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

[DWoolley]

I like the idea of land surveyors in California having to take a test on the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, the Board Rules and maybe, some miscellaneous "stuff" every time they renew their license.

Same Song Different Verse

I have listened to licensed surveyors say "where do I find that information?" after I've mentioned a statutory requirement.

Or the ol' classic "I didn't file a record of survey or corner record because I didn't set monuments" or the variation "I set those monuments before they changed the law" which was 100+ years ago - and the licensee is about 55 years old.

Or the large number pieces of paper flying all over the county without a signature and seal. I am seeing legal descriptions, cut sheets, exhibits depicting boundaries and encroachments, you name it, no signature and seal.

The list goes on for days.

Change is in the Wind

Imagine, if each licensee was required to look up the answers to these types of questions it would have two positive outcomes:

1.) Licensees would be forced to look up and read the statutes that govern the practice. For the first time for some licensees.

2.) Licensees that failed to follow the laws could not claim they didn't know the law -they took a test every time they renewed their license. I believe this would make it easier for a negligence citation.

I share the concerns expressed here about the board staff, technical experts and particularly, the current Executive Officer's governance. In recent years he and several Board members, by way of members vote, have shown a blatant disregard for the due process rights of licensees - Board member Colby King is a noted exception. However, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this particular issue. The test, even if failed, would not likely change the license status. Licenses to practice are a property of sorts and not easily taken absent of negligence and/or incompetence.

As for continuing education - round hole, square peg, bloody forehead. Reading CalSurveyor articles dating back over 45+ years there has always been talk about instituting continuing education. Personally, when I hear talk about continuing education in California it sounds to me like talk about colonizing Mars in the next few years. A few years back, the architects had a bill get all the way to the Governor's desk only to be vetoed. We are one of 3 states that does not have continuing education - it will likely remain that way for another 45 years. Legislation, as suggested in SB 1085, is another/better way to get land surveyors to a open book.

DWoolley

[Rob_LS]

Good initial question Mr. Hixson. Sorry I was unable to respond here earlier.

FYI, BPELSG took a support position on this Bill at the meeting last Thursday (03/03/2016).

Your CLSA Executive Committee, Legislative Committee, and BPELSG Liaison are aware of this Bill, and monitoring it's progress. As stated above, the CLSA Board of Directors will determine the position of the organization.

Some excellent points Mr. Magee, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wooley.

This Bill also applies to the PE and Geologist Acts, so the changes are consistent with all licensees under BPELSG jurisdiction. I don't have my notes with me at this moment, but I believe the figure was that 45% of licensees facing disciplinary action stated that they were UNAWARE of the laws or rules they violated to get them into hot water. The concept is to help ALL licensees be more familiar with the laws and rules that govern their practice. If this helps keep individuals out of hot water, isn't this a good thing? Education, rather than enforcement. This could ultimately free up the Board staff to go after the unlicensed practice complaints. How many civil engineers do you know that are unaware of their responsibility with respect to monument perpetuation? The changes went into effect on 1/1/2015. Isn't this something that we (CLSA) have been up in arms about for decades? Will this "exam" triple our renewal fees? Not likely. What does the PLS Act say about our renewal fees? How high can they go? It is in the law - are you familiar enough with the PLS Act to know the answer? This Bill is not a problem, but a solution. Not the best solution (Mandatory Continuing Education), but a workable solution.

Please take a moment to reread the bill (with respect to the PLS Act) but make the following edit it in your mind. Where the Bill says "exam" insert the words "on-line training on the PLS Act and Board Rules followed by an on-line learning evaluation assessment." Is that something that you could live with?

Rob McMillan, PLS EiT
CLSA BPELSG Liaison

[E_Page]

The concept is to help ALL licensees be more familiar with the laws and rules that govern their practice. If this helps keep individuals out of hot water, isn't this a good thing? Education, rather than enforcement.

Yes that is a good thing. I believe, for the most part, there has been no disagreement in this discussion about that.

This Bill is not a problem, but a solution. Not the best solution (Mandatory Continuing Education), but a workable solution.

Please take a moment to reread the bill (with respect to the PLS Act) but make the following edit it in your mind. Where the Bill says "exam" insert the words "on-line training on the PLS Act and Board Rules followed by an on-line learning evaluation assessment." Is that something that you could live with?

One of the basic tenets of interpreting statute is to not omit what is in the text and do not add to what is in the text. Doing the mind edit thing you suggest gives us a very reasonable interpretation of how a renewal requirement with both an educational element and a testing element should be administered. If that is the full intent, why not place that verbiage in the statute rather than using language that could be interpreted very broadly as to what type and extent of exam is appropriate?

If the bill were as specific as your interpretation (mind edit), not only would it be something I could live with. It would be something that I would gladly support.

[scarpa]

To Lee’s point regarding what the examination would cover; my understanding is awareness of Codes and Statutes. I attended a presentation on SB 1085 by a representative of the BPELSG and here is MY take away:
1. The “exam” will be online. It can be done in the convenience of one’s home, office, and etcetera.
2. To be completed at renewal time.
3. It is NOT a pass or fail “exam”.
4. The results will NOT affect the surveyor’s renewal.
5. The “exam” will be similar to mandated employment training, e.g., CA AB1825. It will comprise of reading, quizzes, and explanation of incorrect answers.
6. The intent is “awareness”.

Many of us are unaware of recent changes in the Business & Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedures, Government Code, Public Resources Code, Streets & Highways Code, and California Code of Regulations. Heck, some of us are unaware they even exist. How many of us are aware of the 2014 additions/amendments to Sections 8725.1, 8771, 8776, or, my favorite, 6730.2?

As Warren stated, “…the purpose of this, is to expose the examinee to the existence of selected statutes.”

As Rob stated,”… 45% of licensees facing disciplinary action stated that they were UNAWARE of the laws or rules they violated to get them into hot water.”

Be aware,…be very aware!

[mpallamary]

Why not simply adopt a regular continuing education requirement like every other state and profession? That is pretty straight forward. I am immensely troubled by the board administering the exam. They are unable to keep up with their current duties. Why should an "investigation" take three years to complete? I am familiar with some that are 8 or 9 years old and they are still unresolved.

Continuing education is the solution. It is proven everywhere else. That is obvious from every other profession in the world. Why reinvent the wheel?

This will be complex, costly, confusing, and counterproductive.

[mpallamary]

Continuing education works everywhere else. I don't get it:

http://txls.texas.gov/continuing-ed/

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisio ... nd-Mappers

http://www.in.gov/pla/2751.htm;

[mpallamary]

For five years I have asked the Board about continuing education repeatedly asking that they determine why folks get in trouble. The 45% figure is disturbing as I have asked about that number for many, many years. I told the board repeatedly that they need to determine the basis for investigations and they can use that to validate continuing education. I have also repeatedly stated that by knowing where the problems are you can train people accordingly.

Conventional continuing education works.

This is a peculiar discussion.

[mpallamary]

Approximately 75 percent of all states in the USA now require land surveyors to undergo continuing education even after being licensed.

The number of hours varies between states, however most states require at least 24 hours of land surveying continuing education every three years.



http://www.discountpdh.com/course/landsurveyorsengg.htm

http://pdhacademy.com/land-surveyors/

http://www.surveyors.com/land-surveyors ... education/

[mpallamary]

http://www.pdhpro.com/

[Lee Hixson]

Based on John and Rob's elaborations I am less anxious about this bill. If that's the scenario that will be followed I think I can live with that and it could make headway with those among us who choose to remain naïve and never attend conferences. But:

1. Why the surprising lack of specificity in the bill language? It has always been my understanding that the text of a bill needs to be thoroughly vetted and exactly spelled out. Why wasn't it spelled out? (I think there's a direct relationship between generality and apprehension when it comes to the language of a bill or law.)

2. Most of the states I'm licensed in send out yearly letters explaining changes in the laws. Why not do something like this but also include laws that these licensees are routinely "unaware of." Include a short paragraph summarizing the essence of each law and include a link for further information. THEN--importantly--make them initial each paragraph and sign and date the "awareness" letter and mail it back to the Board as a condition of renewal. Could be in addition to, or in place of, SB 1085.

[pls7809]

If the intent is "on-line training on the PLS Act and Board Rules followed by an on-line learning evaluation assessment." then those should be the words in the bill's language. "Exam" is too broad and could lead to an 8 hour test for renewal down the line. Change the words if the intent is more specific.

[Peter Ehlert]

The last thing we need is more vague rules and regulations.

I assumed this was a tool to enhance the market for the Seminar industry, a backdoor way of requiring continuing educating.

[DWoolley]

Lee Hixon - I like your suggestions.

This bill is a starting point. The language is likely to change if CLSA takes a position to do so. I suggest CLSA members contact their Directors and express their approval, disapproval or suggested modifications. As a Director and a Legislative Committee member I have several takeaway ideas. Thank you.

I have attached a couple of pages from a 1971 CalSurveyor which states "To study and develop a continuing education program...". This was 45 years ago....45 years. Continuing education has been a perennial topic for 45+ years. In comparison, Moses wandered in the wilderness/desert for a mere 40 years and died. It turns out continuing education in California is more vast than a biblical desert.

Suggested reading "Necessary Endings" by Dr. Henry Cloud, not kidding.

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

Good points all. It is obvious this issue need to be vetted. I am hopeful that occurs. Again, given the fact that virtually every other state, country and international professions have this figured out and there are hundreds of working models out there, what are we doing??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[E_Page]

To all who are saying "This is what the bill is...." and then describing specifics that you heard in a BPELSG presentation, respectfully, you are not describing the bill but how BPELSG has described implementing it in the near term.

What William McGee described is perfectly reasonable, but the bill doesn't specify that.

What Rob McMillian described is perfectly reasonable, but the bill doesn't specify that.

What John Scarpa described is perfectly reasonable, but the bill doesn't specify that.

The bill is so broad that it allows for any of those, but also allows for an exam that is as brief as asking whether the licensee is aware of the PLSA and if they are aware of the Board Rules, or as extensive as an exam designed to take as long as the licensing exam. Under this bill, BPELSG could specify a simple, open-book, computerized quiz that you take at your convenience and at a place of your convenience, or they could specify a closed-book exam that requires the licensee to make an appointment at an official testing site.

I'm not concerned about costs. I'm sure that they would not implement, nor could they get the authorization to implement a testing program that is a financial burden on the State or that would require them to substantially raise renewal fees.

Lee's suggestions based upon his experience with other states he is licensed in sounds like an excellent suggestion as well.

Whether BPELSG intends to implement a renewal exam procedure reflective of what William, Rob, or Jon described, or would consider Lee's idea, I would support any or all. But this bill does not specify any of those things.

Give us a bill that does, and I guarantee it will have wide support.


For all you defenders of SB1085, who have added great detail to the words of the proposed statute to tell us what it is, please tell the rest of us what provisions are in this bill or in existing law that would prevent BPELSG from expanding the exam to one far more extensive and far less convenient than you've described.

And...

Most all of us, whether for or against this particular bill as it's currently written, agree that greater awareness of the laws is an all-around positive. Given that greater specificity in the bill's language would certainly broaden support, possibly removing nearly all opposition, why wouldn't you support amending the bill to reflect greater specificity as to content, nature, and extent of the proposed exam?

[LS7769]

What happened to personal responsibility?? The people who don’t keep up on the laws and etc. won’t do it even if this bill passes. What are they going to say, “Oh I knew the law but ignored it?” Of course they will claim ignorance. Really, less government! Just one person’s opinion!

[Anthony Maffia]

This is overkill, a waste of time and money to pass a law instead of simply mailing a copy of their "Handbook of Laws and Rules" (which BPELSG sells !! for $10.) At a minimum this law should sunset in 5 years, or change the renewal period back to 4 years.

[dedkad]

Many of us are unaware of recent changes in the Business & Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedures, Government Code, Public Resources Code, Streets & Highways Code, and California Code of Regulations. Heck, some of us are unaware they even exist. How many of us are aware of the 2014 additions/amendments to Sections 8725.1, 8771, 8776, or, my favorite, 6730.2?

It would be nice if the Board Rules booklet published by CLSA included a list of the previous year's amendments. They do it for the SMA booklet. Why don't they do it for the Board Rules booklet?

[dedkad]

For five years I have asked the Board about continuing education repeatedly asking that they determine why folks get in trouble. The 45% figure is disturbing as I have asked about that number for many, many years. I told the board repeatedly that they need to determine the basis for investigations and they can use that to validate continuing education. I have also repeatedly stated that by knowing where the problems are you can train people accordingly.

Conventional continuing education works.

This is a peculiar discussion.

Conceptually I am not opposed to continuing education, but I question the statement "continuing education works." Sure other states have made it work from an implementation standpoint, but are they producing better engineers and surveyors in those states as a result? Do their Boards handle less complaints comparatively? Are there facts to back up your statement?

[mpallamary]

As many of you know I spend a lot of time sharing the latest changes in the law as well as covering many areas of practice. I have lectured numerous times over the last year on this topic, most recently at Fresno. By and large CLSA has decided this topic is unimportant and that appears to be the association's position.

Evan is absolutely unequivocally 100% correct. He has raised many thoughtful concerns and his observations are very important.

I have been lecturing across the country to states that have continuing education, most recently, three weeks ago in Montana. I lectured in January to a group of attorneys for their mandatory CE's. I have prepared programs that have been deemed acceptable to other states.

A good place to start would to see how many surveyors support continuing education like the rest of the state, country, nation and universe.

[Administrator]

Many of us are unaware of recent changes in the Business & Professions Code, Code of Civil Procedures, Government Code, Public Resources Code, Streets & Highways Code, and California Code of Regulations. Heck, some of us are unaware they even exist. How many of us are aware of the 2014 additions/amendments to Sections 8725.1, 8771, 8776, or, my favorite, 6730.2?

It would be nice if the Board Rules booklet published by CLSA included a list of the previous year's amendments. They do it for the SMA booklet. Why don't they do it for the Board Rules booklet?

If the Board Rules were amended the year prior, affected sections of the publication would indicate such amendments in the same manner that they're called out in the other statute sections. There were no changes to the Board Rules in 2015.

[DWoolley]

Dear old friend, Mike Pallamary, perhaps I have been unclear.

CLSA has a 45+ history of pursuing continuing education. It is well documented. A well documented waste of time. Again, this quest has been longer than Moses wandered through the desert to his death.

I don't speak for CLSA, however, if asked, I would speak against pursing continuing education, forever. We have dedicated resources and time to it for over 45 years with nothing to show for it. Absolutely nothing. Personally, I am not opposed to continuing education. However, it will never happen for land surveyors in California and it would be irresponsible to expend any more of the members resources pursing it. Not now, not ever. Governor Brown made it quite clear when he vetoed the architects bill in 2011 there is no place for mandatory continuing education for professionals (maybe someone will post his veto letter).

The Orange County Chapter leadership abandoned continuing education in 2011. November 9, 2011 was the official announcement - which I have attached in the unpublished form due to ease of retrieval.

Earlier I recommended "Necessary Endings", a fine read about pulling the plug on business, people, projects etc. I would also recommend "The Dip: A Little Book That Teaches You When to Quit (and When to Stick)" by Seth Godin. In fact, I recommend any Seth Godin book. I recently re-read The Dip - it's about 100 pages.

From The Dip:

"Most of the time, we deal with obstacles by preserving. Sometimes we get discouraged and turn to inspirational writing, like stuff from Vince Lombardi: "Quitters never win and winners never quit." Bad advice. Winners quit all of the time. They just quit the right stuff at the right time."

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

I hear you! Very good. Silly me.......

As an aside, and as you know I presented this topic at the Pomona Conference and again in January at the Fresno Conference at the request of the students. The topic was well received and generated a lot of interest. Your point is well taken as the conference committee was presented with a proposal to present this topic on several occasions but they declined. I wish I understood what SB 1085 is intended to accomplish.

I will share whatever I receive from Senator Roth.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

"In 2011, Governor Brown vetoed a bill (SB 671) that would have imposed a CE requirement on court reporters. In his veto message, the Governor stated:
This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated "continuing education" is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business. Requiring them to pay fees to "continuing education providers" is an unwarranted burden."

http://www.water.ca.gov/calendar/materi ... _20510.pdf

[E_Page]

I don't know about this 45+ year history of CLSA pursuing continuing education. I brought it up my 1st year on the Leg Comm (2005 or 2006), and it was immediately & unequivocally shot down. It has been brought up now & then since. Each time there is someone more experienced within CLSA to say "We've tried that many times and it never gets past the legislature/governor/BPELSG (take your pick)".

In my 15 +/- year history within CLSA, I'm not aware of a single real effort to get continuing education in the law by the CLSA. I don't think anyone really knows if it would make it by the legislature or governor to become law because from what I've seen, CLSA won't even consider making a proposal.

So one professional group pushed a CE proposal all the way to the Governor's desk 5 years ago. Where, or from whom was he getting his advice on this point? I know that at least one of our Board members is adamantly against CEUs. Did he convince the rest of the Board to oppose the architect's bill? I don't know, I'm just asking and thinking that it's very likely.

"[P]rofessionals do not need to be mandated to continue their education because, as professionals, they will seek continuing education on their own."

Wow, I can think I've heard just about those exact words from a member of BPELSG before.

If you're the governor, you see only one such proposal from one group of professionals (out of the many such groups who could have piggy-backed on the effort), you also have opposition statements from one or more licensing boards, and see that there may be some cost to the state involved in that they would need to periodically audit licensees, approve training content, and keep records, and you have no other statements of support from other professional societies because either they don't want it (in spite of what many within those organizations say), or their too timid and would rather hide in the shadows and watch the reaction.

Continuing education is certainly not contrary to protecting the public. For those who engage and learn, their clients and the public generally will have the benefit of more knowledgeable professionals. for those who choose to get nothing from it, their clients are neither helped nor harmed. For some who go into it thinking they will get nothing of value, they may end up learning something even when they decided not to, and their clients get the benefit of a licensee who becomes better educated by accident (he didn't mean to, it just happened because some of what he heard stuck). There is no down side for the public.

The downsides are for the licensing boards who don't want the additional responsibility of vetting & tracking, and for the licensees who don't want to spend the $ to go to any kind of training, or use time that could be billed to someone to take the time to become better educated.

If continuing education was something that the professions really wanted, they would coordinate between the several societies that represent licensees and it would happen. The governor's reasoning from 2011 doesn't hold water when such requirements already exist for the medical and legal professions.