Yea, all you need to do is contact the DoA and ask for the PSM listing and they should be able to send you an Excel spreadsheet with everyone’s address in it. And being a CEU provider, the society should have had that list in the possession already so I have to wonder why it took them so long to get that message out to everyone?
I don’t expect anyone to agree with or understand my passion for disliking the fsms. I’ll say that at one time I was a very active member and their politics and actions convinced me that they were no good. Granted, this was a few years ago and things might have changed by now. But you know what they say about first impressions…
The Tennessee Professional Surveyors Association (TAPS) has a PAC fund, and you can give all the money you want to that.
Well, I know he was in Florida back in the early 2000's! I think he is more centered around Douglas, Georgia nowadays.
Yes, that information is out there for all. But, it costs money and takes time. Did anyone else bother? Of course the first action is to email all the members, but when an issue is this critical, everyone needs to be involved. I'm sorry you feel FSMS doesn't serve you, maybe it's different now than it was. On the whole, I think they do a fine job. I would say that when the director calls someone like me directly to talk about my concerns for a half hour, that's pretty responsive to a one-man operation.
Andy
"An important point about groups like the link you provided... They would have seen a HUGE jump in business if this bill had passed."
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion Andy, but if we weren't legitimized by the State any longer, what would be the point of a Surveyor Society? I doubt any of the 3 Societies would exist in Florida if this bill passed.
The fact is, our State's historical background has resulted in this arrangement. In many ways, there are advantages to it, and somewhat unique in the Surveying profession when compared to other States.
So I've heard. I never met Madson, but I spoke to him once by phone...
I don't know if I hate golf because of FSMS, or I hate FSMS because of golf. LOL (kidding!)
He was my top suspect when this chit hit the fan.
We supposedly have a PAC too, but everyone's asking what happened to all the money?
MM,
It's simply that the main reason we were ever on that bill is because someone made the argument that surveyors ALREADY had the option of using a private organization to legitimize them, therefore the state had no reason to interfere.
As far as I know, Madson's group is really the only one that basically mimics FSMS from a private sector. ie, you pay to join, you have to take CEU's, there are classes to take, and you can put that acronym on your title. Who else would benefit from a large pool of 'former' PLS's who would have been looking for some way to stand out among a crowd? Seems pretty obvious, but maybe I'm missing something.
I know there are at least two "private" organizations on the coasts that business owners use to look out for themselves. I don't know that they are run like a business though, as they don't seem to have a web presence, advertising or recruiting.
ANdy
Really? Who said that? That's quite a bold claim ...
If we got deregulated, no one that is currently registered, including Madson, would benefit from this
said what? what is a bold claim? it's just my thoughts, I'd love to hear other points of view.
"...someone made the argument that surveyors ALREADY had the option of using a private organization..."
That claim...
I believe that was one of the categories that was checked in the Cmte. Chair's spreadsheet that was post here the other day. Along with the idea that registration is mainly set as a bar to competition. I didn't just make that up. (I don't think so anyway!)
1)Number of in-state practitioners
2)Is not indispensable to public health or safety
3)Has not had significant disciplinary actions taken
4)Does not require profession specific examination, continuing education courses, etc
5)Designed only to limit competition
6)Is regulated by other entities (is this what you were referring to?)
7)Consumers can be protected by other means
That's the list...
YES, and if you look at what was checked off, you can see that it's WRONG.
3,770 1)Number of in-state practitioners
Checked 2)Is not indispensable to public health or safety
Checked 3)Has not had significant disciplinary actions taken
Not Checked, but obviously should have been 4)Does not require profession specific examination, continuing education courses, etc
Checked 5)Designed only to limit competition
Checked 6)Is regulated by other entities
Checked 7)Consumers can be protected by other means
So for #6, what "other entities" are regulating surveying?
Don't forget it says "IS", not "could be"
Who did the committee talk to to get this clearly WRONG information? I assume they just did not do their homework and allowed themselves to be misled. Did they ask ANYONE at DBPR or DOACS or FSMS or even just a random PSM?
Do you have any other suggestions?
What I'm hearing, I won't post here. It's not good for FSMS, that I can tell you...
You can't make a claim like that and show nothing to support it. Share the wealth. If you don't want to state anyting in public send a pm.
I have a personally reliable source. That's all I can say...