EDITOR’S NOTE: Over the past couple of years, the Pagosa Daily Post has reprinted numerous thoughtful articles written by Chuck Marohn, the founder of Strong Towns. I personally support the organization with an annual membership, and I encourage any Daily Post readers who care about the future of American communities to support Strong Towns by becoming a member. The following article appeared on StrongTowns.org on May 23, 2021.
A small group of professional engineers are using the licensing process to stifle calls for reform and retaliate against Strong Towns for its advocacy.
The Strong Towns organization advocates for reforming the way we build our cities, especially the approach that many professional engineers take with transportation and infrastructure systems. Our critiques of engineers include our video “Conversation with an Engineer,” our many statements on the way engineering organizations advocate for state and federal funding, and our assertion that engineers are often grossly negligent in their street designs when it comes to their treatment of people walking and biking.
This September, Wiley & Sons will publish Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: A Strong Towns Approach to Transportation, a book written by Charles Marohn that is deeply critical of the standard approach to transportation used by many American engineers.
While there are a growing number of engineers that support the kind of reforms Strong Towns advocates for, there are some who do not want this message to be heard. These entrenched engineers often attack reformers — sometimes in very personal ways — to create a high cost for anyone who dares speak out about current practices.
Now, for the second time, a professional engineer has filed a complaint with the state licensing board alleging that the writing, speaking, and advocacy for reform of Charles Marohn — the founder and president of Strong Towns — constitutes a violation of Minnesota law.The first time this happened, the licensing board dismissed the complaint. This time, board members are actively participating in the attempt to slander Marohn and the Strong Towns movement.
To halt this injustice and protect the right of licensed engineers to speak freely in public forums, Strong Towns has filed a complaint in federal district court against the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (commonly called the Board of Licensure) and the individual members of the Board that are participating in this action.
The complaint holds that the Board of Licensure, and these individual members, have violated Marohn’s First Amendment right to free speech and that their enforcement action is an unlawful retaliation against Marohn and Strong Towns for their protected speech.
A copy of the complaint is available at www.strongtowns.org/supportreform.
“I am saddened that Strong Towns has been forced to take this action,” said Marohn from his office in Brainerd, Minnesota. “I believe that engineers need to be licensed, but engineers also need to be able to speak their conscience without having their license and their livelihood threatened. The Board’s actions are an injustice to all Minnesotans and, if left unchallenged, will have a chilling effect on speech within the engineering profession.”
Charles Marohn is the founder and president of Strong Towns, a non-profit advocacy organization working on the reform of transportation, infrastructure, and the public investment process. The organization produces articles, podcasts, videos, and other guides used by local advocates to challenge the status quo. Strong Towns is highly influential–the organization has millions of readers, thousands of members, and Marohn has been named one of the “ten most influential urbanists of all time.”
The practice of engineering in Minnesota is regulated through the Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (AELSLAGID), which is commonly called the “Board of Licensure.” All individuals practicing engineering in Minnesota by preparing plans and specifications, overseeing construction, signing official documents, or supervising those who perform these actions, are required to obtain a license from the Board.
Marohn is a licensed engineer but has not practiced engineering since 2012. In 2016, Marohn moved residences and, subsequently, did not receive a renewal notice when his license expired in 2018. Since Marohn is not practicing engineering and did not receive the notice, he did not remember to renew his license on time.
State law has a process for engineers who are late in renewing their license and, when Marohn discovered his license had lapsed, he used that process (including payment of a late fee) to renew his license. The Board of Licensure recognized that Marohn is a fully qualified professional engineer and so they reissued his license without any objection. Marohn is currently licensed through June 30, 2022.
Complaints Filed Against Marohn
The first Board of Licensure complaint filed against Marohn came in 2015. That complaint, made by an engineer affiliated with the transportation advocacy group MoveMN and the American Society of Civil Engineers, alleged that Marohn’s writing and speaking reflected negatively on the actions of some engineers and thus violated Minnesota Rules 1805.0200, which states:
A licensee shall avoid any act which may diminish public confidence in the profession…
On this first complaint, the Board of Licensure found that there was “no violation,” but notified Marohn that the “complaint will be held in the Board’s archives and is available should additional evidence warrant that the file be reopened.”
The second complaint was filed on March 5, 2020 by an engineer from South Dakota, a state where Marohn has spoken numerous times on the need for reform and where there is an active Strong Towns group in Sioux Falls. The complaint was submitted in retaliation for Marohn’s advocacy, going on to cite numerous examples of Marohn’s speech as the impetus for the complaint.
The core of the second complaint is an assertion that Marohn, during his lapse in licensure, was referred to as a “professional engineer” in the biography that accompanies his writing and speaking even though, for a period of time, his license had lapsed. The complaint claims that the use of the term “professional engineer” is illegal in this instance and urged the Board of Licensure to “send a clear message that frauds of this sort will not be tolerated.”
The Board of Licensure had this complaint three months prior to the date when Marohn renewed his license. Even so, the issue was never raised when Marohn successfully applied for reinstatement and extension of his engineering license.
The Board of Licensure finally notified Marohn of the complaint in a July 24, 2020 letter, more than four months after they received it and six weeks after Marohn had renewed his license. In that notification, the Board was concerned with whether or not Marohn had practiced engineering during the time his license had lapsed. In a response four days later, Marohn confirmed to the Board that he had neither engaged in any professional engineering work nor signed any documents requiring licensure during the time in question.
This should have resolved the matter. It did not.
The Board of Licensure then shifted its focus from the practice of engineering to whether Marohn was referred to as a “professional engineer” in any circumstances, especially in connection with his writing and speaking on behalf of Strong Towns. The Board wrote to Marohn demanding that he sign a stipulation order stating that he had engaged in “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” and that he accept a censure, reprimand, and a $1,500 civil fine. If Marohn did not agree, the Board of Licensure indicated that it would file a complaint against Marohn in a contested case hearing.
Marohn responded to the Board of Licensure, rejecting their demands and requesting that they reconsider. The Board responded with the same terms but added that Marohn had been dishonest by “claiming to be a licensed professional engineer when his license was expired.” This forced Marohn and Strong Towns to retain an attorney to advocate on their behalf. The attorney requested a hearing with the Board of Licensure, which took place on March 10, 2021.
In this hearing, Board members stated their concerns over how Marohn was referred to in public speeches he gave, specifically during a talk with The American Conservative and another with Google. One member was concerned that the public might “rely on” Marohn’s words. Another expressed apprehension over Marohn having a podcast. There was no discussion of the practice of engineering – members focused solely on how Marohn’s credentials might impact how others received his words.
Following the hearing, the Board of Licensure issued what would be a final order on March 17, 2021. The order’s findings omit key facts in a way that is prejudicial to Marohn and Strong Towns, making it look like Marohn renewed his license in response to the complaint, rather than of his own volition many weeks before even being aware of the complaint. The final order requires Marohn to agree that he made an “untruthful statement,” a “false statement,” and “engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation.”
In a last attempt to resolve the matter, on March 23, Marohn agreed to accept a reprimand and a fine if the Board of Licensure updated the findings of fact in order to accurately reflect the sequence of events and removed the unfounded references to an “untruthful statement,” a “false statement,” and “engag[ing] in conduct involving misrepresentation.” On April 20, the Board of Licensure rejected these requests and indicated that they would proceed with disciplinary action if Marohn did not acquiesce and sign the stipulation order.
In the end, the only issue that was being contested by Charles Marohn and Strong Towns in front of the Board of Licensure was whether or not board members will use their official capacity to brand Marohn a “fraud,” distort the record of what transpired, and make an official finding that paints Marohn as dishonest and as having misrepresented himself to the public.
In other words: Would the Board of Licensure use its power to slander Charles Marohn in an attempt to discredit the reforms advocated by Strong Towns?
The Board has answered clearly: Yes, it will try to do that.
Marohn is a reformer, which is threatening to some in the engineering profession. Marohn has been honest and forthright with the Board and the public on his background and credentials — this dispute is not about any intent to misrepresent.
It is not even about the continued use of the words “professional engineer” on a website bio during a clearly unintentional lapse in licensure, as no speech or action taken by Marohn constitutes the practice of engineering, which is the only thing the Board of Licensure is empowered to regulate.
The threatened action by the Board of Licensure is about one thing: using the power of the state to discredit a reform movement. To silence speech. To retaliate against an individual who challenges the power and financial advantages enjoyed by a certain class of licensed professionals.
The Strong Towns movement is about reforming the practice of engineering, planning, and city building. There are many licensed professionals who support Strong Towns and many across North America who are working to put Strong Towns reforms into practice. They should not have their licenses and livelihoods threatened for supporting reform. They should not be afraid to speak their conscience in fear that some fellow licensee will attack them through the complaint process.
Licensed engineers not only have the right, but the obligation, to speak out when the work of their chosen profession threatens people’s lives, wastes taxpayers’ money, and diminishes our overall prosperity. No state law, no council of peers, and no threat of sanction should stifle that speech.
Strong Towns stands for a reformed engineering profession, more prosperous cities, and the guaranteed right that all Americans have to advocate for change, free from harassment by government agencies and industry insiders.
That is why we have filed this lawsuit in federal court and will pursue a just decision in this matter.