Last year, there was proposed legislation introduced in the Kentucky House to lower the educational requirements to allow an associate's degree pathway.?ÿ The majority decision of the Kentucky Association of Professional Surveyors (KAPS) was to oppose the bill.?ÿ With a letter of opposition sent off, the bill did not make it out of the Committee on Committees.
Just recently, during the 2023 legislative session, a different representative sponsors the same bill and does not pre-file it, so we (KAPS) have short notice to oppose it.?ÿ Many calls and emails to representatives across the state from several KAPS members and the bill was withdrawn.
While the conversation will probably head back to the old degree/no degree discussion, what was more interesting this go around to me was:
1.?ÿ A private party was able to get a lobbyist to work on preparing a bill and?ÿ getting it sponsored when it would impact a currently existing profession with a state licensing board and at no time did any of the representatives seem to even be concerned if the people actually within the key group representing the profession or even the board of licensure for that profession were asked for any input (which we were not).?ÿ That is until they were inundated with opposition.
It seems to me that question one should be who are the main people this affects and what is their view on the proposed language.
2.?ÿ There are actually some elected officials who responded and asked questions.?ÿ There are some who even want to follow-up after the legislative session to gain more insight or see what can be done to address the concerns of the party that suggested the bill.
3.?ÿ Finally, it was surprising to me how poorly worded a bill can be made, yet people not in the know about what the bill applies to can not distinguish the problems with the language used.?ÿ For example, the proposed bill would have allowed for 2 years of unsupervised practice to count within the experience needed (but only for those with an associate's degree) and would have removed the board of licensure's ability to determine if the experience being reported was of a character to show professional growth.
State legislatures are typically controlled by a handful or less of elected officials holding certain power structure titles. This is especially true in States where one political party is very dominant. Lobbyists generally have no need to communicate with all of the other elected officials as they WILL BE TOLD what they are to think by that handful. It typically takes a HUGE grass roots and very public attack to turn the tide. When things are quiet, the handful simply threaten the "little representatives and senators" with removing from them their committee roles and effectively being blacklisted. Those who aspire to become one of the handful someday consistently bow to the handful no matter what is in the best interests of the foolish people who elect them.
@ years of unsupervised experience??????
@chris-bouffard from the bill's language:
"...and not less than six (6) years of progressive experience in land surveying with four (4) of the six (6) years under the direct supervision of a practicing professional land surveyor."
@jon-payne That is pretty much true in NY, but just not spelled out. I like the fact they spelled it out and took some power away from some individual bureaucrat. The idea is to allow a certain amount of experience in things that are not boundary related. I think that's important, even if not under direct supervision of a licensed land surveyor.
We have counsel that forwards proposed legislation that might effect land surveying to our association. I think that's critical, agree or not on whatever it is, we need to know about it.
Here is the full 2022 bill:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/22RS/hb526.html
Text:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/22RS/hb526/orig_bill.pdf
This bill reads like many of the "revise the licensing requirement bills", and of the many I've seen, this one is not the worst by any means.
3. Finally, it was surprising to me how poorly worded a bill can be made, yet people not in the know about what the bill applies to can not distinguish the problems with the language used. For example, the proposed bill would have allowed for 2 years of unsupervised practice to count within the experience needed (but only for those with an associate's degree) and would have removed the board of licensure's ability to determine if the experience being reported was of a character to show professional growth.
Your characterization of the bill is misleading...
The bill allows for the 2-year degree (board approved land surveying degree) to count towards the total of 6 years worth of experience, while the remaining 4 years are under the supervision of a licensed surveyor.
This is quite common, and appears to read correctly.
I read bills/statutes twice. Once to get a feel for it. Twice to pick up all the details I missed the first time.
Have some whiskey and read it again!
We have counsel that forwards proposed legislation that might effect land surveying to our association.
It's more effective to have a lobbyist on retainer rather than an attorney for those things.. (Funny, most lobbyists are attorneys?!)
Most associations don't need attorneys for 99% of what they exist for, unless they get sued, or they are navigating complex tax issues (which is not usually the case). If your association is out there suing everyone under the sun, I'd say your association is doing it wrong.
Using a lobbyist to promote legislation that furthers the profession and warns of potential changes is the better tool.
Your characterization of the bill is misleading...
The bill allows for the 2-year degree (board approved land surveying degree) to count towards the total of 6 years worth of experience, while the remaining 4 years are under the supervision of a licensed surveyor.
Here is a link to the current bill. You linked the 2022 legislative session.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/23RS/hb151/orig_bill.pdf
My characterization of the bill is not misleading as it very clearly states graduation from a 2 year program AND not less than 6 years of progressive experience. The 2 years does not count towards the total of 6 years experience.
The language is no different in how it treats education credential and experience than the current 4 year degree which requires an additional 4 years of experience beyond degree, except that it specifically allows for 2 of the 6 years to be unsupervised by a licensee.
@duane-frymire I don't disagree that non-boundary work performed without direct supervision from a licensee can be beneficial in terms of land surveying (beyond just boundary work). However, I do disagree with the way in which it is written only for the one pathway and if it were to be enacted, it should be more clearly conveyed that those 2 years of experience would be non-boundary work.
I did mischaracterize, not the unsupervised experience, but this statement "...and would have removed the board of licensure's ability to determine if the experience being reported was of a character to show professional growth." That would have only applied to considering experience gained prior to graduation as well as what the board accepts as the "core curriculum" for surveying.
Here is a link to the current bill. You linked the 2022 legislative session.
I linked the 2022 bill because that's the one you referenced first.
I did not reference the 2023 bill because you said it was withdrawn.
(They appear to be identical in content.)
At no point does the 2-year degree language indicate that those "2 years of unsupervised experience" may not be concurrently acquired while at university.
Arguably, 2 years of degree oriented study is "progressive experience".
When reading the law, what is not written is just as important as what is written.
@michigan-left Hence the purposeful use of the term "counsel". Not at liberty to discuss details on a public chat board.
@jon-payne Isn't boundary work required to be done by or under direct supervision of a licensed surveyor? If so, it can only mean one thing. But I agree, would be better to make it clear in the bill.
I think the new issue is maybe construction type work is no longer typically under supervision of a land surveyor due to technology. NY allows I think 2 years of non-boundary in the six years (plus 2 yr degree). Now I wonder if we need to look at this again, probably still requires that direct supervision. These days probably much of that supervision is under someone not licensed as a surveyor. Could be a PE or could be someone that makes a career out of that type of work and doesn't need a license but is very good at what they do.
I believe if you are an existing PLS in another state and have your NCEES Record, Kentucky will award you theirs after application. You don't have to take their state specific exam.
I believe if you are an existing PLS in another state and have your NCEES Record, Kentucky will award you theirs after application. You don't have to take their state specific exam.
I believe KY no longer has a state specific exam
