There are many takes on the "redefinition of Land Surveying" but I have to say that 75% of the comments in Surveyor Connect are opposed to expanding the definition to include construction, GIS, photogrammetry etc.
To the other 25%, sometimes it helps to use a metaphor. Let us say that a large number of carpenters and roofers realize that adding an Engineer's license to their resume would allow them to attract a higher class of clientele and to charge more. They organize on a national level to do so and attach themselves to FEs (Foundation Engineers). They write their model law to include framing and roofing installation under the definition of Foundation Engineering. The framing and roofing thus waters down the experience requirements for foundation design. In fact, when presented to the Engineers and State Legislators, one of the selling points is that foundation design will no longer be a required knowldege or experience because such is an obstacle to the young joining the new profession of Foundation Engineers.
Some states have, and others propose, having two Engineering licenses, one for framers and roofers and the other for real Foundation Engineers. The problem for carpenters and roofers is that the dumbed-down license has too little prestige; they cannot even pretend to be exclusive because the courts won't allow it.
It boils down to this, the NSPC&R (National Society of Professional Carpenters and Roofers) wants a prestigious license and not just any licensee, they want the Foundation Engineer's license and foundations be damned. They may have to accomplish this in stages but such will be the end result if they have anything to say about it, and with lobbyists and media experts they have a lot to say.
Next to be discussed is the NSOB (National Society of Butchers) who want a Doctor's license.
(These discussions and points originate from the American Surveyor article http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/13254/153/)
You're not listening with an unbiased point of view. This is quickly becoming clear as more of a thinly-veiled attempt at increasing readership for this article and nothing of real substance.
I'm kinda sorta missing the part about "...what's in it for me..". As in, fees and other goodies we enjoy.
Comparing a carpenter to a PLS is borderline insulting, but I regress and just consider other elements of the delivery host. Why not HVAC technicians, why not electricians, how about plumbers or welders. (lots of unions involved there, eh) Oh lest we forget realtors and mortgage "professionals". The list is endless.
Merry Christmas all....:-)
I have to agree Mr. Moore. I tried to explain the situation in Tennessee in a reply in the original thread. Mr. Erickson replied with the above post.
I am very involved in the state association, and have been attending many of the recent meetings of the BOE in my state. I have a general knowledge of what is going on in my state. His broad assumptions are just that. If anything, our BOE is trying to elevate the surveying profession in our state.
Mr. Erickson,
When it comes to interpersonal relationships, I do my best to live by a very simple and rigid set of rules. It takes a rather extraordinary effort to get me to set them aside. Congratulations.
Your premise that the Board is attempting to hijack our Licensing process does not hold up to any level of scrutiny or logical thought.
The move to amend the definition of land surveying predates Board involvement. It also spans the tenure of two Directors and most members of the Board. Unless the conspiracy involves all of these people and two ISPLS administrations it didn't come from them.
The language of this Bill was discussed ad nauseum for over 2 years. It was folded, spindled and mutilated at numerous meetings and distributed throughout our Chapters for that entire time. While it has come to my attention not all Chapters took the same amount of time with it, the opportunity was there. I for one do not believe the Board enlisted the help of every Director to guide the language. It was written through a lengthy open process by Surveyors.
Now back to those rules-
I do not go off half-cocked. This is especially true when the image of our chosen Profession is at stake. A few simple phone calls would reveal exactly where the offending language in the SOP came from. A 15 minute effort got me the same story from 3 independent sources. Another supplied me with the same information just a bit ago.
If I have something to say about someone, they hear it from me first. Granted I am a bit off on this one by this rant. I am not the one who chose to air laundry. The personal blind-siding of fellow Professionals was uncalled for. To a man they have all been forth-coming to any who ask.
The shameful part is that there is something that should be addressed as part of this effort. A Professional approach could have brought folks together to get it done. At this point I am certain not all parties will have a seat at the table, and with good reason.
I am not one to hold a grudge. I am more than willing to take this to the coffee table and work on solutions. I will not take part in the further embarrassment of our Profession, and urge you to consider how your handling of this looks.
Rant off, Tom
Oh, the power of voting. Had the re-definition of surveying been presented with a motion on the chapter level, and vote taken, had I found myself in the miniority, that would have been the end of it - no article. That's the way we work in America.
Instead the Executive Secretary and ISPLS's media expert announced to us that the new definition has been perfected and the requirement for boundary experience has been removed. No vote, just a declaration that we need to contact our legislators using their lesson plan. Is that professional? It is certainly not American.
Nice try.
The Executive Director came after a 2 year process. At the point if you hadn't spoken up the fault lies with the guy in the mirror. The definition that he came with is the one written by Surveyors.
The action plan contained one major issue. A bullet point offered by others was inserted. It was wrong, but it was not a conspiracy and did not impact the legislation. It should have been dealt with then or one on one immediately after.
Rather than handle it Professionally you took it public. You compound that mistake by continuing to twist the facts and generate an issue that isn't there. Your actions show no interest in the protection or furtherance of our Profession. If you have either of these you need to step up and deal directly with the people you are accusing.
It wasn't written by any surveyors that I know. Except for a reading of the Model Law about ten years ago, that ended when laughter drowned out the "above, upon, or below the earth", we, the surveyors that I know, were not aware that the definition was currently being re-written. All is not lost. About ten days ago our Chapter took a vote on the new definition via e-mail. Haven't heard how it turned out. Have you?
"There are many takes on the "redefinition of Land Surveying" but I have to say that 75% of the comments in Surveyor Connect are opposed to expanding the definition to include construction, GIS, photogrammetry etc."
I'm not sure how you get that out of the postings. But reading the Idaho law I can see where your thought process comes from. However, the vast majority of states already include those items in current definitions. The problem is to define in such a way as to capture some crucial elements within those areas that need surveyor expertise because much of that work does not necessarily need it due to advanced technology. In addition, there can be overlapping areas of practice in differing professions such as engineering and land surveying. No need for exclusivity in all things. But it looks like a surveyor can not perform construction surveying under Idaho law (only engineers). Not sure who is allowed under the law to perform GIS or photogrammetry (no license for either I guess); which is okay maybe for much of that type of work.
The Idaho law is weird, in that it includes such an abbreviated and narrow description, followed by pretty stringent requirements. Then you look at the college program offered in Idaho (I only looked at one, maybe there's more) and it contains a sequence of courses on construction (route surveying and construction surveying), a sequence on GIS (beginning and advanced), and a remote sensing or photogrammetry. But only one course on boundary and one on subdivision. It also contains calculus and statistics followed by geodetic surveying (not covered under the license law). In addition the state uses the national test which covers all those areas.
Seems to me this is all about keeping that indentured servitude racket going, and being a little intimidated by the more educated younger surveyors. I'm not trying to be provocative or make any kind of personal attack. But the way I see it is the article started out that way in addition to showing little research, and now your arguments are becoming irrational and based on ignoring actual facts that have come to light from folks involved in your state and others.
I wasn't going to post on this anymore but national standards do affect us all.
boy that sure sounds like a load to me, who cares how long it has taken when it is clear that some chapters were not asked for input? You are hearing the input now but you don't want to listen and then its the peoples fault who didn't know about the changes??? No, the failure to communicate is with whoever didn't make sure this info was disseminated properly. It sounds to me like typical politics as usual.
I don't see a problem expanding the definition as long as there remains a boundary experience requirement. That's the rub. The NC definition is expanded but retains the boundary requirement for attaining a license (except for photogrammetrists)
The proposed changes and requests for input have been in the Board Journals and ISPLS newsletters for over a year. The only way a person or Chapter could have been excluded is by personal choice. The officers of all chapters were involved in discussions and votes on the issue. The thing that is obvious is that some people chose not to get involved.
As for not listening, let's try another metaphor.
If I look into my bowl of soup and see a turd, I'm not going to pick it out and start eating. The lesson should be obvious...
Potty mouth!