@rover83?ÿ
A buddy of mine from?ÿ Egypt filled me in, we have a foreign worker policy and lottery for folks wanting to come work here. This falls in place for what he explained to me regarding the process.
Don't Lawyers have to apply to the Bar of each state individually? Because the laws are different??ÿ
Depends.
My SIL barred in Michigan, Nevada, Indiana, then got reciprocity or commity(unsure at the moment) in Washington and it might be due to district (federal) versus state.?ÿ I'll ask.
?ÿ
I spent most of my career in a three county area (worked outside of it, but only occasionally). I recently moved to a different county, and I can tell you that working in a county much less a different state has its challenges when it comes to many aspects of land development and boundary.
Topographic surveys and construction staking...no difference whatsoever.?ÿ
Takes me back to my assertion that there should be (at least) two licensure endorsements for surveying: boundary surveying and a surveying engineer. You could do both, but there should be stringent tests for each endorsement along with separate experience requirements.
BTW, I know of a PE/LS/SE here that would do your wetlands, your geotech work, civil, your structural, all the surveying, and do both the office and the field work. And from all accounts he did good work in all of it. (He is now retired.) So, it is possible to know enough to do it all, but he set up his professional experience to allow him to keep each mental muscle exercised, as he did it all on each project.?ÿ
Comity yes, reciprocity no.?ÿ Surveying is not engineering nor is it engineering's little sister and we already have enough deed stakers.
20 years ago I thought about moving to Idaho. When I contacted the board I was told they would arrange to have me take the exam in my state of residence.
I could take it as soon as they could make arrangements after my acceptance.
That is the way it should be. Any additional cost for testing should be paid by the applicant.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
@mike-marks Sounds like a good way to get refugees off government assistance quickly and to put their skills to work. I wonder how well it works in practice??ÿ
I fully support the move to modules to aid in license portability. I doubt NCEES will test broad enough to catch all the nuances in the various regions. If I break down a section in Idaho the way we did it in Missouri, things are going to get ugly real quick. This is a common issue as we were all surveyed under different editions of the manual and land was disposed of under different acts.
@rover83?ÿ
Idaho processes qualified comity applicants in about 48 hours. If you need a waiver your application gets reviewed the cycle after you provide all requested documents. It was running top notch.?ÿ
The exam is proctored, with some Boards willing to help out. Setting up with a testing center sounds awesome, until you start figuring the costs. It's just not worth it for States with less than 30 applicants a year.
?ÿ
I won't minimize the term 'administrative' and can't disagree that many if not most of the functions fit the definition. What that looks like in practice is an eye opener. Boards (and staff) in general operate at a level far beyond what most of us realize. The deregulation and universal / permissive licensure movements are gaining steam and we are about to learn the hard way.
My .02, Tom?ÿ
@mike-marks And none of those Board Members are involved in the application review or approval.?ÿ Your Board has licensed staff members with real world experience which review the applications.
@mike-marks Yeah, one of many attempts from legislators for expediting the application process for certain groups.?ÿ Most of these legislative bills target all of the licensing boards within the state and are meant to assist those military members or spouses of military members which receive transfer orders and likely more about comity licensure than anything.?ÿ Totally get that this situation can be disruptive in many ways.?ÿ The one you posted above, not so sure exactly what the legislators were targeting and it appears that it impacts other licensing boards more so than the engineering/surveying/geology one here.?ÿ We generally receive a minimal amount of requests of this nature.?ÿ Important to understand that applicants applying under these conditions still have to satisfy all the required criteria for licensure as anyone else.?ÿ At least at this board.
@thebionicman how broad or in-depth NCEES tests with this idea remains to be seen.?ÿ However, the more discussions I've been involved with over the last few years on this subject, the more I see that there is much more commonality among the methodologies than many land surveyors care to admit.
There certainly are things that can be taken care of on a national PLSS module. My point was the subject won't completely disappear from State exams.
I stay in the PNW for most of my work because things are so similar. We'll see how that holds when I add CA to the mix...
@thebionicman Yes, I doubt it will completely disappear.?ÿ Depends on the goals of the respective licensing board.