rohnoitsrutroh

rohnoitsrutroh t1_jdhdwp3 wrote

>The Senate report concluded that Eckstrom was solely responsible for the mapping error, which happened during the state's transition to a new internal information system from 2011 to 2017. State officials testified that Eckstrom ignored auditors' yearslong warnings of a "material weakness" in his office and flawed cash reporting.

Not sure what the laws are for this; however, I'm guessing that criminal charges wouldn't be a stretch for mismanagement of public funds at this scale.

In a private company, I'm guessing a regulatory agency would be in your office the next day if this sort of accounting error was reported.

Any CPAs out there who could shed some light?

3

rohnoitsrutroh t1_j94umtu wrote

SCL is good for certain applications, not for others. The real breakthrough for multi-story wood construction wasn't SCL (although it helps), but experimentation with tie-down systems and shear walls. Tall buildings are subject to overturning and racking, which requires shear walls and continuous tie-down rods.

The real use of SCL is that its stronger than normal wood, and is cheaper than steel or reinforced concrete for certain applications.

8

rohnoitsrutroh t1_j94tmg1 wrote

Honestly, floor trusses are still the best option when you can use them. They use less material, are cheaper, and use solid sawn lumber. They also have room for mechanical chases.

Engineered lumber (Structural Composite Lumber or SCL) is stronger and stiffer than normal lumber; however it's also more expensive than trusses. Typically, we prefer to use trusses unless the strength of the SCL is needed.

The main advantage is that SCL can be more cheaply produced in deep sections (16-24 inches deep) and in long spans (up to 48 feet) than solid seen lumber. It is also straight and uniform. It allows us to avoid more expensive materials (steel, concrete).

11