Model Law

[B KNUTH]

I will confess I have only passed over the other comments lightly. If I am only repeating another, and probably brighter, person's comments please excuse me. All of our private brothers will know that there are regional bubbles in surveying. Land values do not typically rise, nor do construction booms happen nationally. With that, we as a profession have realized that each region has its turn at the brass ring. Land surveys may or may not produce a stable and sustainable source of income. Many, if not most, private survey and engineering companies rely on construction to supply the gravy that allows for upgrades in technology and additional benefits for employees.

The model law helps only those large companies that will (in the model world) be able to put on semi-permanent staff to travel with the company, thereby depriving the patient locals of their meager windfall.

I would further like to state, to the detriment of my own reputation, that although I came to California licensed in two other western states, I was not prepared to act professionally as required in this state. California has individual needs and historical dilemmas. The state plane system has yet to fully take root in either of the other states in which I am licensed. Therefore, they did little to test for it.

Moreover I have become aware of a radical difference in philosophy concerning licensure from state to state. In one state it is inconceivable that a four-year education could be a requirement for taking the exam. This is because survey companies there pay barely better than minimum wage to technicians. Local economic conditions require this. It is hard to ask a person who after completing a four-year degree program to live on starvation wages for the next four years to allow for the completion of their education. As a practical matter it is not possible for a person who has been trained from rodman thru office technician to be prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of licensure in six years, and so (again as a practical matter) this person need not apply for his or her exam in that state with less than eight years of experience.

In California the focus lies much more in formal education. Most of the applicants that I have encountered have a much stronger base of knowledge entering into the real world, but they expect and are typically allowed to sit for the exam within very little time.

Which system is best is dictated by local wisdom based upon local factors. When I left Washington there was no four-year program within the entire state. Unions are weak and wages are low. Most of the surveying is or relates to the PLSS, which requires many more years of foot to earth experience. Here unions are stronger, there are several four-year programs and most of the surveying is within the mega cities.

If you have stuck it out this long let me say thank you.

I will close with a plea that we join together with our brothers and sisters from the other PLSS states to defeat this attempt at a power grab by the national groups.

[Bob Hart]

This is a side of the model law that I did not see coming due to my surveying experience being completely in California. This idea does not have any practical examples that I can think of, so please share yours.

Bob Hart

[B KNUTH]

Thank you Sir for bringing forth the incomplete thought I expressed earlier. I did not mean to impugn large Engineering or Survey firms when I referred to "large companies". Rather, I meant large construction companies that will undoubtedly find it more convenient and inexpensive to bring with it a survey crew, or two, headed by a half licensed (Model Law)Party Chief when building a mall or industrial project.

As a personal opinion, I am not a fan of large Engineering firms. I have not seen any advantage to the public or the profession (over a greater number of small firms) that would offset the homogeneous nature of that type of firm.

This personal opinion is not the purpose of my original message, which is still my overriding concern. The model law is a bad idea. I have searched in vain to discover the objective of the law. I can find no (not just rational) supposed advantage for the thing.

It is not impossible to alter my opinion on most subjects. On the other hand if someone does not make a logical argument soon I will have to dedicate much time and effort to the abolition of this idea.

Bob R. Knuth

[Ian Wilson]

Mr. Knuth:

You make an excellent point. In fact, earlier this week, in a discussion of the topic with a few colleagues, the same point was made. I am beginning to believe that the push for the “Model Law” is nothing more than an attempt at a nationally recognizable “quasi” license.

As you say, the national license would amount to little more than the ability for a large, national firm to send crews of young lads and lasses traveling about the country-side performing construction surveys.

I do not want to sound isolationist, but, as you also point out, the differences between regions in terms of survey practices are huge. It is beyond me how those folks in positions of responsibility in national level organizations geared toward serving the profession have been bought or duped by the large firms. I would wager that a vast majority of the members of these organizations are employers or employees of small, local companies with less than 20 employees. What possible advantage could the vast majority of surveyors in this country see in a national license?

Further, the so called “Model Law” proposes a definition of the practice of surveying I consider a step backward. The FIG has proposed a definition of surveying I find quite extraordinary in its view and forethought. The definition can be viewed at http://www.fig.net/figtree/news/news...veyor_2003.htm

This definition was adopted by the FIG Council on August 3 of this year. Contrast it with the definition of surveying proposed under the “Model Law”. I think you will find the two definitions at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Mr. Knuth, your voice is an able one and very welcomed by those of us who are attempting to prevent the national level organizations from shoving this drivel down our collective throats. Its time that we join our small voices into a larger one and let the ACSM and the NSPS and the NCEES know that, unless they begin to work for us and listen to our voice, we will withdraw our support and our funding. Collectively, I suspect that we are a far great source of income to these organs than the few “mega-houses”. Welcome aboard, Mr. Knuth.

Ian Wilson
CA LS 7010
Owner: Ian Wilson Land Surveying

(Just to make sure that my comments can be properly attributed.)

[Ian Wilson]

Mr. Knuth:

You make an excellent point. In fact, earlier this week, in a discussion of the topic with a few colleagues, the same point was made. I am beginning to believe that the push for the “Model Law” is nothing more than an attempt at a nationally recognizable “quasi” license.

As you say, the national license would amount to little more than the ability for a large, national firm to send crews of young lads and lasses traveling about the country-side performing construction surveys.

I do not want to sound isolationist, but, as you also point out, the differences between regions in terms of survey practices are huge. It is beyond me how those folks in positions of responsibility in national level organizations geared toward serving the profession have been bought or duped by the large firms. I would wager that a vast majority of the members of these organizations are employers or employees of small, local companies with less than 20 employees. What possible advantage could the vast majority of surveyors in this country see in a national license?

Further, the so called “Model Law” proposes a definition of the practice of surveying I consider a step backward. The FIG has proposed a definition of surveying I find quite extraordinary in its view and forethought. The definition can be viewed at http://www.fig.net/figtree/news/news...veyor_2003.htm

This definition was adopted by the FIG Council on August 3 of this year. Contrast it with the definition of surveying proposed under the “Model Law”. I think you will find the two definitions at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Mr. Knuth, your voice is an able one and very welcomed by those of us who are attempting to prevent the national level organizations from shoving this drivel down our collective throats. Its time that we join our small voices into a larger one and let the ACSM and the NSPS and the NCEES know that, unless they begin to work for us and listen to our voice, we will withdraw our support and our funding. Collectively, I suspect that we are a far great source of income to these organs than the few “mega-houses”. Welcome aboard, Mr. Knuth.

Ian Wilson
CA LS 7010
Owner: Ian Wilson Land Surveying

(Just to make sure that my comments can be properly attributed.)

[B KNUTH]

Thank you Sir, for the link to the FIG definition. I am very comfortable with this version. How might I help in the advancement of it's adoption by California?

Bob R. Knuth

[pls4206]

The Fig definition of surveying was adopted by WFPS and the CLSA in 1990. We thought it was a good definition then, and a better one now.

[B KNUTH]

Thank you for your responce. If this question has been asked and answered, why are we chasing our tails on this issue?

[Anthony Maffia]

I see the model law will require a 4 year degree in surveying prior to taking the exam.

Okay, this affects me.

Is there a realistic time frame when the model law is expected to be introduced into the legislature, and is there a reasonable expection it will be adopted?

Will there be a grandfather clause?

I have NO INTENTION of quiting my job to hang out in Fresno for 4 years. I already have an engineering degree, but it is in computer science. Every time I'm about to qualify for this exam, the BOR changes the rules.

[D Ryan]

My limited understanding of the Model Law is that is only a "model" that states can decide individually if they choose to adopt or not. There is no requirement or mandate on the states to adopt this as law. The danger is that forces other than those guiding rational legislation affecting the surveying profession will arise and convince legislators that this is a good thing. It may be a difficult task convincing legislators otherwise once we reach that point.

[Anthony Maffia]

My impression is that no one likes it, everyone thinks it would be a mistake to implement it, but that we can't fight it so why bother. Might as well make it less damaging.

But I did read a statement in support, and that disturbed me. If everyone thinks it is wrong, then why would CLSA take a postion of support?

[landbutcher]

I think this was pointed out, but to clarify.
Big money influences legislators and legislators create laws.
NCEES is big money. They want every examinee in every vocation in every state to take their tests.
In requiring 4 year degrees this increases the numbers of college students taking their tests.
It is like Bill Gates, he gets a royality off EVERY piece of software that uses windows. NCEES wants the same thing.
They are not interested in improving any profession, only increasing the number of examinees taking their tests.
How many licensed surveyors approved the new "code of conduct" we now have. my guess - none.
CLSA does try to lobby for the Calif surveyors, but even if every Calif Licensed Surveyor joined CLSA and the dues were doubled I don't think we could out lobby NCASS.

[Anthony Maffia]

I was involved in politics at one time, and I tell you, people who only complain amongst themselves deserve what they get.

If the "model law" is a BAD thing (ignoring my concerns) then CLSA & CelSoc should lobby hard the legislature and the BOR, and we should all get on board and fight it.

California is a trend setter, and we already have a comprehensive body of law that protects the public.

Who in California wants to gut our state clean air laws, or clean water laws, or energy efficiency regs? Only out-of-state manufacturers, who feel we should be as easy to pollute as Arkansas or West Virginia.

[B KNUTH]

Tony,

If you don't bring up the environment, I won't bring up abortion.

Let's stay focused huh?

[pls4206]

Just for clarification purposes, the CLSA is not in support of the Model Law as currently adopted. This is a living document that we have had input on since 1990. We are still working with the NCEES to make the Model Law be in sync with the land surveying profession in the US ans other jurisdictions. The current language in the Model Law definition of surveying allows for boundary and non-boundary practice, even though we were successful in having the waiver provisions removed. We need to now redefine the definition to reflect surveying practice including mapping (computerized or otherwise) reardless of the tools used to provide such information to the public. Everyone that wants to perform surveying and mapping use new technology tools to perform these services and therefore think they should be surveyors. Waht they really need to do is to be allowed to perform some overlap functions that surveyors perform and be licensed as cartographers, or whatever they prefer. This practice should not include geodetic surveying and the setting of non-boundary control monuments as currently contemplated in the Model Law.

Another point to be made is that the only 4 year degree requirement in the Model Law is if one wants to be a Model Law Surveyor and have a 4 year degree and 4 years of experience. Jurisdictions are left with the requirements to be met in their jurisdiction.

The reason that the Model Law is so important to us, even though California has not adopted it, is that our legislature could adopt it in the future just as the mandated the use of the NCEES PLS examination in California as a part of the licensure process. Now you can see what that brought those that thought this was such a great idea with calculator, digital watch, and other such bans and regulations that the California Board can do nothing about. The bed has been made and now we have to sleep in it.

The CLSA will continue to try to make the Model Law as palatable as possible, but we can not do it alone. Send letters to all organazations that supposedly represent us such as NSPS, WFPS, ACSM etc and ask them to represent our interests. Also write letters or email NCEES regarding your concerns.

[B KNUTH]

Thank you PLS 4206 for explaining the philosophy behind working with the groups that would attempt to redefine our profession. I acknowlege your sincerity. In one of my earlier threads I ask for an explanation, and you have attempted to give me one.

I have read this idea with interest in the past. I confess that I am, and have always been an absolutist. In my opinion none is as good as some.
If the best we can hope for from the model law is the least damage to my life's work, negotiation be damned.

The public is not served by a more convoluted group of people, some licensed, some half licensed, and some not licensed at all, who will release inaccurate information to a public that does not have he skills to know the difference.

Moreover as I stated before our profession lives on the money of the ansillary services, mapping, control monuments, topo etc. The would be farmed out to these other groups. We cannot hope to provide proper service to the public if the only thing they need us for is setting boundary monuments.

We must immediately put all of our political and financial resources to work to place the FIG definition into law within the state of California. In my opinion, if California institutes the FIG definition the Model law will be set back a very long way, and if the wave of universal conformity can be interrupted it may die completely.



Are you listening CLSA? Lets go.