AB 645

PLS7393 · Post by **PLS7393** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:45 pm

Since there are no threads on AB 645, I guess there wasn't much talk against this bill which just passed. I was not is favor of it, but now your maps/documents do not need to show your license expiration date.

How often is the Board going to update the license lookup for us to verify the preparer of a map is in good standings?

The other main item within the bill is Registered Civil Engineers are now "Licensed Civil Engineers". I would like to welcome all of you civil engineers to the world of licensure, lol.

I'm curious just how much money this bill, AB 645, cost to get through?
Our great state is in such good financial standings to get this bill passed.

Coy Glasscock · Post by **Coy Glasscock** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:18 pm

Am I reading this right? Section 1 of 6795 has been removed?

Once Licensed, always Licensed? No need to renew with the State? No experation date shown on stamp or under signature because your license never expires?

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:38 pm

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/a ... n_v98.html

Here's a url to the text of the bill.

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:53 pm

You are kidding, right Keith? You mean you actually TRUSTED professional land surveyors when they wrote their expiration date, and stamped and signed whatever. If that requirement is removed (to have the expiration date), you will NOT TRUST the PLS? If you didn't check every one before, then why would you check them all now? Is your county so overstaffed that they can afford to have someone check expiration dates all day, every day? Think about it, the license has to be valid when they sign, so you will have to know every licencees' status each day of the year and cross check the list vs any document you are reviewing! Think it through... then count to ten, and think it through again... If you still feel the same, ask someone else what they think... (Reminder to self - don't drink single malt and post...)

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:23 pm

According to Leginfo.ca.gov:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postq ... hor=niello

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 07/02/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.
FILE : SEN SPECIAL CONSENT CALENDAR - NO. 12
FILE DATE : 07/06/2009
ITEM : 151

COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 06/29/2009
COMM. ACTION : Senate Rule 28.8.

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 6735, 6735.3, 6735.4, 6764,
8750, 8761, and 8764.5 of the Business and Professions
Code, relating to professional engineers and land
surveyors.

PLS7393 · Post by **PLS7393** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:14 am

Hey Rob, what is the difference between checking to verify the license is current, verses checking the license number to confirm the civil signing the map is a pre-1982 license?

Next bill they are going to revert back to civil engineers able to practice land surveying too, you watch! They already have robots working.

Bottom line, this bill is a waste of money and doesn't do a darn thing.

7702 · Post by **7702** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:54 am

That's a good question for Ric. But to be sure of the status, checking to see if a registrant's license is current requires a call or e-mail to the Board. The Board's license lookup website is sometimes a month or more behind on updating changes, such as license renewals.

Checking to confirm that a RCE is pre '82 only requires looking at the sticky note on the bottom of your computer that reads "RCE with number of 33965 or less is ok to survey". (RCE number info courtesy of PELS website)

Better yet would be to have "RCE 33965 or less" on your County's checklist. If my suggestion saves anyone any time and/or money, I could use a small kickback.

My P.O. Box is 7702! (really)

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:00 pm

(Here I am ignoring my suggestions to self again...) Yes, "33966 can't sign maps" is the way I've heard it posted somewhere... If you or your checkers don't have that posted or memorized, rectify that situation... By the way, how many post 82 engineers have actually tried to slip a boundary past you or your staff? I'm guessing the number is within 3 of zero... Bets?

If you haven't been checking to see if the PLS has been lying to you, and you start now, well, either you have been derelict in your duties, or are you preparing to waste a bunch of time and money? Which is it? WHICH IS IT???

This Bil was a pushed due to governmental staff rejecting documents/plans prepared by PLSs & RCEs because wheen the docs got to their desk, they rejected it because the license was expired according to the signature block, never mind that it was current when signed... Please, let's not add more unnecessary checking to our processes... Next thing you know the County Engineer will be in the field with a micrometer to check our tag sizes... Am I going to have to mic them all and report 0.750" +/- .005"?

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:22 am

There's been more than a few times I've had that conversation with the "city" plan checker (non-licensed tech or associate planner of some sort) about how my license has expired because I signed the legal description on 9/12/2006 and their checking it on January 12, 2007, but my license expired on 12/31/2006 according to the sig block. It's actually a pretty common occurance to have them kicked back because of expiration. It usually only requires a talk with one the licensed (or registered) employees to clear it up.

subman · Post by **subman** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:33 pm

The bill seems to overlook the Subdivision Map Act. Sections 66442 and 66450 require the County or City Surveyor to indicate the expiration date of their license as part of the final map or parcel map certificate.

Gromatici · Post by **Gromatici** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:39 pm

They will simply have to show the expiration date below the signature line, but won't need to be shown on the seal TOO.

Coy Glasscock · Post by **Coy Glasscock** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:38 pm

From what I read they are taking out all of "Sec 1 - Section 6795, Sec 2 - Section 6799, Sec 3 - Section 8801 and Sec 4 - Section 8805" which means you will not have an experation date to put anywhere.

I am looking at the Revised June 11, 2009. Again it appears that once you are licensed you are always licensed.

Is this the case?

JMS8070 · Post by **JMS8070** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:35 pm

I think what they are saying is that the original bill wanted to rewrite those sections, but that has been lined out and now there will be no changes to those sections.

That's how I take it anyway.

PLS7393 · Post by **PLS7393** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:25 pm

Nice Dave! Hope I don't have to deal with that, lol.

Having to write your expiration date takes no time at all, and takes less time to look and verify that you are still in good standings.

For those questioning the integrity of this, or the technical issue, which the County Surveyor is reviewing, isn't writing your expiration date similar to your testimonial stating you are in good standing with the Board?

And Rob,
"This Bil was a pushed due to governmental staff rejecting documents/plans prepared by PLSs & RCEs because wheen the docs got to their desk, they rejected it because the license was expired according to the signature block, never mind that it was current when signed..."

If that is the case, then the County Surveyor doesn't have any control of what goes out of his office, under his direction.

Rob_LS · Post by **Rob_LS** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:54 pm

Dave, "Not only did the post 82 RCE submit the Parcel Map....the City filed it!" Get 2 copies of the PM and file BPELS complaints for the RCE and the City whatever who signed it..

Keith - You got it, sort of: "...isn't writing your expiration date similar to your testimonial stating you are in good standing with the Board?" Signing and sealing your document, plat, etc is your testimonial... Also, this is also about PE stamps/seals... Not usually a county surveyor poblem, more likely building & planning departmet plan checkers, county recorders, etc

Eric & Marty - You got it...

Mark Moore - Your license is NOT enewed by the postmark on the envelope you send - It goes into the DCA mass payment processing engine and may take 3 weeks for BPELS to be notified that the check was deposited, and thus BPELS knows you paid and updates the database...

Thank you all for a spirited discussion...

Rob

Coy Glasscock · Post by **Coy Glasscock** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:59 am

JMS8070 wrote:I think what they are saying is that the original bill wanted to rewrite those sections, but that has been lined out and now there will be no changes to those sections.

That's how I take it anyway.

After actually taking time to read the entire thing, I believe you are correct.

California Surveyors Forums

AB 645

AB 645

County/City Surveyor Certificate SMA 66442 & 66450

For Final