The Florida Bill made it out of the subcommittee - unchanged

What about FEMA Elevation Certificiates?

I think you are correct in assuming that ALTA and FEMA Certs would go to engineers. They might as well have the contractors start signing their own As-builts while they are at it.

> > I'm of the opinion that a professional understands the difference in practice from state to state; and that a professional understands and holds dear his ethical responsibility to practice only in those areas in which he is competent.
>
> In the hypothetical situation of a nationwide license (which I don't believe in or think is practical - that whole state sovereignty thing) I'm of the opinion that a true professional would bide by his ethical duty to practice in states only once he has a thorough understanding of local law and that to treat surveyors differently from, say lawyers, when they wish to practice in another state is indicative of a mindset that land surveyors fall somewhere between a trade and a profession.

The Free market theories of Milton Friedman and the Communist theories of Karl Marx would have worked if we lived in the world you describe. Sounds like a workers paradise.

Petition?

Well, you guys just love Republicans. They got your houses, your 401k's and now they're aiming for your jobs.

Petition?

Your petition just as you worded it here and the format looks great to me. I relly like the concerned citizen and related businesses options. 1) We need all the help we can get 2) We definitely need to get all the Engineers involved we can as this will have a dramatic (negative) effect on them.

Petition?

Sounds like a good idea to me. I know everyone would really appreciate your efforts.

I haven't read the bill

Are they excising the Minimum Technical Standards from the statutes?
If not I guess it will be up to the State Attorney General to enforce
non-compliance issues instead of the board.

I guess as long as the MTSs are adhered to the public is still protected.

Petition?

Any thoughts on who should be listed as "target" representatives? So far, I've included Hukill and Esteban.

I haven't read the bill

Chapter 472 creates the board of surveying and authorizes the board to create the MTS administrative code. The proposed legislation deletes chapter 472 in it's entirety, so the board goes and there will be no legislation authorizing MTS. At least, that's how I understand it.

Petition?

Plus, we need a good, solid letter that gets sent to the appropriate people.

Petition?

Wendell Et. Al.,
Maybe the petition can be sent to board member in all states. You may not get a response from all of them but, with board members weighing in on the subject it may hold a bit more consideration. What I mean is if the only folks that sign are from Fla.
then that says one thing. If board members from several states chime in it may show that the concern is not just for PSM's in Fla. but from the one's who regulate and serve country wide. Yeah...I know this make take more time but it couldn't hurt.

I'd start with Association presidents first....then move onto the board members.

If successful then it may be a template for future states who wish to deregulate.

> In the hypothetical situation of a nationwide license (which I don't believe in or think is practical - that whole state sovereignty thing) I'm of the opinion that a true professional would bide by his ethical duty to practice in states only once he has a thorough understanding of local law

Unfortunately, "true professional" and "licensed professional" aren't the same thing. We already have low-ballers operating in each state, either performing substandard work themselves or hiring subordinates to do it for them. Instituting a national license would allow the low-ballers in the lowest-cost states to expand their stables and ply their trade across the nation. I say "no thanks" to that idea.

Some news from a person who was there ...

I had an email corrisponance with a surveyor who was close to the action yesterday. I really just wrote him to thank him for his envolvement, but he responded with some details.

I asked him for permission to repost his email here, but he hasn't responded yet, so I'll summarize what he said.

- A lobbiest on behalf of FSMS asked them to limit their speakers to just one, there were others that wanted to speak, as well.

- The reason was the members of committee told the lobbiest that no ammendments would be offered during the session, and outcome of the bill passing the subcommittee was a foregone conclusion.

- There is "quite a bit of support" from the legislature to remove surveyors from the bill, and they are hopeful that surveyors can still be removed at the committee level.

- We have to remain on top of this and continue to get our voices heard.

Some news from a person who was there ...

Ray Niles, who was the surveyor who spoke at the meeting yesterday, sent me these emails today, and gave me permission to repost them:

The reason that I was the only one to speak was a planned strategy. We had others there that were more than ready to speak. Our lobbyist recommended that we limited to one, only because the outcome was already know. The Speaker of the House had let it be known to the committee chair that the republicans on the committee would not be allowed to offer amendments. We know that there is quite a bit of support from these same republicans to remove us from the legislation along with the democrats we are very hopeful that this will be taken care of at committee level. We must all remain diligent. Let everyone know that that need to continue to contact the committee members and in addition their local legislator and State senator.

(904) 722-0402 fax

AND

The best strategy is to prepare to react. This is a difficult week for everyone. We all want to call our elected representative and maybe storm the capital. That time may come in the near future. As of today we are waiting to definitively hear what committee the bill will end up in. I am told we will know later today. When we have that information, FSMS will let the membership know. For those that have a committee member as their representative, it will be especially important to make personal contact. But, even if they do not represent your district, still make contact. The talking points that Jack Breed sent out are a good place to start. You can add personal stories about unlicensed activities to show them the ramifications of passing the bill. You can even call or email your Rep and Senator even if they aren’t on the committee, they may have some pull with someone who is. It may be helpful to wait until the Bill # is available, that will make it easier to explain.

www.degrove.com

"True Professional"?

One doesn't need to do more than read a few days worth of posts on here to determine that "true professionals" are in short supply, as many anecdotes told on here can confirm.

With all the talk of low-ballers, two bit rebar and other tales, the reality of finding the true professional that would "bide by his ethical duty" seems to be a pipe dream in a large number of locales.

Petition?

Mention in the petition could also be made of the great threat of unlicensed and uneducated individuals acting as "boundary surveyors". This action will represent a clear and present danger to any property owner within the state, not to mention the design and consturction of any roadways. We can all survive a bad haircut if the barbers are deregulated but how many boundary conflicts and property ownership based law suits because of unqualified surveyors will it take to show the legislature that our profession is a needed and important one.

FWIW, the Vice Chair of this committee is an old client/friend...

Some news from a person who was there ...

I received this reply to an email that I sent to Representative Jeanette M. Nuñez:

Thank you for recently writing to my office in regards to PCB BCAS11-01 & PCB BCAS 11-02. Your concerns and comments are of the utmost importance to me. Yesterday in the Business and Consumer Affairs Committee, we heard approximately 3 hours of testimony from many industries. There are a few points I would like to address given the complex nature of this bill. I firmly believe in fostering a climate that is conducive to Florida businesses. Furthermore, I believe we need to remove government involvement and intrusion in many of our industries that serve as a barrier to access and competition. I think we all can agree that we need to get our economy moving again and eliminate obstacles for business, empower the private sector to create jobs and provide greater freedom to our citizens. The PCB alleviates unnecessary restrictions for entry into certain professions.

That being said, I recognize that there are real and significant unintended consequences to deregulating certain industries. While I supported the bill, I did so with the understanding that we will continue to work collaboratively to address some of the issues that were raised during committee. If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact me at either the Miami office at (305) 227-7630 or at the Naples office at (239) 434-5094.

So I take it that she thinks that deregulating surveyors will "eliminate obstacles for business, empower the private sector to create jobs and provide greater freedom to our citizens". And our regulations are apparently "a barrier to access and competition."

I haven't read the bill

And with 472 gone, we and our employees would be subject to arrest for trespassing.

"The PCB alleviates unnecessary restrictions for entry into certain professions."

That's the scariest thought of this whole episode! God forbid we license surveyors, doctors, lawyers, dentists etc.... who needs restrictions in to any profession?

Some news from a person who was there ...

Her response sounds like a standard generic form letter sent out to whoever emailed her complaining about whatever profession was in the bill.