Kent
That definition as written is pretty piss-poor. I don't see how from as it is written that FEMA certs / elevs could definitively be excluded (if B not subset of A).
Please re-read my post!!!
If you are going to paraphrase me, please put it in context!
I said it was just LAST WEEK {wednesday to be exact} at the group chapter meeting that I first heard anything about this.
I looked back through the MANY emails FSMS sends out, and saw NOT ONE mention of this proposed Bill. Plenty of comments about golf tournaments, canoe trips and deaths, though.
I posted somewhere in all this that public notice was put online at 4:58 on the friday before the Tuesday 8AM vote.
That leaves all of one 8 hour day for those not really in the loop to learn about it and try to figure out something to do about it.
Kent
> I always thought you were a pompous buffoon, but now the evidence is quite clear.
> I believe a formal apology would be the least you could utter under these circumstances!
LOL, Kent I think he got you on that one, it seems some of you Texas boys need to do more reading and less gum flapping.
Best regards,
LOL all in good fun.
PS - Buuurrn!
Boundary Lines
The above diatribe is from somebody who prides himself with inexhaustible research… clearly that’s not the case here.
The Comedy Central Roast of Kent McMillan
> The above diatribe is from somebody who prides himself with inexhaustible research… clearly that’s not the case here.
If the facts were, hidden under a rock, he would have likely discovered them!!
Ohhhhhh Ayeeee
Kent
> Well then, why isn't acquiring survey data and preparing technical reports regarding elevations governed by the statute?
Because laws mean what the words used to express them mean, and the law limits the scope of such technical reports to that set forth in Section A, which covers the measurement of elevations only in certain circumstances, such as the determination of gradient boundaries (a form of land boundary).
Kent
> Kent, your views and opinions are very myopic and out of touch with reality. If TBPLS doesn’t regulate this area of the Land Surveying profession then how do you explain the following facts:
You realize that your argument is a classic logical fallacy, don't you? If you don't, let me assure you that it is. Arguing that the law means whatever someone who is subject to it thinks it means is dumb.
>
> http://www.txls.state.tx.us/13_board_meeting/pdf_minutes/2009%20February.pdf
>
> Does Rule 663.16 (c) apply to elevation certificates? The general consensus was yes.
Okay, you seem to think that the TBPLS was given the authority to interpret the laws that created the TBPLS and the ability to expand the definition of professional surveying? Sorry, that fails both basic Civics 101 and Part One of any Laugh Test.
There isn't any question but that the regulatory authority of the TBPLS is limited to that specified by state law, so it doesn't matter how many members of the board, public members or licensees, may think otherwise, the law consists of the meanings of the words and phrases enacted by the legislature.
Here for example is Rule 663.16 that is claimed to cover elevation certificates. Plainly, it does not. Flood plains are not real property and so their determination is not boundary surveying. End of report.
(c) A land surveyor assuming the responsibility of performing a land survey also assumes the responsibility for such research of adequate thoroughness to support the determination of the location of intended boundaries of the land parcel surveyed. The land surveyor may rely on record data related to the determination of boundaries furnished for the registrants' use by a qualified provider, provided the registrant reasonably believes such data to be sufficient and notes, references, or credits the documentation by which it is furnished.
> Does Rule 663.18 (b) apply to elevation certificates? The general consensus was yes.
> Does Rule 663.18 (d) apply to elevation certificates? The general consensus was yes.
Here is what Rule 663.18(b) and 663.18(d) actually say:
(b) If the land surveyor certifies, or otherwise indicates, that his/her product or service meets a standard of practice in addition to that promulgated by the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying, then the failure to so meet both standards may be considered by the board, for disciplinary purposes, to be misleading the public.
(d) A land surveyor shall certify only to factual information that the land surveyor has personal knowledge of or to information within his professional expertise as a land surveyor unless otherwise qualified.
Neither rule may extend the authority of the TBPLS to regulate activities outside the statutory authority of the board which is strictly fixed by what the law actually says. Since the measurement of elevations is not within the definition of land surveying, any attempt by the board to regulate in any fashion the measurement of elevations is outside the law.
> Does Rule 663.10 (7) apply to elevation certificates? The general consensus was yes.
>
And here is what rule 663.10 (7) actually says:
The land surveyor shall not:
(7) perform any acts, allow any omission, or make any assertions or representation which may be fraudulent, deceitful, or misleading, or which in any manner whatsoever, tend to create a misleading impression;
In the case at issue, the surveyors measured elevations from a benchmark that they believed to be correct. There was no fraud involved. That should be obvious.
> I always thought you were a pompous buffoon, but now the evidence is quite clear.
> I believe a formal apology would be the least you could utter under these circumstances!
You've got to be joking. You post a redacted version of the Texas law that defines the activity known as "professional surveying" that the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying is authorized to regulate and now cite the fact that a majority of the Board members appointed by Rick Perry attempted to exercise authority outside their statutory scope as proof that they have the authority under the statute to do so? What's next, citing Rick Perry?
The laws mean what the words that comprise them mean, regardless of how badly you may want Rick Perry to have the ability to bend them to his whims for political purposes.
If anyone wants to make the measurement of elevations subject to the regulation of the TBPLS, they need to change the law, not abolish the TBPLS.
Kent
> That definition as written is pretty piss-poor. I don't see how from as it is written that FEMA certs / elevs could definitively be excluded (if B not subset of A).
The provisions of Paragraph B are qualified to by the clause:
(B) consulting, investigating, evaluating, analyzing, planning, providing an expert surveying opinion or testimony, acquiring survey data, preparing technical reports, and mapping to the extent those acts are performed in connection with acts described by this subdivision.
The entire subdivision specifically states that:
"Professional surveying" means the practice of land, boundary, or property surveying or other similar professional practices.
This is what limits the scope of Paragraph B.
This is the TSPS's answer
"On March 8, two bills relating to agency consolidation were filed in the Texas Legislature. They are HB 2480 by Rep. Geren and HB 2543 by Rep. Wayne Smith. Both bills would combine the functions of TBPLS into a multi-agency format.
Currently neither bill is satisfactory relative to the number of seats that licensed surveyors would hold on those newly configured boards.
It is important for you to know that the Governor’s top priority for this session is the need to reduce the size and cost of government. We believe that any cost savings to be recognized by changing the current structure of TBPLS are negligible relative to the need to protect the health safety and welfare of the citizens of Texas.
Recognizing that the legislative process sometimes requires negotiations we have scheduled meetings with Rep. Smith and Rep. Geren next week to discuss options that may be acceptable to all concerned.
Based on the results of those meetings and further review by TSPS leadership a formal position statement will be developed. Once the bills are referred to their respective committees a call to action, with talking points supporting the TSPS position, will be provided for your use in communicating with your local legislators.
The deadline for filing legislation is Friday, Mar 11, and there is a possibility more bills may be introduced relating to agency consolidation. We will keep you informed as to future developments."
BTW. Go read the bills. They are posted. Do not operate in ignorance.
> Before you take me to the shed, I am involved. I've held every office in our local chapter, including last years president. We hosted the state conference during my last presidency. When I tell you that even FSMS seems to not have known about this, I am sadly not kidding at all. I was at our yearly "tri chapter" meeting just a week ago, and the State president, FSMS director, and three regional directors were present. I sat with our regional director for dinner.
>
I am not taking anyone to the shed Andy. You are a perfect example. You were obviously part of the hierarchy of surveyors in the mix that is supposed to be protecting everyone else. More surveyors need to be a part of your professional society and be taking these thing seriously.
I hope the best for you all in Florida. I agree that if Surveying gets deregulated there, it will likely start to get looked at by all of the other states. The number of surveyors, compared to so many other professions is very small. We need to get our voices heard as a cohesive unit. Shame on your regional directors if they dropped the ball. But I think you need to be aware that the chapters are the membership. The chapters need to go to the state organization board meetings and talk to them. If Florida is like Colorado, they are all nonpaid volunteers trying to make a difference for the profession just like you and me.
Just my 2¢
Sorry if I come off too strong, but I have heard and get tired of all the rhetoric from guys that do absolutely nothing (not you but others).
Tom
And therein lies part of the problem. We don't collect enough in our fee to account for potential legislative representation. We over-regulate ourselves and it's so expensive to have proper oversight, that now we're viewed as a hindrance rather than an asset.
I heard that, a few years ago, Florida Title agents made a vile threat about Surveying to the insurance industry. They think they'll be out there with a GPS, the property appraiser's or tax assessor's aerial, print them out & solve everything.
All this technology has given the other professional groups all kinds of cost saving ideas. They don't realize the legitimate ramifications of not having a qualified Surveyor prepare the map. A pretty aerial with yellow GIS lines together with a handheld GPS device will solve everything.
Kent
If Kent is correct, which I am reserving opinion on, then rule 663.18 (e) is the rule by which the board has the right to govern elevation certificates.
Yeah, now that's a laugh!
Kent
Until your prejudiced opinions have been adjudicated and codified into law, they’re just that… opinions. And those opinions are like sphincters… I have never posted my opinions only facts.
I posted an abbreviated portion of the act, I never “Redacted” anything. To accuse me of such behavior is down right slander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction
Kent, your diatribes are becoming increasingly delusional, are you off your meds?
I strongly urge you to seek professional help for these readily apparent psychological conditions.
Isn’t there a windmill in west Texas you should be jousting with?
Yea, that may be true, but corporations have no trouble using the Republican Party to achieve their ends, so I use the Democratic Party to oppose them. What else can we do? We have no choose.
That whole Dem Party-Repub Party thing is overblown. The Parties are your friend ... until they're not ...
Kent
> If Kent is correct, which I am reserving opinion on, then rule 663.18 (e) is the rule by which the board has the right to govern elevation certificates.
Well, this is what rule 663.18 (e) actually provides:
(e) Registered professional land surveyors may certify, using the registrant's signature and official seal, services which are not within the definition of professional land surveying as defined in the Act, provided that such certification does not violate any Texas or federal law.
The rule is void upon its face because the subject of the rule is "services which are not within the definition of professional land surveying as defined in the Act". In other words, the rule attempts to regulate activities that are not professional surveying. Lots of luck with that one.
Does the TBPLS have, for example, the right to make a rule saying that registrants cannot inform anyone other than a client for whom they are engaged in making a land boundary survey that they are registered as a professional land surveyor in Texas? Clearly not.
Does the TBPLS have the right to restrict a registrant from advertising services such as topographic mapping that are not within the definition of professional surveying? Clearly not.
The use of a seal of registration is a form of advertising when applied to products other than those constituting professional land surveying as defined by the act. You'll recall that the statute specifically prohibits the TBPLS from restricting land surveyors from advertising in any medium.
The rule is void on these grounds:
a) attempting to regulate what is not professional surveying, and
b) attempting to restrict advertising by registrants.
Kent
> Until your prejudiced opinions have been adjudicated and codified into law, they’re just that… opinions.
Okay, you think that a law needs to be passed stating that laws mean what their English words and phrases say?
> I posted an abbreviated portion of the act, I never “Redacted” anything. To accuse me of such behavior is down right slander.
Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "redact". What you did, i.e. redacting the parts of the statute that showed your opinions to be unfounded was pretty clearly done either:
a) to try to dishonestly make a point or
b) because you don't understand what the law actually says.
I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were merely dishonest and not an idiot. If you say I was wrong to make that assumption, at this point I'm inclined to agree.
Kent
> "Professional surveying" means the practice of land, boundary, or property surveying or other similar professional practices.
>
Glad to see they were specific here!:-)
Kent
> > "Professional surveying" means the practice of land, boundary, or property surveying or other similar professional practices.
> >
>
> Glad to see they were specific here!
Yes, the language of the Texas statute that defines "Professional surveying" isn't any model to copy. The interesting thing about that general definition of "professional surveying" is that it both expresses an intent and, if the more particular language is found to be meaningless word salad, provides a sturdy core to the definition.