Some news from a person who was there ...
Wow, it's quite interesting to find out what great insight the FSMS lobbyist has into the inner workings of our legislature! By what was said, we might as well have just not shown up at all. I didn't know we were all Republicans, or could only work with Repulicans to get an Ammendent in yesterday like the Nail Techs did. If he has such knowledge of how the votes will come out and who will only be allowed to get an Ammendment in, I should only assume he knew all about this entire fiasco for some time, why didn't all FSMS Members know a long time ago? Even if the (defeated before you start)/(until next phase) idea were true or advised, we missed a golden opportunity to get our messages heard fisrt hand/in force like the Interior Design folks. First impressions are extremely important and ours was one of weakness and "oh well" we'll take care of it on the next round, send some emails, make a few calls, that'll be about all you can do for now, of course at this late stage. I wonder if anyone told the Nail Techs that. I wonder if we may have had some input from DBPR on our inclusion or removal from this list, what that input may have been if we were still there, but what input did we get from DOA? Where were or are they? Lots of questions we may never get answered.
Some news from a person who was there ...
".....it's quite interesting to find out what great insight the FSMS lobbyist has into the inner workings of our legislature!"
Actually, if you have a good lobbyist, that's exactly what he or she is paid for! The "inner workings" of the legislature (i.e., committee work, back room deals, etc.) are where the real legislating is done.
If there is any beef at all, it should be that enough advance notice was not given to the professional associations to mount some sort of campaign prior to the committee meetings.
One other thing....note that this was a "sub-committee"hearing. Next it goes to a full committee, and then to the House of representatives.
Assuming it works the same as it does here in New York and New Jersey, the bill also has to be passed by a Senate committee and then the full Senate, prior to arriving at the Governor's desk, legislature, so there is time to get the matter corrected.
Any FLA surveyors with contacts in the legislature should use them NOW.
Some news from a person who was there ...
I didn't get the impression that Mr. Niles was playing politics when he said working with the Republicans was the key to getting us off the bill. The committee is 10 Rs and 5 Ds and controlled by an R who made it known that ammendments would not be considered. The Ds voted 5-0 against the bill, the Rs voted 10-0 for the bill, hence the importance of getting some Rs on board.
Some news from a person who was there ...
It was a form message. I sent an initial e-mail to every member of the sub committee and so far I have gotten form responses from three of them.
I have a list of about 1800 email addresses of licensed surveyors within the state. I am going to send out an e-mail to at least let them know what has been going on as it seems like the FSMS only cares about its members. It's like if you are not a member you do not really matter.
As for the FSMS, I have seen an email that one of their district directors sent out to the membership. His explination is that it is no big deal and that we should all "take a deep breath" and relax. The FSMS leadership and their lobbyist are going to huddle up on Friday and plot a strategy. We should not worry because this legislation has not had a bill number assigned to it yet. When it does, I guess we can officially worry.
I still want to know where the FSMS was 6 months ago when this profession review was supposedly started. Was the knowledge of our profession facing deregulation really known then and did the FSMS keep it from the surveying profession?
Some news from a person who was there ...
Not that Mr Niles was playing politics, the FSMS lobbyist advice and whether it should be followed blindly is being questioned. If this was known in advance, are we that weak that we couldn't even get one Rep. to offer an Ammendment to remove us? Was that idea not even pursued as it appears? If it was not known in advance, why? Whether defeat was pre-determined or not, one would hope we could've managed to convince one Rep. Republican or Democrat) to at least try to get an Ammendment in. No one will ever know the results of what we may have had if we (all) would've known about this long ago like it seems most of the others on the list did. Being included on this list is an embarrassment to our entire Profession (regulated worldwide) not just FL. Every opportunity to educate the Public and our Legislators (now especially) should be uitlized to every extent possible.
If you read the list, I think you will agree that about 2/3 of what was listed doesn't need licenses. Hair braiders? Hair Wrappers? Body Wrappers? Auctioneers Apprentices? For right now, I am willing to give the legislature the benefit of the doubt and assume someone simply went overboard and didn't actually intend to target the surveyors.
> "The PCB alleviates unnecessary restrictions for entry into certain professions."
Where is there meaningful demand for entry into the surveying profession? Most of our licensed brethren are already finding surveying work to be scarce. There already isn't enough work to go around. As such, why does:
a.) lowering the bar for minimum professional competence and
b.) creating even more of a supply of surveyors when there is not enough demand -
make any sense at all?
Don,
Your posts reminds me how poor Jethro Bodine was so disappointed when they wouldn't let him be a brain surgeon. Unnecessary restrictions! 😉
The votes: YAY: Ahern, Artiles, Crisafulli, Elsnaugle, Goodson, Nunez, Patronis, Robertson, Young, Bovo Jr. ... NAY: Abruzzo, Jones, Rouson, Slosberg, Stratford
CORRECTION: The votes: YAY: Ahern, Artiles, Crisafulli, Eisnaugle, Goodson, Nunez, Patronis, Roberson, Young, Bovo Jr. ... NAY: Abruzzo, Jones, Rouson, Slosberg, Strafford
What I don't get is how there can be one bill to de-regulate all those occupations. Is there more to the bill that specifically repeals certain statutes currently on the books that specify the examination, licensing and such for each of the occupations or do they just pound the gavel and shout "I hereby de-regulate thee. Go forth and wrap hair and survey as you wish"?
In CA, we have the Professional Land Surveyors Act in the Business and Professions Code that's 20 pages long and specifies in much detail about licensing, the Board's responsibilities, when and how you have to file a map, what the County Surveyor's duties are, etc. Does Florida have something like that that would just be repealed in its entirety?
FL does have a section that regulates how to become a Professional Surveyor and the Minimum Technical Standards of surveys. This bill just crosses the entire section out and leaves nothing. No License, no MTS, no board, no restrictions or standards anything goes.
I have called and talked to aides of Rep and they can not clarify if anything would be put in its place but as it stands now it just eliminates everything regarding surveying.
Some news from a person who was there ...
I had the same replies that everyone else seems to have had returned. Why is getting your PSM too restrictive? If you want to be a surveyor its likely not something you just wake up one morning and decide to "do". This Nunez chaps me to no end....."unnecessary restrictions for entry into certain professions". If you cant peel an apple you cant be a brain surgeon, if you want to practice as a Professional Surveyor and Mapper then put in the necessary effort and take the steps to get licensed. I have lurked here for a while and always find something of value here every time I visit. However with the recent developments I cant quietly sit and not particpate in the forum. I hold a license in FL and AL, this is my livelyhood and I am proud of it. I like Wendell's idea of a petetion.
Possible Allies
I am not sure of the political situation in Florida, but one of the groups we talked to when it was thought that our governor might be pushing for deregulation of the survey profession were commercial lenders. They were completely against the idea of deregulation. It is one thing for a title company and lender to agree on a suspect survey for a residential property, but it is another thing for a bank to lend hundreds of millions of dollars for construction on a project that they cannot be confident in the survey.
James Redmon
Possible Allies
That is a good suggestion.
