I wasn't overly interested in your "counsel" comment until I reviewed this link I saw that you posted on another recent thread:
https://www.nysapls.org/general/custom.asp?page=EthicProcedures
I read the NYSAPLS complaint section.
Not at liberty to discuss details on a public chat board.
What legal authority does NYSAPLS have to bring a criminal suit against a licensed professional in the state of New York that would require "counsel" and preclude any discussion?
That is the realm of the State.
If NYSAPLS wants to extort membership fees for some perceived value implied toward their membership and then later shakedown those same members, I guess that's the New York way.
I've seen many similar instances of "associations" and their "members" quite proud of this type of behavior and their power hungry pursuits.
But let's look at the numbers of surveyors joining the profession. Most associations aren't helping things. Their antiquated ideas are actually hurting everyone they claim to represent. 3rd party organizations that claim to represent another's interest is just racketeering, and seems to be exceptionally strong in the surveying field.
Great example: the Kentucky Licensing Bill thread within the last couple of days.
That state was looking to address avenues to expand the ability to get licensed, which is good for the profession.
And the Kentucky Surveyors shut it down.
Twice.
What are all these associations going to do when there are no surveyors left to join their little clubs?
I have served as a lobbyist for several years. While there is some truth to the idea the few control the many, it is possible to get things done if you put in the work.
Every society should have a lobbyist building relationships with legislators, especially the committee chairs who hear bills on our key subjects. In a perfect world the lobbyist would be a subject matter expert rather than an attorney. A semiretired PLS is ideal.
Nearly every State has a public portal where you can track legislation. When something comes out of left field it's nice to call the chair and let them know you weren't invited to the table. Many will hold the bill until the sponsor sits with you and hammers things out. It is nearly a universal truth chairs HATE controversy.
I've dabbled in politics for about thirty years now. It is the most exasperating fun a guy can have...
Ramble off...
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.
Do they not require that you meet the requirements in place in Kentucky at the time of your initial license being issued? I thought that used to be part of the reciprocity application.
That is correct sir. I was more focused on the non-examination part and did not mention that caveat.
https://kyboels.ky.gov/Getting-Licensed/Pages/Getting-Your-Individual-License.aspx
@michigan-left I'm simply sharing information with parties that might be interested. You can make what you want of it. Seems you have a grievance about associations. Why don't you start a thread to discuss them? Maybe you can teach us all how it should work?
It's been part of my responsibilities to help consumers when they have complaints. I don't make judgements but only counsel how to access the system. The link shows two methods, one through the association and one through the State board.
No big conspiracy going on. There are methods for consumer complaints in all professions and trades that I'm aware of. Some through State agencies some through associations. But often the public doesn't know how to access them.
If you want to discuss inner workings of NYSAPLS just give them a call. Me just a pawn in game of life.
Like grains of sand through the hours glass...these are the days of our lives.
N10,000, E7,000, Z100.00
PLS - IL, MO, AR, KS, MN, KY
@jflamm Thanks for the clarification. Changes can happen so quickly its hard to keep up with all of them, so I wasn't sure if that went away as well.
Every society should have a lobbyist building relationships with legislators, especially the committee chairs who hear bills on our key subjects.
That is one of the bigger decisions that was made by our society that I really disagree with - no longer retaining a lobbyist.
I find the idea of lobbyists somewhat repugnant
Employing one, even more so
Democracy - the best government money can buy
Great example: the Kentucky Licensing Bill thread within the last couple of days.
That state was looking to address avenues to expand the ability to get licensed, which is good for the profession.
And the Kentucky Surveyors shut it down.
Twice.
The state was not looking to address anything. The state (legislators) would not have been involved at all, as they weren't manufacturing a problem to solve, except for being deceptively dragged into it by false claims. A disgruntled engineering firm owner (PE) who wasn't happy with either a time frame to get an ALTA done or his ability to hire a PLS (not sure which as I've heard both versions) initiated the bill through his influence with one representative. The timing should not have been a surprise to an engineering business owner as we are in an uncharacteristic boom time where people are even waiting on ---- engineers. I have asked for and am yet to receive any study to support the claims that the bill would have increased the number of licensees. As there is currently no 2-year program within the state to create these new licensees, I doubt it would have accomplished much (for a while at the very least).
The latest board of licensure numbers indicate that this year, we will have the same number of testing applicants as pre- four year degree requirement but with a better than double passing rate. Meaning there will actually be more licenses issued. So, the over a years of research that went into the original language to create the existing 4-year degree requirement is doing exactly what was predicted and what it was partially intended to do - increasing the number of licensees by having testing applicants who are better prepared for the exam portion.
KAPS members and leadership struggled with this decision during the initial implementation of a 4-year degree requirement and have had many serious discussions about the most recent attempts at changing the requirements. These are real-world difficult decisions being made by people who are actively working to better the profession, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks grumbling on the internet. I doubt a single person in KAPS is unwilling to discuss changes as needed, if thoroughly researched, but it is utter foolishness to abandon an already implemented plan exactly when it was predicted to come to fruition AND is actually accomplishing what some new scheme (which hasn't even been researched) proposes to do.
@jimcox The vast majority of lobbyists are decent people trying to see good policy become law. This is especially true at the State level.
In 30 plus years I've never done a favor, made a donation, or pulled any of the crap that people with zero knowledge of what a lobbyist does think happens.
A lobbyist for a State society needs to be a subject matter expert who can help policy makers understand the reality of our profession. If we really needed to palm cash to get that done there would be no surveying laws.
@thebionicman The lobbyist we used to have seemed really good. Any time we wanted to try to accomplish anything on the legislative front, one of their first questions was who are the stakeholders we need to discuss this with. Unfortunately, the recent bill in Kentucky, the lobbyists weren't as forthcoming.
Why don't you start a thread to discuss them? Maybe you can teach us all how it should work?
I considered starting a new thread, but thought this one would be easier to follow since it has the relevant background/story.
I'm just shy of 30 years as a surveyor in the profession, and I've done what I can during that time. I've served at all levels of state associations, and I've served on various licensing boards for states. I've also worked with attorneys, lobbyists, and committee chairs for, with, and on behalf of those entities.
There are 2 types of people that "want to serve": 1) those that think their service will affect change; 2) those that think their service will result in personal gain. At some point, the narcissit in each individual always wins. Not one of those people were nearly as important as they thought they were, and neither was I.
Be a good surveyor. Be competent. Have high standards and be able to meet those standards. That is what is important for promoting and growing the profession.
You can't buy that, or barter/trade to acquire it, or get someone else to do that for you.
Being dependent on 3rd party advocates is foolish because they don't have your best interest at heart. Their best interest, their livelihood is membership, dues, and more membership, and more dues.
Our best interest is "will we have a profession/job in 1, 5, 10, X years" because of what they did to us instead of what we did for ourselves.
The state was not looking to address anything. The state (legislators) would not have been involved at all, as they weren't manufacturing a problem to solve, except for being deceptively dragged into it by false claims.
Either you don't know how laws get made, or you are being disingenuous with your remarks.
Some lawmaker was pitched an idea, felt strong enough about said idea to sponsor said bill (risking personal and political capital to do so, maybe even persuading a co-sponsor?), which was run through fiscal, economic, and legislative analysis, assigned to committee, and published for everyone to see.
So, none of that happened? The state wasn't involved? At all? The legislator(s) weren't involved? At all? None of the people that got the bill published weren't involved? At all?
Surely, you jest?
These are real-world difficult decisions being made by people who are actively working to better the profession, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks grumbling on the internet.
As evidenced by: your remarks about your group dropping a lobbyist; your group twice shutting down an opportunity to revise, refine, improve legislation; and the overall tone/bias of your description of an incident that may be hearsay...
It would not be difficult to conclude that your association, its leadership, and its members are not equipped to handle legislative endeavors successfully.
You can be butt-hurt all you like, and you can even blame it on me if it makes you feel better.
But it doesn't change the fact that your association, your leadership, and your members are out of their league.
@michigan-left Well we have similar experience. All I can say is in my involvement we retained those whose opinion/knowledge is valuable to the process, and we control them not the other way round.
Sounds like you have had representatives that control your organization or act on their own. I agree that would be a terrible way to operate.
Either you don't know how laws get made, or you are being disingenuous with your remarks.
Some lawmaker was pitched an idea, felt strong enough about said idea to sponsor said bill (risking personal and political capital to do so, maybe even persuading a co-sponsor?), which was run through fiscal, economic, and legislative analysis, assigned to committee, and published for everyone to see.
So, none of that happened? The state wasn't involved? At all? The legislator(s) weren't involved? At all? None of the people that got the bill published weren't involved? At all?
Surely, you jest?
The fact that you can get all that floating around in your head from a two sentence response tells me that your advice of having whiskey for clarity isn't all that smart. You can get to far on the other side of clarity and start making junk up. There was no statement that the legislators were not involved. As a matter of fact if that whiskey were working the way you think it does you might have been able to read the "...except for..." in my statement. It might amaze you, but there are also details about the matter that you don't know anything about because drinking whiskey doesn't make you clairvoyant. So all this BS is just made up stuff stored in your head next to the little pink elephant.
As evidenced by: your remarks about your group dropping a lobbyist; your group twice shutting down an opportunity to revise, refine, improve legislation; and the overall tone/bias of your description of an incident that may be hearsay...
I'll just address the "improve" portion of your raving as the rest is just garbage. I guess since you know it will improve legislation you must be privy to the research conducted into the matter. That is pretty impressive since several people have requested the research from the bill sponsor and still haven't received it. Amazingly enough, there was also not one single item drawn from the 'research' that was mentioned in the recording of the committee meeting to support why the bill was useful. So at this point speculating that the proposal would 'improve' the legislation is just your bias.
You can be butt-hurt all you like, and you can even blame it on me if it makes you feel better.
This one is just a bucket full of crazy. I don't know what you think you'll be blamed for, but if you next claim is "nobody understands me", I'll fall over laughing.
By the way, racketeering is an actual criminal act that covers many different things. If the state surveying societies were doing so, they would not be continuing for very long as there would be someone with an overinflated ego who thinks they know better than everyone else (although I can hardly imagine such a person might exist) that would have already gotten an investigation going on that front.