Does anyone have data indicating how the NSPS agreement for state societies to agree to 100% membership has affected NSPS's finances compared to how it has affected the state's societies finances?
I surmised that the forced membership, while bolstering NSPS coffers, would likely cause a reduction in state membership along with state's dues increases, needed to make up for the more natural fact that less and less surveyors are coming into the profession(and the societies), would less likely to be persued until the "bite" of the NSPS membership increase in state's dues(to pay the NSPS dues), has passed into memory.
I'd like to have been wrong ... and hope I'm wrong ...
... was I wrong, or is it too soon to know?
I left my State Society when it adopted forced NSPS membership back in (I think) '01. At the debate before the vote lots of people were happy to talk about why we all "should" be NSPS members. No one addressed my question as to why we should be REQUIRED to be members.
I used tovthink the majority of policy decisions that impact daily practice occur at the State level. The feds after all don't set our licencing and recording rules.
Over time I have grown to understand how changes in the department of interior, clean water act and agency rules trickle down to us.
The need for a lobbying group to protect our interests at the Federal level is obvious. The State organizations decide for themselves if they should take part. Individuals can work for or against membership. If things don't go the way they wish they can stick around or move on.
At the end of the day the drive is about changing the NSPS model to something that actually works. Running numbers to see the financial impact would be a good exercise as long as it is done without an agenda.
I agree with retired69. The thing that gets me about NSPS is that they don't appear to be doing a thing to address the encroachment into legally regulated land surveying by GIS people.
Please, don't get me wrong ...
I've always been in favor of the idea of the 100% initiative.
But I do know surveyors ...
They can be a pound foolish and penny rich ... or a nickel rich and dollar foolish ... Heck! I just had to go off my coumadin(internal bleeding), and realize how much it helped my thinking.
ANYWAY ... I think surveyors are often cheap or overly frugal, often afraid to spend a dollar today for a 20 fold return in the future.
I also am sure the vast majority of state society members are non-participatory and often don't even know the name of the state society they belong to.
My fear that I spoke of above was that the NSPS initiative required a large increase in state's dues at a time when states appear to be suffering a reduction of licensed surveyors ... membership is dying off and less surveyors coming into the field. This should mean that state societies are in a period where they need to increase dues to meet ever increasing costs with less paying members.
Sort of a perfect storm situation since the large increase to the NSPS doesn't increase a states funding, but puts the state societies sort of behind the 8-ball regarding dues increases(or the "fear" of states dues increases ON TOP of the NSPS increase/initiative). The initiative, in my mind would further reduce state society funding since the vast majority of the non-participatory members ... the ones most likely to drop membership over increases, regardless of cause, are also the greatest source of funding for the state societies.
These are the issues I'm asking about.