SB 1085: I can't find any discussion about this bill.

[Lee Hixson]

I'm curious about the origins of this Senate bill, any debates about the merits/demerits, and specifically what the examination would cover. This is all I've found so far:

Summary
Existing law makes the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists responsible for the certification, licensure, and regulation of the practice of professional engineering, the practice of professional geologists and geophysicists, and the practice of professional land surveyors. Existing law subjects these certificates and licenses to renewal and requires the certificate holder or licenseholder to apply for renewal on a form prescribed by the board and pay a prescribed fee, as provided. This bill would additionally require an applicant for renewal to complete a specified board-administered examination. The bill would make the failure to complete the examination a cause for disciplinary action. (Based on text date 2/17/2016)

[Warren Smith]

Lee,

This bill was sponsored by BPELSG and will, as stated, require the same take-home exam at renewal time as new applicants take. It has been referred to committee and when reported out, will be accompanied by a legislative analyst's report and committee recommendation. As with all bills, it will go through three readings and committee referrals, then to the other house for the same. Stay tuned, there will be ample time for additional information and input through hearings. The deadline for bill submittals was last month, now the business of making sausage is underway.

[E_Page]

Why examine but not require any professional development hours during each renewal period? CA is one of only 3 states that do not require PDHs/CEUs. I don't know of any state that requires an exam for a regular renewal.

In principle, I like the idea of having a method to help ensure that a licensee remains current. However, I don't like this proposal because it's too vague. What will they test on? Is a licensee who has had a long career in a few areas of practice, who intends to never cross over to some other areas of practice, preferring to hire licensees with the appropriate experience if those services are ever required on one of his projects (and thus adhering to Board Rule 415 - practice only in areas of competence - much better than many others), going to be expected to show competence in those areas of practice he refrains from?

If a licensee has specialized and adheres very well to BR 415, should that licensee have to prove a certain level of competence in other areas?

I'm also concerned because, where BPELSG has had a pretty good history of preparing and administering an exam designed for minimal competence, their track record for assessing more complicated projects in enforcement matters has been far sketchier, and largely hidden behind the veil of confidentiality. I don't have the slightest confidence that they currently possess the expertise, or ability to properly identify and retain appropriate expertise to prepare and properly grade an exam designed for continuing competence of current licensees.

Warren said: That this bill "will, as stated, require the same take-home exam at renewal time as new applicants take". You might want to read the text of the bill again. It's not that specific.

The bill, as it currently reads, specifies that it would test the licensees knowledge of current laws and Board Rules. That certainly sounds like the take-home portion of the licensing exam, but it does not expressly state that. The same description: "an examination that includes questions to reinforce the certificate holder’s knowledge of state laws and the board’s rules and regulations regulating the practice of professional land surveyors" accurately describes the full state-specific portion of the licensing exam. The bill does not specify how a renewal exam must test for such knowledge. Neither does it specify the length of the exam.

Regardless of how any of us would like to read this bill, of how any BPELSG representative states that it would be implemented, or even how it is implemented during the first year or even several years once enacted, it does not limit the authority of BPELSG from requiring all renewals to be contingent upon taking and passing the full state-specific portion of the licensing exam, or one that is designed for a higher level of competence.

There seems to have been quite a few very vaguely worded legislative proposals which could be or are subject to very broad interpretation over the past several years. Read in their most benign interpretations, none seem problematic but appears quite reasonable. Read with an intent to confer the maximum authority and maintain the least accountability for BPELSG (and staff), they make it next to impossible for an individual licensee to keep their license for long if someone in a leadership role decides (with or without legitimate cause) that person should no longer have one.

IMO, the type of exam and a general content focus should be included in the legislative language. I'm a strong advocate of considering the potential unintended consequences of legislation and pushing for precision in the wording of statutes and administrative rules to achieve the stated goal while eliminating or reducing as much as possible the likelihood of the potential future abuse of a statute or rule.

[Warren Smith]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the language of the proposed bill as it currently reads would require the license holder at renewal to complete the board-adminstered exam. It is only the failure to complete the exam that incurs a penalty. My understanding of the purpose of this (just as it is for the applicant for licensure), is to expose the examinee to the existence of selected statutes.

[E_Page]

Putting a fine point on it is exactly what I think should be done

This is what I mean about precise language. It reads "an examination...", not "the examination..." Nowhere does it equate the exam that would be authorized by this bill to the take home exam. One logical and very reasonable interpretation would be that it would be the same or very similar exam as the take-home portion, but that's by no means the only reading and arguably not the most logical.

One could argue:

1) That the intent is to ensure continued minimal competence insofar as familiarity with the Board Rules and PLSA is concerned and therefore the most logical and reasonable way to do that is to use the examination that is administered as the take home portion of the licensing exam.

2) That to adequately test the licensees continued minimal competency, that their knowledge of the application of the laws must be tested and not just their ability to find code sections, and the most reliable means of doing that available to BPELSG is to administer an examination that is the same as or equivalent to the full state-specific portion of the licensing exam. The cost and use of resources for the State would be absolutely minimal as the exam has already been developed, and the computerized system to administer and grade it is already in place. That would actually be less expensive, or at least no more expensive than grading the written take home exam.

3) That to adequately test the licensees continued minimal competency, that their knowledge of the application of the laws must be tested and not just their ability to find code sections, and the most reliable means of doing that available to BPELSG is to administer an examination that is the same as or equivalent to the full state-specific portion of the licensing exam. And since professionals are expected to progress in their knowledge as they continue practicing, an advanced-competency exam would be reasonable. The costs of this would be minimal as the exam could be comprised of the more difficult problems in the current exam pool and the computerized system to administer and grade it are already in place.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that #2 is the most likely long-term implementation goal. With grading written examinations, the cost of grading each exam remains pretty static because it takes the same effort by a human to grade each separate exam. Grading 100 such exams would cost 10x as much as grading 10. With the automated system, there is very little human effort in the grading of each exam. Grading 100 is only marginally more expensive than grading 1. The more exams that BPELSG can move through the system, the less the $/exam would be, and the more efficient the examination process under the new CBT format looks.


Reading the bill as currently written to prescribe the use of the take home portion of the current licensing exam is, I fear, albeit a seemingly logical interpretation, actually little more than wishful thinking.

[Warren Smith]

I don't know the answer to this, but is there a cut score for the take home exam?

[Warren Smith]

Text of SB 1085, adding section 8801.1 to the PLSA:

8801.1. (a) At the time of renewal specified in Section 8801 or 8802, the licenseholder shall complete an examination that includes questions to reinforce the certificate holder’s knowledge of state laws and the board’s rules and regulations regulating the practice of professional land surveyors. Failure to complete this examination shall constitute a cause for disciplinary action under Section 8780. The board shall administer the examination.

[E_Page]

Cut score: I'm sure there is, but I don't know if it stays the same from year to year, or if it changes based on examinee performance.

[Warren Smith]

First of all - Lee, you're finding a discussion of the bill now!

And the bill also proposes the same for engineers and geologists under their respective Acts. That could add quite a bit to the mix.

[pls5528]

I also would opt for continuing education credits as opposed to what this bill proposes.

[Dave Lindell]

Is this NCEES trying to get another nose under the tent?

"The Board shall administer the examination" [as written and scored by NCEES].

[Lee Hixson]

First of all - Lee, you're finding a discussion of the bill now!

Finally.

But it's one-sided, so far. I would certainly like to know who/what prompted it in the first place. Rationale. Justification for exams instead of CEUs. Who's behind it. Etc.

[Peter Ehlert]

I agree Lee. Also what is the position of the CLSA Legislative Committee?

[mpallamary]

I would be concerned with the nature of the exam and how it is administered. It is conceivable the Board could structure the exam and then process it so they could take certain individuals out of practice for reasons one should not have a hard time contemplating.

And yes, why wasn't this circulated to the profession? it makes you wonder what the motives area.

[mpallamary]

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 0160SB1085

[mpallamary]

Senator Roth is carrying the bill. I would recommend as many people as possible to contact the Board and express interest in this bill.

It is a bad idea.

http://sd31.senate.ca.gov/district

[mpallamary]

I just sent a public records act request to the Board asking about this bill and any information related to it.

[pls7809]

This is the extent of the analysis that has been made public by BPELSG that I know of. For me, I'm with Evan on this. What kind of test will this be. There is nothing in that language that stops them from administering another 8 hour exam to renew every two years.

From the March 3-4, 2016 BPELSG Board meeting materials:

Updated 2/22/16
Staff Analysis: SB 1085
Bill Summary: Existing law makes the Board responsible for the certification, licensure, and regulation of the
practice of professional engineering, the practice of professional geologists and geophysicists, and the practice of
professional land surveyors. This bill would additionally require an applicant for renewal to complete a specified
board-administered examination. The bill would make the failure to complete the examination a cause for
disciplinary action.

Staff Comment: This is Board sponsored legislation. This bill is needed to safeguard the public from unnecessary
non-practice-related violations of the laws committed by Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, Geologists, and
Geophysicists. This bill would institute an examination relating to California laws and regulations under the
Board’s jurisdiction to reinforce licensees’ knowledge of the relevant laws.

Board Position: None

Staff Recommendation: Board staff recommends the Board take a support position on the bill. Based on the
Board's experience, licensees fail to adequately and independently stay up-to-date with critical legal and
regulatory changes that directly affect the manner in which they provide services to and for the public.

Laws: An act to add Sections 6795.2, 7881.5, and 8801.1 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to
professions and vocations.

[William Magee]

I see this a bit different than what I've seen posted so far.
First, I agree with the board that far too many engineers, geotechnical engineers, and surveyors, don't know the B&P code very well. For surveyors I extend that sentiment to include the SMA.

Is mandatory CEU the effective way to get licensee's to study the B&P code (and SMA)? Perhaps not. At least not based on my experience with other state's CEU programs and available seminars. For instance if a class solely on B&P code was offered it would likely not be a top seller when compared to other offerings. For someone like me who knows the laws well and keeps up on current legislation, that isn't a class I would support being mandated as specific units I would have to continually seek out, repeatedly pay for and take over and over each year. I would much rather breeze through a quiz on it at every renewal than have to incur the costs associated with pursuing CEU's. I do support continuing education being mandatory, but not for B&P code review.

I also note that right now there is a consensus that the current governor will veto any continuing education legislation. This is true not only with the current governor, but also with the one before him. Hopefully it will be worth pursuing with whomever is next in office.

I actually prefer the idea of some form of quiz at license renewal. As to form and content, I am not of the naysayer frame of mind demonstrated elsewhere. I have confidence in the Board's intentions and methodology. I have little doubt that the test would be administered and of a content that is agreeable. I also am confident that the Board is open to discussion on implementation and how its use and need may change over time. I do not share the naysayer's fear.

I like the idea that the current language is geared toward, at least initially, providing a test that measures how the body of practitioners understand the B&P on average. This would provide a better metric than the Board currently basis primarily on information from persons who've had complaints filed against them.

[E_Page]

Peter, Leg Comm has discussed it. The CLSA BoD will determine the position of CLSA on the matter. It would not be proper to discuss where Leg Comm is on this or any particular matter until the BoD has had an opportunity to receive and act on any recommendations from the Committee.


William,

I agree that to few licensees are sufficiently familiar with their practice acts and the Board Rules, and I am not necessarily opposed to some manner of "quiz". But the point I've made, and need to make again is that the bill does not specify a "quiz".

It specifies an "exam" without specifying the manner, length, or nature of the exam. Is it a 30 minute take home exam or an 8 hour exam to be taken by appointment at a testing center? Either could be administered to meet the requirements of the bill.

If the Board is concerned about the understanding of the B&P Code and the Board Rules of licensees relative to enforcement, they should first look to the understanding among their pool of experts. I've now seen several examples of BPELSG expert consultants who have a poor understanding of the laws they are tasked with comparing practices with to determine whether or not a violation exists, and do not know how to read a code section.

I've spoken to Ric on a few occasions about advanced competence exams for the purposes of qualifying experts for enforcement purposes. He has rejected the idea each time with the primary reason being that BPELSG does not have the statutory authority to administer such an exam. I could argue that they do (a matter for a different discussion), but the more relevant question here is if BPELSG is going to the legislature for additional examining authority, why not go instead, or additionally for the authority to vet experts with appropriate examinations? Why reject that idea but then go after this one?

[SPMPLS]

So who would prepare this proposed exam to certify enforcement staff as "experts"? Just wondering who gets grandfathered in to be on the exam development team? It has to be people who are already recognized as experts by the Board, does it not? Is that past members of exam development/grading teams? The currently "recognized experts?" I am just trying to figure out how that would work exactly?

[cals6406]

Ric Moore will be speaking at the Central Valley Chapter meeting on March 23rd.

http://www.californiacentralvalleysurve ... ting.shtml

Perfect time to have a discussion. Everyone is welcome.

[mpallamary]

As everyone knows the Board is having an extremely difficult time dealing with complaints and enforcement issues and sometimes these take years to resolve. How will the Board deal with this new burden if they are unable to meet their current duties?

How will this be paid for? Will our fees for licensing triple?

Where will the exams be held?

Will licensees have to bear the expense of flying to Oakland to take the exam?

What if there are scheduling conflicts?

How does this comport with the California Code or Regulations?

Will the exam be uniformly distributed or will certain people be given certain exams?

What if you are not familiar with GIS and your exam has to do with GIS?

This is a problem!

[mpallamary]

PLSA:

415. Practice Within Area of Competence.

"A professional engineer or land surveyor licensed under the Code shall practice and
perform engineering or land surveying work only in the field or fields in which he/she is by
education and/or experience fully competent and proficient."

What if the Board decides to test someone on an area that they have elected to pursue, or not pursue, as noted above?

The only was to address the "problem" is with continuing education.

[Anthony Maffia]

I suggest they send someone to teach a session at the annual conference, prepare a yearly mailer that gets updated, and promote asking questions by email.

If the BPELSG has so much time on their hands, they should focus more on complaints of unlicensed surveyors.