Reciprocation

The State-specific portion should be mandatory.?ÿ Then again, this might contribute to why we currently have 13820 licensed P.E. registrants and only 632 licensed L.S. registrants in my State.?ÿ The percentage of in-state for the P.E. side is only 31% while for the L.S. side is 50%.

For what ever reason, surveying has been self defeating for decades, more so recently.

Make it like Law, you bar, if you practice for 5 or more years and have a case history, you get commity.

Medicine. You're licensed, and just apply to be licensed in the new state, save any discipline actions you're able to gain a new state license.

Why Surveying does this is one of the several reasons my sig other thinks I should bailout and go elsewhere (medical, she's biased).

It's got to get better, more internally supported and drop the way it's always been crap ASAP.

True reciprocity is highly unlikely in the US for engineers and surveyors.?ÿ Comity however, exists and is very prevalent.?ÿ There is a push by some to move more towards reciprocal licensing and engineers are party to those that are pushing this.?ÿ And as is so typical for an engineer, they believe that "what is good" for them should also be adopted by surveyors without any argument.?ÿ I say this, not to bash engineers, but to illustrate that traditional thinking that is also very prevalent across the US.

Part of the reasoning for this "push" is the reaction to legislative efforts around the US towards eliminating all forms of licensure, regardless of which occupation or profession is being considered.?ÿ While this is a real situation that is occurring in some states, its not in all or a majority...yet.?ÿ Other than one or two, there have not been any efforts specifically targeting engineering or surveying that I am aware of at this time.?ÿ Most are either all licenses or none while other legislative efforts are targeting the occupations which tend to draw applicants from lower income populations.?ÿ As is the case with many legislative efforts, there's some validity to the reasoning behind the effort, but its the manner in which resolution is attempted which is causing most of the problems.

Engineers, and they are not the only profession who thinks this way, believe that if you can engineer something in one state, its done the same way in every other state (or country).?ÿ In some ways, I understand that.?ÿ The physics of engineering doesn't change when you cross a jurisdictional boundary.?ÿ On the other hand, surveying is not solely about methodologies (I know I'm speaking to the choir); its true that basic level topos are performed generally the same way everywhere; field techniques are pretty common everywhere; and pretty much the same general information is depicted on maps regardless of where it is done.?ÿ Surveyors also have to incorporate judgement into their determinations taking into account legal aspects of land ownership, conveyance, rights, etc. based in large part on published case history which in some situations subsequently generates changes to statutory laws.?ÿ Some of this can cross jurisdictional boundaries while others are state specific in nature.

In my opinion, most states licensing boards for engineers and surveyors already recognize much of the redundancy when considering comity licensure and continue to evaluate those situations to implement improvements as appropriate.?ÿ Extreme thinking either way isn't necessarily a sufficient benefit to anyone.

Engineering principles don't change from state to state.?ÿ Measurement principles don't change from state to state.?ÿ

But boundary surveying is more a legal process than a measurement process.?ÿ Since essentially every state has different boundary laws, it is important to have boundary survey surveyors familiar with the state laws.

@bill93?ÿ

Seismic portion of California PE is the golden egg people subject themselves to to gain easier commity in other states?ÿ

Geophysical/geologic license too.

Mostly it's the same discussion..... liquor laws and surveying laws are similar in their wildly differing opinions.

?ÿ

@ric-moore?ÿ ?ÿTell me about it, I helped my brother in Tennessee cut out the cemetery on his property to give to the ancestors family. The research, descriptions, methodology, measurements and procedures all required the tools of a different profession. I image this to be case in other areas of the country. A Miami surveyor might look down on a Tennessee surveyor's language, procedures, equipment and final product, but that works there. Twenty years experience in Hialeah, Florida won't help you much in Trade, Tennessee.

@jitterboogie Interesting that you brought up the California Seismic Principles exam for civil engineers.?ÿ Everyone knows that seismic activity is not limited to the west coast as demonstrated by many seismic situations that have occurred over the last few decades across the country.?ÿ Yet, there are engineers in leadership positions (licensing boards, professional societies, etc.) who do not want increase the level of seismic-related topics on the national engineering examinations.?ÿ How's that for a contradiction to the discussion on reciprocity or comity??ÿ If it was sufficiently addressed on the national exam, then the California state exam may not be as necessary.

@ric-moore?ÿ

Winner winner chicken dinner!

New Madrid fault anyone????

@bill93 I agree 100% and in conjunction with the boundary laws, the "local nuances" of surveying in different states throughout the country that would play into "following in the footsteps of your predecessors" equation should hold some weight as well, in my humble opinion.

I don't have a problem with making the process more smooth and efficient to obtain another license, but that doesn't mean we have to compromise on standards.

The NCEES Model Law concept, despite not being perfect, is a pretty darn good method for streamlining licensure without sacrificing quality of applicants. There's a basic level of education and experience that must be met, with some sort of independent verification of both (accreditation for the former, licensed mentor sign-off on the latter, regardless of how flawed either may be). While I would prefer the national exams to be more rigorous and comprehensive (and possibly split out into multiple exams), it's a pretty solid start.

But as long as different states hold substantially different opinions about what the bare minimum of education and training should be, and as long as licensed surveyors resist the idea of an agreed-upon standard for the fundamentals a surveyor should know prior to taking a state-specific exam, it's going to be tough.

Once a surveyor has been verified as meeting the fundamental criteria, it should be as easy as submitting their verified status to a state board online, signing up for the state-specific exam to be administered at any verified testing center in their area, and taking the exam. Upon passing, issue the certificate both digitally and hardcopy, and get them into the system. Easy-peasy. It's as much a bureaucratic issue as anything else.

@rover83 Agreed. Pretty much all states recognize previous passing of the FS and PS exams, so as long as surveyors are concerned, its generally the state specific exam.?ÿ Larger licensing boards and some smaller ones have already implemented the testing center option.?ÿ The current option of splitting the PS into separate divisions is intended to make that more efficient for the boards and the applicants while making it easier for the smaller boards (less funding) to be involved.

State Laws and Regulations are radically different.
The current trend is to dumb-down everything, deregulation is more likely.

@rover83?ÿ

I don't mind having to take an exam covering state specific issues.?ÿ What I find annoying is the steps that you have to go through to get to the exam.?ÿ There is no reason It should take 6 months to apply get a license by comity.?ÿ Also, the state specific exams should be that, state specific.?ÿ No need to test me on the PLSS every time I take one.

@john-putnam?ÿ

amen!!!!

If you need 6 months to evaluate candidates you're not fit to serve on the board.

Its largely appointments by governors, and even then, if you're not doing something daily esp weekly as a board member that effects anyone that comes through that gauntlet then resign so people that have time and are also licensed (HUGE PET PEEVE OF MINE...) take on the responsibility of doing the job. Its for the public good, not your ego or pockets or whatever.

That being said, I'm sure I'll be earmarked before any board I apply to as a "unique" case....

@john-putnam "No need to test me on the PLSS every time I take one."?ÿ?ÿ

That was one of the primary purposes for NCEES to consider revising the current PS exam such that there would be separate divisions.?ÿ If a "PLSS" division can adequately test the commonality of the topic sufficiently then it would have some effect on the length, content, etc. of a state specific exam.?ÿ Plus it wouldn't force examinees that are seeking licensure in a state not governed by the PLSS to demonstrate competency on that topic.

Posted by: @jitterboogie

so people that have time and are also licensed (HUGE PET PEEVE OF MINE...) take on the responsibility of doing the job [?ÿ Board member ]

In my State the Board is composed of the following:

Eight members shall be public members; seven members shall be licensed under the Professional Engineers Act, the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, and the Geologist and Geophysicist Act as follows: one member shall be licensed as a civil engineer, one as an electrical engineer, one as a mechanical engineer, one as a structural engineer, one licensed in one of the remaining branches of engineering, one as a land surveyor, and one as a geologist or geophysicist.?ÿ

Which means only one Board member is a PLS and over half are not licensed.?ÿ That's OK by me; their task is administrative in nature and licensure does not guarantee administrative competence.?ÿ?ÿ

Here's an eyebrow raiser in my State.?ÿ If you're a certain class of immigrant you get to go to the head of the line:

Expedited Licensure for Refugees, Asylees, and Holders of Special Immigrant Visas. Starting January 1, 2021, individuals in the following categories who apply for licensure by the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists may seek an expedited licensure process.

1. Refugees pursuant to section 1157 of title 8 of the United States Code;
2. Those granted asylum by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to section 1158 of title 8 of the United States Code; or,
3. Individuals with a special immigrant visa that have been granted a status pursuant to section 1244 of Public Law 110-181, Public Law 109-163, or section 602(b) of title VI of division F of Public Law 111-8.

@mike-marks?ÿ

And in their fields they are licensed. I'm ok with that, and Surveyors are a huge minority so one is statistically more than real life.

The time to actually perform and participate is the critical part, because non participation is what my poignant rant was directed at.

Supporting the 6 months to review garbage.

?ÿ

Carry on. Hijack over...

Revised....no lawyers, unless they are PLS or PE too....but not happy about it.... ???? ???? ?????ÿ

?ÿ

@mike-marks?ÿ

I suspect that is an attempt to get newly arrived folks who have no safety net in-country on their feet and earning an income as quickly as possible, if they are qualified for licensure...although I wonder exactly how the process is expedited.