Indiana Job Creation Committee Recommendation

Excellent.

Looks like they are recommending repeal of the licenses to corporations and firms that offer the services, the license signifying approval of a continuing education provider, and the elimination of the Surveyor Intern (LSIT in other places), but keeping the Professional Land Surveyor license. What say you guys from Indiana, am I reading this correctly?

I'm not sure about the whole registered thing, and what this means in the larger scheme of things, but on it's face it brings to mind the word antithetical.

You are reading it correctly. Last year the same committee tried to eliminate the licensing of engineers in the State of Indiana. http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/NSPE-Public-Comment-Opposing-JCC-Recommendation.pdf&apos ;">NSPE responded with this letter.

Licensing laws are some of the pesky government regulations Gov Pence thinks are killing jobs. Think how many more folks could be engineers and surveyors if you didn't need licensed.

Mike Falk, post: 382057, member: 442 wrote: Licensing laws are some of the pesky government regulations Gov Pence thinks are killing jobs.

Oklahoma has registration of engineering and surveying firms, neither Oregon nor Washington do. I don't see that it does anything for Oklahoma or that Oregon/Washington would gain anything. So I expect that could go in Indiana without any negative effects.

State licensing of Surveying Interns - I don't know. Being a licensed intern doesn't really allow you to do anything that any citizen can't. So I'm not sure why the state is issuing "licenses". Of course it's part of the process of becoming a PLS, and that's important. But another system could be found. I wonder why EITs are not included?

A proposal was floated to eliminate PLS registration in Oregon a few years ago. Turned out it was just a state rep. throwing stuff against the wall to see what stuck. As soon as the PLSO challenged him he instantly backed down.

Registering firms helps regulate plan stamping. What happens if more than one firm says that you are their full time surveyor supervising all work?

Mike Falk, post: 382083, member: 442 wrote: Registering firms helps regulate plan stamping. What happens if more than one firm says that you are their full time surveyor supervising all work?

Of course that would be a violation (it is in both Oregon and Washington). One that shouldn't be too hard to prove. But if a good case can be made then this proposal can likely be quashed.

Mike Falk, post: 382057, member: 442 wrote: Last year the same committee tried to eliminate the licensing of engineers in the State of Indiana. http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/NSPE-Public-Comment-Opposing-JCC-Recommendation.pdf&apos ;">NSPE responded with this letter.

The NSPE response letter states:
‹ÛÛ
[INDENT=1]The JCC‰Ûªs recommendation states that "a voluntary system, such as the self-certification registry, would be a great regulatory structure for the profession." Most unfortunately, history reveals that self-regulation is tantamount to no regulation at all. Licensure of engineers, in fact, in all states was driven by instances in which citizens were killed or injured and property damaged due to errors and omissions committed by individuals who practiced engineering without the proper education, experience, qualifications and ethics[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
Aren't engineers self regulated through professional associations rather than government agencies in most of continental Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, and countless other places we use as examples of nations who's infrastructure isn't crumbling before our eyes?

It seems to me that the only logical argument for governmental rather that professional self regulation of engineers and surveyors in the US is that we have innate lower ethical standards than our fellow professionals in other first world countries and we require the specter of the force of law to keep us in line. Not saying that's true or false; but it is somewhat disconcerting to consider.

Mike Falk, post: 382083, member: 442 wrote: Registering firms helps regulate plan stamping. What happens if more than one firm says that you are their full time surveyor supervising all work?

Tennessee does not require firm registration. We do require there to be a licensed surveyor in each office that is offering surveys, and they will not allow one surveyor to have multiple offices. It seems to work pretty well.

For God so loved the world that He did not send a committee. A committee is where a group of select people pool their knowledge, ignorance and self interest to make recommendations for their personal benefit. Needless to say the people appointing the committee have an agenda and make their selections accordingly. Do they provide any justification for their recommendations? I assume that you are only showing the recommendations that pertain to our Profession. What we need is a private Board of Surveyors that is funded by Surveyors. Being subject to political fads is not a stable position and does not promote or improve our Profession.

Tommy Young, post: 382091, member: 703 wrote: Tennessee does not require firm registration. We do require there to be a licensed surveyor in each office that is offering surveys, and they will not allow one surveyor to have multiple offices. It seems to work pretty well.

Those rules apply in Oregon without firm registration and registrants working out of multiple offices is really not a problem. When it does happen people get caught at it pretty quick.

Self-certification someone in Indiana proposed is voluntary as I understand it.

Some jurisdictions and professions have self regulation but it isn't voluntary.

Active regulation and policing, like planning, typically works better than passively waiting to see what happens.

Mike Falk, post: 382102, member: 442 wrote: Active regulation and policing, like planning, typically works better than passively waiting to see what happens.

I agree, self certification doesn't work except for self aggrandizement, like for Realtors with all those letters behind their name.

What Canada and other countries do is not self-certification, it is mandatory.

The NSPE office is in a high rent district near the King Street Metro Station, you could be at the Capitol in 15 minutes. When I visit my sister in Alexandria the Washington Post will usually have one or two hit pieces on the Metro System which I find very humorous. Their Metro system is light years ahead of the stupid light rail we have.

Mike Falk, post: 382102, member: 442 wrote: Active regulation and policing, like planning, typically works better than passively waiting to see what happens.

Some regulations do not achieve their intended purpose. I'm very much in favor of "active regulation and policing" when it comes to our profession. I'm just saying that firm registration may not be achieving it's intended purpose and could be eliminated. I'm definitely not in favor of eliminating licensing of Surveyors anywhere.

Mike Falk, post: 382057, member: 442 wrote: You are reading it correctly. Last year the same committee tried to eliminate the licensing of engineers in the State of Indiana. http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/NSPE-Public-Comment-Opposing-JCC-Recommendation.pdf&apos ;">NSPE responded with this letter.

Licensing laws are some of the pesky government regulations Gov Pence thinks are killing jobs. Think how many more folks could be engineers and surveyors if you didn't need licensed.

Thanks for confirming this. California doesn't issue certifications to businesses that offer the services by way of having appropriate licensed individuals as part of the company but we do require notification as to who is in responsible charge primarily due to the fact that most consumers know the company name rather easily and not necessarily the licensee's name.

Mike Falk, post: 382083, member: 442 wrote: Registering firms helps regulate plan stamping. What happens if more than one firm says that you are their full time surveyor supervising all work?

I hope that has curtailed this situation and one of the few reasons why it could be implemented in California. However, not in favor of increased regulation unless it can be demonstrated that it is a benefit as a result of it.

lmbrls, post: 382092, member: 6823 wrote: For God so loved the world that He did not send a committee. A committee is where a group of select people pool their knowledge, ignorance and self interest to make recommendations for their personal benefit. Needless to say the people appointing the committee have an agenda and make their selections accordingly. Do they provide any justification for their recommendations? I assume that you are only showing the recommendations that pertain to our Profession. What we need is a private Board of Surveyors that is funded by Surveyors. Being subject to political fads is not a stable position and does not promote or improve our Profession.

There were other licensed occupations listed in the committee's agenda. I'm not sure why you believe a "private Board of Surveyors that is funded by Surveyors" would be of a benefit to the people that are protected by the licensing process. Not sure about other states and how their funding is established, but the California board is solely funded by the licensee's fees.

Ric Moore, post: 382121, member: 731 wrote: I'm not sure why you believe a "private Board of Surveyors that is funded by Surveyors" would be of a benefit to the people that are protected by the licensing process. Not sure about other states and how their funding is established, but the California board is solely funded by the licensee's fees.

I am not sure how every state board works. Our Board is underfunded and does not have a full time investigator. The board is a joint board with the Professional Engineers under the Secretary of State. We have 1220 Surveyors in the state, so the $50 biannual renewal fee produces at best $30,500 annually. The Surveyors on the board do it as a service and are not justly compensated. I just do not believe the state is very concerned with our profession. This may not be the case in every state. I believe the AMA and American Bar Association could teach us about the self regulation of a profession.If you are happy with the way it is working in your state, by all means leave it alone.