This thread/post contains a number of issues worthy of comment. I have posted a letter to the Editor (Marc Cheves) of American Surveyor stating:
1. The journalistic standards of American Surveyor should be raised.
2. Surveying Education and Surveying Educators deserve more respect.
Please see this link.
Perhaps if Mr. Erickson were actually a dues paying member of ISPLS then he would have received his copies of the Gem State Surveyor quarterly publication which has documented the hard work of the definition committee since December of 2011! BTW the definition committee and the rest of the ISPLS Board of Governors are all hard working volunteer Professional Land Surveyors giving back to the profession they love. Not politicians!
perhaps he doesn't see a benefit from that organization, is membership required to be a licensed land surveyor? Does the legislation only affect members of the organization? If they truly wanted an open, honest debate about legislation affecting all surveyors they would include all surveyors, even those who were not members wouldn't they? The board has the address for every surveyor in state, I imagine it would have cost all of $500 to send letters to all the active surveyors in the state asking for input on these changes...how hard would that have been? The truth is that there was little debate, because that would muck up the works.
Quite the contrary. Members were invited, even begged for input for at least two years. I am not in that section of the state so I cannot say what went on in their section meetings but section directors were asked to solicit input from everyone in their section.
> Quite the contrary. Members were invited, even begged for input for at least two years. I am not in that section of the state so I cannot say what went on in their section meetings but section directors were asked to solicit input from everyone in their section.
"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 23249
The amendment changes the definition of land surveying in Idaho code to better align with actual practice, improve consistency with surrounding states, and reduce barriers for young professionals to enter the land surveying profession."
Was your section (which one is it?) asked for input on the change in direction of the purpose for the definition change? At what levels of the ISPLS was this change in direction approved? I know it has never been mentioned, let alone debated and approved at our section or by the board of governors.
Are you comfortable with reducing the boundary experience requirement without any substantial change in the education and/or testing requirements?
As I've said earlier, I have been very involved in this process, and the apparent change in direction and objective to reduce the boundary experience requirement came as quite a surprise to me. It is a very troubling development, not only in the potential future impact to our profession and the public, but in the way it has apparently came about without approval of the ISPLS.
The Board sent post cards to every certificate holder in the State TWICE pointing to the on-line newsletter.
you talk about meetings and section directors, but these things only benefit members...The majority of surveyors only attend a few meetings a year, if that, and less than half are society members..the outreach is purposely very limited in this way and your attack on the OP for not being a "dues paying member" is typical of these organizations attitudes. The proof of the failure to notify surveyors is the article. No offense, I know exactly how these campaigns are run. Its just my $0.02.
The change to the SOP was not discussed to my knowledge. As explained (more than once) the change did not initiate with ISPLS or the Board. In my opinion it was a poor choice. By the same token the SOP is not codified and no changes to the language of the Bill were made.
Either the Bill was a good idea or it wasn't. The 'marketing' decision aside I support it. I will be one of many watching to ensure it isn't hijacked later. I will not trash the hard work of getting this done to prove a point that's already been made.
[sarcasm]an on-line newsletter, now that changes things![/sarcasm] I'd say you are just too close to the situation to fairly access it. It's apparent the article struck home when everyone is running around pointing out how its not true...Great job Chad! I may even take up reading that magazine again.
The article did not strike home, it struck a nerve. Having served a decade as a volunteer on various boards I take exception to unresearched attacks on people who have gone the extra mile for our Profession.
Every point raised has either been refuted or explained. Answers are never acknowledged, they are simply ignored with sophomoric deflections and half truths. As I have repeatedly said, this could have been a beneficial and productive conversation. It will never become one while people refuse to acknowledge established facts.
You said you were a former lobbyist, were you paid anything as a lobbyist for this legislation? Are you a board member or ISPLS officer?
Very reasonable questions. I have never been paid for any efforts on any Bill or policy. I used to lobby as a volunteer for Sporting organizations. My work has been very successful because I work for what I believe in, not what pays the Bills. I've never held many position with the Board or ISPLS. This issue has prompted me to run for office. My involvement with this issue has been attendance at Chapter meetings where it was discussed, researching the topic, making calls and emails to stay informed and asking for support from my legislators. I have also had several conversations with other Surveyors to gain perspective.
My background helps sort through a lot of what goes on as things work through the process of becoming policy. Idaho makes it very easy to take part in that. The aggravation for me is rooted in knowing how open and inclusive this effort was and hearing constant unfounded claims otherwise. The one mistake was changing the SOP without involving all stakeholders. It was just that, a mistake. It aggravated me too, but I won't trash the effort over it...
I appreciate the response. I would say that while there may have been efforts to make this open and inclusive, the article points to a problem in that area. If you do get in office, try to improve that result. The national push for this definition change comes from the Construction and GIS industries and those involved in it. Anyone who studies this effort at all, knows this isn't localized to Idaho or California or any one state, it is a national effort and it is led by Non-surveyors. Naive surveyors who don't understand the larger ramifications of this push often jump on board thinking this will expand the profession and regulate many of the tasks they perform, such as GIS location work or construction staking. I challenge you to study the push for a national cadastre by the BLM and later the GIS industry without seeing this legislation as a stepping stone in the process. A professor of mine once said that this effort would prove lucrative for surveyors because we are the only ones able to provide a legally defensible base layer for a national cadastre. I now see how they plan to push the land surveyor out of that position. They will simply make everyone a licensed surveyor. What happens to a county GIS when the County GIS Manager becomes a licensed surveyor? The answer is that the GIS will become the "official" boundary line and it will take a court order to get them changed, despite the person managing the GIS having zero boundary knowledge, he will become THE expert. I couldn't disagree more with the watering down of the surveying profession by removing required boundary experience. It is short-sighted and will lead to bad results for actual land surveyors. There are too many unqualified people performing boundary work already, this will just open the floodgates and in the end, surveyors will lose out to the GIS/Construction industry. What is next? allowing Attorneys to perform Heart Surgery?
a lot of it is because the NCEES is full on freaking out about the lack of surveyors joining the industry. They are willing to lower the standards in order to get more people licensed. I'm not surprised they are trying to wipe stormwater from the requirements, that's the main thing most people prepping for the test are concerned about, as it is both difficult and doesn't come up much for a lot of people.
Wow, good stuff. That was doctrinal thesis quality. I've pondered the cadastre connection before but didn't have the background or cajones to address it. Well said. We should call you Doctor Rambelon.
Here is a metaphor for what you said; As a hobby I once owned an orchard of 200 trees near Wenatchee, WA. In the mid 1980's the orchardists were bombarded with propaganda about the value of Free Trade, "just look at all the foreign countries you will be able to send your fruit too". And we bought into it. Why should legislatures bulk when their own orchardists were not only in favor of removing trade barriers they were funding the campaign. What the orchardists weren't told is that China had 200,000 acres of new orchards just coming into production, not to mention Chile. The upshot is that American orchardists were so devastated by the resulting foreign competition that about 40% of the orchardists had to cut down their trees and burn them. (It cost more to perform the required spray than the fruit was worth.)
To make it simple; We surveyors are being deceived into supporting and funding (as in professional communication firms) the very engine that will destroy our profession. In ten years our rate of consumer fraud will increase from 50% to 90% and the legislatures will be forced to act. Here comes the national cadastre. What is the downside of a national cadastre? Basically there are no private property rights under a cadastre. The inexperienced government GIS agent shows up at the site of a boundary dispute and declares the resolution, from which there is no appeal. These are prime conditions for graft, corruption, loss of property and rights and the very end of our profession.
Chad Erickson
I actually believe a national cadastre to be a great idea, however to get a proper cadastre base layer we must have SKILLED boundary surveyors in charge, not GIS managers. We have to understand and change the laws in 50 states and we have to implement a Torrens title system nationwide...no small undertaking. The problem is that that the GIS folks are running an end-around here and the vast majority of surveyors cant see the forest through the trees. I find it no coincidence that you are being attacked for publishing an article which brought attention to the redefinition of surveying, after all up to now these national organizations with government and corporate backing ($$$$) have quietly pushed this through without much notice from the surveying community. I hope we wake up, but I am not optimistic about it.
