Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › TBPLS no more
TBPLS no more
Posted by ANOTHER_TEXAS_SURVEYOR on January 11, 2019 at 5:18 pmThe Sunset Commission has voted to abolish the Texas Board of Professional Surveying and has planned to be absorbed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers.
thebionicman replied 5 years, 2 months ago 23 Members · 54 Replies- 54 Replies
yep- this topic caused a rather heated exchange at a seminar i attended last month.
put me in the crowd (for now) who still expects the sky to be blue for as long as i live, and who can’t wait to get paid to clean up all the anticipated messes that may result. i reserve the right to change my mind at any point in the future.
I’ve struggled to understand why I should care, honestly. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the TBPLS to police the profession.
I’m not sure what messes you expect will need to be cleaned up that don’t already exist in the current situation. The Board has (perhaps of necessity) disciplined surveyors for easy to prove, yet generally inert, infractions (such as leaving something off a plat), and neglected to discipline actual cardinal sins of surveying (like not setting corners). We probably all know of two or three surveyors that we cannot believe still have a license. The board is simply not a factor in my daily life until I have to do continuing education and pay my licensing fees for Firm Registration and RPLS.
- Posted by: Shawn Billings
I’ve struggled to understand why I should care, honestly. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the TBPLS to police the profession.
I’m not sure what messes you expect will need to be cleaned up that don’t already exist in the current situation. The Board has (perhaps of necessity) disciplined surveyors for easy to prove, yet generally inert, infractions (such as leaving something off a plat), and neglected to discipline actual cardinal sins of surveying (like not setting corners). We probably all know of two or three surveyors that we cannot believe still have a license. The board is simply not a factor in my daily life until I have to do continuing education and pay my licensing fees for Firm Registration and RPLS.
i pretty much agree with you- the board has long been a toothless organization, in both a literal and figurative sense. just paying a visit to their current office would tell the average human that it’s been rendered little more than an afterthought. (getting to their cubby in the middle of that building evokes that last verse of “green green grass of home”).
the only messes i’m referring to what i expect will result should the new combined board suddenly find it a good idea to start handing out RPLS stamps to heretofore non-qualifiers (and yes- what i’m trying to say is handing out surveying stamps to engineers just because they’re engineers), and possible surveys done by people who have even less grasp of the concepts of boundary law than our current crop of compatriots as a whole.
The Board in each of the 3 states I’m licensed in governs both Engineers and Land Surveyors. Sometimes it’s not perfect, but none of these states is actually on en fuego at this time.
- Posted by: flyin soloPosted by: Shawn Billings
I’ve struggled to understand why I should care, honestly. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the TBPLS to police the profession.
I’m not sure what messes you expect will need to be cleaned up that don’t already exist in the current situation. The Board has (perhaps of necessity) disciplined surveyors for easy to prove, yet generally inert, infractions (such as leaving something off a plat), and neglected to discipline actual cardinal sins of surveying (like not setting corners). We probably all know of two or three surveyors that we cannot believe still have a license. The board is simply not a factor in my daily life until I have to do continuing education and pay my licensing fees for Firm Registration and RPLS.
i pretty much agree with you- the board has long been a toothless organization, in both a literal and figurative sense. just paying a visit to their current office would tell the average human that it’s been rendered little more than an afterthought. (getting to their cubby in the middle of that building evokes that last verse of “green green grass of home”).
the only messes i’m referring to what i expect will result should the new combined board suddenly find it a good idea to start handing out RPLS stamps to heretofore non-qualifiers (and yes- what i’m trying to say is handing out surveying stamps to engineers just because they’re engineers), and possible surveys done by people who have even less grasp of the concepts of boundary law than our current crop of compatriots as a whole.
If that becomes the case then that will be a fight that will need to be had. I don’t really see passing out stamps to engineers. That happened in the late seventies to early eighties because there was no set requirement for RPS at the time and when the requirements for becoming an RPS (Registered Public Surveyor) were being established, the State had to grandfather those who were already operating as surveyors.
Personally I don’t see too many engineers wanting to do what we do. As Norman points out, many States already have combined PE/RPLS boards. It is a far better outcome than being put under the general board of licensure.
It’s always baffled me; that surveyors are lumped in with engineers. Boundary surveying has nothing to do with engineering. It seems to me that engineers want to keep a tight rein on who can and cannot do topo surveys, construction staking and monitoring.
In Europe, land surveying is governed by RICS, surveyors watching out for surveyors…
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!again Shawn, i’m in total agreement. only thing that might vary due to our different circumstances: as somebody who’s spent more than my share of time inside the hallways, offices, and payrolls of engineering/development firms in austin is that i can’t count the number of times i’ve heard “it’s just shooting a few points, how come we can’t get it tomorrow/after lunch/for free/just tell me where you keep the gear and i’ll go do it myself.”
that attitude- which is very real and very pervasive among the “i had to take a surveying class at UT/A&M/Tech when i got my engineering degree” crowd- coupled with the fact that, as licensed surveyors, those of us who theoretically will be at it for a couple more decades stand to see a fairly substantial uptick in the demand for our services. the resultant fee schedules are going to be pretty enticing for those guys who got a few required credit hours back in their younger days…
Posted by: Shawn Billings
Personally I don’t see too many engineers wanting to do what we do. As Norman points out, many States already have combined PE/RPLS boards. It is a far better outcome than being put under the general board of licensure.
None of the 3 states I am licensed in allows engineers to survey boundaries on the basis of their Engineering licenses. In Oregon they once could, but it was sunsetted beginning in the mid ’70s, and so far as I know nobody has proposed bringing it back. Engineers can test for a survey license, and often do. Enough fail that testing to make a great case for why Engineers should not just be awarded a survey license.
The general mood in government these days is less regulation and less spending to regulate. I will keep my opinions on that to myself. It’s just a statement about the way it is.
I seriously doubt Texas has some nefarious group of engineers plotting the takeover of surveying. I’ve worked in over a dozen states, most of which have a combined board. The engineers have shed survey functions in nearly all of them. None have had a serious move to license PEs as LSs for several decades.
They will keep charging the same fees and provide less service. I have a complaint that has been under investigation since 2015 and still no resolution. The guy is still surveying. I doubt a merged board is going to be more effective. The State should have let the TBPLS to keep more of its money to hire a full-time investigator instead of milking it for revenue for the general fund.
- Posted by: Andy Nold
They will keep charging the same fees and provide less service. I have a complaint that has been under investigation since 2015 and still no resolution. The guy is still surveying. I doubt a merged board is going to be more effective. The State should have let the TBPLS to keep more of its money to hire a full-time investigator instead of milking it for revenue for the general fund.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly why the Sunset Commission is bringing the hammer down, Andy. It seems like a lateral move to me. By the way, maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but I recall when Firm Registration was $25. I was surprised to see that it is now $125. Maybe it’s been that much for a while now, but it seems high for what it is.
Our state has a combined board – Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors, Landscape Architects, and the Public. There are 11 members. Initially I thought this was not a good idea. In fact, it seems to work really well. The regulations that come out of the Board are considered from the perspective of other design professionals.
In the case of Alaska, the combined board works very well – but I’d be leery of bringing too many groups to the Board – Board members have to learn about the issues of other professions with enough depth to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Too many professions would make this nearly impossible, meetings would last forever, and very little would get accomplished.
Some Combined Board Benefits:
1. Better discussion – You have to make a case that’s valid from the perspective of multiple professions: It’s one thing for a surveyor to have to convince other surveyors that some reg is good for the public vs. convincing other design professionals. It’s impressive what the Engineers, Architects, and Landscape Architects have supported when they’ve had the chance to listen to and question the Land Surveyors on the Board.
2. More clout – Politicians and building officials generally respect the decisions of a Board more if that board is comprised of multiple professions – the regs aren’t just good for the surveyors: surveyors and engineers and … think the reg a good idea.
3. Even more clout – the Board represents many more registrants (I’d guess it’s at least 5x – someone from Texas probably knows the number). More constituents = stronger voice.
4. Better public notice – all Board constituents are notified of the changes – this improves the chances that registrants are aware of all reg changes will be recognized and followed.
5. More professional acceptance – There are representatives from key design professions that have in-depth knowledge of why reg changes come about – these are the Board members who are typically well connected in the design community – when the engineers here about why a reg doesn’t allow them to perform surveys the initial reaction used to be “protectionism”. But when an engineer from the Board explains that they don’t have education, experience, or testing on the topics required to do some professional activity then other engineers listen a little closer – this is a fellow engineer advocating the surveyors position (I’ve seen civil engineers tell other engineers that it’s just not worth using GPS – get someone who is competent with geodesy, projections, coordinate systems, etc. and avoid the headache and potential liability.) This has also been important in getting the word out to GIS only folks who are practicing land surveying – many of them are working for engineers.
6. Perceived as less biased -The regs and decisions of the Board don’t smell protectionist because they are approved by representatives from multiple professions.
At the end of the day, I believe the combined board puts out better vetted regs which are more readily accepted because of the diversity on the Board.
This should be viewed as a great opportunity – it make take a few generations of Board members to yield real cooperation and benefits, but if everyone has the right attitude – protect the public – then it’ll work.
I??m on the fence as well. Just reading the report by the Sunset Commission it was fairly obvious that the board was mis managed for quite some time. Maybe their hands were tied due to lack of funds. The hand slaps some of the Surveyors have gotten for doing sub par work has been ridiculous and standard op in my short 18 years of surveying.
I hope surveyors have a strong voice on the combined board but I see a lot of changes coming for testing, and investigations. I also hope some of the vague rules that were written in what i assume was an attempt to not be over reaching are modified as well. Too much gray area, we don??t need a textbook or manual to survey by but black and white rules which can??t be swayed by the opinions of the board members would seem to protect the public more.
TBPLS was probably one of the only state agencies that used no tax dollars.
Around 1975 the news of a Sunset Agency Review set fire between Surveyors and Engineers because the latter was intent on abolishing surveyor liscensure completely
With one surveyor on the new board, we will always be in the minority.
40 years ago, I would certainly be saying we are certainly headed down a rabbit hole with no future.
Today I see a possible exit from ever collecting snd paying in sales tax again because for around 25+yrs that has been a burden.
Locally, there are more active surveyors than engineers.ost of them are at TxDot and the others have no need for land surveyors and would not pay one minimum wage.
I see our worst news coming from Title Companies who would rather sell a survey exemption than wait for a boundary to land on their desk.
What surprises me most is that it costs twice as much to be a member of the TSPLS, society, as it does to renew our license.
- Posted by: A Harris
With one surveyor on the new board, we will always be in the minority.
That is unfortunate. It will be important to get the right person on the Board and it they’ll need plenty of support testimony from the survey community – other surveyors verifying the position that he brings to the discussion – it’s the only way the engineers can be confident that the Board surveyor is bringing a reasonable perspective to the Board. How many engineers on the Board?
5 engineers
1 surveyor
1 public member
All appointed by Govenor
Keep in mind that at present this is the recommended terms of the Sunset Commission.
There are also recommendations from the Surveying association, Engineers and every group of Professionals.
The Senate will make the final decision after hearing testimony from the groups spokespersons and any others allow to speak and give testimony concerning this topic.
The powers that have been given to police the surveyors by the TBPLS are regulated by what is bestowed by the Surveyors Act as written into law and what powers that are regulated by the House and Senate and signed by the Govenor.
Surveyors are also regulated by all licensed Surveyors as part of the Ethic portion of our professional status.
The state has not given the TBPLS the power to penalize anyone more than deciding the status of their license to practice land surveying.
The state has left any real power to the courts and judicial system thru actions of State and District Attorneys and individuals and other surveyors that choose to bring suit.
The actions that actually go before the courts are the ones that are decided to have merit by the presiding judge and grand jury.
It is not a done deal and with every prior Sunset Commission the licensed surveyors are once again tasked with giving answer to the Senate for the importance of a seperate regulation board for surveyors and how being regulated by engineers who have no interest in protecting the public in regard to land surveying.
0.02
It does seem like the board could be bigger allowing for more diversity of opinion, but mostly these board members need to be able to determine if the evidence found in a complaint against a professional substantially conflicts with the professional standards. Also, the board has more power than revoking licenses, they can also assess fines and require ongoing probationary terms from a professional (such as requiring examples of work that meets standards).
Also, I’m not familiar with the current board of engineering, but I suspect that it covers many disciplines of engineering beyond civil, so it might make sense to have professionals from various facets of engineering on the board.
I asked our buddy Kent what he thought about this. I’m not licensed in Texas and our state board has been lumped in with engineers since its inception. But I had a feeling Mr. McMillan might have a personal view on this subject. I also asked if I might quote him, and he agreed. Here is his response:
Basically, the Texas Sunset Commission’s mission has been to configure the administrative side of Texas Government as efficiently as possible to serve what the Commissioners understand to be the purposes of the various agencies and boards. The link below summarizes the actions that the Sunset Commission took toward those ends.
Here is the full scope of the boards and such presently under review by the Sunset Commission:
https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports
The real thrust of the Sunset Commission’s recommendation is to revise the Professional Surveying Practice Act to substitute an entitiy to be a consolidated form of the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying with the Texas Board of Professional Engineers as the entity authorized to administer the provisions of the Act, i.e. oversee licensure, adoption of rules of practice, and handling of complaints about licensees. I see that as fairly benign considering how sub-stellar the record of the TBPLS has been in those respects.
There is an underlying problem that is reflected in the Sunset Commission’s proposal to eliminate the requirement that to be a Licensed State Land Surveyor in Texas you have to be a Texas resident. That is, the real mission of the licensing board is understood to be to produce lots of licensees so that surveying can be purchased by consumers at the lowest cost possible. Since I am consistently underwhelmed by the quality of work churned out by the LSLS licensees and think that the license is long past due for abolishment, I don’t see a measure that will most likely further degrade the quality of surveys filed in the Texas GLO as other than merely accelerating the longdownhill slope toward elimination of the license.
So, bottom line, the role of the TBPLS has been so sub-optimal in rule making and enforcement, that I tend to doubt things can get much worse and are more likely to be improved by blending the engineers and surveyors, much as I dislike engineers as people, on the whole.To be continued.
I thought Kent’s opinion was an objective view and possibly even bordering on pragmatic…a word I might not have thought I could ever use when describing Kent’s opinions…I wondered if he was losing his edge..or maybe wasn’t feeling well. The last sentence was the clue to resolve my fears. A few moments later I read his next reply. I believe all is well with our amigo south of the Rio Roxo. Here’s what he added:I will add, though, that in my view the greatest failing of the current licensing system is in the licensing process. Trying the streamline the examination process by, for example, shifting to computer-based testing, is a long march in the wrong direction considering that the process of determining whether a person has the necessary skills and knowledge that professional practice requires is as much a matter of judging intellectual ability as anything. There are just too many dumb asses being licensed as land surveyors who have no real concept of what professional-level surveying practice amounts to and I don’t have much faith that a machine-graded test with multiple-choice answers will solve that problem.Kent is well and apparently still possesses his enduring critical views.Any surveyor in Texas would have to be an Engineer before they would agree to be under the control of Engineers judging what a Land Surveyor is required to be and how their road to licensure is required.8
For the idea to be able to benifit the public and to fairly cover the professionals impacted by the change, every group would require equal number of representation on the board including public, surveyoy, engineer and any other group they regulate.
My opinion is that no other group has the necessary education to decide what is necessary for Land Surveyors than Land Surveyors.
In the immortal words of Richard Schaut, “If not the surveyor, then who”.
The public is represented by members of the public that serve on the present board
Land surveying is not taught to engineers, architects and any other profession.
California started in 1892 as a Land Surveyor Board. Most practitioners then would write “John Smith, C.E.” on the map and bill themselves as a Civil Engineer. Under the signature line would be “State Licensed Land Surveyor.” In newspapers and City Directories from the first two decades of the twentieth century they were always Civil Engineers except for the County Surveyor. Mulholland’s Dam collapsed and killed thousands of people in Ventura County so the practice of engineering was first regulated in 1930. They almost abolished the LS license and converted everyone to Civil Engineers but somehow the LS survived. We have had a combined board ever since. Geologists were added a few years ago. The Land Surveying privileges were removed from Civil PEs beginning in 1982 but they have a shorter road to the LS, this is not reciprocated, naturally.
There are three times more pre-82 CEs practicing as there are LSs practicing but most of them probably don’t use their LS privileges. My Uncle, for example, was a drinking water regulator, his job had absolutely nothing to do with Surveying but theoretically he could open a boundary Surveying practice.
Log in to reply.