Which only makes sense. Our Design Professions Section within the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation regulates Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Structural Engineers.
Wisconsin's is similar, as I would imagine so are a lot of other states.
Consolidation of regulatory boards into groups that govern similar activities is certainly going to be more efficient, although no one will initially like change.
Kansas has Engineers, Architects, Landscape Architects, Surveyors and Geologists within the State Board of Technical Professions. Seems to work fairly well.
Yes, he did
> Is it possible for you to set out what fees a professional surveyor must pay in the Republic ?
>
> Are there additional fees that are optional ?
>
Derek, there are about 3000 registered professional land surveyors in Texas. It cost me $379.00 to renew my RPLS license for this year. $200.00 of that was whisked away to the general revenue fund as what is in effect an occupation tax, not to actually operate the licensing board.
The only additional expense is that of obtaining the required continuing education by some approved means. I'm cheap and usually pay about $130.00 for mine.
I have absolutely no objection to paying whatever is necessary to regulate and oversee the practice of land surveying in Texas, including vigorously pursuing valid complaints against licensees and promoting sound practices. What instead we are seeing is marginalizing the activities of the licensing board in order to siphon off the money necessary to actually operate it. The licensing of the professions is rapidly becoming merely a means to raise taxes from many wallets while pretending that it isn't being done.
> But I thought he was your man........
Well, now you know why I dropped my membership in TSPS.
> Which only makes sense. Our Design Professions Section within the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation regulates Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Structural Engineers.
>
> Wisconsin's is similar, as I would imagine so are a lot of other states.
>
> Consolidation of regulatory boards into groups that govern similar activities is certainly going to be more efficient, although no one will initially like change.
So....you're telling me that every profession on your Board is equally represented, and there is never preferential treatment of specific interests of any profession/group over the other?
I don't know about much about Wisconsin (except for one wingnut), but here in Texas, if we were combined with the Prof. Engineer's Board, our interests would be subservient, and possibly ignored in that scenario.
Did you not get Kent's point/stats that the argument that Helmet Hair makes about our Board being a cost to the State is ludicrous? So why would it "make sense" as you say, to consolidate our Board with others?
That's bull. You haven't been a member as long as I've known you, and that predates Perry.
🙂
No they are still separate boards, but under the umbrella of the Design Professions Section. There is efficiency in processing exam applications, and doing investigations of misconduct, as these things are pretty similar for each profession. For example, unlicensed practice is something an investigator familiar with the section will be able to pick out regardless of the profession. So is practicing on an expired license. There are other commonalities too, like not paying back educational loans. Most misconduct will generally fall into a pattern of behavior. Bad actors generally don't limit their mischief to one event. Having the boards all together under one umbrella saves a lot of time, especially in initial investigations.
But each profession still has it's own examination board, which reviews applications for validity, cooperates with investigators, and ultimately reviews in detail the results of an investigation. They're unpaid volunteers of course, and I'm sure it's a thankless job.
OK, thanks for the clarification Marc.
> That's bull. You haven't been a member as long as I've known you, and that predates Perry.
I dropped my membership fairly soon after the former Texas Surveyors Association morphed in the TEXAS SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS. The push behind that misadventure was the same one that led eventually to the practice of endorsing all sorts of unsavory types running for public office, including present Governor Hair-do.
> Did you not get Kent's point/stats that the argument that Helmet Hair makes about our Board being a cost to the State is ludicrous? So why would it "make sense" as you say, to consolidate our Board with others?
Exactly right. The idea that some Universal Investigator can effectively evaluate and investigate complaints against licensees flies in the face of reason. People with specialized surveying knowledge are needed to investigate complaints about surveyors and their services. That means the investigator should be a surveyor. Hiring retired surveyors for that function makes sense to me.
