By T. June Melton, PE
This Part 2 article continues our ongoing investigation into corruption of Texas state agencies under the Governor Rick Perry administration, and the impact on Oklahoma professional engineers and the general public. Part 1 was published on June 30, 2010.
Behind the scenes
What is really happening behind the scenes in Texas, and evidently now in Oklahoma, is the use of state-corporate “partnerships” to limit the ability of consumers and professional engineers to press their claims in court, by eliminating the witnesses under the guise of what Texas Governor Rick Perry calls “tort reform.”
Large corporations lobby state legislators into giving them power affecting state agencies and then the corporations are able to turn the agencies against the consumer for financial gain. The agency then works for the corporation and does not serve its public role which is to protect the consumer and the environment.
In actual practice, corporations do not need to utilize Chicago’s famous Al Capone gangland tactics of “rubbing out” the witnesses. Modern-day pre-trial or pre-arbitration scenes openly display the work of thuggish corporate lobbyists who utilize state power to threaten professional engineers if the engineer testifies truthfully as an expert witness on behalf of a consumer or another design professional, against a corporate entity.
To better illustrate the point, from The Mysterious Adventures of Marshal Yeager, Professional Engineer – Book 1: In the Matter of: Sandra Bullock’s House, Governor Rick Perry, and Corruption at the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, Texas Board agency spy Brooke Kamaka is telling Marshal Yeager, PE, how the Board has fabricated a bogus claim against an engineer named Mr. Meriano:
“Yes,” said Brooke. “They reopened the case.”
“Then what is this agency employee doing using the word ‘inflammatory’ to describe an engineer’s phraseology?” inquired Marshal. “That is about as off the wall as anyone can get. Also, this letter refers to how Meriano characterizes his professional opinions related to the work of other engineers. In this particular case, as you indicated earlier, the work in question is that of a homebuilder’s engineer who is serving as an opposing expert in a legal matter. So maybe that gets directly to the heart of what seems to be going on there.