NSPS 100% initiative . . . concerns?

Retired69
The Oregon society, PLSO, in January voted to accept a state level dues increase plus the 100% additional dues to NSPS. PLSO had not raised dues in the past 5-6 years even though their constitution allowed for an annual dues increase. The State Board of Directors recognized surveyors were hurting during the "Great Reccesion" and opted not to burden members with additional dues. The decision stressed the PLSO budget but we made it through it. I'm very much in favor of the 100% NSPS initiative.

Some state organizations are underwriting part of the fee the first year to encourage full support for the idea. I could argue both pro and con.

I'm in favor. It's a huge savings to paying two dues. And it strengthens the National Society.

I'm for this also. NMPS (New Mexico Professional Surveyors) voted this in at our conference earlier this month.

As a member of the Executive Committee, and President Elect, of the Tennessee Association of Professional Surveyors (TAPS), I was very concerned about how this would affect our membership. We were the first state to sign on, and we have not had any drop in our membership numbers.

I am in favor of the move, and as it was mentioned above, it is much more economical to be a member of both in this manner. I had always "meant" to sign up, but money was a little tight, or it just slipped my mind. This is a good way to strengthen both the State Associations as well as the National Association.

If we as Surveyors don't stand together nationally, to protect our profession, then other groups will try to infringe on our profession.

Anyone bellyaching about a $40 increase in dues doesn't really want to be a member anyway.

That Arkansas Society of Professional Surveyors has so far refused to let the membership vote on this issue, so I have dropped my membership in ASPS and am now only a member of NSPS. It get more out of the $245 that I pay to NSPS than I would out of the $65 that ASPS charges.

From the replies so far, it looks like several of the state societies approached the matter similar to what the Kentucky Association of Professional Surveyors (KAPS) did.

At the annual conference, we have a general membership meeting. That is the point in time that changes to items such as the by-laws can be presented and voted on by the general membership. KAPS took the NSPS initiative before the general membership this past February. In that manner, it was a vote by the members as opposed to a vote by the people elected to represent the chapters at the state level.

Now many folks do not attend the conference, so it is not a 100% representation of what the entire general membership wanted, but there really isn't much else that could be done.

KAPS decided to cover one half of the amount from the current dues schedule. The other half was added to the current rate. So it was only an increase of dues to the tune of $20. Sounds like a bargain for having a national voice when it comes to the profession.

Don't get me wrong....

I'm in favor of it . . . but that's not my concern and I'm not asking if anyone else is in favor of it.

What I am asking is does anyone here have concerns regarding state membership numbers.

It doesn't matter if "everyone", who is anyone in the state society wants it cause the VAST majority of state members ARE NOT ACTIVE. Selling this to the "Active" members is like the preacher, preaching to the choir.......

FORGET the "active members" . . . we know they recognize the benefits.

BUT . . . the VAST majority of the non-participant members are also the VAST majority of the funding through membership . . . probably 9+ to 1.

Am I the only person that thinks this could be very detrimental to state societies' budgets, when the dues notices go out with $40(or more), tacked onto the bill?

Keep in mind I don't care about who is or who isn't in favor of it. I'm only interested in what kinds of concerns exist with the mandate.

Absolutely right Tommy Young

And if it weren't for CEU's and cost breaks for being a state society member, a lot of those members wouldn't be members.

Their not really interested in the goings-on of the state society and they only begrudgenly pay their dues every year and gripe about what the state society doesn't do for them.

But for every one state society member who is active and recognizes all the benefits, there are a whole lot more who couldn't care less.

There might be a number of these members who might decide for whatever reason that they've had enough.

Are state societies ready to bite the bullet, if their budgets come up leaner beginning next year, cause their state society says their members HAVE TO join the NATIONAL society of professional surveyors?

I'm just being pragmatic about a deal that in some ways seems almost too good to be true.

Don't get me wrong....

I have the same concerns as you are addressing. The State Society (as an "entity") is there for the State Surveyors and to represent the State Surveyors and to be an organization of Professional Land Surveyors. To do something that helps promote more membership in the national society is a good thing. But you can almost bet that the States won't gain new members and will more than likely lose at least a few members. Some States have some kind of added incentive to join their society so that the members that join can get their continuing ed units at a discount price. Those states may be able to afford to force joining the national society. But there are a number of states that have a much smaller percentage of members without required continuing education (the captive audience so to speak), that are struggling to stay afloat and a loss of membership would hurt them more.

Not an opinion as to whether or not this should be done, just an observation. As to me, I would like to be able to join the NSPS for a mere $40 per year.

Don't get me wrong....

I understand. Idaho passed the 100% NSPS initiative. There was a bit of discussion about numbers of members dropping due to the increased cost. I guess we'll see if our numbers increase, stay the same, or decrease after the additional $40 is tacked on.

> That Arkansas Society of Professional Surveyors has so far refused to let the membership vote on this issue, so I have dropped my membership in ASPS and am now only a member of NSPS. It get more out of the $245 that I pay to NSPS than I would out of the $65 that ASPS charges.

Did y'all see that?...REFUSED TO LET THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE ON THIS ISSUE!

DDSM:'(

Don't get me wrong....

I don't worry about that much. The same argument can be made about the existence of a state society and any membership fee at all. In NY about 75% of licensed surveyors belong to the state association at any given time. Far fewer belong to the national.

There are some who do enroll once every 3 years just to get the discounts on needed continuing education. My sense is many of these folks do not actually stamp much work but want to hold onto the license just in case. They may work for state agencies or in larger firms performing work at salary that does not really require application of the license, although the salary may be higher if they keep it active. An additional 40 bucks is not going to take away the advantage of membership one year out of three.

There are also those in more rural areas with depressed economies and low land values that don't make much compared to those in other areas. They tend to be more concerned with slight increases in membership fees, and legitimately so. They are pinching pennies and trying to get by, but they stay where they are because they like the rural lifestyle and have chosen the tradeoffs. They generally believe in the necessity of the associations and will somehow come up with the extra 40 bucks in most cases, even if they vote against it. There are some who take the attitude that if you can't come up with 40 bucks extra you should be doing something else. Not me, I understand the economics of the north country rural setting. And I wouldn't presume to criticize anyone for choosing to operate a business under those conditions.

There are some who don't understand our capitalist representative system and don't belong to any group that would help promote their well being. They generally don't vote in elections, support charity, do volunteer work, or otherwise support their communities either. I don't think there are too many of these types that achieve a professional license. Even if they do, a free membership is too much because they don't believe in the idea of a representative voice. These are the folks who will sit idle and complain that everything stinks and the organizations just make things worse. It is a waste of time to worry about gaining or losing these people as members.

The ones I do worry about are the younger folks who are not earning what they should after dedicating some years to the profession. I talked with one recently licensed individual that seriously had to choose between her initial license registration fee of a few hundred dollars or renewal fee in association membership of a few hundred. But 40 bucks would not have mattered. And without representation at state and national level, there is no chance that salaries within the profession will ever get any better. So if we lose a few initially, hopefully the effort will reap rewards that benefit all and eventually bring these folks into (or back into) the group.

Maybe it will all amount to nothing, but might as well go down fighting.

We have had a similar problem here in West Virginia. The executives decided that it was dead, without consulting the general membership.

I am the president of our local chapter and we had the society president as a guest for our January meeting. We expressed our disappointment with this decision but to no avail.

When "membership" rates increase

there's always those members who just quit.

But when membership rates increase, the increase almost always offsets the small reduction in membership.

This is not so much a dues increase, as it is a new mandate that will increase dues . . . which is totally different.

This increase in dues will not wind up in the state's operating funds and will result in an actual and direct loss of revenue for the state organization.

To me, this is somewhat disconcerting . . . especially since the numbers of PS's in Ohio is diminishing and the attendance at sponsored seminars has flattened to something like 50%(or so) of Ohio's PS's.

I can't get into the dynamics or psychology of surveyors regarding this issue . . . but I'm certain it is an issue.

I don't look forward to the possibility of working with a diminished budget.

I know a number of states have agreed to this mandate, but have any states actually billed the added amount and experienced the real world effect on membership renewal?

When "membership" rates increase

Well, I don't agree that it's totally different, I think it's all the same. We have to decide how best to represent the membership if we volunteer our time with an association. That might be continuing ed or it might be involvement at the national level, or something else. Doing nothing costs nothing, doing something costs something.

I can't give you specifics on how we pay for each thing we choose to do or not to do. All states are going to have differing ways to handle it depending on their local characteristics. But if we come up with anything really creative that might work in other states I'll pass it on. It would be nice if we could do all the needed things and not have to charge anything (and not spend any time working on it).

When "membership" rates increase

Thanks Duane

When "membership" rates increase

The timing of this will coincide with many surveyors of the "baby boom" generation retiring. In 2000 Ohio projected at least a 20% reduction in the number of Professional Surveyors by 2020. Some will go to retired status, if offered by their state organization, others will let their license and all professional memberships lapse. It will be difficult to tell if requiring NSPS membership contributes to declining state numbers. Either way state professional associations can expect to have fewer members in the next few years.