I finally just got around to reading my quarterly 'Hoosier Surveyor.' The segment I am most interested in has been uploaded for your review.
In short, in Indiana, a Jobs Creation Committee was established to set forth recommendations to the governor regarding Professional Surveyors. Representatives from ISPLS, Todd Bauer, Gary Kent and others presented a written report of our profession to the JCC. After subsequent meetings, the JCC compiled a draft report that stated:
'The Job Creation Committee recommends that the State no longer license surveyors and to eliminate the State Board of Registration for Professional Surveyors. There is very little established harm to consumers that has been documented under this profession. With additions of new technology, the risk to consumers will continue to decrease.'
Only ONE! member of the committee, Dr. Matthew Will, recommended to continue licensing Professional Surveyors. He made a motion to revise the recommendation to read:
'The Job Creation Committee recommends that Indiana keep the State Board of Registration for Professional Surveyors and continue to license Professional Surveyors.'
These are simply recommendations to the governor that, if adopted would have to be introduced as a bill to the GA, BUT...
Should there be concern for this whimsical committee?
I am grateful for Dr. Will. He is only 1 of 8 members to make a motion to revise that draft statement.
nm :pissed:
I can not imagine the mess that will happen with boundary within 5 years if a state does away with license Surveyors. You will have Engineers and Architects making boundary decisions on how they can make the boundary fit their project, not on how the projects fits within the Boundary. Then everybody will hire their brother-n-law to say they own more land then they do.
Its going to be alot of neighbors vs neighbors boundary court cases, its going to get so bad they people of Indiana will be questions their elected officials on how they could have done away with license Surveyors.
But hey at least the lawyers will get some work out of this.
I dont think the state will do away with the License or the board . Its the same as a committee saying we need to drop the speed limit to 55 mph, the people of the state knows better than to do that.
I just finished ready the County Surveyor Op/Ed post, so my first thought was "is this another Onion article?" Or is it April 1st?
This would be an incredible opportunity to put forth the plan that, as in every other civilized country on the planet, the State of Indiana get out of the surveyor licensure business and pass enabling legislation to make the state surveyor's society a self regulator of the profession. If the Indiana Bar Association can regulate and police the legal profession, then the Indiana Society of Professional Surveyos can surely do the same.
I would like to see licensing LIMITED to boundary. There is a court case in PA that the state society has taken a position on that I (and some other surveyors) disagree with. Here is the PSLS position paper:
PSLS Statement on Mapping and Positioning Services
And here is a "rebuttal" created by a friend of mine:
PSLS rebuttal
There is a hearing in Commonwealth Court in two weeks on this (see page 5 where one of the Justices lays it on):
"With additions of new technology, the risk to consumers will continue to decrease."
That there is the expression of the perception of all non-surveyors (including engineers and lawyers) that the surveying profession is one of expert measurers. For that reason they believe that anyone who knows how to read a tape or a digital readout can do the measuring, and with the addition of gps technology, the precision has even greatened (sorry, I think "greatened" and "measurers" are nonwords but then again, I am only a surveyor....oops spellcheck doesn't like 'nonwords" either).
As to the measuring being more correct, that is possibly a true statement, if you understand how to do survey-grade GPS processing. I have seen many a technician who just uses a printout for coordinates and don't really understand what they have. And/But as usual, that is not the meat of land surveying any more than staking out a bridge means you are a professional engineer.
As to education required, I am torn on that topic.
I agree. "land surveying" should be a limited license, and the experts should have a good understanding of boundary and boundary law.
I would also suggest that someone be "certified" to be able to use some of the heigher-technology measuring equipment. I still think that "expert measuring" is dangerous in the wrong hands....but that has less to do with boundary determination (in my opinion).
I support the idea of tiered licensure.
Tom Adams, post: 343202, member: 7285 wrote: I agree. "land surveying" should be a limited license, and the experts should have a good understanding of boundary and boundary law.
I would also suggest that someone be "certified" to be able to use some of the heigher-technology measuring equipment. I still think that "expert measuring" is dangerous in the wrong hands....but that has less to do with boundary determination (in my opinion).
Yes, certification of other types of measuring is a good idea in my opinion. But not licensing. Certification can let someone know that the person is qualified at some level.
I really wouldn't get my panties in too big a wad if that happened down here. Hell, go ahead and let them. I trip over all the little piles of crap my brethren leave hidden out in the sticks anyway....non-licensed surveyors might actually do a little better in some cases..(I'm kidding).
Who is going to insure non-professionals..eerrr non-experienced surveyors? If that happened experience surveyors would be the only ones able to afford any sort of professional insurance.
John, I have suggested to our local representative of the NGS that they should not only provide training in First-Order Leveling but that surveyors get some sort of certification that they have completed the training and that they are qualified to run and bluebook first-order marks. It seems like anyone could decide they are qualified to do this task and possibly win a bid to do a job that they are totally ignorant and unqualified to do (many surveyors might say to themselves that they just need to use better equipment and they can do a first-order job. They are probably intelligent enough to do it if they have the appropriate training.)
The same should be true to conduct geodetic surveying work. It's a completely different skillset than evaluating a property boundary. It might sound like a nightmare to oversee, but I think it is important and respective to those who have completed the adequate training and education to do this sort of work.
(And I don't know that these expert measurers are necessarily qualified to conduct boundary surveys)
AAGS is working on a geodetic certification program.
I have been contacted by a company that bid on a large leveling project (they had no experience at all), then contacted me and wanted me to do it for what their bid was. Fat chance. I also found out from someone else that another capable company had given them a much higher estimate.
If the association really wants to head this off, they need to go to this list ( http://www.in.gov/pla/boards.htm ) and figure out what licenses need to be done away with.
Our society is completely out of control with regards of requiring people to get a license before they can make a living. Some states have licenses for interior decorators, florists, African hair braiders, etc........
Can someone explain to me the purpose of licensing continuing education providers, other than to bring in money?
Here is an example. I just took an 8 hour course from Gary Kent on the 2016 ALTA/NSPS survey standards. I think we can all agree that there are few people in this country that would be more familiar with those standards than Gary Kent.
However, the state of Florida will not accept a course from him. Why? Because he isn't a licensed provider. And because his class was not pre-approved.
This entire continuing education requirement has turned into little more than an illegal restraint of trade designed to enrich hacks with close ties to licensing boards.
If passed, this will be a jobs creation measure for LAWYERS.
Thank you for posting this Johnny.
They tried doing this in Florida a few years ago. The title companies and lawyers didn't like the idea of non licensed people doing surveys. It went nowhere.
Wow, what's going on in Indiana, and who are the people on this committee? To paraphrase James Fleming, it sounds like the State of Indiana needs to keep their nose out of the matter and leave it up to those who know something about it.
This came up in Oregon a few years ago. What it was, basically, was a legislator trying to find spending cuts (bless him!). So he threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what stuck. As soon as the PLSO piped up, he took surveyors off his list. It helped that the Oregon State Board is semi-autonomous, so it costs the state treasury nothing.
Don't fail to take this seriously, you Hoosiers. But it can probably be disposed of with just a little effort.
BTW - I agree with James. Your board should be self supporting.
