I only write this on a national forum in order to listen to other viewpoints about how things are done in the state where you practice. I hope that it is received in the spirit it was written. One of curiosity, optimism and desire to make a better future.
We had a chapter meeting last night with two chapters where the Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp was present. It was our opportunity to gain the ear one of our representative leaders. We talked about a lot of things as it pertains to the current status of the economy and the budget crunch the government is feeling. The basic jest of the meeting was that we need to do something to better our profession and stop the encroaching of engineers, GISers and others onto our turf. Enforcement of current standards was addressed, as well as creating our own board. The response we kept getting was resources. They are stretched tight as it is and they have no further resources to apply to the enforcement of our rules and regulations, let alone the furthering of our profession.
We learned last night that Georgia is 'unique' in a lot of aspects.
1. Our professional dues goes into the general fund where it is redistributed, unfairly I might add, throughout Georgia. The SOS office brings in roughly 26 million between all licensed individuals in the state. (that includes barbers, beauticians, dentists, etc.) They are only allotted 6 million and some change as their yearly budget.
2. Apparently there would have to be a changing of the Georgia constitution for that to change. That is an uphill battle. But one of the suggestions last night was that we needed our own board, even if it costs us more in annual dues. For those with separate boards please chime in on what you like dislike or maybe some of the advantages/disadvantages about having your own board.
My own opinion is that in order to distinguish ourselves we need our own board. One of the main reasons I see this as being needed is so we can broaden our professional ventures and better define what we are and what we do (which will be changing constantly as technology changes).
There are so many discussion points already on here about new technologies coming out: laser scanning, GIS, Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles for Photogammetry, and I am sure there will be many more. So far we have failed to really incorporate these technologies into our profession. Why is that? Funding is a huge part of it. With no economic drive or advantage to adopt new technology then we can't really afford to delve into something new. Another reason is we are so en grained to follow the trend of the Civil Engineering community. Here in Georgia the engineers and land surveyors fall under the same board. A lot of us are converted civil engineers or other wise trained in an engineering environment. Nothing wrong with that. But at some point we need to ask ourselves are we engineers or surveyors? If we are surveyors then there needs to be less bleed over between the two communities. Some states have gotten it right. Indiana I know has a very well written set of expectations for surveyors and a very strict set of by-laws for the profession.
I hope I have ramble too much. Thought I would try to spark a little discussion about our current circumstances and what ought to be done. Thanks in advance.
Oregon's board (OSBEELS) is semi-independent. As long as you are tied to the general fund, you most likely will see no changes or assistance.
From their website:
http://www.oregon.gov/Osbeels/Pages/about_us.aspx
The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (OSBEELS) was established in 1919. OSBEELS participated in a pilot program created in 1997, through Senate Bill 546. The focus of the program was to assess the practicality and cost efficiency of changing certain professional licensing Boards to a service delivery model known as “semi-independent” status (not to be confused with privatization). The pilot program became permanent through Senate Bill 1127 in 1999. This status provides for a significant level of financial independence, but also makes the Board entirely accountable for its performance. The Board may acquire and pay for necessary services from the private sector instead of utilizing the services offered by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), which is paid for through Central Government Service Assessments. There are no tax dollars or general fund dollars involved in the operation of OSBEELS. OSBEELS is self funded and fully supported by its licensing and registration fees.
1. Tennessee has a separate surveyor's board. They have their own account for the fees we pay in, however, the general fund has the right to swoop in and clean out the account whenever they want.
2. Any move for legislation to require a surveyor's license for anything beyond boundary location (such as topos, GIS, scanning, etc....) is nothing more than a self serving move to gin up work. We are licensed because we have the education, training and experience in locating land boundaries. It is preposterous to think that you need a surveying license to take a mapping grade GPS unit and get state plane coordinates on a water valve.
> 2. Any move for legislation to require a surveyor's license for anything beyond boundary location (such as topos, GIS, scanning, etc....) is nothing more than a self serving move to gin up work. We are licensed because we have the education, training and experience in locating land boundaries. It is preposterous to think that you need a surveying license to take a mapping grade GPS unit and get state plane coordinates on a water valve.
I was not suggesting to require a license for any or all of these. I was suggesting that we have missed the boat in integrating these technologies so that people, general public, engineers, government entities will think of surveyors when they think of these technologies. I am thinking a board, separate and responsible to the general public and the surveyors, would give the flexibility and the backing to implement, train, adopt technologies not yet invented. That is what I meant by the legislation. I think that we need legislation to restructure how some of this works in Georgia, or elsewhere.
In the past I have been heard the same "resources" talk also. I have come to believe that is a political term for "come up with some money" and we can start to do something. That does not mean it will get done.
[sarcasm]Insert "grease the wheel" speech.[/sarcasm]
Texas fought much of the same difficulties in becoming accepted as a sole professional status starting back in the 1970s and we have come a very long way since then. We now have a working system to handle most every situation that can be encountered.
Budgets and downsizing government is impacting every trade in some way.
The power to reprimand and/or penalize by fines or deposed stays on licensee has to be given to the BOR and taken away from the courts, until such a degree of penalty reaches that severe of a penalty.
With out a BOR, it is a fine line on who should police the situations that exist. In most instances the police work is the work of other surveyors.
Legislation has to be passed to empower a BOR or assign the task to someone to give ruling over those that do not adhere to the laws.
It takes alot of inconsistent surveying to get my dander up, and a few have. I have also found that sometimes, you find yourself as the only one that is paying attention.
0.02
When I was in college in the 90s there was some talk about privatizing the Florida board of surveyors and mappers, and the pros and cons were being weighed. I'm not sure how this works, but the board would be a private organization that is empowered by legislation to regulate the profession. That idea never took off. Some thought we'd have to rush to that route of a private / semi-private board when Gov. Scott tried to deregulate surveying (among other things) a couple of years ago.
> When I was in college in the 90s there was some talk about privatizing the Florida board of surveyors and mappers, and the pros and cons were being weighed. I'm not sure how this works, but the board would be a private organization that is empowered by legislation to regulate the profession. That idea never took off.
Pretty much the way it's done in every civilized country other than the U.S.
Any attempt at being fully self-governing can be perceived as being an attempt to limit newcomers and boot out unfavorable types. States with relatively few licensed land surveyors tend to be controlled by a small number of people who tend to get replaced by their clones for decades. Do it "the good old boy" way or beware of being punished. Asking to be a completely separate board may not be quite as good an idea as it may seem.
A few days ago we had a thread here involving speech dialects around the U.S. Some states had as many as five different dialects present. Attempting to legislate a single "official State dialect" is just about as stupid as attempting to legislate a single survey method as being the only correct method. There are too many variables involved to establish one, and only one, way to perform, document and perpetuate a survey. Nevertheless, this seems to be the goal of certain registration boards, especially as it applies to attacking non-conformists. "You must dot all your "i's" with little hearts or you will lose your license."
Outsiders who become aware of this petty foolishness recogninze how weak-minded and insecure many surveyors truly are. I can understand why they would prefer to reduce the power and prestige of such people.
Mr. Cow,
I appreciate your points. I assure you it is not the intention to exclude those who do not fit some typical surveyor form. I am simply trying to view the pros and cons. This is not an attempt to nit pick or exclude. Especially considering that our currently board doesn't even enforce the current standards or ethics. There are several egregious examples of unethical conduct by professionals, and in some cases outright fraud. So don't misconstrue this as an attempt to hoard the power to a few 'buddies' but rather an attempt at getting a system that works for the people who actually follow the rules and try to do it right, every time. Of course, Georgia hasn't gotten it right since they ordered the state boundary lines surveyed back in the early 1800's. That is a topic of discussion for another day.
"There are so many discussion points already on here about new technologies coming out: laser scanning..."
Really? I seemed to have missed them.
