Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Florida to require "documentable expertise"…
Florida to require "documentable expertise"…
daniel-ralph replied 6 years, 11 months ago 13 Members · 30 Replies
The terms “profession” and “discipline” have been conflated and confused, in my opinion.
Professions join expert knowledge, training, education and practical experience to serve laypeople for a fee.
Disciplines are academic things like the various sciences. Under the strict definition of “professional” scientists that pursue pure research and scientific investigation (such as astronomers exploring the reaches of space) are not professionals, they aren’t serving individual lay people for a fee.
The colloquial definition of professional ranges from almost anyone who does a thing for money to the slightly more limited definition to anyone who works in an office above the level of secretary, scientists, college professors, etc. The classic professions were medicine, law, and clergy but we have expanded that to Engineers, Land Surveyors, and others.
I am not a member of a discipline, I don’t practice a discipline.
Bill93, post: 429104, member: 87 wrote: work products alone could be evidence that you had violated the rule.
As Bill notes, my suspicion is that all that pile of work you certified while not in possession of the necessary documented expertise (ie diploma), may actually become the smoking gun proof you were in fact doing and certifying work for which you did not have the documented expertise. Until clarification is forthcoming from the Board, Florida PSM’s may not know for sure if all that surveying (ie a discipline?) work they’ve been certifying without that diploma to prove expertise in surveying, could be reason to be wary of overzealous Board investigators.
A Harris, post: 429027, member: 81 wrote: The wording may or may not be the same, it is the intent of the BOR that matters.
During the process of making and producing your survey, a certain amount of data is researched, computed and digested to produce your drawing and any description of the property.
When it is over there is a pile of data and this data is the documentable expertise in the discipline.
If you have ever been called by your BOR about a client’s complaint, they want to see everything you have: raw data, sketches, plots, research, coord lists and anything that you used to produce the survey.From experience, I have hired others to use equipment I did not possess to aid in my surveys and hit a wall when they refused to give me their raw data files or logged information from their occupations.
They mostly do not even understand why my requests ended and why I could not accept their limited and unconfirmed information.By law, that is something that is expected to be under our control and in our files at the end of every survey.
When I sign and seal a document and scan into a pdf or other electronic form and send it to a client, it is expected that I keep that original hard copy in my files to support the fact that I was the one that actually performed the task for my client.
It is this certain expectation and act of work process and control by the licensed surveyor that we the professional must be aware of and document and keep record of to prove our actions for every product we produce.
0.02
That is not what documentable expertise in the discipline means in normal english. A pile of data is not a discipline, nor is it expertise.
aliquot, post: 429250, member: 2486 wrote: That is not what documentable expertise in the discipline means in normal english. A pile of data is not a discipline, nor is it expertise.
what do you believe it means?
A Harris, post: 429260, member: 81 wrote: what do you believe it means?
A definition should be included, but not having one does not give us the liberty to assign meanings to words that they normally don’t have.
It must mean something like the requirment many states include in their minimum standards that a surveyor must only perform services they are competent to perform.
aliquot, post: 429340, member: 2486 wrote: A definition should be included, but not having one does not give us the liberty to assign meanings to words that they normally don’t have.
It must mean something like the requirment many states include in their minimum standards that a surveyor must only perform services they are competent to perform.
I suppose that I/WE can/should ASSUME something along those lines.
Unfortunately, that ISN’T what I have seen over the last few decades. I what I HAVE SEEN, is far too many “Penny Loafer Surveyors” working far outside of their area of expertise (assuming that they even have one). Harsh? Maybe so, but that’s my take on it.
Of course the Low Bid mentality (and/or ignorance) of far too many “clients,” factors into this too (BIG TIME).
As I slowly transition into semi-retirement (and OLD age), I become not only less tolerant of these things, but also more pessimistic about the future of the “profession” in general.
Oh yeah…get off my lawn!:innocent:
Loyal[USER=2486]@aliquot[/USER]
I believe that and I also believe that there is much more included in their pursuit of defining this into their rules.
A “Study into lawyer discipline systems”……….
I read portions of the TBPLS website concerning the Acts and there is mention of the many causes of disciplinary action in ?? 661.99. Sanctions and Penalty Matrix that contain many pages of action to certain violations. The ones that hit the topic rest around the surveyors active duties of staying with what we know and keeping records that follow our explanation of the decisions we make.
http://txls.texas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ADOPTED-Rules.08302016-1.pdf
Together with previous conversations on the topic, there are some procedures that are not listed in the Acts and are part of the BOR’s instructions during such investigations where they ask for details and copy of the surveyor’s file on projects in question.
As I began with above, “The wording may or may not be the same, it is the intent of the BOR that matters“.
Every BOR has the right to go into whatever direction of regulation that they believe will improve their job and keep a watchful eye or the surveyor as long as it will protect the public interest.
0.02
FL/GA PLS., post: 429080, member: 379 wrote: I would suggest you contact Patrick Creehan, Board Counsel, or any Board member for clarification. 😎
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Business-Services/Surveyors-and-Mappers/Professional-BoardPS Let us in FL know what you find out.
I have received notification from Ms. Jenna L. Harper, Executive Director, Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers.
The proposed rule is almost exactly like the old rule, except with the addition of paragraph (d).
She informs me the following language constitutes the final proposed rule to be voted on: (emphasis mine)5J-17.053
(6) Signing and Sealing.
(a) Licensees shall sign, date and seal those final drawings, plans, specifications, plats or reports that have been prepared or issued by the licensee and conform to the Standards of Practice for professional surveyors and mappers as outlined in Chapter 5J-17, F.A.C.
(b) Licensees shall not affix their signatures or seals to any final drawings, plans, specifications, plats or reports not prepared under their responsible charge.
(c) Licensees shall not affix a signature and seal to any document depicting an area over which the licensee has insufficient knowledge, education, experience, or familiarity.
(d) A licensee who allows another person to forge a signature on a map or surveyor??s report purported to be prepared under the supervision of the licensee is guilty of misconduct.
I. Ben Havin, post: 429626, member: 6834 wrote: (c) Licensees shall not affix a signature and seal to any document depicting an area over which the licensee has insufficient knowledge, education, experience, or familiarity.
Doesn??t make sense to me. Since photogrammetrists are also included as PSM??s it may have something to do with ??certifying? something out of your expertise. Thanks for the update.
Lee D, post: 429108, member: 7971 wrote: I would suggest that language is a precursor to requiring specialized license categories.
Or, it could be a precursor to eliminating the licensing process altogether. Why should the government be licensing individuals when the market could do the same thing? I hope that this scenario does not come to fruition, but in this climate of eliminating government services one has to consider that this thought process is out there.
Log in to reply.