James Fleming, post: 402152, member: 136 wrote: Additionally the court pointed out that the dental board was attempting to regulate an activity (tooth whitening) that wasn't mentioned in any existing state regulation. The NC Board still has full power to regulate dentist and dentistry as defined under state law.
My point was that that SCOTUS ruled against the dental board and I read your statement as "restraint of trade" did not apply to the public agency when if fact it was ruled that it does apply to the board and individually to the board members for the reasons that you mentioned. Maybe I misread what you posted. Anyone can file a restraint of trade cause against a board but it would have to be proven that the board acted outside its authority as you stated.
Well, the latest update is a received an email from someone on the board staff with a title of "Government Analyst I" that told me I would not receive credit for the class on ALTA standards taught by Gary Kent because the Kentucky Association of Professional Surveyors is not an approved continuing education provider and the class was not pre-approved. For what it's worth, Gary taught the exact same class a month or so later in Florida and I'm sure no one that attended will have any problem receiving credit.
This is nothing more than a racket designed to protect an illegal cartel. This doesn't have a single thing to do with educating surveyors, it's about making people money.
That describes 99 percent of the supposed justification for forcing CE requirements on professionals.
Tommy Young, post: 407534, member: 703 wrote: Well, the latest update is a received an email from someone on the board staff with a title of "Government Analyst I" that told me I would not receive credit for the class on ALTA standards taught by Gary Kent because the Kentucky Association of Professional Surveyors is not an approved continuing education provider and the class was not pre-approved. For what it's worth, Gary taught the exact same class a month or so later in Florida and I'm sure no one that attended will have any problem receiving credit.
This is nothing more than a racket designed to protect an illegal cartel. This doesn't have a single thing to do with educating surveyors, it's about making people money.
That right there is messed up! Same material should be acceptable no matter the actual location you heard the presentation.
In Oregon there is no pre approval by the Board, it is on the licensee to make sure PDH's are meaningful and acceptable. If you get audited, then you have to provide documentation and it is possible some of your submitted hours could be rejected, BUT unlikely unless you are just trying to skate by with questionable PDH hours.
Not necessarily related to PDH/restraint of trade, BUT I suspect one of these days someone is going to challenge a state Board for restraint of trade based on regulating anything that even hints of measuring the size/shape of the earth. Technically wouldn't all the providers of stock ortho's, stock LiDAR datasets, Google Earth, Bing and a host of others be surveying by the rules and regs of most of the states? I know the laws don't regulate the means for the most part (technology), just the product, BUT I also think a lot of these laws were written in an era when the professionals of the day could not really have foreseen some of the remote sensing capabilities of today. I believe eventually much of the "surveying activities" will be removed from the law, leaving the state licensees for boundary and a national license (or any one state license) as acceptable for ALL other work anywhere in the USA. There are some hurdles to overcome such as states rights, battling for turf, etc. My thought is EXCEPT for boundary, little if anything changes across imaginary lines in the sand and demonstrating competency one places, demonstrates it for all US states. I don't expect this anytime soon ...
SHG
I've always hated CEU requirements. I feel like an idiot, though, never even crossed my mind that providers needed to register as a money-making thing for the state board. Almost like a kick-back. Something doesn't seem right here.
After reading all this, I'm beginning to think Washington State's CE requirements are among the most reasonable; WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 196-16-15 states:
"The board believes that individuals licensed as professional land surveyors should have the discretion to make independent choices on what activities help them to be improved practitioners. While the board will not provide advance approvals for selected activities or vendors they do expect licensees to seek out qualifying activities that can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the board that they are relevant to the licensee's continuing professional development."
They also specify what activities do and do not qualify, under WAC 196-16-120 and 196-16-125, respectively. Of course, the Board has the ultimate say yea or nay.
I've long thought we have some of the most backwards laws and regulations here, but they do say that for every rule there's an exception, and this is one of them IMO.
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
Shelby H. Griggs PLS, post: 407546, member: 335 wrote: That right there is messed up! Same material should be acceptable no matter the actual location you heard the presentation.
In Oregon there is no pre approval by the Board, it is on the licensee to make sure PDH's are meaningful and acceptable. If you get audited, then you have to provide documentation and it is possible some of your submitted hours could be rejected, BUT unlikely unless you are just trying to skate by with questionable PDH hours.
Not necessarily related to PDH/restraint of trade, BUT I suspect one of these days someone is going to challenge a state Board for restraint of trade based on regulating anything that even hints of measuring the size/shape of the earth. Technically wouldn't all the providers of stock ortho's, stock LiDAR datasets, Google Earth, Bing and a host of others be surveying by the rules and regs of most of the states? I know the laws don't regulate the means for the most part (technology), just the product, BUT I also think a lot of these laws were written in an era when the professionals of the day could not really have foreseen some of the remote sensing capabilities of today. I believe eventually much of the "surveying activities" will be removed from the law, leaving the state licensees for boundary and a national license (or any one state license) as acceptable for ALL other work anywhere in the USA. There are some hurdles to overcome such as states rights, battling for turf, etc. My thought is EXCEPT for boundary, little if anything changes across imaginary lines in the sand and demonstrating competency one places, demonstrates it for all US states. I don't expect this anytime soon ...
SHG
Lots of things vary across State lines, not just boundary.
Measurement is a human activity which yields a product upon which people rely for their specific purpose and therefore can be regulated. The important thing is how do you hold yourself out to the public? Google can put up DTMs all they like but will they be acceptable to local government agencies which regulate grading and drainage and lots of other things? Google or maps-in-a-box are not holding out to the public as an expert in the field for providing data to be used for a specific purpose such as engineering design.
All of this is a result of humans organizing into societies with governments, there will be differences in how we do it.
Restraint of Trade is overstating the case.
Maybe their regulations are unreasonably burdensome from certain perspectives but I don't think a State agency regulating a licensed Profession inside its own borders is in restraint of trade. This is a political problem, not a legal one. The politics of it is to convince the State Legislature to revise their statutes.
We had a long thread regarding sidewalks where I made a similar suggestion, your problem is a political one (get a big enough force of homeowners statewide together to revise the Statutes), not a legal one. Trying to pursue a government agency on a legal track is going to be very difficult and expensive especially when they are essentially in compliance with law.
Tommy Young, post: 407534, member: 703 wrote: This is nothing more than a racket designed to protect an illegal cartel. This doesn't have a single thing to do with educating surveyors, it's about making people money.
Surely you don't think the "Government Analyst 1" is profiting from approving or disapproving your education requirements. I am sure they are just analyzing specific rules as to whether your course applied. I suspect the guys the made the rules aren't personally profiting from the same.
I don't disagree with you on your conclusion that it's unfair, I just don't agree with your irritation of a government worker trying to do their job. I would say that Gary Kents course should be approved, regardless of the venue.
Dave Karoly, post: 407557, member: 94 wrote: they are essentially in compliance with law.
You forgot about interpretation....
If the glove doesn't fit; you must acquit!
I don't see why Tommy can't prove to them that;
Tommy Young, post: 407534, member: 703 wrote: the class on ALTA standards taught by Gary Kent that I attended ...was the exact same class a month or so later in Florida ....
RADAR, post: 407572, member: 413 wrote: You forgot about interpretation....
If the glove doesn't fit; you must acquit!
I don't see why Tommy can't prove to them that;
rules are instituted as a framework to regulate human behavior, sometimes they seem to lack common sense, but they do serve their purpose.
I'm pretty sure Tommy had notice of Florida's requirements for CEU credits. Maybe it appears stupid in this one instance but anyone licensed in the State surely has to know what it takes to renew the license and takes steps to meet the requirements. It's not like they are keeping it a secret.
Government Analyst 1 is a bean counter.
He/she is screening with an extra fine tooth comb in respect to whether the course was approved by your particular state during that time period.
That usually takes a form and a small fee to the state from the presenter and usually no more than $25 per event or year for each course title.
For my wife to maintain her Manicurist license it costs $40 for two years of CEUs and license fee.
For me I spend approximately $1,000 per year for CEUs, License Fee, Association Fee and travel and lodging.
A Harris, post: 407579, member: 81 wrote: Government Analyst 1 is a bean counter.
He/she is screening with an extra fine tooth comb in respect to whether the course was approved by your particular state during that time period.
That usually takes a form and a small fee to the state from the presenter and usually no more than $25 per event or year for each course title.
For my wife to maintain her Manicurist license it costs $40 for two years of CEUs and license fee.
For me I spend approximately $1,000 per year for CEUs, License Fee, Association Fee and travel and lodging.
That is probably equivalent to our Associate Governmental Programs Analyst which is a journey level professional office job requiring knowledge of how government agencies do things. They have some room for judgment to a point but they can't operate contrary to clearly established statutes and regulations, that is not within their authority.
The main gaggle of thieves are the muckety mucks running the state surveying societies who have figured out how to lower their annual membership fees by charging anyone but themselves exorbitant prices to attend something they almost have to attend to keep their license in that jurisdiction. The visually-disabled employed by some government entity are only looking for compliance, not worthiness of the class attended.