Well, this didn't take long.?ÿ The Colorado Legislature opened its 2019 Legislative Session yesterday and among the bills introduced was House Bill 19-1040.
This bill is nearly identical to the one issued last year (HB18-1038).?ÿ For anyone interested, this link is to the Colorado General Assembly's web site.
1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 12-25-215.5 as
3 follows:
4 12-25-215.5. Continuing education - rules. NO LATER THAN
5 DECEMBER 31, 2019, THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES ESTABLISHING
6 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION THAT A PROFESSIONAL LAND
7 SURVEYOR MUST COMPLETE IN ORDER TO RENEW AN ACTIVE LICENSE TO
8 PRACTICE LAND SURVEYING ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2020. TO COMPLY WITH
9 THIS SECTION, THE RULES MUST REQUIRE THE SURVEYOR TO COMPLETE
10 BOARD-APPROVED CONTINUING EDUCATION SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN
11 COMPETENCY.
?ÿ
Text of Section 1 of HB19-1040
1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 12-25-215.5 as
3 follows:
4 12-25-215.5. Continuing education - rules. NO LATER THAN
5 DECEMBER 31, 2019, THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES ESTABLISHING
6 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION THAT A PROFESSIONAL LAND
7 SURVEYOR MUST COMPLETE IN ORDER TO RENEW AN ACTIVE LICENSE TO
8 PRACTICE LAND SURVEYING ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2021. TO COMPLY WITH
9 THIS SECTION, THE RULES MUST REQUIRE THE SURVEYOR TO COMPLETE
10 BOARD-APPROVED CONTINUING EDUCATION SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN
11 COMPETENCY.
It would have been nice for the bill to state how many continuing education hours will be required.?ÿ The glaring absence of a definition for what "Board-approved continuing education sufficient to maintain competency" should prove interested if the bill passes.?ÿ I guess Colorado surveyors will just have to trust the AES Board's efforts in the rulemaking that everything will come out peachy.?ÿ The bill's language could mean that each course must be pre-approved similar to the State of Florida, or that the CE must meet certain requirements and the licensee will be responsible for meeting those guidelines.?ÿ The second option would be in line with what architects are required to do, but who knows.?ÿ That would mean the licensee would have to apply professional judgment to what courses meet the rules.
Also, as can be seen from the two bills the only change is from "July 1, 2020" to "July 1, 2021".?ÿ I wonder if there is a typo in the date mandated for the rules to be established.?ÿ Last year's bill gave the Board 17 months; this year's bill gives only 5 months for the rules to be established!
Anyone wishing to testify for or against the bill can look at the committee schedules at the above link.?ÿ The bill will have its first hearing before House Business Affairs and Labor Committee (TBD).
I thought Continuing Ed was a great idea, but 10 years later I'm not so sure. The State no longer requires documentation of Continuing Ed to renew licenses and Continuing Ed is left to the PE and LS organizations to provide. There is begging to be a limited amount of quality presentations that can be booked, so the program is usually filled with government employees reading you the regulations. Price to attend a State Conference has skyrocketed. The people who need the Continuing Ed don't attend. It's another well intentioned program gone wrong.
I am an LSI and on my way to sit for the PLS exam this year. ?ÿI originally was all for this bill when it was presented last year due to some of the horrible practices I??ve come across, however now I am not so sure. ?ÿThere are certainly bad apples out there recording nonsense plats and doing very substandard work, but it??s not as prevalent as I used to think it was. ?ÿThat coupled with the fact Colorado is going to require a degree for licensure by the middle of 2020 and that the NCEES PLS Exam has been ??adjusted? as of the first of this year to include way more questions regarding terrestrial scanning and other technological advances, I don??t think continuing education is necessary. ?ÿthe board is in place to handle these few substandard practicers and the real solution is to actually start reporting the repeat offenders to them for review. ?ÿIt goes against allot of my principles to report someone for mistakes because we all make them from time to time, but I??m sure you all have those one or two guys you come across that are constantly just awful. ?ÿI??d like to weed them out and protect the public as well as the profession.
For comparison purposes only, here is what the architects ended up with as a CE statute.?ÿ Short like the surveyor's bill, but a much more objective criteria for meeting the goals of protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
Here is the short and sweet bill that?ÿarchitects have (underlining is my emphasis).
?ÿ
12-25-315.5. Continuing education - rules No later than December 31, 2008, the board shall adopt rules establishing requirements for continuing education that an architect shall complete in order to renew a license to practice architecture in Colorado on or after July 1, 2009. The rules shall require the architect to participate in a process or procedure that demonstrates whether the architect retained the material presented in the continuing education program or course.
This statute was then fleshed out by the AES Board with the attached 6 pages of Board Rules.
And here is a link to several documents, FAQs and forms that the Board compiled to make it easier for the architects to fully comply with the statute and Board Rules followed by links to the Architect CE Manual and forms on the web page:
CE Structured Report - this form is to be used when no other compliant documentation can be obtained or certificate is not provided for the particular CEH.?ÿ
Contact Division Wide Programs Continued Competency/Continued Professional Development 1560 Broadway, Suite 1350 Denver, CO 80202
One last note on what the Board interpreted to meet the statutory requirement that the licensee must demonstrate that they retained the CE material.?ÿ Board Rule 4.9.3.1.2.3 lists that either a quiz must be taken or a structured report must be completed as defined by the Board.?ÿ Taking a quiz is old hat for CFedS so that shouldn't be too onerous for those that have not gone through the program.
Edit to add:
Board Rule 4.9.3.1.2.12 Unacceptable CE Activities excludes under item (e) Participation on a public, professional, or technical society board.
"It would have been nice for the bill to state how many continuing education hours will be required. The glaring absence of a definition for what "Board-approved continuing education sufficient to maintain competency" should prove interested if the bill passes."
What does the legislature know about the profession? There is NO upside to having these requirements come from the legislature.?ÿ
Having the Board regulate quantity and content gives registrants more say in how the law is enacted and it provides the ability to adjust the requirements in accordance with observed deficiencies in practice, changing laws, and availability of CE coursework. This could happen in very rapidly compared to the pace of getting these changes/updates through the legislature (limited knowledge of the issues, slow processes, politically influenced decisions, low priority).
Board approved could mean that the coursework simply has to meet certain Board defined requirements: it doesn't necessarily mean that each course would have to be reviewed by the Board (which is a nightmare to manage and limits registrants ability to get the education that they need).
What does the legislature know about the profession? There is NO upside to having these requirements come from the legislature.?ÿ
.
.
.
Board approved could mean that the coursework simply has to meet certain Board defined requirements: it doesn't necessarily mean that each course would have to be reviewed by the Board (which is a nightmare to manage and limits registrants ability to get the education that they need).
First of all, the Legislature did not write the bill.?ÿ It was written by the PLSC Legislative Committee.?ÿ The bill was then submitted to the Legislature where staff members drafted it into a standard form.?ÿ After they are done it has this general form:?ÿ a title (a clear expression of the single subject of the bill), bill summary, enacting clause, body of the bill, any appropriation clauses, and any special clauses.?ÿ Occasionally, errors are made in the drafting.?ÿ Back when I served on the PLSC Legislative Committee we needed to make a one-word change to a statute.?ÿ The intent of the statute was to require a land surveyor to do something within a given time period.?ÿ We had to change an "and" to an "or" (or vice versa) because the bill as written stated that the land surveyor could not do this thing until after the specified time period had passed.
The Professional Land Surveyors Practice Act has many definitions in it.?ÿ They are often critical in determining the intent of various sections of the act.?ÿ The reason I believe it is wise to include a definition of the key term, "board-approved continuing education sufficient to maintain competency" is to avoid any ambiguity in how the AES Board might interpret that directive.?ÿ It may be that the PLSC wants each CE course to be approved by the Board and the Board must conclude that each course is "sufficient to maintain competency".?ÿ They may mean that they want the Board to only promulgate guidelines for acceptable CE.?ÿ Adding a definition avoids that issue.
If the PLSC's interest is to mandate CE for license renewal, then perhaps the more objective based standard in the architect's CE statute would be more appropriate (that being for the licensee to "participate in a process or procedure that demonstrates whether the [licensee] retained the material presented in the continuing education program or course").?ÿ Currently, the bill states that the CE must be "sufficient to maintain competency".?ÿ Since my boundary practice is only mineral surveys does that mean I must take only CE courses that relate to mineral surveys??ÿ The stated intent is to?ÿmaintain competency, so that implies to me that all my CE courses that would count for license renewal must relate to only the work I currently do, i.e. maintaining my competency in mineral surveys.?ÿ
I know where you are coming from.?ÿ Legislation is a very blunt object and Board Rules are much easier to promulgate and change.?ÿ That doesn't mean that one should not be concerned with legislation that has multiple interpretations.?ÿ In my previous committee work to promulgate the architects' CE rules, the Board members frequently asked when reviewing the latest draft "so what does the statute require us to do".?ÿ Your experience in Alaska may differ from mine.
The concept that should be promoted is one requiring courses taken to somehow improve the knowledge and skillset of those working in the survey field. ?ÿThat leaves a rather broad range of topics that should be approved. ?ÿWhat I need and what you need may differ, but we both need to pursue topics applicable to our work. ?ÿFor example, surveyors who are business owners should get credit for courses that improve their business knowledge/skills so they can operate efficiently and not develop lowballer/scumbucket business practices, thus harming other members of the survey community. ?ÿTaking a fiftieth course on a specific surveying-only topic is meaningless, but easily counted as being approved.
Dictating that specific courses/instructors that are pre-approved by some knowledgeable body are the only ones to be counted is beyond stupid. ?ÿThat only serves those course providers and their instructors. ?ÿIt does not serve the concept of properly educating surveyors.
I've stated numerous times that it is incumbent upon a licensed professional to understand their life-time commitment to education.?ÿ The attached article was written by Sandra Scanlon a past chair of the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors.?ÿ It appeared in the 2009 Board Newsletter.?ÿ I have always supported continuing education for surveyors.?ÿ I just don't want it to be a regulatory mandate.?ÿ I know my position is at odds with many here.
Fight this bill.?ÿ If you don't, your board stands the course of going the route of Florida, where the board has micromanaged continuing education to the point that you cannot get credit for any course unless the course provider has become a licensed provider, and the course has been approved in advance.?ÿ For example, I attended a course in Kentucky Gary Kent gave on the 2016 ?ÿALTA standards.?ÿ Two weeks later he gave the exact same course in Florida, and I have an email from him stating such.?ÿ Because the Kentucky Association of Professional Surveyors was not a licensed provider, but the organization that brought Kent to Florida was, I could not get credit for the course.?ÿ In Florida the continuing education requirements have nothing to do with educating surveyors, and everything to do with extorting money from the profession.?ÿ Someone from Auburn University told me that they did not have the manpower, or the budget to get their continuing education approved by the Florida board.
Support this scourge of the profession at your own peril.
I was the sole person to testify against this bill last year in two committee hearings.?ÿ The bill was killed by the Republican leadership in the Senate.?ÿ They lost their majority in the Senate this year so it may pass with both Legislative houses and the Governorship being in Democratic control.?ÿ Just because you and I are a little cantankerous at times, I'll share this with you.?ÿ The audio of those hearings are still available to anyone that knows where to find them!?ÿ Just in case anyone wants to hear why I was against it and others were for it.?ÿ The bill sponsors made a big point in their introductions that the rapidly changing technology is a major reason to mandate CE because surveyors need to keep up with the latest millimeter measuring equipment and the emerging disciplines of GPS, drones, and scanners.
I will likely testify again this year just so I can say HI to some of my old buddies in the PLSC that will be there to support the bill.
On the plus side, I may finally end up with an excellent reason to maintain my CFedS appointment because the 6 CEUs required every two years to keep an active status is more than the 30 contact hours that the PLSC said they wanted in their application to DORA a year ago.?ÿ My two renewal dates are only 2 months apart.?ÿ I cannot see how the licensing board would ever turn down my CFedS CEUs that are taught by BLM employees.?ÿ Besides, the PLSC has had a CFedS course at their last two conferences and another one next month!
Texas has been requiring CEUS for over two decades and iwhat more can more bring the official words to more surveyors than by being in a room of only surveyors for 12 hours discussing the details to any question you want to ask other experts that are writing and interpreting?ÿ the rules.
The process takes new and real findings of actual surveying events for everyone to get something from the experience.
I would believe that most seminars would be cross border acceptable in PLS states.
The cost for getting accepted per state is minimal and should be readily be given by the requiring BOR of each state.
It is going to take help from all surveyors to make it work and to complete the training of our profession to everyone.
Not everyone is going to meetings, conventions and reading this awesome site material.
Gene, I would argue that a surveyor involved with scanners and drones will get educated on them, else he/she will find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
Gene, I would argue that a surveyor involved with scanners and drones will get educated on them, else he/she will find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
Also the high costs of scanners, drones and their related software means that the PLS (or their field crew) need to be sufficiently proficient in their use to be productive and profitable with that fancy new technology.
For anyone interested in attending and testifying for or against the PLSC's mandatory continuing education bill, it will have its first hearing with the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee on January 23, 2019.?ÿ The hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. in the Legislative Services Building (LSB), Room A.?ÿ The LSB is across the street from the Capitol building at 200 E. 14th Ave., Denver, CO.?ÿ For those familiar it is the old Colorado State Museum.
Be early for security screening and to sign up to testify.?ÿ The MCE bill is the first item on the agenda.?ÿ That may change so check the committee's web page at:
That also includes the names of each committee members, contact info and the committee's staff contact that can provide additional info.?ÿ The hearing will likely be broadcast live (audio only) in case you cannot make it.
I've stated numerous times that it is incumbent upon a licensed professional to understand their life-time commitment to education.?ÿ The attached article was written by Sandra Scanlon a past chair of the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors.?ÿ It appeared in the 2009 Board Newsletter.?ÿ I have always supported continuing education for surveyors.?ÿ I just don't want it to be a regulatory mandate.?ÿ I know my position is at odds with many here.
Base on my experience in NY, one of the biggest problems you're looking at is that architects and engineers decide what qualifies as CE for surveyors.?ÿ Surveyors are usually a minority on these mixed boards, and nothing can be approved without a majority vote.?ÿ Many times the minority surveyors are dual licensed as PE's.?ÿ It's not in the best interest of?ÿsome others to have a bunch of business savvy surveyors running around that might charge more for their services; so business courses, no CE credit.?ÿ Anywhere services might overlap, like erosion/sediment control, no CE credit.?ÿ On the other hand, folks other than surveyors?ÿget CE credit for just about anything.?ÿ Granted engineering is a larger umbrella, but still seems like CE is being used partly to curtail the scope of practice of surveyors rather than expand it or enhance it.
Have to keep the above in mind when reading some?ÿof the comments.?ÿ I think Texas has it's own board?ÿmade up?ÿentirely of surveyors.?ÿ
