Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › The Myth of Mobility for Professional Land Surveyors
The Myth of Mobility for Professional Land Surveyors
Posted by shelby-h-griggs-pls on October 27, 2021 at 7:03 pmI just read an article from the April edition of American Surveyor that mirrors what I have been saying for years. The Myth of Mobility for Professional Land Surveyors – The American Surveyor (amerisurv.com)
I have taken exams in six western states and currently hold licensure in five, one of which is NV and I think the author is spot on.
Thoughts?
SHG
mike-marks replied 2 years, 6 months ago 17 Members · 32 Replies- 32 Replies
I think the author is whining about a 2 hour exam in the belief that it is not needed to prove that one has state-specific knowledge. I believe that there are enough differences between the states that such an exam is quite necessary. I don’t think it’s protectionism, so much as protecting the public from a lack of competence. You can be assured that the hacks would be thrilled to take advantage of an overly liberal system of portable credentials.
@peter-lothian yes, some safeguards probably need to be in place, however having five state licenses I can tell you they are all about same, and I reference the individual state laws if I don’t recall something. A license is required I agree, BUT I think the point is being licensed as a PLS in multiple states is mostly testing the same things over and over and over and going through the application process multiple times. Honestly it takes 6-12 months at least to be able to get another state PLS AND you have to actually prove very little new, so what is the actual point? Turf protection comes to mind.
I guess I thought it a thought provoking article from a person who was on a BOR for a number of years.
SHG
I’ve sat for four additional state specific exams after my initial licensure (well, three states and a Federal District). I have no problem with states requiring their own additional exam on top of the NCEES exams. From a political (ohh, bad word) point of view, it’s basic Federalism, and I think we could use more, not less local control. From a practical point of view, I’ve never really had any problem with the exams themselves: just study for a month or two and take the d**n thing. Although I have heard horror stories of some people taking 5+ tries to pass the Delaware exam since it is (or was) predominantly drainage & sediment control.
What I do find odious is states that treat an experienced comity applicant from an adjoining state as if they were a new applicant. One state still made me fill out twelve separate experience forms for the previous twelve years of experience when I had been a PLS for that entire span of time. One thing Delaware does get right is their comity application. It’s basically fill in name, address and SSN; then the form says if you’re licensed in an adjoining state (or any state for more than five years) skip the rest of the form, sign and send in the application fee.
@james-fleming I am licensed in NJ and have been since 1993. I’m thinking about taking my exam in PA but am not really interested in studying the drainage design methods as when I took that exam in the 90’s I was well versed in drainage design in NJ, as I was designing drainage a road/highway construction projects under the supervision of a PE.
NJ uses the rational method, PA was using the TR 55 outdated model which I was clueless on and I’m not sure what model Delaware uses. I would love to be able to practice in both states and have nointerest in designing stormand sanitary systems, those things are better left to the Engineers.
What I question is, why are some states allowing Surveyors to do drainage design when, in most states, that falls under the statutory responsibility of an Engineer.
It is not surprising the author is an engineer. Patty is good people but is completely off-base here.
I hold five licenses in western states. I selected them because they were similar, but I recognize they have some significant differences. As an investigator I can tell you most of the issues I see relate to people extending practice across state lines. These are not ‘technical’ problems but violations causing real harm. I wish I could share details, it would curl your toe-nails.
Idaho was a take home exam for over a decade. We had more failures than you can imagine, mostly comity applicants. It is now a six hour proctored exam and yes, its includes PLSS questions. The failure rate has dropped in half. The handful of questions on the FS and PS simply don’t cut it when testing (PLSS) competency. When I have multi (PLSS) state licensees ask what a closing corner is we have a problem. I wish that were an extreme example.
NCEES is, and has been for the last few years, working on a way to revamp the current PS exam such that it can be 1) more beneficial to the 55 boards that license land surveyors in the US and territories; 2) more adaptable to the practicing land surveyor who needs to be licensed in multiple states in terms of less duplication of examination efforts; 3) more practical for those smaller licensing board which either failed to update their state surveying exam for many years or simply did not have the resources to manage the development of a state exam in the proper way (Yes, Nevada was one of them); and 4) provide a better national exam platform for all boards to make a better determination for how they wish to proceed with adapting their state surveying exam.
I agree with thebonicman above that the author is a good person, very knowledgeable, and has good intent. However, this article misses the point of licensing in multiple ways. Boards that unilaterally decide that someone licensed in another country should just be handed a license simply by virtue of having a license in the former country and waiving exams is not putting the public welfare in the forefront of their decisions. A licensing board has the responsibility that may at times not completely align with those of the professions that it regulates and the board needs to make the right choices.
Of course the license should be mobile. Shouldn’t be doing it anywhere if you can’t do it everywhere.
- Posted by: @duane-frymire
Of course the license should be mobile. Shouldn’t be doing it anywhere if you can’t do it everywhere.
Even many PLSS states had different instructions from each other. If you are retracing something old you need to know the territory.
There are enough poorly done surveys discussed here that don’t involve interstate licensing that I wouldn’t trust someone from California to properly replace obliterated monuments in Iowa or vice versa without evidence they studied the other state. And then there’s Ohio.
On the other hand, there should be no need for a state to retest material that was on the national test.
And hydrology should be a separate endorsement on the license, not a requirement for someone who wants to just do boundary.
My $0.00
. Because I’m not licensed yet, and on the path, why doesn’t the consortium get the cojones to excise out the engineering parts, period (drainage plans etc ) and let that be an additional credential that can be added if you so wish to achieve. Like the CFM PEs will add etc.
Seems like it would be easy, although all the people that did suffer that process will be all butthurt and bellyache about how the new people have easier blah blah blah blah.
A revamp and reassessment is needed, and clawing back other elements of the profession too like legal descriptions writing, pushing back on planners and people that aren’t licensed whom seem to make broad stroke approvals or disapprovals and the like.
My $0.02 and they really don’t matter because I’m still only a upwardly path seeking tech, but not idle nor under the belief that this is going to self repair either.
Meh.
I don’t have a lawn, get off my rocks and dirt….
We were on parallel rant except you type faster and more efficiently….????????????
The state specific exams at least require the applicant to invest some time in familiarizing themselves with the various state rules and practices. I have seen many big problems and substandard practice by firms that send crews to an area they are not familiar with. Specifically, it is unbelievable the surveyors who come into our valley of 3-mile method original surveys and proceed to break down sections by the standard method.
I held license in three adjacent states and when called on to survey outside my home state I always had to renew my knowledge of state specific statutes. Things like fence law in Utah and riparian ownership in Wyoming come to mind.
@kscott This was my point when I lobbied for the change to proctored in Idaho. I am all too familiar with the effort getting ready for an exam. It is the best chance to push an applicant to the books for your jurisdiction. I gave everyone the map to ace the exam. Those who followed it and put in the effort were rewarded for it.
Every jurisdiction has its own history, laws, and customs. A clear path to licensure is a must but handing out license A for knowledge B is silliness…
This article is a perfect example about why State Boards should be separated between professional engineers and professional land surveyors. Engineers are a wonderful group of professionals and I appreciate their contribution to society but the role of the land surveyor has changed so much since the time that the boards were first created that to truly safeguard the public State’s should create separate Boards for each group.
Think about how much change YOU have seen in our profession since you first got into surveying. Can one Board truly govern the professional quality of the licensees of the future for the benefit of the public?
Texas recently combined its engineering board and land surveying Boards into one. It will be interesting to see if this turns out to be in the best interest of the in the future.
I am licensed in Louisiana (initial) and in Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas. All great States with a wide range of different when it comes to land surveying laws and procedures.
@t-ford
Amen.
Like doctors and nurses.
Plumbers and electricians
Cross over shouldnt be an oversight.
It’s shouldn’t exist at all.
They’re different professional Licenses and should be treated and assessed as so.
Imnsho.
Missouri became a State on August 10, 1821
Arkansas became a State on June 15, 1836 (45 minutes from Joplin)
Kansas became a State on January 29, 1861 (less than 15 minutes from Joplin)
Oklahoma became a State on November 16, 1907 (less than 15 minutes from Joplin)
Survey firms based in Joplin, MO would be expected to operate in three, if not all four, on a regular basis
Which versions of Official Survey Instructions would one need to be familiar with to survey anywhere in all four States?
Which States have French and/or Spanish Land Grants
Which States have areas using the Three-Mile Method
How similar/different are the laws that apply to land surveyors and the real estate they survey
Which States have continuing education as a condition to renew a license, how much per period and how does one prove their claims of accrued credit
Which States include hydrology, drainage etc. in the surveyor exam, if any
What are the principal meridians and baselines and where do they apply
@bill93 You make my point for me. Either one has the knowledge to look for what is needed, and the ability and desire to do so, or they don’t. We continually hear about those people, firms, companies in a localized area that put out poor decisions for years. Diligent and knowledgeable surveyors will take longer to complete a job in unfamiliar territory, but they will get it right. The complained about ones will get it wrong for years without going anywhere new.
But I’m not opposed to a State level exam for comity. Because they exist, there also exists materials to study for them, which are an excellent source of research to learn about a new area if you choose to work there. The research would be much more time consuming if the exams didn’t exist. But I’ve also found certain areas within your own jurisdiction can be much more challenging than crossing State lines.
You essentially, it seems, are arguing for deregulation? Am I understanding correctly?
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.And to be clear, I believe deregulation would probably hurt the public in the short term. I doubt it would hurt good surveyors much, if at all.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.Those non-local surveyors are the ones who re-establish section corners and quarter corners at the CORRECT location, which is 75 feet east and 114 feet north of the FACTUAL corner of all abutting properties.
My thoughts are that ALL tasks in the model laws from state to state are the same EXCEPT boundary. It seems a portable license works for ALL but boundary IMO.
Some of the arguments in the responses I think are valid, BUT no amount of testing will cure poor surveying practice. As stated, I am licensed in five states. Would I do boundary in all five? No, it is not possible to know everything about boundary in five states despite passing a state specific exam in each. In fact, I doubt I would be inclined to take on a boundary someplace else in my state of residence outside of a local county or so around where I have lived and worked for decades, so much changes region to region even in the same state. The only way to get competent in an area is lots of study, mentoring and actually working there. Unfortunately lots of licensed folks can’t measure, let alone survey and everyone of them passed a test. If you are good, you put in the time to learn what needs to be done, if you aren’t you just skate by. Practicing within your competence level is rare for most, they have a license and rubber stamp in ignorance. Even today (29 years after getting 1st licensed) if I am outside my home state in one of the other four where I am licensed, I review the applicable statutes if I am unsure on what is required for my little area of practice (control surveys).
I have seen a lot of work regarding just control over the last 30 years come through the door at various mapping firms where I worked and doing an excellent job including complete metadata is rare. A lot of firms may have the PLS on staff, BUT they in no way are doing the work, but hey it checks a box. Box checking is easy for BOR’s to enforce, BUT evaluating for competence seems much more difficult.
Log in to reply.