings for a cabin remodel project because his work did not comply with applicable building code requirements or acceptable standards of engineering practice. There were discrepancies between his calculations and the drawings.

McGuire admitted to the charges and stipulated to the Board's decision. Effective January 19, 1999, his license was revoked, but revocation was stayed and McGuire was placed on probation for three years. While on probation, he is required to complete three college engineering courses and a course in professional ethics. He must pass the California Laws and Board Rules exam. He was also ordered to reimburse the Board $14,437.50 for investigative and enforcement costs and to pay the homeowner $1,025.


McGUIRE, EARL (Click here for Accusation 648-A)
Civil Engineer C 16463
Accusation 738-A
Effective May 23, 2003: Revoked, revocation stayed; 15-day suspension; five years on probation

Disciplinary action has been taken against Earl Fox McGuire, Civil Engineer License C 16463, for deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract in his professional engineering practice, violations of Business and Professions Code §§6775(b) and (d). In a stipulated settlement agreement adopted by the Board as its decision in this matter, McGuire admitted that he committed deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation by falsely representing to his employees that his civil engineering firm, Earl McGuire Consulting, would participate in a health and insurance plan allowing his employees group medical insurance should they pay the premiums, failing to inform his employees that the medical insurance had been canceled, and taking payroll deductions from his employees for health and supplemental insurance coverage even after the coverage was canceled. McGuire also admitted that he breached and violated his contracts with his employees to provide health and supplemental coverage.

In its decision, effective May 23, 2003, the Board ordered McGuire's Civil Engineer License revoked. However, that revocation was stayed, and McGuire was placed on probation for five years upon certain terms and conditions. One condition orders McGuire's license suspended for 15 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Other conditions required McGuire to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved advanced professional ethics course and to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. McGuire is also required to provide proof to the Board that he has paid restitution to his employees for the insurance premiums that were deducted from their paychecks after the cancellation of the insurance coverage and to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in this matter in the amount of $2,500.00.


McKINNEY, EARL F.
Mechanical Engineer M 18456
Accusation 696-A
Effective August 23, 2002: License suspended, suspension stayed; two years on probation

Accusation 715-A alleged that Earl F. McKinney had subjected his Mechanical Engineer License M 18456 to disciplinary action pursuant to Business and Professions Code §141 in that he has been disciplined by the professional engineering licensing boards in numerous other states for actions which would constitute violations of the Business and Professions Code if committed in California. The Accusation also alleged the McKinney signed and stamped engineering documents during a period in which his license was expired due to nonpayment of renewal fees, in violation of Business and Professions Code §§6775(h), 6733, and 6787(e). It was further alleged that McKinney practiced electrical engineering without legal authority by preparing electrical engineering drawings without legal authority, in violation of Business and Professions Code §§6775(h) and 6730. McKinney, as a Licensed Mechanical Engineer, is not authorized to practice electrical engineering.

Effective August 23, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, McKinney admitted that his Mechanical Engineer license was subject to disciplinary action in California based on the disciplinary actions taken by other states. McKinney also admitted that he signed and stamped engineering documents while his license was expired. Furthermore, McKinney admitted that he signed and stamped electrical engineering plans as a Mechanical Engineer and that he was not legally authorized to sign and stamp electrical engineering documents since he is not licensed in California as an Electrical Engineer. In mitigation, McKinney advised that, at the time he signed and stamped the electrical engineering plans, he believed they were incidental to the overall project, and, therefore, and Electrical Engineer's stamp was not required. McKinney agreed that he had subjected his Mechanical Engineer license to discipline based on these violations. In this decision, the Board ordered McKinney's license suspended for two years; however that suspension was stayed, and McKinney was placed on probation for a period of two years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of these conditions required McKinney to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. McKinney is also required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $9,458.00. Additionally, McKinney is required to advise the Board of any disciplinary action taken against his professional engineer licenses in other states and jurisdictions.


McLAUGHLIN, TIMOTHY
Civil Engineer C 43690
Accusation 626-A
Effective November 3, 1997: REVOKED

The Board has revoked the civil engineering license C 43690 of Timothy McLaughlin of Collierville, Tennessee, effective November 3, 1997. In December of 1994, McLaughlin contracted with homeowners in Palo Alto, California to prepare civil engineering plans, related calculations and perform structural design services for an addition to their existing residence and a new garage. The contract called for McLaughlin to review the structure on site, prepare structural calculations, lay out and draw the foundation plan, second floor framing plan and roof framing plan, design and draft all structural details, prepare general structural notes and respond to structural plan checks as needed. The plans were to be completed by early January, but the date was pushed back several times by McLaughlin until they were finally sent on February 10, 1995. McLaughlin was discharged from the job because his calculations were poorly organized and incomplete, the drawings were incomplete and inaccurate, calculations for the garage were incorrect and the plans did not provide any retaining wall details. McLaughlin did not view the site as required by his agreement. The Board found that McLaughlin's conduct constitutes negligence and ordered his license revoked. In addition, he was ordered to reimburse the Board $4,606.50 for investigation and enforcement costs.


MILLER, DUANE KEITH
Civil Engineer C 29490
Accusation 709-A
Effective October 4, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; two years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 29490, issued to Duane Keith Miller. It was determined that Miller committed negligence in his land surveying practice, in violation of Business and Professions Code §8780(b), on two projects in Shasta County.

It was found that Miller was hired, in 1999, to survey property located in Redding and subdivide it into lots for sale. Miller prepared and filed a Parcel Map for this project. Miller was negligent in his work on this project for failing to accept a corner monument that he located 0.22' (less than 3") from where a prior recorded map indicated it was located; for misidentifying on his map the markings on a monument and failing to check earlier recorded maps to verify the marking; for failing to carefully check his work and that of his field crew; and for failing to fulfill his responsibility to ensure that the information on the map was clear and understandable before he signed and stamped it. Additionally, it was determined that Miller, as the licensee whose stamp and signature appear on the maps, is responsible not only for the accuracy, clarity, and understandability of his own work, but also for that of his field crew and staff.

Furthermore, it was found that Miller was hired, in 1997, to survey property located in Redding, for which he filed maps with the County of Shasta. Miller was negligent in his work on this project for rejecting existing centerline monuments on a street as being out of position without providing substantial information as a basis for that statement and for locating the southern boundary line without using controlling monuments or providing supporting data and an explanation of how he established it. Without this information, anyone relying on Miller's maps would have no way of determining the validity of his opinion and the accuracy of his map.

It its decision, effective October 4, 2002, the Board ordered Miller's Civil Engineer License revoked. However, that revocation was stayed, and Miller was placed on probation for two years upon certain terms and conditions. These conditions included a requirement that Miller successfully complete and pass two Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the areas of violation and the he reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $12,564.50.


NAFFA, IYAD SALEH
Civil Engineer C 52632
Accusation 751-A
Effective February 27, 2004: License revoked; revocation stayed; 15-day actual suspension; three years on probation

Accusation 751-A alleged that Iyad Saleh Naffa, of Saratoga, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code sections 6775 (b), (c), (d), and (g) for fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, negligence, incompetence, and/or breach of contract in the practice of professional engineering, as well as Title 16, California Code of Regulations, Section 412, which provides that a licensee shall notify the Board office of a change of address within thirty days after changing addresses. In August, 2000, Naffa contracted with homeowners in San Jose, California, to provide civil engineering work and a boundary survey for an estimated $8,700. The homeowners paid Naffa $6,000, but he failed to complete the work. The homeowner's numerous attempts to contact Naffa were unsuccessful. His abandonment of the project resulted in the homeowners having to hire another engineer. The homeowners filed a complaint with the Board in December of 2000. In May of 2001, Naffa told the Board that he had notified the clients that he was unable to complete the work and said that he reached an agreement with them to reimburse their funds. No payments or refunds were received as of December of 2003. Attempts to locate Naffa were unsuccessful, as he had moved, leaving no forwarding information. He filed a change of address with the Board on May 1, 2003.

In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, which became effective on February 27, 2004, Naffa admitted the truth of all charges in the accusation and agreed that his license was subject to discipline. Naffa's Civil Engineer License Number C 52632 was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a period of three years with terms and conditions. His license was suspended for fifteen days. Naffa was ordered to complete payment of the balance of the restitution ($3,500) owed to the homeowners within thirty days. Within two years, Naffa must successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics. Within sixty days, he must successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules exam. He must reimburse the Board $7,057.50 for its investigative and enforcement costs within two and one-half years of the effective date of the decision, and, within 30 days, he is required to provide evidence that he has notified every person or entity with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship in the area of professional engineering and/or professional land surveying with a copy of the decision and order of the Board. He may also be required to provide the same notification of each new person or entity with whom he has such a relationship.


NEWMAN, MORTON
Civil Engineer C 10451
Accusation 688-A
Effective July 12, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; 60-day suspension; four years on probation

Accusation 688-A alleged that Morton Newman had subjected his Civil Engineer License C 10451 to disciplinary action for negligence in his practice of civil engineering, in violation of Business and Professions Code §6775(c). It was alleged that Newman entered into an agreement for the structural design of a shopping center to be constructed in Santa Clarita; Newman prepared structural design drawings for five new retail buildings. The Accusation alleged that the structural drawings prepared by Newman were deficient due to internal conflicts, missing details, and misreferenced details, which resulted in constructability problems and delays in construction, and that the structural drawings and calculations contained errors and omissions which caused interruptions in load paths and represented major weaknesses in the buildings' lateral load resisting system.

Effective July 12, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Newman admitted that, while in practice as a professional engineer and preparing structural design and drawing plans for the project, he was guilty of negligence in that a detail for one of the buildings specifies a strap that is not actually manufactured; that a detail for second building contained an incorrect reference; and that a detail for a third building that is referenced for typical footings is actually a roof framing detail. Newman agreed that his Civil Engineer license is subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Newman's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Newman was placed on probation for a period of four years upon certain terms and conditions. One condition ordered Newman's license suspended for 60 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Other conditions required Newman to successfully complete and pass three Board-approved college-level civil engineering courses, a Board-approved professional ethics course, and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Additionally, Newman is required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $4,000.00.


NGUYEN, DINH H. (See also Citation 5078-L)
Civil Engineer C 40210
Accusation 652-A
Effective March 18, 1999: REVOKED
Effective August 20, 2000: Petition for Reinstatement Denied
Effective September 8, 2003: Second Petition for Reinstatement Denied
Effective January 28, 2005: Third Petition for Reinstatement Denied

The Board found Dinh H. Nguyen, of Modesto, California, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) for negligence in the practice of professional engineering. In April 1995, Nguyen, then an employee of Arrowhead Consultants, Inc., prepared a geotechnical investigation of a site in Roseville, California, for a proposed movie theatre, three commercial buildings, and parking lots.

Nguyen's investigation indicated the subsurface condition along the western perimeter of the site had four different soil stratums, when the site actually contained artificial fill and Mehrten Formation. Nguyen failed to detect the bedrock and artificial fill by the five borings in his report. His investigation stated that he drilled 15 feet along the western perimeter. It is questionable whether Nguyen could achieve a depth of 15 feet due to the hard bedrock condition. He inaccurately stated in his investigation that the site was underlain by young alluvium or floodplain deposits. Additionally, he failed to provide or include design criteria for lateral resistance in his foundation; failed to present the numerical moisture contents he allegedly obtained from the borings, a failure beneath the standard of care; he failed to indicate the numerical blow counts on the boring logs; and he failed to clearly approximate the lithology changes on the logs or show where the samples were taken. Nguyen's investigation did not recommend a capillary moisture break under the slabs and he improperly recommended wetting the silty sand soil during grading to three percent over the optimum. He improperly ran a sieve analysis on a sample from zero to ten feet and failed to state which boring the sample was taken from. Finally, he failed to perform strength tests or obtain blow counts, without which his determination of bearing capacity cannot be substantiated.

The Board found that Nguyen's testimony displayed a lack of knowledge of basic engineering, an inability to correctly interpret data, and a lack of familiarity with the use of reference materials. Further, it found that while some lack of education and skill might be resolved by supervised practice and/or remedial education, no probationary terms could correct the dishonesty and misrepresentations which he apparently believed to be his prerogative because he had an engineering license.

Effective March 18, 1999, Nguyen's license was revoked and he was ordered to pay $5,581.20 to the Board for costs of investigation in the matter and was also ordered to pay $2,400 of the costs of the interpreter in the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings. In addition, a copy of the Decision was to be provided by the Board to Nguyen's employer at the time of the hearing, the California Department of Transportation.

On June 1, 2000, the Board heard Nguyen's petition for reinstatement of his license. He did not demonstrate that he is competent to practice engineering safely in this state. He showed no remorse and lacks an understanding of the significance of the decision revoking his license. He denies he was negligent in his soil analysis on the Century Theater Project, arguing that he should not have been disciplined because "nobody was hurt or injured." However, it was fortuitous that his errors were discovered prior to any construction or the public may have been in danger as a result of improper construction for the existing conditions on the site. The Board believes that Nguyen does not recognize his own limitations and that his recalcitrance in acknowledging the reasons for the revocation of his license is interfering with his rehabilitation. The Board believes Nguyen should, at a minimum, take some college courses to improve his knowledge and ability and should work under the responsible charge of a competent licensed engineer prior to being considered for reinstatement. The petition for reinstatement was denied as of August 30, 2000.

On June 27, 2003, the Board heard Nguyen's second petition for reinstatement of his license. At the hearing, Nguyen failed to demonstrate that he is rehabilitated; he does not accept responsibility for his actions that caused his license to be revoked and even denies any wrongdoing. Nguyen further failed to demonstrate that he fully understands what he did wrong on the project that caused the revocation of his license nor did he demonstrate that he had undertaken the necessary education to become competent in that area of engineering. Additionally, Nguyen failed to demonstrate that, during the time since the revocation of his license, he has maintained his engineering skills by taking classes. Furthermore, after the revocation of his license, Nguyen continued to use the letters "C.E." after his name even though he was no longer legally authorized to use them and then testified to the Board at the hearing that those letters meant "Construction Estimator." As a result of his misleading and false testimony, Nguyen was not a credible witness. Based on all of this, effective September 8, 2003, the Board denied Nguyen's Second Petition for Reinstatement. Nguyen's license remains revoked.

On July 20, 2004, Nguyen submitted a letter to the Board stating he was filing a petition to reinstate his license based on three reasons: "1) No structure was damaged by my Soil Report prepared for that area in Roseville, CA. 2) All accusations and evidence are false and not accurate. 3) I did a lot of things to rehab. myself and improve myself the last four years." The Board treated the letter as a third Petition for Reinstatement, and it was scheduled for hearing. The day before the scheduled hearing, the Board received a fax from Nguyen requesting a continuance due to illness and his inability to find legal representation. The Administrative Law Judge found Nguyen's absence from the hearing to be without good cause, and the Board reviewed the evidence and concluded that Nguyen failed to demonstrate that his petition should be granted, noting that Nguyen still does not acknowledge any responsibility or accept the Board's findings relating to the revocation of his license and that he continues to request new hearings on matters already conclusively determined. Because Nguyen did not provide any real evidence of rehabilitation, the Board denied his petition, effective January 28, 2005.


NIMS, JAMES FRANKLYN
Civil Engineer C 33925
Accusation 729-A
Effective August 23, 2002: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against James Franklyn Nims, Civil Engineer License C 33925, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §141, based on disciplinary action taken against Nims by the Washington State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors.

In July 2000, the Washington Board issued a decision revoking Nims' professional engineer license in Washington. The Washington Board found that Nims performed engineering design services for numerous on-site wastewater treatment systems and on-site sewage disposal systems and that his designs failed to meet the minimum standards of the state and county Departments of Health regulations. These actions by Nims, if committed in California, would constitute negligence and incompetence in his civil engineering practice, in violation of Business and Professions Code §6775(c).

Nims failed to appear at a hearing on the charges brought against him in California, even after receiving notice of the date and time of the hearing. Therefore, the Board issued a Default Decision and Order in this matter. This decision ordered Nims' California Civil Engineer License revoked, effective August 23, 2002.


NIZAM-ALDINE, ZUHAYR TOUFIC, also known as NIZAMUDDIN, ZUHAYR; ALDINE, ZUHAYRE; and ALDINE, ZACK
Civil Engineer C 28551
Geotechnical Engineer GE 644
Accusation 747-A
Effective August 22, 2004: Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Licenses REVOKED

In its Decision, which became effective on August 22, 2004, the Board found Zuhayr Toufic Nizam-Aldine (a.k.a. Zuhayr Nizamuddin, Zuhayr Aldine, and Zack Aldine), of Globe Engineering of San Francisco, California, in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6775(b) for deceit, misrepresentation, and/or fraud; 6775(d) for breach or violation of contract by failing to perform the tasks promised by the contract and report scope of work; and 6775(c) for negligence or incompetence in his practice. The Board found that between April of 1998 and August of 2001, on seven separate projects, Nizam-Aldine signed and certified, under his Geotechnical Engineer License No. GE 644, a §Soil/Geotechnical Report§ pertaining to each site. On each of the seven projects, Nizam-Aldine contracted to provide field investigations including surface visual inspections and exploratory subsurface borings, laboratory testing to assess engineering properties of soil samples, and an engineering analysis of appropriate foundation types and depths, including supporting capacities for design. However, no subsurface borings were performed; no sample testing was performed; and no refraction surveys were performed. The soils reported were not necessarily the soils present on the sites, and the strength test results described did not use the terms typically used to describe to types of soils noted

Based on these findings, the Board determined that Nizam-Aldine §did not demonstrate that he understands the serious nature of his misconduct. There is no assurance that the misconduct will not occur again.§ Effective August 22, 2004, Nizam-Aldine's Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Licenses, Numbers C 28551 and GE 644, were revoked. Nizam-Aldine was ordered to pay $43,778.50 to the Board in reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement of the matter.


NOLTEN, RODDY J.
Civil Engineer C 24369
Accusation 449-A
Effective March 15, 1992: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineering License C 24369, issued to Roddy Juul Nolten for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b).

It was determined that Nolten prepared structural calculations and drawings for buildings in Sacramento County which were negligent and incompetent.

Pursuant to the Board's default decision, effective March 15, 1992, Nolten's civil engineering license was revoked.


OMIDVAR, MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN
Civil Engineer C 42729
Accusation 632-A
Effective November 3, 1997: REVOKED

The Board issued a Default Decision and Order, effective November 3, 1997, revoking Mohammad Hossein Omidvar's civil engineer license C 42729. The Board found Omidvar's license subject to discipline under Business and Professions Code Section 6775 because (1) he had been convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a licensed professional engineer and (2) the Board found him guilty of deceit, misrepresentation, violation of contract, fraud, negligence or incompetence in his practice. On April 9, 1996, Omidvar was convicted before the San Diego County Municipal Court in case #CD116012. He pled guilty to diversion of construction funds in excess of $1,000 in violation of California Penal Code Section 484(b), a felony. Omidvar intentionally and fraudulently diverted construction funds through a scheme of kickbacks and false receipts from contractors regarding two related projects. In October of 1992, Omidvar contracted to manage two projects for a client: the remodeling of a residence in La Jolla, California and the building of an apartment complex in Chula Vista for the same person. Omidvar had earlier entered into a verbal contract to re-engineer the remodeling plans for the residence and the construction plans for the apartment in order to save money. Omidvar breached the written construction management contract by abandoning both projects before they were completed and absconding with the monies paid him. He breached the oral contract for structural redesign of the apartment complex by not preparing or submitting a structural redesign. Despite not having provided all the services agreed upon in the verbal contract, Omidvar billed his client for the services and received payment for them.


OZOA, JOSEPH N.
Civil Engineer C 27219
Accusation 640-A
Effective May 10, 1999: LICENSE SURRENDERED

Accusation 640-A alleges that Joseph N. Ozoa of Modesto, California, was negligent or incompetent in the practice of professional engineering in respect to three projects. The first project was for a proposed fast food restaurant. In 1997, Ozoa prepared and signed plans and structural calculations for the restaurant and submitted the plans for approval. Ozoa failed to check the adequacy of double rafters to support additional weight of a new roof-mounted cooler unit and exhaust fan, and the structural framing plan failed to include several necessary details.

Ozoa undertook a Quick-Lube project in early 1996. He prepared plans and structural calculations for the project, signed and submitted them for approval. The plans and calculations were deficient in many respects, including missing structural calculations for the concrete block walls connecting to the roof, roof diaphragm, how the mansard roof resists gravity loads, earthquake loads, and wind loads. On the concrete block shear walls, the structural calculations were incomplete. The plans contained other omissions and inconsistencies.

From September 1996 through February 1997, Ozoa submitted seven sets of plans and calculations for a motel project to the Ceres Public Works Department for approval. There were errors and/or omissions on the plans and calculations submitted.

Ozoa stipulated to surrender his license and agreed not to reapply for licensure as an engineer or surveyor in California for at least three years from the effective date of the surrender. In addition to meeting all requirements of an original applicant, Ozoa's application will not be considered by the Board until Ozoa pays the Board $18,000 for costs of investigation and prosecution of this disciplinary action.


PARKER, WARREN H.
Civil Engineer C 17389
Accusation 658-A
Effective September 19, 2003: License revoked, revocation stayed; 90-day suspension; five years on probation

Accusation 658-A alleged that Warren H. Parker had subjected his Civil Engineer License C 17389 to disciplinary action for negligence or incompetence and breach of contract in his practice of civil engineering, in violation of Business and Professions Code §§6775(c) and (d). It was alleged that Parker, in 1997, had signed and sealed structural drawings and calculations for a three-story residential structure in El Dorado County. The County Building Department returned the drawings and calculations with a list of required corrections. Parker prepared a second set of calculations in response to the plan check corrections required by the County. The County Building Department returned the second set with a list of required plan check corrections. In response, Parker prepared a third set of calculations. It was alleged that the first set of drawings showed the vertical reinforcing steel on the wrong side of the retaining wall, while the computer-generated calculations showed the vertical reinforcing placed on the retained earth side of the wall. Additionally, it was alleged that, in the second set of calculations, the weight of the floors were ignored when determining the total lateral load on the structure; the actual structure weight was 49% higher than Parker had calculated; furthermore, calculations were either not provided for the shear walls, did not include the lateral wind loads for the shear walls for loads in both the longitudinal and transverse directions, or were incorrectly calculated, causing many of the shear walls to be overstressed. Furthermore, it was alleged that, in the third set of calculations, in addition to errors similar to those in the second set, the lateral shear transfer calculations and details, the drag load calculations and details, and the overturning calculations and details for the shear walls were not done.

Effective September 19, 2003, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Parker admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation. Parker also agreed that his Civil Engineer license is subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Parker's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Parker was placed on probation for a period of five years upon certain terms and conditions. One condition ordered Parker's Civil Engineer license suspended for 90 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Some of the other conditions required Parker to successfully complete and pass three Board-approved college-level civil engineering courses, the Seismic Principles and Engineering Surveying examinations, a Board-approved professional ethics course, and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Additionally, during the period of probation, Parker is permitted to practice structural engineering only under the monitoring of a structural engineer or civil engineer who specializes in structural engineering, approved by the Board; Parker is still considered to be in responsible charge of any structural engineering work he performs. Furthermore, Parker is required to provide proof to the Board that he has paid restitution to the consumers in the amount of $260.00 and to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $3,518.30.


PINNEY, JEROME (See also Accusation 489-A)
Civil Engineer C 27241
Accusation 342-A
Effective August 31, 1989: 15-day suspension, two years on probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 27241, issued to Jerome Pinney. Pinney was hired to locate a property line. He did not request to see the grant deed or title insurance policy before placing his boundary markers and consequently relied on incorrect information when placing his markers. He failed to file certain corner records with the County of San Diego in a timely manner. Most of those corner records have since been filed, and the remaining corner records were soon to be filed. Based upon these findings, it was determined that Pinney had violated Section 8780(a) of the Business and Professions Code. His license was suspended for 15 days, effective August 31, 1989, and he was placed on probation for two years.


PINNEY, JEROME (See also Accusation 342-A)
Civil Engineer C 27241
Accusation 489-A
Effective August 16, 1993: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 27241, issued to Jerome M. Pinney, for failure to file records of survey and corner records, violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8780(c), 8773, and 8762, and for violation of contract in the practice of civil engineering, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b).

It was determined that Pinney failed to file records of survey or corner records for 15 separate monument locations in San Diego County, five of which had been the subject of previous disciplinary action taken against him. Pinney failed to file the required records within the 90 days of setting a monument or completed a survey as required by law. He did not submit a letter to the County Surveyor requesting an extension of time as provided for in the law. Additionally, it was determined that Pinney violated two separate contracts to provide civil engineering services.

Pinney was previously disciplined by the Board (see Accusation 342-A) for failure to file corner records in a timely manner as required by the professional land surveyors Act. At the 1989 hearing on the matter, he had represented that he had or would soon file the corner records in question. Subsequent investigation revealed that Pinney had failed to file the corner records that were the subject of the previous disciplinary action, contrary to the representations he had made.

In its Decision in the Matter of Accusation 489-A, effective August 16, 1993, the Board ordered Pinney's civil engineer license revoked.


PIZZINI, VAL EUGENE
Civil Engineer C 29603
Accusation 743-A
Effective December 12, 2003: License revoked; revocation stayed; 30-day actual suspension; three years on probation

Accusation 743-A alleged that Val Eugene Pizzini, of Santa Rosa, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Section 6775(c) for negligence and incompetence and failure to meet the minimum standards of care required by the practice of professional engineering. In August of 1996, Pizzini submitted a plan and engineering design and calculations to the City of Napa for a building permit for a one- and two-story office building project in Napa. His work went through four plan checks by the City of Napa before a building permit was issued in June of 1998. There were six separate items that did not meet minimum standards, including four which created overstressed conditions, one that resulted in an over-designed wall, and one which did not take into account the weight of a wall above a header in a two-story section of the building. In February of 2001, Pizzini submitted a plan to the City of Napa for a single family, one-story residential remodel. Three plan checks were required before the design calculations and plans submitted were approved. Pizzini's original design contained overstressed rafters for the garage; the new roof beam in the garage calculated by Pizzini was not heavy enough for the loads it had to carry; and the increased ridge size with higher loads required that a post be added to the original design for the exterior wall in order to adequately support the end of the ridge beam. Also in February of 2001, Pizzini submitted a plan and engineering design and calculations to the City of Napa for a building permit for a new two-story custom single family residence. This required three plan checks and contained seven separate items requiring correction.

In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, which became effective on December 12, 2003, Pizzini agreed, for the purpose of resolving the Accusation, that at an administrative hearing, the Board could establish a case for the charges and gave up his right to contest the charges. He agreed that his license is subject to discipline. His civil engineer license was revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and Pizzini was placed on probation for three years with certain terms and conditions, including an actual suspension of his license for thirty days. Within 60 days of the effective date, he must take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination administered by the Board. He must complete and pass a Board-approved class in professional ethics within two years. Within thirty days, he was required to provide evidence, including names and business addresses, that he provided all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship relating to professional engineering with a copy of the decision and order of the Board. Further probationary conditions included the requirement that Pizzini take and pass two Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation. He must also reimburse the Board the amount of $5,061.39 within two and one half years of the effective date for its investigative and prosecution costs.


POND, STANLEY JOSEPH
Land Surveyor L 4113
Accusation 558-A
Effective February 7, 1994: REVOKED

Disciplinary action has been taken against the Land Surveyor License L 4113 issued to Stanley Joseph Pond for breach of contract in the practice of land surveying, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 8780(f).

It was determined that Pond contracted to prepare a tentative tract map, a final tract map, and a condominium plan for $3,000. Pond was paid an $800 retainer fee but never prepared the maps or the plan. Pond subsequently refunded $200 to the consumer but failed to complete the project or refund the remaining $600, even after repeated promises to do so.

On January 7, 1994, the Board issued a Default Decision which revoked Pond's land surveyor license, effective February 7, 1994.


PORTER, GENE S.
Civil Engineer C 15182
Accusation 678-A
Effective June 30, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation, 30 days actual suspension

In a stipulated settlement, Gene S. Porter, of Sacramento, admitted the truth of the following allegations contained in Accusation 678-A. In June, 1995, Porter agreed to perform professional engineering services for a Sacramento organization. This included field investigation and analysis of existing roof framing to determine framing problems causing roof leaks, analysis of roof framing and field work to determine necessary roof repairs, preparation of repair details for roof framing, periodic observation of contractor repairs for compliance with the repair plan, and representation of the organization in obtaining a building permit. In August 1995, Porter completed his investigation and analysis and met with the contractor to review the roof repair plan and framing repairs. Work began on the project in September. During September and October, Porter performed site inspections eight times at the job site. Porter was negligent in the practice of professional engineering because in his field investigation, analysis and preparation of repair details, he assumed that all ceiling joists were oriented in the same direction as the roof rafters. In parts of the structure, the ceiling joists were oriented perpendicular to the roof rafters. When the repair work began, during the inspections Porter purportedly made in September and October 1995, he failed to observe three overstressed original 2 x 4 rafter tails, and failed to make any appropriate changes to his roof repair plan in light of conditions which were then observable.

In the stipulated decision and order, Porter's license was revoked but the revocation was stayed and probation was ordered for three years under certain terms and conditions, including a 30-day suspension of his civil engineer license beginning June 30, 2000. He is required to complete and pass a minimum of one college-level course specifically related to the area of violation within the first two years of probation. Within 60 days of the effective date, he was required to complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, reimburse the Board $2,000 for its costs of investigation and prosecution of the case, and pay the clients involved $1,450 in restitution. Porter was also required, within 30 days of the date of the decision, to provide a copy of the Board's decision and order to every person or entity with whom he currently had a contractual or employment relationship involving professional engineering and professional land surveying, and to provide the Board a list with the name and business address of each person or entity required to be notified.


PRETZINGER, RICHARD THOMAS JR. (Click here to see related information regarding Citation 5036-L and here to see Accusation 752-A)
Land Surveyor L 7113
Accusation 637-A
Effective January 18, 2000: Accusation withdrawn; Citation 5036-L issued

Effective January 18, 2000, Accusation 637-A against Richard Thomas Pretzinger, Jr. was withdrawn. A citation will be issued reflecting Pretzinger's admission that he failed to file a Record of Survey within 90 days of having set survey monuments and failed to notify the County Surveyor in writing that he could not comply with the 90-day requirement for filing.


PRETZINGER, RICHARD THOMAS JR. (Click here to see related information regarding Citation 5036-L and here to see Accusation 637-A)
Land Surveyor L 7113
Accusation 752-A
Effective March 20, 2006: License revoked, revocation stayed; two years on probation

Accusation 752-A alleged that Richard Thomas Pretzinger, Jr., had subjected his Land Surveyor license to disciplinary action for negligence or incompetence as well as unprofessional conduct in that he failed to file a Record of Survey or Corner Record within 90 days of setting monuments or finishing the survey on 42 separate projects and failed to resubmit a Record of Survey or Corner Record to the County Surveyor within 60 days of the survey being returned for correction on 6 separate projects.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Board issued a decision ordering Pretzinger's license was revoked, but revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for two years under terms and conditions. Pretzinger was order to reimburse the Board its costs of investigation and enforcement in the amount of $11,117.50; successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics; successfully complete and pass a Board-approved college-level course specifically related to government regulation and administration; and file or record the required records with the proper governmental agency within 90 days of the effective date of the decision.Following an evidentiary hearing, the Board issued a decision ordering Pretzinger's license was revoked, but revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for two years under terms and conditions. Pretzinger was order to reimburse the Board its costs of investigation and enforcement in the amount of $11,117.50; successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics; successfully complete and pass a Board-approved college-level course specifically related to government regulation and administration; and file or record the required records with the proper governmental agency within 90 days of the effective date of the decision.


PRIVETT, RYAN KELLY
Civil Engineer C 59372
Accusation 786-A
Effective April 14, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 786-A alleged that Ryan Kelly Privett was negligent in his practice of civil/structural engineering, in that he performed construction testing and inspection for a homeowner in Lodi, California, who wanted to ensure that his house, which had a wood shake roof, could support a new concrete tile roof. It was alleged that Privett issued a report which stated that the existing structural roof system was sufficient for the application of the concrete roofing tiles; the report was provided to the roofing contractor and the homeowner. The Accusation further alleged that, a month after the house was reroofed with concrete roofing tile, the homeowner first noticed that his roof was sagging; it was determined that the roof was not structurally adequate to support a lightweight tile roof load per the California Building Code.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Privett admitted to negligence by failing to ascertain whether the existing roof framing was constructed per the requirements of the Uniform Building Code "conventional construction" provisions; by failing to verify the condition of the existing framing materials and their connections; by failing to make notes or calculations for member connections, include calculations for any member stresses or deflections under the new roofing load; and relied upon incomplete field notes from his agent. The Board ordered Privett's license revoked, but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for three years on certain terms and conditions, including restitution to the homeowner in the amount of $22,375; reimbursement of the Board's investigative and enforcement costs of $5,071; and successful completion and passing of a course in professionalism and ethics for engineers, approved in advance by the Board. He was also ordered to complete and pass two Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the areas of violation.


RAYBACK, MARK ERIC
Civil Engineer C 52723
Accusation 783-A
Effective June 9, 2006: License revoked, revocation stayed; two years on probation

Accusation 783-A alleged that Mark Eric Rayback was negligent in his practice of civil/structural engineering. It was alleged that Rayback was hired to prepare a structure adequacy report for proposed re-roofing of a home using lightweight tile; Rayback performed a cursory inspection and assessment of the home in April 2000 but did not inspect the attic area; he then prepared a report that was used by the roofing contractor to obtain a permit. The contractor re-roofed the home using lightweight tile, which was much heavier than the prior wood shakes. In May 2002, the homeowners noticed problems with the re-roofing, including inside rafters bowing and a crack in the dining room ceiling. It was alleged that despite Rayback's engineering report to the contrary, the existing home was not structurally adequate to support a lightweight tile roof load per the California Building Code; the homeowners incurred numerous expenses including engineering and legal fees, in an attempt to correct the structural defects caused by their reliance on Rayback's negligent engineering report.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Decision, Rayback admitted he is subject to disciplinary action for providing negligent engineering services to the homeowners and failing to perform the minimum tasks required for the re-roofing project and that he was negligent in determining that the existing frame was adequate to support the increased weight from the lightweight roofing tile. The Board ordered Rayback's license revoked, but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for two years upon certain terms and conditions including completion of a Board-approved college-level civil engineering course. He must also provide proof that he has paid restitution in the amount of $15,931 to the homeowner. He must reimburse the Board for investigative and enforcement costs of $4,950.50 and must successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination as administered by the Board.


READER, MARK S.
Civil Engineer C 44917
Accusation 698-A
Effective April 5, 2002: License suspended, suspension stayed; two years on probation

Accusation 698-A alleged that Mark S. Reader, Civil Engineer License C 44917, prepared structural calculations pertaining to the replacement of a wood shake roof with a cement tile roof at a single family residence in Westminster. It also alleged that Reader violated Business and Professions Code §6775(c) for negligence in his civil engineering practice in that the calculations did not address the effects of the increased load from the cement tile roof on the header in the garage.

ffective April 5, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Reader admitted that he prepared structural calculations pertaining to the replacement of a wood shake roof with a cement tile roof. Reader agreed that the charges concerning the garage header, if proven at an administrative hearing, would constitute cause for imposing discipline against his Civil Engineer license. Reader also agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Reader's license suspended for two years; however, that suspension was stayed, and Reader was placed on probation for a period of two years upon certain terms and conditions. Two of the conditions required Reader to pay restitution to the homeowner in the amount of $7,000.00 and to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $5,689.50.


REED, WILLIAM DAVIS
Civil Engineer C 35784
Accusations 560-A & 716-A
Effective December 16, 1994: Revoked, revocation stayed; one-year actual suspension, six years on probation
Effective May 3, 2002: REVOKED

The Board took disciplinary action against Civil Engineer License C 35784, issued to William Davis Reed. The Board determined that Reed violated Business and Professions Code sections 6775(a) and 6775(b) for conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of a professional engineer and for deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud in his professional practice of civil engineering.

The Board found that Reed was convicted of violating Penal Code section 470 (forgery) after pleading nolo contendere. The circumstances of this crime are that during the period from December 1990 through January 1992, Reed willfully, unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously made, altered, forged, and counterfeited certain laboratory reports in writing, and uttered, published, and passed the same, knowing that said documents were false, altered, forged, and counterfeited with intent to cheat and defraud Flory Industries, Geoanalytical Laboratories, the County of Stanislaus, Denair Lumber Company, and the City of Newman; this crime is substantially related to his qualifications, functions, and duties as a licensed professional engineer. It was further found that Reed sent a letter to the Stanislaus County Hazardous Material Division regarding a project known as Flory Industries in which he indicated that various surveying work had been performed by a California licensed surveyor; the report was purportedly signed by a licensed land surveyor. Reed was guilty of deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud in that the licensed land surveyor had not performed any work on the project and did not sign the report Reed submitted.

Based on these violations, the Board ordered Reed's civil engineer license revoked, effective December 16, 1994. However, this revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a minimum of six years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions was actual suspension of Reed's license for one year commencing on December 18, 1994, the effective date of the decision. In addition, following completion of the one-year suspension, Reed was prohibited from engaging in the solo practice of professional engineering and, prior to any employment or other association involving professional engineering, was required to inform the Board and have such association approved by the Board. Reed was also required to inform any such employer or associate of the reason for and the terms and conditions of the probation. This condition shall continue for five years after completion of the one-year suspension or until he has completed five years of approved employment, whichever is greater. Additionally, within 180 days of the effective date of the decision, Reed was required to successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Reed was also required, within two years of the effective date of the decision, to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics. He was also required to comply with all of the terms and conditions of his criminal probation and successfully complete said probation. Reed was required to reimburse the Board $2,700 for investigative costs during the five-year period following the one-year suspension. Reed was also required, within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, to provide proof to the Board that he has notified all clients and employers with whom he has a current or continuing contractual or employment relationship of the offense, findings, and discipline imposed by the Board.

Effective May 3, 2002, the Board issued a decision in the Matter of the Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation, Case No. 716-A, against Reed. It was found that Reed had entered into an oral contract in 1999 to prepare civil engineering plans for the construction of a custom home in San Joaquin County; Reed agreed to provide complete plans that would be adequate to build the house and to satisfy the county requirements for construction. Reed was paid in full but failed to provide the plans as required and demanded further payment from his client. It was also found that the plans Reed did prepare were incomplete, contained errors and discrepancies, and did not meet the requirements of San Joaquin County. Additionally, it was found that Reed had violated the terms and conditions of probation as previously ordered by engaging in the solo practice of civil engineering during the period of probation, by failing to obtain Board approval of his employment or association involving professional engineering, and by failing to obey all laws and regulations during the period of probation. Reed originally chose not to contest the allegations against him and advised the Board that he had no further use for his Civil Engineer License. The Board then issued a Default Decision, based on Reed's notification that he would not contest the charges, and ordered his license revoked. Reed then petitioned the Board for reconsideration of the decision. However, after considering Reed's petition, the Board determined that good cause to change its decision had not been shown. Therefore, the Board's decision and the revocation of Reed's license became effective on May 3, 2002.


RESTIVO, RONALD J.
Land Surveyor L 5013
Accusation 604-A
Effective December 9, 1996: REVOKED

The Board has issued a Default Decision and Order, effective December 9, 1996, revoking Ronald J. Restivo's land surveyor license L 5013. The Board found that Restivo, of Riverside, California, violated Business and Professions Code section 8780(c) by failing to file the legally required record of survey for a survey he completed in September of 1985. The Board found that he also violated Business and Professions Code section 8780(a) for deceit by continued failure to file the required record of survey despite being advised to do so in 1993 by the Joint Professional Practice Committee of the Riverside and San Bernardino Chapters of the California Land Surveyors Association. He was again advised in 1994 and 1995 by Board staff to file the record, and assured staff that he would do so.


ROCKAS, PETER ALECK (Click here to see Accusation 780-A)
Civil Engineer C 8004
Accusation 525-A
Effective May 9, 1994: One-year suspension, stayed; 30-day actual suspension, three years on probation

Disciplinary action has been taken against Civil Engineer License C 8004, issued to Peter Aleck Rockas, for signing and stamping civil engineering plans which had not been prepared by him or under his supervision, a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6775(e) and 6735.

It was determined that Rockas signed and stamped plans for a farm labor housing unit which were submitted to the County of Fresno. These plans had not been prepared by Rockas nor had they been prepared under his responsible charge.

On April 8, 1994, the Board issued a Stipulation, Decision and Order which suspended Rockas' civil engineer license for one year to become effective on May 9, 1994. However, this suspension was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a period of three years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions was a 30-day actual suspension of his license, beginning on May 9, 1994, and continuing through June 8, 1994. Additionally, Rockas was required to maintain a log of all plans, specifications, calculations, and reports which he signs, seals, and stamps. This log was required to contain the name and location of each project and the name and address of the client. Rockas was required to provide a copy of this log to the Board every three months; in addition, the original log was required to be available for review by the Board or its designee upon reasonable notice. In addition, Rockas was required to reimburse the Board for the costs of the investigation in the amount of $3,000 within two years of the effective date of the decision in this matter.


ROCKAS, PETER ALECK (Click here to see Accusation 525-A)
Civil Engineer C 8004
Accusation 780-A
Effective December 16, 2005: LICENSE SURRENDERED

Accusation 780-A alleged that Peter Aleck Rockas was negligent and/or incompetent in the practice of professional engineering in that he prepared civil engineering investigative reports on leaking underground storage tanks in which he incorrectly calculated the groundwater gradients on three separate projects. It was alleged that he delayed submission of the reports to the reviewing agency from three to 11 months, to the detriment and at the expense of his clients. In a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, Rockas surrendered his license to the Board, effective December 16, 2005. As of that date, Rockas may no longer offer or practice civil engineering or land surveying in California.


RODRIQUEZ, LEVI
Civil Engineer C 21639
Accusation 671-A
Effective March 27, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed; five years on probation
Effective October 5, 2001: Revoked, revocation stayed; probation extended one year
Effective June 9, 2006: Revoked, revocation stayed; probation extended one additional year

In 1994, Levi Rodriquez of Costa Mesa, California was hired to determine if the framing system of a residence in Whittier, California was adequate to support a new tile roof, which would be heavier than the existing wood shake roof. He submitted a report concluding the framing system was adequate and, based upon Rodriquez's authorization, the old wood shake roof was removed from the residence and a new tile roof was installed. The tile roof placed too great a load upon the framing system, because the framing system was not appropriate to sustain the weight. In the years following installation of the tile roof, several diagonal kickers supporting the roof failed, a large portion of the roof sagged, cracks developed on the interior and exterior wall surfaces and the garage was in a state of near collapse.

As a result of Rodriquez's erroneous representation that the framing system was suitable and adequate to support a new tile roof, the owners of the residence incurred, or will incur, substantial expense to repair the roof, wall surfaces, garage, and other items of damage. In November of 1999, Rodriquez signed a Stipulation in Settlement and Decision in which he freely and voluntarily admitted the charges of Accusation 671-A and that he had subjected his civil engineer's license to disciplinary actions. Rodriguez agreed to the penalty imposed by the Board.

Effective March 27, 2000, Rodriquez' license was revoked, but the revocation was stayed and Rodriquez was placed on probation for five years under terms and conditions including, but not limited to, requirements that he take two college-level classes related to each violation and a course in professional ethics. He is also required to successfully pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. He was also required, as restitution, to submit in writing, within 15 days of the effective date of the order, the names of three roofing contractors to the property owner. Each of the three must hold valid roofing contractor's licenses with the state of California, shall use only professional full time in-house labor, and have workers' compensation and liability insurance coverage in place at all times, and must be ready, willing and able to replace the roof on the residence. Within 15 days of the property owner's selection of one of the three contractors, Rodriquez shall enter into a contract with the contractor and will be bound to pay the roofing contractor for all services provided for the re-roofing project. Rodriquez must also provide the roofing contractor with a professional engineering report detailing the structural requirements for installation of the new roof. The decision requires Rodriquez to provide evidence to the Board that the roof removal and replacement be completed within 90 days of the effective date of the order.

If the work has not been completed by that date, Rodriquez, as an alternative, is ordered to pay the property owner the sum of $29,675. If probation is violated, the Board may vacate the stay of revocation and reinstate revocation.

Effective October 5, 2001, the Board extended Rodriquez's probation until March 27, 2007, and continued the previously-order probationary conditions because he did not provide the Board with evidence that he had notified all his clients and employers of the offense and did not pay the roofing contractors and suppliers in a timely manner, as he was required to do.

A Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against Levi Rodriquez alleging that he failed to comply with the terms and conditions of probation as previously ordered. It was alleged that Rodriquez failed to obtain Board approval of, take, and pass a second college-level course as required by his probationary conditions. For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Rodriquez admitted the truth of the charges. His probation was extended for one additional year, until March 27, 2008, under certain terms and conditions including obtaining approval of, taking, and passing the college-level course and reimbursing the Board the amount of $730 for investigative and prosecution costs.


ROGERS, JONATHAN DAVID
Civil Engineer C 37114
Geotechnical Engineer GE 2040
Accusation 624-A
As of June 5, 1996: LICENSES SURRENDERED

The Board has adopted the Proposed Decision Pursuant to Stipulation accepting surrender of Jonathan David Rogers' civil engineer and geotechnical engineer licenses. Rogers, of Pleasant Hill, California, voluntarily notified the Board, in a letter hand-delivered to the Board on June 5, 1996, that he falsely stated on his applications for license as a civil engineer and as a geotechnical engineer that he had received a B.S. degree in civil engineering when, in fact, his course of study was in earth sciences-geology. Rogers stipulated that he wished to surrender his certificates of license, and the Board has accepted them. Rogers may no longer practice as a licensed civil engineer in California or use the title soil engineer in California. He cannot reapply for licensure for one year. Rogers will have to meet all current requirements if he reapplies, including filing a current application, meeting all current education requirements, and taking and passing any and all written examinations required of new applicants. In reapplying, he may not use any experience obtained while he was licensed by the Board as qualifying experience. However, he may use experience obtained before he was licensed by the Board or after June 5, 1996, when he notified the Board his applications contained false information.


ROWLAND, RANDOLPH CARR
Civil Engineer C 25019
Accusation 686-A
Effective November 1, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed, three years on probation

Accusation 686-A against Randolph Carr Rowland, Civil Engineer License C 25019, alleged that Rowland violated Business and Professions Code section 6775(b) by negligently and deceitfully practicing civil engineering in Nevada County. Specifically, it alleged that Rowland negligently designed, supervised, and inspected the construction of a septic system. He did not comply with the provisions of the Contingency Plan. The Contingency Plan was required by permit conditions. When the system septic system failed, he designed and installed a temporary by-pass that was not in accordance with the design intent, and failed to effectively repair the system as soon as prudently possible as required by the Contingency Plan.

In the stipulated settlement adopted by the Board, Rowland admitted that he had been negligent in the practice of professional engineering and stipulated that his license was subject to discipline. Effective November 11, 2000, the Board ordered Rowland's Civil Engineer License revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Rowland was placed on probation for three years, with terms and conditions. These conditions included requirements that Rowland complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, one or more Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the area of the violation. He was also required to pay the sum of $4,466 to the Board, a portion of the actual cost of investigating and prosecuting the case.


RUSSELL, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND
Land Surveyor L 5696
Accusation 748-A
Effective February 18, 2005: License revoked; revocation, stayed; 15-day suspension; three years on probation

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Christopher Raymond Russell of Rancho Cordova, California, admitted the truth of each of the charges in Accusation 748-A. In August of 2000, Russell submitted a Record of Survey to the San Mateo County Surveyor's Office for checking. The County returned the map for correction as it did not comply with the Professional Land Surveyors' Act. Russell did not resubmit the map for recordation as required by Business and Professions Code section 8767. In November of 1998, Russell was retained to survey property in Sacramento County and file a Record of Survey. He performed the survey and set markers, but failed to file the Record of Survey as required by his contract and by law. On December 9, 2001, Russell entered a contract to survey property in Auburn, California, and to file a Record of Survey with Placer County within 30 days of the signing of the contract. He performed the survey on January 6, 2002, and set monuments on January 12, 2002. He billed the property owner on June 3, 2002, for $1,250 for "boundary survey, monuments and Record of Survey." The bill was paid in full, but Russell did not make his first submittal to the Placer County Surveyor until August 23, 2002.

Effective February 18, 2005, the Board ordered Russell's license revoked but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for 3 years under terms and conditions including suspension of his license for 15 days. Additionally, Russell must provide all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship related to professional land surveying with a copy of the decision and order of the Board; pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination; complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics; and file and record all required records he has not already caused to be filed and recorded. He must also reimburse the Board $2,250 for its investigative and prosecution costs.


SAGE, ALBERT EUGENE
Land Surveyor L 4269
Accusation 531-A
Effective January 19, 1994: Revoked, revocation stayed; five years on probation
Effective February 5, 1996: REVOKED

Disciplinary action has been taken against the Land Surveyor License L 4269 issued to Albert Eugene Sage for negligence and/or incompetence in the practice of land surveying and failure to file adequate record of survey in a timely manner, violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8780(a), 8780(c), 8762(d), and 8762(e).

It was determined that Sage provided his client with incorrect information regarding the filing of a record of survey and failed to prepare a record of survey which met the standards of practice in Ventura County. Additionally, it was determined that Sage failed to submit the record of survey to the county within the time and manner prescribed by law.

Effective January 19, 1994, Sage's land surveyor license was revoked; however, that revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions was a 120-day actual suspension of his license beginning on January 19, 1994, and continuing through May 19, 1994. Additionally, Sage was required to complete a Board-approved land surveying course within two years of the effective date of the decision. As conditions of probation, Sage was also required to reimburse the Board for the costs of investigation in the amount of $2,100 and was required to make restitution to the injured property owner in the amount of $2,627.

The Board's Decision in the Matter of the Petition to Revoke Probation against Albert Eugene Sage, effective February 5, 1996, vacated the stay of revocation and ordered Sage's license as a land surveyor revoked.

The Board found that Sage failed and refused to comply with the terms and conditions of probation.


SANDE, VASANT TUKARAM
Civil Engineer C32152
Accusation 692-A
Effective February 5, 2001: Revoked, revocation stayed; 30-day actual suspension, three years on probation

The Board has issued a Decision, adopting a stipulated settlement in which Vasant T. Sande agreed that he understands that the charges and allegations in Accusation 692-A constitute cause for imposing discipline upon his license and that he understands that signing the stipulation enables the Board to impose such disciplinary action. In 1996, Sande entered into a verbal contract with a consumer in the County of Orange, agreeing to make a lot line survey to determine if the on-going construction on the consumer's property was within the property boundaries. Sande surveyed the property and set stakes on the property directly adjacent to the channel to show the southwesterly boundary of the property, but did not set monuments or file a record of survey or corner record with the County of Orange concerning the establishment of the southwesterly property boundary. Sande also failed to obtain the correct legal description and the records cited in the legal description for the property. He failed to review the deeds and records of adjacent parcels, failed to perform additional research at the County Surveyor's Office for other Records of Survey, other recorded maps, and the County Surveyors tie books. He did not perform a property line survey consistent with industry standards. Sande also failed to file a Record of Survey after stating a Record of Survey was required following his survey.

The Board revoked Sande's civil engineer license. However, this revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for a period of three years under certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions was a 30-day actual suspension of his license. Additionally, within one year of the effective date of the decision, Sande was required to pay restitution to the consumer in the amount of $2,000. In addition, Sande was required to reimburse the Board for the costs of the investigation in the amount of $6,700 within two years of the effective date of the decision in this matter. Furthermore, Sande was required to successfully complete, within two years of the effective date of the decision, a college-level course, approved in advance by the Board or its designee, specifically related to the area of violation.


SANDSTROM, MARK DURRELL
Land Surveyor L 6847
Accusation 746-A
Effective February 18, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; two years on probation

The Board took disciplinary action against Mark Durrell Sandstrom of Thousand Oaks, California, for negligence and incompetence in the practice of land surveying by falling below the standard of practice. He performed a boundary survey involving the subdivision of a fractional section which was created in 1896 by the United States Surveyor General. Sandstrom prepared and filed a record of survey with the County Surveyor of Los Angeles but failed to include necessary and adequate information on the map. Sandstrom based his survey on Clerk Filed Map No. 1753, performed in 1927 by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. That map ignores the south quarter corner of the fractional section shown on the map. Sandstrom should have referred to a letter by the Cadastral Engineer of the General Survey Office in San Francisco, which pre-dates Map 1753. Sandstrom failed to show the relationship between his south line of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, and failed to show relative information from other survey maps of record, which are in conflict with his procedure and survey.

For purposes of the Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Sandstrom admitted the truth of the allegations. Effective February 18, 2005, his license was revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and Sandstrom was placed on probation for 2 years under certain terms and conditions including passage of the California Laws and Board Rules examination, successful completion of a Board-approved course in professional ethics, and successful completion with a grade of "C" or better, three Board-approved college-level courses.


SANNMANN, ROLAND
Civil Engineer C 25916
Accusation 321-A
Effective May 28, 1990: REVOKED
Effective May 28, 1990: Application for licensure as geotechnical engineer denied
Effective February 14, 1992: Petition for reinstatement of revoked C 25916 denied
Effective February 27, 1995: Petition for reinstatement of revoked C 25916 denied

Disciplinary action was taken against Civil Engineer License C 25916, issued to Roland Sannmann. It was determined that Sannmann falsified his work experience and educational background in his original application for license as a professional engineer, violations of Business and Professions Code section 490 and 6775(c).

In addition, Sannmann made false statements in depositions pertaining to his education; prepared negligent and limited soil investigation reports; and was incompetent in his demonstration of preparation of limited soil investigation reports, violations of Business and Professions Code section 6775(b).

Effective May 28, 1990, Sannmann's license was revoked. With regard to the Statement of Issues 321-S against Roland Sannmann, effective May 28, 1990, the Board upheld the denial of his application for licensure as a geotechnical engineer.

On February 14, 1992, the Board heard Sannmann's Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board determined he had not demonstrated cause for reinstatement of his license, in that he lacks the educational qualifications and experience necessary. The Board denied the petition for reinstatement.

On November 17, 1994, the Board heard Roland Sannmann's Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License. Sannmann petitioned the Board, pursuant to Government Code section 11522, for reinstatement of his revoked Civil Engineer License C 25916.

After considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board determined that Sannmann had not demonstrated cause for reinstatement of his license. It was found that he lacks the educational qualifications and experience necessary for licensure. Therefore, effective February 27, 1995, the Board again denied Sannmann's petition for reinstatement.


SCHOENENBERGER, KENT J.
Land Surveyor L 4122
Accusation 306-A
Effective May 10, 1987: REVOKED

For violations of Section 8780 (f) of the Business and Professions Code, the Board adopted the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, effective May 10, 1987: Respondent's Land Surveyor License L 4122 is revoked.


SCHROETER, JOHN E.
Civil Engineer C 26387
Structural Engineer S 2250
Accusation 507-A
Effective May 30, 1995: Licenses revoked, revocations stayed; 60-day actual suspensions, three years probation
Effective November 18, 1996: Stay of revocation vacated, LICENSES REVOKED

Disciplinary action has been taken against Civil Engineer License C 26387 and Structural Engineer License S 2250 issued to John E. Schroeter. The Board's decision became effective on May 30, 1995.

In the decision, the parties stipulated that Schroeter signed and sealed a letter to the El Dorado County Building Department regarding the foundation and footings of a residence under construction. Shortly after completion of the construction, the portion of the foundation consisting of the footings approved by Schroeter settled, causing substantial structural damage to the residence. Schroeter did not write a clear and concise letter of what he changed or what he specifically inspected; it is not clear from the letter what portion of the foundation he actually approved; and he did not contact the original designer of the residence and inform him of the changes which had been made. He did not submit supporting calculations or opinions in writing to either the original designer or to the Building Department. Additionally, had Schroeter adequately reviewed the calculations of the residence's original designer, he should have notified the owner and the Building Department of deficiencies in the original design criteria which could potentially result in structural failure either during a wind storm or a code earthquake, which could cause monetary loss and/or bodily injury to the occupants of the residence. In a letter to the Building Department, Schroeter rendered a professional opinion that the foundations were in compliance with the contract documents, the Uniform Building Code, and good engineering practice when they were poured; but Schroeter did not review or examine any of the footings after they had been poured, and had only viewed the trenches which had been dug prior to the pouring of the footings. As a result of Schroeter's misrepresentation, the County approved the footings in question.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6775(b), the Board is authorized to discipline registrants for acts of negligence in the practice of professional civil engineering.

The parties stipulated that the civil and structural engineering licenses issued to Schroeter are revoked. However, these revocations have been stayed, and Schroeter has been placed on probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions. These conditions include an actual 60-day suspension of his licenses, beginning on the effective date of the decision and continuing through July 29, 1995. In addition, Schroeter was required to notify all clients and employers with whom he has a current or continuing contractual or employment relationship of the offense, findings, and discipline imposed and was required, within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, to provide the Board evidence that he has complied with this notification requirement. Schroeter is also required, within two years of the effective date of the decision, to successfully complete and pass, with a grade of "C" or better, at least two college-level courses specifically related to the area of violation and approved in advance by the Board or its designee. Further, within two years of the effective date of the decision, Schroeter was required to successfully complete and pass a course in professional ethics approved in advance by the Board or its designee. Schroeter is also required to pay investigative and enforcement costs of $1,650 to the Board.

Effective November 18, 1996, the Board vacated the stay of revocation and revoked Schroeter's licenses as a civil engineer and structural engineer. Schroeter, of Sacramento, California, did not comply with the conditions and terms of the probation.

In 1997, tThe Board investigated allegations that John Edward Schroeter performed structural engineering for a residence in El Dorado County after his civil and structural engineer registrations had been revoked by Board order.

On November 6, 1997, in the El Dorado County Municipal Court, Schroeter was charged with a misdemeanor violation of Business and Professions Code section 6787(a) for willfully and unlawfully practicing or offering to practice civil/structural engineering without legal authorization. On December 22, 1997, Schroeter failed to appear for arraignment and the Court issued a warrant for his arrest with bail set at $2,500.


SHELTON, ARTHUR LEE
Mechanical Engineer M 27644; M 31444
Accusation 701-A
Effective January 12, 2001: M 31444 surrendered; M 27644 conditionally reinstated with two years probation

Disciplinary action was taken against Arthur Lee Shelton for violations of Business and Professions Code, Sections 6775 (c) (e) and 6787 (c). The Board issued a Decision and Order adopting the stipulation settlement. Shelton admitted his Mechanical Engineer License No. 27644 expired, and became delinquent on September 30, 1995, due to nonpayment of renewal fees. Approximately January 1, 2000, Shelton again filed an Application For Licensure As A Professional Engineer with the Board. Shelton signed the new Application under penalty of perjury, attesting that the information submitted was true and correct, including that he had never before applied for a California license with the Board. Based on Shelton's submittal of the new application dated January 1, 2000, the Board granted Shelton a new Mechanical Engineer License No. M 31444. Effective January 12, 2001, the Board conditionally reinstated, for a probationary period of two (2) years, Shelton's Mechanical Engineering License No. 27644 on condition that he surrender the newly issued Mechanical Engineer License No. M 31444. Shelton is also required to complete and pass a course in professional ethics and reimburse the Board $636.00 for investigative and enforcement costs.


SIKORA, CHARLES VICTOR
Land Surveyor L 4126
Accusation 644-A
Effective December 6, 1999: License revoked, revocation stayed. Four years on probation.

Charles Victor Sikora of North Fork, California, was licensed with the Board under land surveyor license L 4126, but he allowed his license to expire on June 30, 1996 and did not renew it until June 16, 1999. In a stipulated settlement entered into in order to resolve this accusation, Sikora admitted that he was subject to disciplinary action under California Business and Professions Code sections 8780, 8708, 8751, 8761 and 8761.1.

In 1989, Sikora contracted to perform a survey in Tulare County for the Mt. Whitney Council of the Boy Scouts of America. In April 1990, the Tulare County Public Works Department returned Sikora's Record of Survey maps of the project and requested revisions. From January 10, 1991 through September 17, 1996, the county sent Sikora five letters concerning work not completed.

On June 30, 1996, Sikora allowed his license to expire. Despite not having a valid license, he acted as a professional land surveyor and attempted to complete his work on the project. It was not completed until nine years after the contract was entered into and after Accusation No. 644-A was filed in March 1999.

In September 1989, the United States Forest Service awarded Sikora a contract to perform land surveying services in the Sierra National Forest. Sikora failed to complete the project in a timely matter. He did not file a Record of Survey, and the paperwork and survey records he submitted did not comply with the contract specifications. He did not complete the contract until September 1999.

Sikora stipulated to the Board's decision and order. His license was revoked, but revocation was stayed and Sikora was placed on probation for four years under several terms and conditions, including the requirement that he provide the Board with evidence he has provided a copy of the Board's decision and order to all persons and entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship that involves the practice of professional land surveying. Throughout the probationary period, he must similarly notify any new persons or entities he contracts with to provide land surveying services. Among the other terms are requirements that Sikora successfully complete and pass a course in professional ethics, and that he complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination.


SMITH, BRIAN EDWARD
Civil Engineer C 26399
Accusation 740-A
Effective April 2, 2004: License revoked, revocation stayed; 30-day actual suspension; four years on probation

Accusation 740-A alleged that Brian Edward Smith of Fresno, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Sections 8780(b) for negligence and/or incompetence in the practice of land surveying and 8780(d) through his violation of Government Code Section 66445(j). In August of 1994, Smith filed "Parcel Map No. P-24-05 of the Bobby Mine" with Trinity County, California. The parcel map failed to reflect the actual locations of clearly marked monuments and, in fact, relocated said monuments in varying incorrect locations. He also failed to note on the parcel map the fee ownership by the State of California of an 80-foot state highway right of way.

In a Stipulated Settlement and Decision Order, which became effective on April 2, 2004, Smith admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation and agreed that his Civil Engineer License is subject to discipline. His license was revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and Smith was placed on probation for four years under specific terms and conditions, including actual suspension of his license for thirty days and reimbursement to the Board in the amount of $1,981 within one year of the effective date for investigative and prosecution costs. Within 30 days, Smith was required to provide evidence, including names and business addresses, that he provided all persons or entities with whom he has a contractual or employment relationship relating to professional engineering with a copy of the decision and order of the Board. He may also be required to provide the same notification of each new person or entity during the period of probation. Further conditions require that within 60 days, Smith must complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Within two years, Smith must take and pass a Board-approved class in professional ethics. Within three years, Smith must take and pass two Board-approved college-level courses specifically related to the practice of land surveying.


SMITH, RANDALL JAMES
Land Surveyor L 5189
Accusation 706-A
Effective October 4, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 706-A alleged that Randall James Smith had subjected his Land Surveyor License L 5189 to disciplinary action for negligence, deceit or misrepresentation, and failure to file a corner record, violations of Business and Professions Code §§8780(a), (b), (d), and 8765(d). It was alleged that, in 1998, Smith undertook a land surveying project in Los Angeles County for a private client; after performing the survey and setting monuments, Smith showed his client where the property lines were located. It was alleged that the client then asked Smith to remove the monuments he had set so as not to alert the adjacent property owners to the actual property line, which Smith did, with the express purpose of aiding his client to conceal the location of the line from the owners of the adjacent property. It was further alleged that Smith failed to file a corner record after setting monuments during the performance of the survey. Furthermore, it was alleged that, in 1998, Smith undertook another land surveying project for a private client in Los Angeles County in which he was to establish the property line between two lots. It was alleged that Smith submitted a Corner Record, which was returned to him to correct a defect in his calculations; Smith revised the property line location, relocated his monuments, and submitted a revised Corner Record to the County. The Accusation alleged that Smith was negligent in his land surveying practice in that both the initial Corner Record and the revised Corner Record reflect substandard methodology; Smith's fieldwork is consistently inadequate and incomplete in both searching for and locating evidence for use in the survey; his measurements are incomplete and/or insufficiently thorough; and the property line he established is so insufficiently corroborated that it cannot be evaluated by a third party for accuracy.

Effective October 4, 2002, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Smith agreed that the charges and allegations in the Accusation, if proven at an administrative hearing, would constitute cause for imposing discipline against his Land Surveyor license. Smith also agreed that, at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established; therefore, he agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Smith's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Smith was placed on probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions. Some of these conditions required Smith to successfully complete and pass two Board-approved college-level land surveying courses and a Board-approved professional ethics course. Smith is also required to reset the monuments he removed and file a Corner Record with the County. Additionally, Smith is required to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $4,676.00.


SOCKEY, RICHARD ANDERSON
Land Surveyor L 4127
Accusation 333-A
Effective June 2, 1990: REVOKED

Disciplinary action was taken against Land Surveyor license L 4127 issued to Richard Anderson Sockey. It was determined that Sockey represented to his clients that he had submitted a Record of Survey map to the County of San Diego when he had not; he represented to his clients that information contained in the Record of Survey map was information he had obtained when in fact it was a retracing of a previous survey map that was prepared by the Bureau of Land Management.

In addition, he signed and sealed the surveyor's certificate on the record of survey map stating that the work was performed under his direction when it was not but rather was taken from a previous survey performed by the Bureau of Land Management; he misrepresented to his clients the need and cost of monumentation; and misrepresented remonumentation progress. He also failed to obtain testimony to document and substantiate an alternate location for the boundary in question.

Also, calculations from his field notes yielded values which were different from those reported on the record of survey map; the legend of the record of survey map did not correctly state the character of the monuments along the boundary; and his field work did not contain procedures to verify his work.

Sockey did not respond to the accusation and a default decision revoking his license was entered against him, effective June 2, 1990, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8780.


SON, HYUN S., also known as SON, JAMES (Click here to see the related Accusation against Behnam Yousefi)
Civil Engineer C 53659
Structural Engineer S 4350
Accusation 757-A
Effective July 23, 2004: Licenses revoked, revocations stayed; two years on probation

Accusation 757-A alleged that Hyun S. Son of San Jose, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code sections 6775, 123, and 496 for subverting a licensing examination. BYA Publications, owned and operated by Benham Yousefi, published annual review manuals in August 2001, 2002, and 2003 entitled "Structural Engineering Review Manual Supplement, [year] Edition," edited and co-authored by Benham Yousefi and Son. The 2001 review manual contained 18 design problems; the 2002 edition contained 27 design problems and 10 multiple choice problems; the 2003 edition contained 27 design problems and 10 multiple choice problems. Eighteen of the twenty-seven design problems included in the 2001, 2002, and 2003 review manual supplements reproduced diagram and problem statements from secured Structural Engineering exams from 1998 and 2001. Nine of the ten multiple choice questions in the 2002 and 2003 editions reproduced multiple choice questions that appeared on the secured Structural Engineering examination in 2001. The reproduction of questions from actual licensing examinations was not authorized by the Board.

In a Stipulated Settlement and Decision Order, which became effective on July 23, 2004, Son admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation and agreed that his Civil and Structural Engineer Licenses are subject to discipline. His licenses were revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and Son was placed on probation for two years on certain terms and conditions. Within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, Son is required to notify all persons or entities with whom he has an employment relationship in the area of practice of professional engineering with a copy of the Decision and Order of the Board and provide the Board with the name and business address of each person or entity so required to be notified. Within 60 days of the effective date of the decision, Son must take and pass the California Laws and Board rules exam. During his probationary period, Son is permitted to be involved in any type of exam prep/review course, including the ones he develops and organizes. However, he must provide the Board all materials used in the course by him and/or any of the instructors. Son also understands and agrees that the Board's designated representatives may attend any of the courses at any time, without prior notice to Son or any of the instructors. Son is also required to take and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics.


TANKE, THOMAS JOHN
Safety Engineer SF 587
Accusation 628-A
Effective December 3, 1997: LICENSE REVOKED

Effective December 3, 1997, the Board revoked Thomas John Tanke's safety engineer license number SF 587 for violation of Business and Professions Code section 6787(c) which provides that it is unlawful to give false evidence of any kind to the Board in obtaining a certificate of license. Tanke, of Simi Valley, California, stated in his application for licensure, signed under penalty of perjury on June 12, 1975, that he held a "B.S.E." Degree from the University of Illinois. It was discovered that Tanke had provided false information to the Board in his application. Evidence obtained in 1996 led to the discovery that the university had never awarded a degree to Tanke. At a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in June, Tanke testified that the actual degree awarded him by the University of Illinois was a baccalaureate in the field of physical education. Tanke was ordered to reimburse the Board $1,337 for costs of investigation and prosecution. On November 13, 1997, the Board denied a Petition for Reconsideration in the matter, and revoked Tanke's Safety Engineer License, effective December 3, 1997.


THERN, HANS O.
Civil Engineer C 18227
Accusation 589-A
Effective November 18, 1996: Revoked, revocation stayed; 30-day actual suspension, three years on probation
Effective August 20, 2000: LICENSE REVOKED

Accusation No. 589-A alleges that Hans O. Thern, of Rescue, California, formerly of Danville, California, entered into a contract for preparation of civil engineering plans, related calculations and remodeling of a residence in Oakland, and that his work demonstrated negligence, incompetence and an inability to understand and apply basic engineering principles in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6735, 6775(b) and 6775(e).

The parties stipulated that Thern admits negligence in preparation of the plans for the project and to an order revoking his civil engineering license. The revocation was stayed for three years and Thern is on probation for three years, subject to an actual suspension of 30 days, effective November 18, 1996. Within 30 days of the effective date, Thern was required to provide evidence to the Board that he has notified all clients and employers with whom he has current or continuing contractual or employment relationships of his offense, the findings and discipline imposed. Thern was required to successfully complete and pass two Board-approved college level courses by November 18, 1998 as well as a Board-approved course in professional ethics. He was required to take and pass the entire second division examination in civil engineering, and was required to reimburse the Board $2,200 for costs of investigation and enforcement of the case, no later than six months prior to termination of probation. The period of probation will not run during time respondent resides or practices outside the jurisdiction of California, and Thern was required to immediately notify the Board in writing of the date of departure and date of return, if any.

In September of 1999, the Board petitioned to revoke Thern's probation on the grounds that he had not fulfilled probationary conditions requiring him to reimburse the Board for costs of investigation, had not completed and passed two college-level courses and a professional ethics course, and had not taken any steps to take and pass the entire second division examination in civil engineering. Following a hearing that included testimony from Thern and a former supervisor as well as a letter from his personal physician, the Board ordered Thern's civil engineer license C 18227 revoked. The decision noted that although Thern stated his sincere desire to continue to work in a profession that can provide him with an income to maintain his household, his admission of not being thoroughly familiar with the Uniform Building Code and its recent additions indicates that he does not possess the minimum required knowledge and exposure to engineering duties necessary to protect the public interest. Despite mitigating factors related to Thern's past health problems and his lengthy work experience, the Board concluded that public interest would not be served by extending the period of probation for any additional time. His license was revoked as of August 20, 2000.


THOMAS, BERTRAM J.
Electrical Engineer E 12197
Accusation 760-A
Effective June 13, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 760-A alleged that Bertram J. Thomas violated Business and Professions Code section 123 by committing acts that constitute subversion of a licensing examination. It was alleged that Thomas collected questions from the secured electrical engineering licensure examination in order to write and publish a licensing review manual he used in teaching a course titled "Electrical Engineering: National Electric Code Notes, Problems and Solutions" to prepare students to take California's Professional Engineering Electrical Exam. It was also alleged that the manual he prepared contained actual exam questions developed and owned by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying and administered by the Board in six different years. Thomas allegedly obtained the questions from the exams and reproduced, published, and disseminated them to his students who intended to take the examination.

In a stipulated settlement, Thomas agreed that the Board could establish a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation, and gave up his right to contest those charges. The Board ordered his license revoked, but the revocation was stayed, and Thomas was placed on probation for three years on terms and conditions including that he take and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics. During probation, Thomas may be involved in examination preparation/review courses, but must provide the Board with copies of all materials used in any such course either by him or any of the instructors. He must reimburse the Board for costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $5,000 and take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules exam.


TICE, THOMAS HERBERT
Land Surveyor L 5196
Accusation 676-A
Effective April 26, 2000: LICENSE REVOKED

A Default Decision and Order was issued by the Board on February 25, 2000 revoking the land surveyor license of Thomas Herbert Tice of Yorba Linda for negligence and incompetence under Business and Professions Code section 8780 (a) and (c), 8762 (e) and 8772 as well as section 464 (c) of title 16 of the California Code of Regulations.

In January of 1997, Tice completed a property boundary survey in Newport Beach, California. He failed to use acceptable survey methods in establishing and retracing the boundary lines. He incorrectly marked the location of a property line causing both his client and an adjoining neighbor to incur substantial expense in landscaping and construction of a masonry wall before the mistake was discovered. Tice also set an untagged monument during the course of conducting the survey. Furthermore, he failed to file a record of survey in the time required by section 8672 (e) of the Professional Land Surveyor's Act or file a Corner Record as required by Board Rule 464 (c). Tice's license was revoked effective April 26, 2000.


TURNER, JOHN E.
Civil Engineer C 32278, replaced by C 43566
Land Surveyor L 4461
Accusation 303-A
Effective November 20, 1987: Civil engineer license canceled, new civil engineer license C 43566 issued, land surveyor license revoked
Effective February 27, 1995: Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked Land Surveyor License granted

For violations of Section 8780 (a) and 8780 (f) of the Business and Professions Code, the Board issued a Decision after Non-Adoption and Order, effective November 20, 1987. Turner's Land Surveyor License L 4461 was revoked. His Civil Engineer License C 32278 was canceled and a new civil engineer's license issued which does not include the privilege to practice land surveying.

On November 17, 1994, Turner petitioned the Board, pursuant to Government Code section 11522, for reinstatement of his revoked land surveyor license. After considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board determined that cause was established to reinstate Turner's Land Surveyor License L 4461, effective February 27, 1995.


UHRICH, ELLIOTT FRANCIS
Civil Engineer C 22031
Accusation 754-A
Effective April 2, 2004: License REVOKED

Accusation 754-A alleged that Elliott Francis Uhrich, of Murrieta, California, is subject to disciplinary action for violation of the Business and Professions Code for (1) practicing civil engineering without legal authorization; (2) practicing land surveying without legal authorization; (3) using his professional engineer's stamp on civil engineering and land surveying documents while his license was suspended; (4) fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in his practices of civil engineering and land surveying by indicating false expiration dates on civil engineering and land surveying documents; (5) using a suspended license; and (6) using the title "Registered Professional Engineer" without legal authorization.

The Accusation was served on Uhrich in December 2003. He failed to file a Notice of Defense and, therefore, waived his right to a hearing on the merits of the accusation. Uhrich was found to be in default. In its Default Decision and Order, which became effective on April 2, 2004, the Board ordered Uhrich's license revoked.


WARRECKER, RONALD LOUIS (Click here for Citation 5044-L)
Land Surveyor L 5203
Accusation 719-A
Effective October 4, 2002: License revoked, revocation stayed; two years on probation
Effective July 22, 2005: License revoked, revocation stayed; two years on probation

In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order adopted by the Board, disciplinary action was taken against the Land Surveyor License, No. L 5203, issued to Ronald Louis Warrecker, pursuant to Title 16, California Code of Regulations §473.3(b). In the stipulation, Warrecker admitted that he failed to fully comply with a citation, No. 5044-L, previously issued to him.

The decision of the Board, which became effective on October 4, 2002, order the revocation of Warrecker's Land Surveyor license. However, that revocation was stayed, and Warrecker was placed on probation for two years with terms and conditions. One condition required Warrecker to comply with Citation No. 5044-L by filing the Record of Survey as ordered in the citation. Other conditions required him to notify his clients and employers of the disciplinary action, to take and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination, to successfully complete and pass a Board-approved professional ethics course, and to reimburse the Board's investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $1,896.00.

An Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation was filed against Ronald Louis Warrecker alleging that he has violated the Professional Land Surveyors' Act and failed to comply with the terms and conditions of probation ordered in a previous disciplinary matter. It was alleged that Warrecker failed to file required records of survey for 11 monuments he set during field surveys he performed in Seal Beach, Costa Mesa, and Westminster, California. It was also alleged that Warrecker failed to submit special reports requested by the Board as required by the terms and conditions of probation.

In a stipulated settlement, Warrecker admitted the truth of all charges and allegations and agreed that his Land Surveyor License is subject to discipline. The Board ordered Warrecker's license revoked, but stayed the revocation and placed him on probation for two years with certain terms and conditions. Warrecker is required to complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics, reimburse the Board $5,799.50 for its investigative and enforcement costs, and file or record, as appropriate, the required records with the appropriate governmental agencies.


WHALEY, WARREN P., JR. (Click here for information regarding Accusation 727-A)
Civil Engineer C 15197
Accusation 673-A
Effective May 8, 2000: Revoked, revocation stayed; four years on probation.

Effective May 8, 2000, Warren P. Whaley, Jr., of Cupertino, California, entered into a stipulation to settle the matter of Accusation 673-A. Whaley admitted that he was negligent in the preparation of plans by including an easement prior to confirming that the easement was obtained. As a result of his negligence, the parking lot for Moss Beach Distillery in Moss Beach was built on a portion of the neighbor's property. Whaley agreed that he subjected his license to discipline pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6775 (b).

In accepting Whaley's stipulation, the Board ordered that Whaley's license be revoked, but that the revocation is stayed and he is placed on probation for a period of four years with certain terms and conditions, including payment of restitution of $2,500 to the injured party. In addition, he must pass two college-level courses, approved in advance by the Board within three years of the effective date. Within two years of the effective date, he must pass a course in professional ethics. He must also reimburse the Board for investigative and enforcement costs of $2,418.50.


WHALEY, WARREN P., JR. (Click here for information regarding Accusation 673-A)
Civil Engineer C 15197
Accusation 727-A
Effective April 15, 2005: Civil Engineer License C 15197 surrendered; New Civil Engineer License C 68162 issued

Accusation 727-A alleged that Warren P. Whaley, Jr., of El Dorado Hills, California, subjected his license to discipline for negligence and incompetence in submission of a Record of Survey Map to the County of San Mateo Department of Public Works. He did not adequately establish a conveyance; did not note or search for additional monumentation to establish locations and alignment for the Record of Survey; used improper scaling for the Record of Survey Map; did not adequately survey the surrounding sub-divisions and provide ties to the adjacent monumentation and he improperly established boundaries. In April of 2000, in preparing an Amended Record of Survey which was submitted to the County, Walters did not comply with the technical requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act in that he failed to determine a consistent right-of-way, listing it at varying lengths. He also failed to determine the right-of-way line for Ralston Avenue.

For the purposes of a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, Whaley admitted the truth of each and every charge in the accusation and agreed that cause exists for discipline and surrendered his license C 15197 for the Board's formal acceptance. Effective April 15, 2005, the Board issued Whaley new Civil Engineer License No. C 68162, which does not authorize him to practice land surveying.


WOLFF, MARVIN W.
Accusation 724-A
Effective March 7, 2002: Civil Engineer License C 8137 surrendered; Civil Engineer License C 63313 issued

Accusation 724-A against Marvin W. Wolff alleged that Wolff violated Business and Professions Code §§8780(a), (b), (d), (g), and 8771.3 and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 464(c) for fraud and/or deceit, negligence, breach of contract, and failure to timely file a corner record. The Accusation alleged that, in 1998, Wolff was retained to perform land surveying at property located in Los Altos and to file any necessary documentation of his survey in a timely manner; Wolff was retained because the property owners were involved in a potential boundary dispute with their neighbors. The Accusation further alleged that Wolff performed the survey and advised his clients that he had set monuments because he could not locate the iron pipes set during the original survey of the property. It was also alleged that Wolff advised his clients that he had submitted the Corner Record to the county, when in fact he had not done so. The Accusation alleged that Wolff committed fraud and/or deceit in his practice by falsely advising his clients that he had submitted the Corner Record to the county when he had not done so; that Wolff committed negligence by failing to locate the original iron pipes, by setting new monuments without timely completing a corner record, and by not performing his survey or preparing a corner record in a timely fashion; that he failed to file a corner record within 90 days of setting monuments; and that he breached his contract by failing to timely comply with the terms of his contractual agreement.

As its decision in this matter, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement agreement in which Wolff admitted that he had failed to submit a corner record within the 90-day period required by Board Rule 464(c). Wolff also agreed that his Civil Engineer license was subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary order. As part of this disciplinary order, Wolff agreed to surrender his Civil Engineer License, No. C 8137, which allowed him to practice land surveying, to the Board; in exchange, the Board agreed to issue a new Civil Engineer License to Wolff that would not authorize him to practice land surveying. Effective March 7, 2002, Wolff surrendered his Civil Engineer License C 8137 and was issued Civil Engineer License C 63313. As part of the disciplinary order, Wolff's new license was revoked; however, that revocation was stayed, and he was placed on probation for two years under certain terms and conditions. These conditions include requirements that Wolff reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in this matter in the amount of $5,650.00 and that he provide a copy of the decision and order of the Board in this matter to all persons or entities with whom he had a contractual or employment relationship relating to the practice of civil engineering as of the effective date of the decision.


WONG, GARY TIMOTHY
Land Surveyor License L 5035
Accusation 744-A
Effective February 27, 2004: License revoked; revocation stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 744-A alleged that Gary Timothy Wong, of Sacramento, California is subject to discipline for violation of Business and Professions Code sections 8780(b), in that he conducted a land survey in an incompetent and/or negligent manner. In March of 2001, Wong contracted to provide land surveying on the building layout for a new structure in Sacramento. A survey crew under Wong's direction placed the survey markers in the wrong positions, causing the original foundation of the structure to encroach upon a restricted setback and resulting in substantial cost to reposition the foundation and relocate plumbing, electrical conduits, and tie-down bolts.

In a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, which became effective on February 27, 2004, Wong admitted the truth of the charges and allegations in the accusation. He agreed that his Land Surveyor License is subject to discipline. The disciplinary order revoked Wong's Land Surveyor license, however, the revocation was stayed and Wong was placed on probation for three years with certain terms and conditions. Wong must, within 60 days of the effective date of the decision, successfully complete and pass the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Within two years, he must successfully complete and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics, and within two and one-half years, he must also complete and pass one Board-approved college-level land surveying course specifically related to the area of violation. Wong was ordered to pay restitution to the consumer in the amount of $6,037 within two years and also to reimburse the Board $2,606.50 within two and one-half years for its investigative and prosecution costs.


WRIGHT, HOWARD AUSTIN
Land Surveyor L 6909
Accusation 736-A
Effective October 24, 2003: License revoked, revocation stayed; 14-day actual suspension of license; five years on probation

Accusation 736-A alleged that Howard Austin Wright had subjected his Land Surveyor License L 6909 to disciplinary action for negligence or incompetence in his practice of land surveying, in violation of Business and Professions Code §8780(b), and for failing to timely file a Corner Record or Record of Survey and for failing to properly tag monuments he set, as required by Business and Professions Code §§8762, 8765, and 8772, and Title 16, California Code of Regulations §464. It was alleged that, in 1997, Wright was contracted to perform a boundary survey for a property located in Inglewood. After completion of the survey, Wright failed to discover a gross error on the map of record; he supplied the map to his client with the error undetected and uncorrected. This error was transferred to a set of plans for construction of an addition and remodel which caused corrections to be made to the proposed construction. It was further alleged that Wright failed to check the lot closures when he prepared the survey and only checked the block closures. Additionally, it was alleged that Wright failed to file either a Corner Record or Record of Survey after performing a field survey in which he discovered a material discrepancy and show a monument he set, which he allegedly failed to properly tag with his license number.

Effective October 24, 2003, the Board adopted a stipulated settlement as its decision in this matter. In this stipulation, Wright admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation in the Accusation. Wright also agreed that his Land Surveyor license is subject to discipline and agreed to be bound by the Board's disciplinary decision. In this decision, the Board ordered Wright's license revoked; however that revocation was stayed, and Wright was placed on probation for a period of five years upon certain terms and conditions. One condition ordered the suspension of Wright's Land Surveyor license for 14 days, beginning on the effective date of the decision. Some of other the conditions required Wright to successfully complete and pass three Board-approved college-level land surveying courses, a Board-approved professional ethics course, and the California Laws and Board Rules examination. Additionally, Wright was required to provide verifiable proof to the Board that he had paid restitution to the consumer as ordered in the civil court case and to reimburse the Board for its investigative and enforcement costs in the amount of $3,399.90.


YOUSEFI, BEHNAM (Click here to see the related Accusation against Hyun S. (James) Son)
Civil Engineer C 43218
Structural Engineer S 3624
Accusation 756-A
Effective July 23, 2004: Licenses revoked; revocations stayed; three years on probation

Accusation 756-A alleged that Benham Yousefi of Los Angeles, California, is subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code sections 6775, 123, and 496 for subverting a licensing examination. BYA Publications, owned and operated by Yousefi, published annual review manuals in August 2001, 2002, and 2003 entitled "Structural Engineering Review Manual Supplement, [year] Edition," edited and co-authored by Yousefi and Hyun S. Son. The 2001 review manual contained 18 design problems; the 2002 edition contained 27 design problems and 10 multiple choice problems; the 2003 edition contained 27 design problems and 10 multiple choice problems. Eighteen of the twenty-seven design problems included in the 2001, 2002, and 2003 review manual supplements reproduced diagram and problem statements from secured Structural Engineering exams from 1998 and 2001. Nine of the ten multiple choice questions in the 2002 and 2003 editions reproduced multiple choice questions that appeared on the secured Structural Engineering examination in 2001. The reproduction of questions from actual licensing examinations was not authorized by the Board.

In a Stipulated Settlement and Decision Order, which became effective on July 23, 2004, Yousefi admitted the truth of each and every charge and allegation, and agreed that his Civil and Structural Engineer Licenses are subject to discipline. His licenses were revoked; however, the revocation was stayed, and Yousefi was placed on probation for three years on certain terms and conditions. Within 30 days of the effective date of the decision, Yousefi was required to notify all persons or entities with whom he has an employment relationship in the area of practice of professional engineering with a copy of the Decision and Order of the Board and provide the Board with the name and business address of each person or entity so required to be notified. Within 60 days of the effective date of the decision, Yousefi must take and pass the California Laws and Board rules exam. During his probationary period, Yousefi is permitted to be involved in any type of exam prep/review course, including the ones he develops and organizes. However, he must provide the Board all materials used in the course by him and/or any of the instructors. Yousefi also understands and agrees that the Board's designated representatives may attend any of the courses at any time, without prior notice to Yousefi or any of the instructors. He was also required to take and pass a Board-approved course in professional ethics. Additionally, Yousefi was ordered to reimburse the Board the amount of $3,079 for its investigative and prosecution costs within two and one-half years of the effective date of the decision. Yousefi was ordered to pay $15,500 to the Board as restitution towards the cost of replacing the compromised examination problems. The Board agreed that it will not pursue criminal and civil actions against Yousefi for his violation of the Board's copyright of these examination problems. The full amount of $15,500 must be paid within two and one-half years of the effective date.


Click Here for Disciplinary Actions A-L