Is there a need for the Board?

[marois]

During the course of CLSA’s efforts to defeat the Governor’s plan to eliminate the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BPELS). A few emails came to the Central Office indicating that the individual sending the message could not support keeping BPELS. One thought was that CLSA could perform the functions of the Board. Other comments presented was the Board is a waste of public funds, it only offers the LS exam once a year and that it is difficult to get a response from a representative of the board.
My question to the forum is there a need for the Board?

Armand A. Marois

[Jim Frame]

The nation's first engineering licensing law was enacted by Wyoming in 1907 to protect the public from incompetents who were performing surveys affecting land title and water rights. In a more dramatic fashion, California launched the predecessor to BPELS in response to the failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928. The Board's mission is and always has been to protect the public from negligent and incompetent practitioners.

The notion that a generic Consumer Affairs complaint department can muster the political and budgetary support, let alone staff competence, to effectively police the engineering and surveying professions is simply not credible.

In light of the fact that BPELS is funded almost entirely by license and exam fees -- and modest ones at that -- and doesn't impact the state budget, it's pretty clear that those gunning for it have a vested interest in reducing or eliminating effective oversight of the profession.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The year of the first Land Surveyor's Act in California.

I just read in the newspaper this morning that the Governor has abandoned his plan to eliminate the boards and commissions. I had a hunch that there is no way all that political cake would be eliminated by any poly-tician.

I think the Profession is self-policed (like the Bar Association) in Canada, in essence, CLSA or some other organization would take over licensing. I don't think it's such a bad idea, myself.

[richard erskine]

I find it very difficult to believe that the board is funded soley by license fees and needs no other financial help

ric

[Bob Hart (home)]

According to the Executive Director of BPELS.

Bob Hart

[Jim Frame]

The 2003 Sunset Review Report puts the Board's revenue sources as follows:

License fees 65%
Examination fees 33%
Miscellaneous 2%

[PLS7393]

Luckily for Professional Land Surveyors, the BPELS has had more complaints and enforcement against Professional Engineers. This kind of makes sense since there are so many registered engineers compared to the number of surveyors. They are there protecting the public and only acting on complaints they get. How many complaints get resolved through a local JPPC?
And for those areas that don't have a JPPC, how many complaints don't get reported to the Board? Just some food for thought.

[Ian Wilson]

The 2% Jim mentions comes from reimbursement for investigations, interest income, and other odd-ball minor sources such as rebates on equipment purchased, etc. None of BPELS funding comes from the General Fund or any other tax based funding. BPELS is entirely self-supported, financially speaking.

[richard erskine]

I stand corrected- however I still find in amazing
thank all of you for the information

ric

[Ian Wilson]

Not a problem, Ricardo! In my book, you stand as a gentleman!

BPELS has, during my tenure as a Land Surveyor, always operated at a pretty high level of efficiency and professional decorum. It is unfortunate that agencies which operate with the proficiency that BPELS does often suffer the “slings and arrows of outrageous” damnation by the politicos and beurocrats.

I can understand your amazement. Very few government agencies are able to operate as professionally and as consistently as BPELS does with as little funding as they do.

They’re not always perfect, but Cindi Christensen has done a great job of corralling a pretty rambunctious group of talented people.