Mandatory Continuing Education

three.rivers

I took his water boundary course many moons ago. It was fun and informative. Darrell was a cool guy.

Believe me, I am not for requiring CEU's.

I just know that it's foolish to volunteer for raising renewal fees. Sure, the increase in fees will go just to investigation/enforcement now - but sooner or later the state will end up dipping into that trough, to make up for shortages elsewhere.

The intent of that comment was to reiterate that nobody is perfect, and there is always room for improvement. It doesn't mean that I'm "winging" it on topics that I'm not experienced with. Continuing ed is a good thing, regardless of whether it is required or not. Those who think they have learned everything they will ever need, are kidding themselves.

-V

That was meant as a response to Mr Richardson, not you Chris.

Continuing Education: What is the Intent?

Send me an email, I'm curious who those surveyors are.

Continuing Education: What is the Intent?

> three.rivers,
>
> I can honestly say that you have been totally mislead about the Tennessee Association, and the Tennessee Board of Examiners.

Well, if he was mislead, it's possible he's relying on the same source of information I am, that source being the mouth of a former president of TAPS.

"...Those who think they have learned everything they will ever need, are kidding themselves..."

Who said they "have learned everything". Not me.

I take plenty of Professional CE. I resent being told what CE I need. And, then, it is given by lackluster performers.

Who said they "have learned everything". Not me.

That wasn't meant as a slap to you, just a general statement. Nor do I take on work that I feel I am not qualified for, as a response to your previous post.

I agree with you in that I don't think CEUs should be required. But as was said by others in this thread, in being a professional, I think we are ethically required to further our understanding of the profession. I was just trying to get across how important I think continuing ed is. Sorry if my post was mis-interpreted.

-V

:good:

-V

What really adds up is multiple licenses

In my case, I hold licenses in three different disciplines. The real estate license CEU's must be pre-approved. The engineering CEU's are only reviewed if you are randomly selected to prove that you have been trying to do what you are supposed to do or if you are under attack by the BOR. The surveying CEU's are the same way except that there is now a 2-credit course that is mandatory between each two-year renewal specific to the Minimum Standards. I think the only approved course is the one through the State Society, but I might be wrong on that. That is the only pre-approved mandatory course of which I am aware. Basically, in surveying and engineering, you attend programing that you feel is clearly appropriate to progessing in your profession and keep proof of that participation. Then, when your number comes up, you submit your list and associated proof of attendance to the BOR to either accept or reject, either in full or in part. If enough is rejected to make you fall short of the minimum requirement, I believe there is a set period of time in which to attend other courses that will satisfy whomever it is that is making this decision for the BOR. Initially, I believe the goal was to randomly tab five percent of license holders each year to provide proof of acceptable progress with continuing education.

How Washington regulates CEU's

Start here: WAC 196-16-100 and scroll through to the right.

Specifically:

WAC 196-16-115

Qualifying activities.

> 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.

> but sooner or later the state will end up dipping into that trough, to make up for shortages elsewhere.

Exactly what is happening where I live. The result - a possible increase in licensing fees because those fees have been swiped and put in the general fund (to the tune of around a million bucks in the past few years). Those licensing fees that were taken did nothing towards enforcement or any other aspect of bettering the profession.

> why would state to state standards or administrative
> rules require special expertise?

I would not consider it special expertise. It is simply what one should know because it pertains to their profession.

However, not everyone is as conscientious as they should be about knowing the standards.

For example, as much as 3 years after some significant changes to the standards of practice, I know there were still people who were not up to speed on those changes.

Even though I have reviewed the standards and regulations many many times, I still learn something from other's views on the subject.

I understand that. Before I would agree to any license fee increase under such a scenario, I'd want some kid of firewall set up where our fees are solely for our profession, and not to go toward the general fund.

Renewal in Texas $379

Late fee $150

$1500 fine for each survey completed without current registration

Texas legislature dips (actually digs) heavily into the registration fees.

In Texas, anyone north of the Red River claiming to be a cowboy is usually called a
'drug store cowboy'.

I have gone to conventions when I had all of my PDH completed. The business meeting
and seeing the new technology is more important than sitting in a seminar. A board
of registration chairman said to me, "Why should I go to a seminar when 200 of my
competitors are there learning the same thing?"

There are some state BOR's who prohibit vendor seminars aka sales seminars. For example,
the Trimble salesman in the exhibit room will know more about the new V10 than the speaker
(private) will know about the V10 he is presenting. Who knows their product better than the
manufacturer?

Even though no state has come anywhere close to achieving a fair and effective way to implement continuing education that accomplishes the objective - the root reason this has ever come up is due to the known fact that without it, MOST surveyors do not seek additional professional development and not only the public is harmed, but the profession is harmed.

Colorado does not have mandatory CE, and one can observe that at most, 10% of the profession takes the initiative to learn what they didn't know when they passed the test. I see their faces at the same conference every year, and there is plenty to learn. The rest complain about the instructors, cost and difficulty of attending one class per year.

Surveyors are defined as "minimally competent" when the 60% or less pass their test after working at it for 10 years.

I have learned a great deal from most of the speakers I've sat through, and not so much from others - but this experience of screening what we learn is part of why we are a profession and not a trade.

Mandatory Continuing Education...Suggestions?

> Some of subjects I would be interested in expanding my knowledge on and getting credit for are
>
> *Elevation certificates/ vertical datums
> *Geodesy
> *ROW issues/research
> *Boundary Law
> *Running a surveying business
> *Remote Sensing
> *GIS

Great examples. The NJ Conference coming up Feb 5-7 has a course on every one of these topics, including an 8 hour course on railroad ROW's, Val maps, etc. Just log into their 2014 SurvCon website and check it out. If a surveyor can't get something of value out of this conference, he or she might as well take down their shingle.

For those who live in states where the conference menu is lacking, isn't it up to the State Association and the entire membership to be asking for course that they NEED AND WANT?

But, and this is a large BUT, one element that is missing from this thread is the sense that we all, as licensed professionals, have a say in this. Many of the posts seem to be saying "look what they are doing to us".

Aside from belonging to the State Association, or a local/regional association, every licensee has the ear of his/her State BOR. If a member of a profession has an issue with something going on with regard to his license and his livelihood, then members have to bring this to the attention of the people who regulate.

How many of those who have complained about the poor choice of CEU's have expressed this to their Association, or their BOR, and I mean officially, not just bitching and moaning around the coffee table at the conference break time, but making phone calls or writing letters? (Yes, I know we're all "too busy", yet we are taking time to be posting about it HERE.)

The whole idea of an ASSOCIATION, and the whole aim of a CONFERENCE is to come together and collectively determine what is best for the profession, from an educational standpoint, from a standards of practice standpoint, and from a business model standpoint.

A lot of people here don't seem to envision that they can help change things.....some perhaps don't want to be bothered. I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of those opposed to mandatory CEU's haven't served on a committee, gone along on a lobby day, or are not even members of their State (or local) Associations. To effect change, you have to make your voice heard.

If that is the case, then the problem is THEM, not the people who run the conferences.

Mandatory Continuing Education...Suggestions?

Excellent post cowboy. You nailed it.