Speaking out
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
expensive Self Anchored Suspension Bridge being built in the Bay Area.
http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/316624
The problems are now surfacing and this is not over yet. This new bridge
is not safe because of corruption of Caltrans and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission's top officials as well as corruption of the
Chair and members of the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board.
A. Astaneh
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seai...@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Avi Sharma
Avi Sharma
2nd Year
Department of Civil Engineering,
SRKNEC, India
Christopher Wright
On Nov 16, 2009, at 2:49 AM, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl wrote:
> The problems are now surfacing and this is not over yet. This new
> bridge is not safe because of corruption of Caltrans and
> Metropolitan Transportation Commission's top officials as well as
> corruption of the Chair and members of the Caltrans Seismic
> Advisory Board.
I've mentioned this before, and maybe it won't hurt to mention it
again. Calling another engineer 'corrupt' is not only libellous, it's
a violation of the standards of conduct in most states including
California. Very simply--
(10) A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously injure or attempt to
injure the reputation or business of others.
Unless you have actionable proof (not just opinion) that will stand
up in court, you're in violation of the law and subject to
disciplinary action by the engineering board. And if you do have
actionable proof, you're obligated by those same standards to bring
it up formally in a complaint before the board.
In all candor, I haven't any idea whether you're right or wrong, just
that you might want to give some thought to consequences when you use
inflammatory words like 'corruption.'
Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chr...@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
.......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/members/chrisw/
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for
Engineers(full text is at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/ethcodes/13411/9972.aspx#one)
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this
profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of
honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the
quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by
engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must
be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional
behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical
conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully
so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the
profession.
Almost all members of Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board including its
Chair Dr. Frieder Seible have violated all of above Fundamental Canons.
This Seismic Advisory Board was formed after the Loma Prieta earthquake,
where 38 people had died in one structure of Caltrans, to be totally
independent of Caltrans and acting as a watch dog to review Caltrans
seismic bridge activities and ensure that public safety is protected.
Instead members of the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board (see a brochure
here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake_engineering/SAB_Brochure_112107.pdf)
have used their position of power over Caltrans as Seismic Advisory
Board members to obtain millions of dollars of taxpayers money in
consulting and research contracts , on a non-competitive basis.
Furthermore, the Chair and members sitting on the Seismic Advisory Board
have approve their own research and consulting contract outcomes when
presented to them by Caltrans. If this is not "corruption" then what
is?
Here is the definition of "corrupt" at www.dictionary.com.
-------------------- Start of Dictionary Text
-------------------------------------
cor⋅rupt
–adjective
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity;
crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a
corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.
Synonyms:
1. false, untrustworthy. Corrupt, dishonest, venal apply to one, esp. in
public office, who acts on mercenary motives, without regard to honor,
right, or justice. A corrupt politician is one originally honest who has
succumbed to temptation and begun questionable practices. A dishonest
politician is one lacking native integrity. A venal politician is one so
totally debased as to sell patronage. 3, 4. contaminated. 4, 5.
putrescent, rotten, spoiled. 6. demoralize, bribe. 7. debase, vitiate.
10. contaminate, pollute, spoil, defile. 11. putrefy.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
--------------------------End of Dictionary Text --------------------------
The most important document in our democracy is the constitution and I
value my first amendment rights and cannot allow that important right be
suppressed by any threat of lawsuits , veiled or direct.
Best regards.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
UC Berkeley
>
>> > The problems are now surfacing and this is not over yet. This new
>> > bridge is not safe because of corruption of Caltrans and >
>> Metropolitan Transportation Commission's top officials as well as >
>> corruption of the Chair and members of the Caltrans Seismic >
>> Advisory Board.
>>
>
> I've mentioned this before, and maybe it won't hurt to mention it
> again. Calling another engineer 'corrupt' is not only libellous, it's
> a violation of the standards of conduct in most states including
> California. Very simply--
>
> (10) A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously injure or attempt to
> injure the reputation or business of others.
>
> Unless you have actionable proof (not just opinion) that will stand
> up in court, you're in violation of the law and subject to
> disciplinary action by the engineering board. And if you do have
> actionable proof, you're obligated by those same standards to bring
> it up formally in a complaint before the board.
>
> In all candor, I haven't any idea whether you're right or wrong, just
> that you might want to give some thought to consequences when you use
> inflammatory words like 'corruption.'
>
> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
> chr...@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
> .......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
>
Bill Polhemus
public work.
I should add that I do not know any of these gentlem, nor am I privy
to any details of this situation, but the notion of rendering public
service without emolument is now quaint, and went away a couple of
generations ago.
Everything is a business opportunity now - including elective office.
William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Via iPhone 3G
On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl <ast...@ce.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
> ...have used their position of power over Caltrans as Seismic
> Advisory Board members to obtain millions of dollars of taxpayers
> money in consulting and research contracts , on a non-competitive
> basis.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
David Merrick, Structural Engineer, Merrick Group
Assoc..
Before the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the collapse of the Cypress
Freeway Structure, Joe, repeatedly, talked of his review of the Cypress
Structure and having found it to be a very dangerous structure.
I never verified his claim. His report may still exist in some state
archive or maybe in some URS Blume & Assoc file.
If the old guy was telling the truth then I wonder if that event could
now help put a light on the going forward with the Bay Bridge while
relying on the same decision making system that maintained the Cypress
Structure.
Every lesson learned should not be concluded without an investigation
similar to the scrutiny used by forensics.
Lessons can be learned by visiting failed buildings but maybe its time
to be reviewing the surviving buildings, the economics, politics and
political sacrifices that put those structures on the map.
More than just the bridge...
There may be a need for more industrial psychologists and not so many
public relations experts. Many engineering problems, at face value, have
seemingly nasty remedies. I have a set of things to watch for to avoid
mistakes. One is to watch for my signs of false fear of not having
enough work. This can become a habit of not passing on decisions to
another, better suited for the problem.
Phobia versus acceptance seem to have little correlation to the level of
risk. Our main public communication tool is probability. Risk is the
weakly explained by comparing the exposure to other life risks and
looking at cost per year of such a loss in the future.
David Merrick, SE
Conrad Harrison
What you say may be true. But it is not really helpful to resolving the
issue. There is a great deal of politics involved, and I don't just mean
those involving the government, I mean the power struggles between
individuals and groups. As David Merrick points out psychology and for that
matter also sociology are important aspects to consider.
Whilst at the end of the day, an individual maybe responsible for defects,
it is unhelpful to go in search of a culprit. People go on the defensive and
refuse to disclose information. Whether trying to improve quality or reduce
accidents you avoid looking for individuals to blame.
Individuals cause defects because systems put them into a position where
they are able to cause defects. Individuals designed those systems, but
likewise they were operating in a system which permits them to be there and
permits them to produce defects.
As they say in QA, you cannot inspect quality into a system, it has to be
designed in. The journey is also more important than the destination, so
in-process checking/inspection is better than end of task inspection. All
the systems have to be designed: the design system, and the production
system. There has to be a feedback mechanism in the system, which permits
self-regulation of the system, so that it can automatically adapt and adjust
to a highly variable operating environment. It is not simply a matter of
continuous improvement but adaptation.
The systems involved are clearly not adaptive and self-regulating staying on
a path aimed towards an ideal. Adaptive maybe: for clearly if set up an
expert panel, then that expert panel is the best group of people to consult
for expert advice. The self-regulating mechanism however has to re-instate
the status as an independent review panel of experts. It is also important
that there is a pipeline of next generation experts waiting to flow onto the
panel, as the existing experts retire.
It may be appropriate that the panel represents the wisdom of the elders,
and so only comprises of persons who have retired from practice, and have no
stake in any project. From a QA viewpoint, they should also be involved in
vetting organisations and individuals, to determine who has appropriate
experience, and short listing. Those on the short list being ranked. When a
review project comes along a project can be classified such that it can be
directed to the top experts, or to those on the shortlist who need more
experience. Such proposals will have their own problems, and that is the
reason why systems should be adaptive and self-regulating. (By
self-regulating I mean the system receives feedback and adjusts its own
behaviour to get back on the right path.)
By focusing on the system, more people are likely to help improve the
system, including those people who may otherwise be considered part of the
problem. Person 'C' may be incompetent, but person 'C' was employed by
person 'B' and person 'B' employed by person 'A', and so on up the
organisational hierarchy. That is a lot of people to fire in a big
organisation.
The output of a car manufacturer is not 100% perfect, nor is the output of a
university. For that matter the car manufacturer probably has higher
standards of compliance, 50% is not good enough, even if it is to the
universities. Therefore cannot expect the people in any organisation to be
100% of the required skill level, therefore systems have to be in place to
fill in the gaps. Even if the gaps in skill are plugged, still have the
pressures and politics of the job and the market place, which lead to less
than desirable decisions. So the systems have to be continuously adapting
towards some ideal, can never declare we have arrived.
Reference to CalTrans or Earthquake advisory board is also a reference to
who, and so is just as unhelpful as a reference to an individual.
The requirements of the system need to be defined, and then an appropriate
system designed.
There is a need for expert input into the design of structures for
earthquake, a separate need for new research into earthquake design, and a
need for an independent panel of experts to check and review designs. And a
need to identify those who are expert.
Since already have a system it is a matter of identifying where the system
deviates from the ideal objectives. Then identify how to get the system back
on that ideal path, and keep on that path as it starts to deviate again in
the future. Part of the design-solution is technical, much more of it is
psychological and political. For politics read Machiavelli's The Prince, and
Sun Tzu's Art of War.
You need the power base of the organisations you criticise to bring about
change. The media doesn't care how much it exaggerates if it sells papers
this week, they can apologise next week. Also hazard to life is not simply a
matter of probability, it is a matter of subjective opinion. People take
risks. The contention that engineers can make it safe to live in an
earthquake zone is misleading and potentially irresponsible. Complying with
a code of practice, doesn't make something safe, it makes it acceptable. And
what we accepted last year, may be unacceptable next year, and the year
after acceptable again. It is subjective.
Bridges and buildings which do not comply with a design code, are not
entirely defective or entirely unacceptable, they are simply less than
desirable. History and economics may dictate that we have to accept less
than our ideals. We cannot upgrade everything to comply with our new ideals.
Also the world probably doesn't have the material resources for extremely
high levels of performance everywhere. Therefore potentially better to
develop improved monitoring and control systems.
As I understand it, in PNG, bridges are closed during the flood season. The
floods underscore piers, and debris in the water shears the bridges from the
piers. At the end of the flood season the Bailey type bridges are collected,
assessed, new piers constructed and the bridges re-instated. A
design-solution chosen because bridges which can clear the flood waters,
would be unsightly and also require much travel out of the way to get onto
the bridge. They therefore have to plan for seasonal closure of the bridges
and not become 100% reliant on what is on the other side of the bridge.
Design requires a psychological understanding of the needs of the end-users.
As I understand it our urban/rural road design manual has roads designed for
the 95th percentile road speed. Not sure how they got these speeds, but the
inference, in the manual, is that 5% of the road users will be unable to
negotiate a bend at the specified speed. The specified speed is however, the
maximum limit, individuals can choose to travel at a lower speed. There is
also an expectation that 5% of the users may also be travelling in excess of
the speed limit. The design doesn't provide for the safety of those who
break the law, but may provide for safety of those who may be exposed to the
hazards created by those breaking the law. Also much of the manual is about
deliberately putting curves into a road, to avoid long stretches of straight
road which may send drivers to sleep. So many of our rural roads have dips
and bends in them to deliberately remove the view of the horizon. But many
also don't comply with the manual.
Resource constraints are often a major part of the design solution, and so
less than ideal is more often the case. As long as deviations from the ideal
can be justified, and are found acceptable or can be tolerated, there should
be no issue. More especially so if have a system which can improve at some
future date.
And should have control systems which prevent operating at 100% capacity.
Operating at 100% capacity is generally inefficient. At any point in time
some percentage of all bridges should be shut down for maintenance or
complete replacement. Therefore traffic control systems, and mass transit
systems, and dependent systems, should be designed to accommodate such shut
downs.
The industrial world is far too dependent on technological systems, with a
lack of maintenance, and little to no back up systems, or inappropriate
backup. A slide rule doesn't require electricity and so is a better fall
back than an emergency power supply. A bridge is better than a ferry if
walking across the bridge, but the benefit diminishes if using motorised
transport. We need a balance of alternative systems, a need to protect
diversity, rather than competition.
We have become dependent on technology, fail to see such as a privilege and
otherwise become less tolerant of failures in such technology, and
potentially excessively and unrealistically demanding in the performance
desired.
We need to be more self-reflecting, and contemplate how we could have
handled things better. What we say may be true, but how we present it, may
be harmful and unhelpful.
What I am indicating is that the desired quality of the bridges is not just
a technical matter, it is subjective and involves a great deal of politics
between individuals and their conflicting needs. Those politics need to be
understood, if change is to be brought about. Get to understand the people
and systems they operate in, and work together to change the systems and
peoples perceptions. Punishment tends to generate a desire for revenge and
gets away from the issue. If a person perceives they are in the line of fire
for punishment, being fired or imprisoned, then they will defend themselves
and be unhelpful. If assist to avoid problems in the future without focusing
on the individuals personal errors in the past then they will be more
willing to assist you to help them. The real objective is to prevent future
accidents and/or hazards, not punish someone for causing. The focus of
attention therefore cannot be permitted to make people feel nervous about
discussing a situation.
If there is corruption, do you want to punish someone, or remove the
problem, if any, that such corruption generates? If the latter seek less
emotive words, and avoid using the word corruption. Whilst the word may fit
the situation, it is unhelpful to use. Plus if you remove personnel are
there appropriate resources to replace them: or will it pose a far greater
hazard?
Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.te...@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
Best wishes.
"Hassan"
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl,
www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh
From: "Conrad Harrison" <sch.te...@bigpond.com>
To: <sea...@seaint.org>
Subject: RE: Speaking out
Professor Astaneh-Asl,
What you say may be true. But it is not really helpful to resolving the
issue. There is a great deal of politics involved, and I don't just mean
those involving the government, I mean the power struggles between
individuals and groups. As David Merrick points out psychology and for that
matter also sociology are important aspects to consider...............
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
respectfully disagree with your assessment that in our profession "
..the notion of rendering public service without emolument is now
quaint, and went away a couple of generations ago. ". In my opinion
99.99 percent of individuals involved in my profession are honest and
honorable people and this percentage of us do public service without
emolument. Just look at this site. Look at yourself. I have read your
many posts with much interest and may be a few times I did not agreed
with your point of view but even when I felt not agreeing with you I
admired you for taking the time out of your very busy schedule (those
were the days that every minute of your time could be used to make
money!) and made your comments. Was there any emolument? Extend that to
thousands who have done exactly that. Then, look at all these committees
and organizing conferences that so many in our profession spend their
family time or money-making time to just serve . This is public service.
I will give you two example, one no longer with us and other our good
friend who contributes to this forum quite a lot.
When the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board formed by Governor of
California, the first Chair was the legendary Professor George Housner
of Caltech. He was truly one of the founding fathers of earthquake
engineering. Because of my involvement with investigation of Loma Prieta
and then Northridge, I spent quite a lot of time , as he requested ,
with him to present to him in person the many details of our findings.
Because of that I got to observe him a in a close and personal manner.
He was a role model for anyone in any profession how you serve public.
And, he was just one of the people in that 99.99% category in our
profession. It was the next Chair and the current chair of the Seismic
Advisory Board and its members (see brochure at :
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake_engineering/SAB_Brochure_112107.pdf
) who turned the Seismic Advisory Board of Caltrans to a money making
machine for themselves and their firms at the expense of public safety
and taxpayers money.
The other person, is our own friend Harold S. who , even in those days
of busy work, would not forget us on these pages and would provide input
and answer questions based on his vast experience in and knowledge of of
structural engineering. I have been with him in Super Shuttles a few
times going to and coming from committee meetings, which is the most
unappreciated public work with no compensation what so ever, and have
seen how he sacrifices his family time, to make sure the information
that he has gets into the system and we end up with structures that
serve the public in a safe and economical manner. And , he is just one
of the 99.99% of our profession.
What I think has happened in our profession is that , as the
compensation for structural engineering services were not keeping up
with our expectations for what we were doing, we started to be
complacent and when we saw someone is corrupt ( and I use the word
intentionally) we tended to turn the other way and think that well, one
day I might be in that situation and I might do the same. But I can
assure you that that 99.99% in our profession , given the chance, will
not do that. Many of them had the chance and did not take advantage of
that opportunity to fill their pocket.
I am personally not interested to go after those in our profession who
through unethical conduct gain financial advantage. But, I am very
concern about those who unethically gain financially at the expense of
public safety. Then , people get killed.
Best regards
"Hassan"
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl,
www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5 Message:0005 5
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Bill Polhemus <bi...@polhemus.cc>
> To: "<sea...@seaint.org>" <sea...@seaint.org>
> Subject: Re: Speaking out
>
> This has become the rule rather than the exception on consulting for
> public work.
>
> I should add that I do not know any of these gentlem, nor am I privy
> to any details of this situation, but the notion of rendering public
> service without emolument is now quaint, and went away a couple of
> generations ago.
>
> Everything is a business opportunity now - including elective office.
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
> Via iPhone 3G
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl <ast...@ce.berkeley.edu
> > wrote:
>
>
>> ...have used their position of power over Caltrans as Seismic
>> Advisory Board members to obtain millions of dollars of taxpayers
>> money in consulting and research contracts , on a non-competitive
>> basis.
>>
Harold Sprague
I have to say. I am honored, humbled and speechless. To be mentioned in the same vain as the legendary Dr. Housner is truly an honor. I never met him in person, but I had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Housner by telephone some years ago to discuss one of his publications. He was a gentleman of the first order, a pioneer, and a gift to our profession.
Thank-you for your kind words.
Regards, Harold Sprague
> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:29:43 -0800
> From: ast...@ce.berkeley.edu
> To: sea...@seaint.org
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
bi...@polhemus.cc
> Dear Bill: Thanking for your thoughtful comments and observations, I
> respectfully disagree with your assessment that in our profession "
> ..the notion of rendering public service without emolument is now
> quaint, and went away a couple of generations ago. ". In my opinion
> 99.99 percent of individuals involved in my profession are honest and
> honorable people and this percentage of us do public service without
> emolument.
Hassan, I understand your point but consider:
A few generations ago, "public service" was something a distinguished gentleman (or gentlelady) did because it was expected, as a way of giving back to a society whose gifts of liberty and opportunity had made possible an abundant life.
It was something you laid aside your life and life's work to do, literally serving with sacrifice as a noble gesture.
While there are still many who possess at least a semblance of that ideal, they tend by nature to be one of the "thousand points of light" rather than a high-profile "public servant," helping with MathCounts, say, or serving on water boards and such.
But the political class, and their cronies such as the members of the many "advisory boards" such as the one you cite, rarely do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. There's always a substantial benefit for them.
Once it was enough for a philanthropist to see his name above the main entry of a new library building. Now, he wants positive cash flow.
To me, this is just the way of the world. We live in a cynical age, and if you think about it too much you'll get a headache.