8771 Update

[CBarrett]

So we need to expand the monument preservation law to residential lands subdivided prior to the, I don't know, manye before the 1970's? Want a certificate of compliance, monument your land?

I could be wrong, but for some reason I always envision this lack of monumentation being a residential land problem. Commercial/Industrial land clients are usually a bit less resistant to having a proper survey done.

Well, if you look past the ALTA survey warehousing. I wonder how that trend is affecting us - a whole different topic perhaps.

ok, back to the tax thought....
I gather there is about 1.3 million of residential parcels of land in california. For argument sake, let's say we raise property tax, add a surcharge of $100 per year. That is 130 million dollars per year to start monumenting residential land. You would need some sort of criteria where to start first, who gets the funds first. If you are dealing with these properties in groups, per-lot or per -parcel cost would be a lot less than it is today.
Over 10 years of this, let's call it a program, you would have 1.3 BILLION dollars to monument most older and problematic lands in california, and you may enter maintenance mode.

Even most of the broke land owners in california can scrounge up extra $100 per year.
Let the countries administer the program(s), ensure the quality by QBS. Take most of the boundary surveying out of the hands of low performers (I think I already mentioned that). 130 million dollars is surveying is a lot of work for surveyors too. You'd need 25 or more companies doing this year after year to get through the work. We may even make enough money to create a whole new 4 year survey program in CA, maybe Santiago college program can grow.

Anyway, I'm sure this idea needs a lot more thought and refinement....
Maybe our public campaign could be, stop people like crownholm defrauding your property rights by creating fake site plans...

[Elias French]

Perhaps it would be helpful to look outside our own respective bubbles.

I spoke today with a member of the Idaho association. He was incredulous California did not require corners be marked, as has been required there since 1903. They are a recording state, with minimal County Surveyor review. All ALTAs trigger setting and filing. He was not familiar with fly-by-night ALTA Mills.

There is wiggle room in their language for partial surveys of large tracts etc. All mons not accepted must be explained with a narrative.

This is all viewed as ordinary and customary of the standard of practice of the profession. Surveys include monuments. Footsteps are a given.

I propose Surveyor-to-Recorder, monuments required, and strict self-policing on all areas of concern cited thus far.

[CBarrett]

Surveyors self policing .... cute.
I invite you to check out this group of about 80,000 mostly american surveyors, get a glimpse of what surveyor self-policing (in public moderated places) looks like.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1418725288418358

I am still just trying to get most of them to stop posting public pictures of dildos, bum plugs, drug paraphernalia, roadkills and bigger variety of grossly unprofessional behaviors. If I tell them that other more respectable surveyors are watching and it may come back to haunt them, you get a "F.U. etc" for being a party pooper.

Most supposedly reputable companies can't keep a basic handle on their staff, and we seem to think that self policing something that actually takes thought and effort is going to just happen. These are results of our hiring and mentoring practices. I'm sorry I have seen too many surveyors in action to have faith in self policing concept. Even here, when watched, people are having trouble self-policing.

People who were going to self police, already do it. I'm also not fond of seeing more laws which are likely to which penalize the honest ones, in order to catch few more low performers.

In that group you can also see results of mandatory monumentation, pincushions 3, 4, 5 or more monuments thick, in half a foot radius. I keep joking about how there must be a new requirement out to monument your error ellipses, minor and major axis points.

[bryanmundia]

Surveyors self policing .... cute.
I invite you to check out this group of about 80,000 mostly american surveyors, get a glimpse of what surveyor self-policing (in public moderated places) looks like.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1418725288418358

I am still just trying to get most of them to stop posting public pictures of dildos, bum plugs, drug paraphernalia, roadkills and bigger variety of grossly unprofessional behaviors. If I tell them that other more respectable surveyors are watching and it may come back to haunt them, you get a "F.U. etc" for being a party pooper.

Most supposedly reputable companies can't keep a basic handle on their staff, and we seem to think that self policing something that actually takes thought and effort is going to just happen. These are results of our hiring and mentoring practices. I'm sorry I have seen too many surveyors in action to have faith in self policing concept. Even here, when watched, people are having trouble self-policing.

People who were going to self police, already do it. I'm also not fond of seeing more laws which are likely to which penalize the honest ones, in order to catch few more low performers.

In that group you can also see results of mandatory monumentation, pincushions 3, 4, 5 or more monuments thick, in half a foot radius. I keep joking about how there must be a new requirement out to monument your error ellipses, minor and major axis points.

Maybe some sort of proposed language that talks about requiring accuracy notes to be placed on your surveys could fix that. Boy that sounds like a familiar topic to me. I wonder why? (BTW this is all with a sarcastic tone in case you didn’t get that from my writing).

Of course the sarcasm is not directed at you Connie. You have some great ideas and come with constructive feedback. (BTW no sarcasm is this paragraph, this is 100% genuine).

[bryanmundia]

Perhaps it would be helpful to look outside our own respective bubbles.

I spoke today with a member of the Idaho association. He was incredulous California did not require corners be marked, as has been required there since 1903. They are a recording state, with minimal County Surveyor review. All ALTAs trigger setting and filing. He was not familiar with fly-by-night ALTA Mills.

There is wiggle room in their language for partial surveys of large tracts etc. All mons not accepted must be explained with a narrative.

This is all viewed as ordinary and customary of the standard of practice of the profession. Surveys include monuments. Footsteps are a given.

I propose Surveyor-to-Recorder, monuments required, and strict self-policing on all areas of concern cited thus far.

Careful what you say Mr. French, some may call you out for wanting to have similar thoughts about the profession as folks in other states. Heaven forbid we fall in line and do something that is proactive and positive for the profession.

[CBarrett]

Surveyors self policing .... cute.
I invite you to check out this group of about 80,000 mostly american surveyors, get a glimpse of what surveyor self-policing (in public moderated places) looks like.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1418725288418358

I am still just trying to get most of them to stop posting public pictures of dildos, bum plugs, drug paraphernalia, roadkills and bigger variety of grossly unprofessional behaviors. If I tell them that other more respectable surveyors are watching and it may come back to haunt them, you get a "F.U. etc" for being a party pooper.

Most supposedly reputable companies can't keep a basic handle on their staff, and we seem to think that self policing something that actually takes thought and effort is going to just happen. These are results of our hiring and mentoring practices. I'm sorry I have seen too many surveyors in action to have faith in self policing concept. Even here, when watched, people are having trouble self-policing.

People who were going to self police, already do it. I'm also not fond of seeing more laws which are likely to which penalize the honest ones, in order to catch few more low performers.

In that group you can also see results of mandatory monumentation, pincushions 3, 4, 5 or more monuments thick, in half a foot radius. I keep joking about how there must be a new requirement out to monument your error ellipses, minor and major axis points.

Maybe some sort of proposed language that talks about requiring accuracy notes to be placed on your surveys could fix that. Boy that sounds like a familiar topic to me. I wonder why? (BTW this is all with a sarcastic tone in case you didn’t get that from my writing).

Of course the sarcasm is not directed at you Connie. You have some great ideas and come with constructive feedback. (BTW no sarcasm is this paragraph, this is 100% genuine).

haha, I would love accuracy standards!!! No sarcasm.
I already use them in my work anyway. Even if I had to declare them on the survey, including explanations for any deviations, like we already need to do on ALTA's would not be a big deal.

Look I know this tax idea is very far fetched... two things may happen, it raises awareness about surveying, among real-estate and homeowner opposition. Let them stew on it for a while and ask them for help, in proposing different solutions more palatable to them. Play it very friendly, as friendly as possible a mention of tax can be, then give in...

End result (hopefully): A) ou raised awareness about surveying with general public, at low cost. People would carry the news on their own, like OMG, did you hear this!!!. B) it makes current proposition like the lesser of two evils.

Don't want to squat and cough, ok, then we'll have to do a colonoscopy - so to speak. ;)

I did a tiny experiment on Linkedin, mention of a tax does get people to engage.

[Mike Mueller]

I did a tiny experiment on Linkedin, mention of a tax does get people to engage.

Thanks for the chuckle :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

I did a tiny experiment on Linkedin, mention of a tax does get people to engage.

Thanks for the chuckle :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Here it is, in case you want to poke around - again, it is all freeform, thought experiment level, trying things on for size. Call it mini research.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/ur ... 353275392)

[CBarrett]

I forget who, someone asked how do you sell property owners on setting monuments when a surveyor is not required to set them:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... d=monument

You explain to them that per California Real-estate laws, preserving boundary monuments is the responsibility of the land owner.
Then tell them in case of any boundary dispute, if I was the lawyer, probably the first things I would ask, how come you failed to maintain your property boundaries, and now have caused a boundary dispute by shirking your property ownership duties.

You can also tell them about the good neighbor fence act: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fence-la ... schneider/

so..... Does that mean that we are not fulfilling our own professional obligations by not informing the property owners of this?

[Mike Mueller]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... d=monument

(a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them.
(b) (1) Adjoining landowners are presumed to share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in a written agreement, shall be presumed to be equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.

(begin light joking)
That law equates fences with monuments.... score one for the "fence is the boundary" faction :)
(end light joking)

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... d=monument

(a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them.
(b) (1) Adjoining landowners are presumed to share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in a written agreement, shall be presumed to be equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.

(begin light joking)
That law equates fences with monuments.... score one for the "fence is the boundary" faction :)
(end light joking)

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Yeah, there's that minor detail stuffed in....
So maybe fences have more legal standing as boundary monuments that we like to think?
(Runs and hides................>)

[CBarrett]

I want to add something regarding the concept of monumentation and retracibility.

Monuments have legal value, because possession of land takes place based on said monuments. We set monuments for the public, for the land owners, not so much for other surveyors. A good surveyor with sufficient time can retrace just about anything. Homeowner/land owner needs a visible monument at their own corner to rely on.

Surveyor to recorder - have our surveyors learned nothing about error theory? Error doesn't happen just in your measurements. Mapmaking is also subject to it's own set of errors. If you want surveyor to recorder, then please add your error analysis and error prevention report to the map... and If I was your insurance agent, I'd raise your premium. Speaking of which, that would make me want to legislate for mandatory insurance.

If people are so good at surveyor to recorder and self policing, why are we in the situation we are in now? Why are so many people's maps not recording on the first check? And the worst of all, if counties don't review maps, who is going to teach all the surveyors how to do boundary analysis? About 50% rely on us map checkers to teach them what to do.
I suppose we need to institute special, higher level licensing for boundary analysis and mapping.

[hellsangle]

About 50% rely on us map checkers to teach them what to do.

And that is the problem . . . the rest of us pay those inflated review fees. While the ones that don't file - don't file.

Have a good weekend all . . .

Crazy Phil . . .

[CBarrett]

About 50% rely on us map checkers to teach them what to do.

And that is the problem . . . the rest of us pay those inflated review fees. While the ones that don't file - don't file.

Have a good weekend all . . .

Crazy Phil . . .

Then you can teach them instead.

I know you hate it, however the reality of being a licensed professional is that you are no longer an island unto yourself, you are a part of the system. Any action you do ir do not take, has some impact on tbe system.

Thanking no action (as on, I dont want to deal with this part) is also a form of action. You not dealing with it gives other more deal with... then they create new laws which end up impacting you more than things that you could have dealt with 25 years ago, but choose to turn your back on instead.

You are not an island, you are just one of over 7 bilion of us on this spinning little ant hill.

[hellsangle]

I hear ya . . .

Possible solution: (?)

As part of licensing one should have an "open book" test. Give the candidate a minimally-competent-survey and ask he/she to respond by submitting a sample Record of Survey. The Record of Survey would be a test answer.

Maybe this might help weed out some that do not compose a decent Record of Survey?

On the other hand . . . Surveyor to Recorder (without the AID of the County Surveyor's review) and let BPELSG review and respond to deficient R/S?

It might be all about who ones mentor was.

[CBarrett]

Actually, I am hoping to get continued education going, and would be very happy to teach how to do maps.
Maybe county surveyors can give a discount to those who completed the class, or when they demonstrate competence.
Ultimately, and for the moment it is the county surveyors who get the last word.

Our, OC county surveyor said he would be willing to let peer reviewed RS's go direct to recorder. Yor peer reviewer could sign off on RS laws, and you could sign off on theirs (perhaps in return), on the face of the map. County surveyor just signs the map is ready to record.

If it becomes a problem later on, you and your buddy are on the hook. Surveyors who think they are ready and dont want to pay additional fees can review and stamp each others maps.

[Bruce Johnson]

I hear ya . . .

Possible solution: (?)

As part of licensing one should have an "open book" test. Give the candidate a minimally-competent-survey and ask he/she to respond by submitting a sample Record of Survey. The Record of Survey would be a test answer.

Maybe this might help weed out some that do not compose a decent Record of Survey?

On the other hand . . . Surveyor to Recorder (without the AID of the County Surveyor's review) and let BPELSG review and respond to deficient R/S?

It might be all about who ones mentor was.

Phil,

Amazingly enough, when I passed the test (before California went to the National Exam), one of the long form test questions required one to prepare a RoS, based on some predetermined information provided. Having been a County map checker for a goodly number of years when I took the test, that was (I thought then and still do) easy points.

Bruce
Sonoma County

[Edward M Reading]

Our, OC county surveyor said he would be willing to let peer reviewed RS's go direct to recorder. Yor peer reviewer could sign off on RS laws, and you could sign off on theirs (perhaps in return), on the face of the map. County surveyor just signs the map is ready to record.

You'd have to change the current statutes to have this fly.

[Mike Mueller]

One aspect of the CE debate is that (as far as I know and would defer to Ric on this) without changing the laws around CE and our license we cannot institute a take home test on license renewal.

My experience with CE in other professions (medical) is its a joke. Its generally an excuse for a vacation or some time off work to run through some online courses that cost hundred of dollars and are really just timers for you to wait through until you can click through to the next page. Like with all things, if you are interested you will learn stuff and improve, if you are not interested in learning, you will get through it and move on with your life. The costs are often reimbursable so costs are not paid by those that are impacted, so optimizing for ease of clicking through is what mainly happens, or the location in Hawaii offering the courses...

I don't think CE will accomplish any significant change to our issues, but will add costs and hassle.

The change I would love to see is a take home test required to be completed as part of license renewal. Have 20 wildly easy questions about when to file a RoS and not showing a deed boundary on a map. Questions like "Can a setback from a line only described by deed be shown on a topographic map? Yes or No" The Board could modify the questions on the renewal test to address whatever is the most common complaint.

When I confront people who are not following the laws regarding filing a RoS, the common response is "well I don't have to", or "it wasn't like that when I took the test". I am sure most on this forum have encountered this as well. A renewal test would at least put paid to those claims. Will it solve the problem? Of course not, since the problem is also an issue of motivation not just education. But it would be a minor step that wouldn't create a continuing education industrial complex. Easy implementation (comparatively) and incremental improvement that would maybe have more widespread support than CE?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Our, OC county surveyor said he would be willing to let peer reviewed RS's go direct to recorder. Yor peer reviewer could sign off on RS laws, and you could sign off on theirs (perhaps in return), on the face of the map. County surveyor just signs the map is ready to record.

You'd have to change the current statutes to have this fly.

How is that?
OC surveyor has a list of consultants who are approved as reviewers for the county. For example I am one of them, in three different counties. The only dynamic that changes is who is paying for the review. With properly reviewed maps, and paperwork which is stamped internally, the county surveyor already signs for the maps to be in compliance with the PLS act.

County surveyor could still sign the same certificate if he is confident, or deputize us to sign on his behalf, like any other deputy county surveyor does if he wants to alter the certificate.

Is this what you are referring to?
Qualified reviewers would have to be vetted and approved by the county surveyor, and exact certificate language and process ironed out, rather than just random LS's. It wouldn't be a free for all surveyor to recorder, but would be a mechanism to expedite the process and lower the costs for those who believe are competent enough to go direct to recorder.

[CBarrett]

One aspect of the CE debate is that (as far as I know and would defer to Ric on this) without changing the laws around CE and our license we cannot institute a take home test on license renewal.

My experience with CE in other professions (medical) is its a joke. Its generally an excuse for a vacation or some time off work to run through some online courses that cost hundred of dollars and are really just timers for you to wait through until you can click through to the next page. Like with all things, if you are interested you will learn stuff and improve, if you are not interested in learning, you will get through it and move on with your life. The costs are often reimbursable so costs are not paid by those that are impacted, so optimizing for ease of clicking through is what mainly happens, or the location in Hawaii offering the courses...

I don't think CE will accomplish any significant change to our issues, but will add costs and hassle.

The change I would love to see is a take home test required to be completed as part of license renewal. Have 20 wildly easy questions about when to file a RoS and not showing a deed boundary on a map. Questions like "Can a setback from a line only described by deed be shown on a topographic map? Yes or No" The Board could modify the questions on the renewal test to address whatever is the most common complaint.

When I confront people who are not following the laws regarding filing a RoS, the common response is "well I don't have to", or "it wasn't like that when I took the test". I am sure most on this forum have encountered this as well. A renewal test would at least put paid to those claims. Will it solve the problem? Of course not, since the problem is also an issue of motivation not just education. But it would be a minor step that wouldn't create a continuing education industrial complex. Easy implementation (comparatively) and incremental improvement that would maybe have more widespread support than CE?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

You are right, CE can not force people to actually absorb the material. It's kind of the way school goes, some people barely pass and others become valedictorians. You can't make everyone become a valedictorian. However a message needs to be out there that stagnation and backsliding is also not acceptable. Some of this peer pressure needs to become part of the surveying culture. Right now, we tend to reject it because we doubt that it will produce immediate drastic results. Cultural change takes time, but is necessary. If they take a vacation and get in the good mood while they pick up a few tidbits of information, and get exposed to their more ambitious counterparts, that's ok with me. It is a part of building a more progressive culture. Right now, we have .... nothing.

Also, CE and take home testing for renewals are not mutually exclusive, you could eventually have both. CE classes and vacations, and then later in the year or at the time of renewals, a take home test based on what was being taught. Speaking of gaming the system, take home tests too can be gamed. Almost anything can be gamed by those who are wanting to be inventive. If they are inclined to do this, they are probably clever enough to take advantage of business opportunities. I'd rather expose them to business expertise which will then allow them to get ahead.

I'm ok with creating a continued ed industry. Like I said, it needs to be part of the culture of professionalism. Some people will do better in it, others may not. Collectively, it moves the needle up a bit, it gets the information out there. It can become a part of attracting people into the industry too.

Did you catch how our joint conferences, for example westfed are usually a huge financial success for CLSA? Much more so than in-state conferences? Because some of the other states do have continued ed, and conference classes get approved for credits. You get networking, you get some peer pressure, funds are raised for organizations, people learn something along the way, team and camaraderie develops, so what if people have fun along the way. It is not necessary to make education dry, complicated and punitive. You can apply punitive measures later, with those who aren't keeping up.

In my personal example, there are conferences I want to go to, and I want more of our staff to come to conferences, and companies will not pay for them, because it is not required. Actually, I would like to see continued ED required for LSIT's as well. For example, I got my LSIT in 1989, I got my LS around 2020. LSIT was just as valid in this entire span. Thankfully I was an active autodidactic surveyor all along, so in my personal case this didn't result in devaluation of my LSIT. For people more prone to slacking off and taking the easy way... what is the point of it never expiring and you have to do nothing to keep it??? No wonder we have a chunk of LSIT's who never get their LS's. Lack of progressive culture at work, lack of progressive culture in the industry. Hell yeah, Beer every night and BBQ every weekend. I already work sooo hard my standard 40.

You could also make it that certain company measures qualify for CE. Get insurance companies to offer a discount on the premium if employees go through yearly cyber security class, an hour worth. Guess what, it immediately became mandatory. I am a notorious tech nerd, but without this, I would not be able to tell you the difference between Phishing, spear phishing, social engineering and few other things.

We also have mandatory training on many other business related things, as insurance and other risk management measures. Contracts, ethics, people management, project management, business procurement etc... They do work. Not equally for everyone, but they do work.

[bryanmundia]

My experience with CE in other professions (medical) is its a joke. Its generally an excuse for a vacation or some time off work to run through some online courses that cost hundred of dollars and are really just timers for you to wait through until you can click through to the next page. Like with all things, if you are interested you will learn stuff and improve, if you are not interested in learning, you will get through it and move on with your life. The costs are often reimbursable so costs are not paid by those that are impacted, so optimizing for ease of clicking through is what mainly happens, or the location in Hawaii offering the courses...

I don't think CE will accomplish any significant change to our issues, but will add costs and hassle.

I think there is validity to your argument when it comes to irrelevant CE courses for your professional development. For instance, as a Land Surveyor why would I need to take a CE course in Blood Born Pathogens? I think that well focused and directed CE is a great option. I also honestly think that anyone who doesn't think focused CE courses will make significant change really isn't looking at the bigger picture which is our relevancy as a professional. When you look at other professional licensees (i.e. Lawyers, Doctors, etc.) CE is a requirement so why are we so different when there are just as many advancements in technology? We need to step in line and follow suit with other professionals if we want the title as well.

CE isn't just a hassle or a money grab. Think of this:

CE maintains your relevancy in the industry. It allows you to stay current with trends and advancement of your skillsets with new technology.

CE increases your visibility as a valued and trusted professional. Someone who continues to learn and advance is someone who is more valuable to their profession.

CE isn't just for your own benefit. Allowing your employees or mentees to attend CE courses allows them to stay agile in the industry, shifts their viewpoints, gain confidence in their abilities, builds leadership qualities, encourages career advancement and increases productivity and employee retention. Mentors can learn new management skills (or just the basics of management would be nice for some), tools to help mentor, etc.

I know that here in OC, if CE was a requirement, any of our workshops or seminars that we would host/teach would involve the process of obtaining approval of that time for CE credits. That is something that I feel would be important to our membership and would be our duty as directors of our local chapter. Would your local chapter do the same?

I think that we look at CE as a time suck/hassle or a money grab because we feel we have little left to learn that could be taught using a classroom modality, but in fact I believe that is untrue. When was the last time you were trying to learn a new aspect of your profession and you were constantly interrupted by clients calling, employees asking questions, etc.? Wouldn't it be nice to have dedicated time that was 100% focused on you learning? Sometimes you have to invest in yourself and that costs just the same as someone investing in you to perform your work.

As for a take home exam, how is that not a hassle in itself? How does that not cost money as well? Do you think our renewal fees are going to stay the same cost if the board has to constantly update an annual take home exam as well as grade it once submitted? Where does that money come from?

[bryanmundia]

With everyone's input on here I am interested:

If required by law to set monuments, what is the least you would be willing to do?

Is it set two monuments no matter how many courses the boundary has? Is it tying the boundary into existing centerline monuments?

One thing that I always think of is how imprinted we are with the language of "follow in their footsteps". Without the placement of monuments how are we leaving those footsteps for the next surveyor down the line? In my honest opinion, some surveyors out there are thinking more like a criminal by leaving no prints or forensic evidence behind to tie me to that job.

I think for the most part surveyors are not afraid to set their monuments, they are more afraid of losing business to those that don't follow the law. My answer to this is simple, those clients that are willing to pay someone to come out and perform a boundary survey for $800-$1200 that are not your clientele currently are still not going to be your clientele if you are required to set monuments by law. Your current clients are not going to magically disappear if you are required to set monuments. I would imagine that most of your clients value your professional opinion and have a good understanding of the value that a truly professional surveyor brings to the table. They are probably educated with a minimum of an Associates Degree or they have been burned in the past by having a poor survey done or no survey done at all. They have the skills necessary to understand that surveying is a profession and not a trade.

The people that can't afford your services now aren't magically going to become your clients if the law stays the same as it is written or even if the law changes.

[Warren Smith]

Bryon,

It's funny, but the Board was authorized several years ago to implement such a program relating to the top categories of enforcement issues. I believe it is working on the Civil Engineers' portion of this first. It is not labeled an examination but, rather, something along the lines of a questionnaire in synchronization with renewal. It is not a pass/fail item, but an educational tool for those topics.

[Ric7308]

You are referring to the License Renewal Assessment Warren and you are correct, it is not an exam (nor will it likely ever be). We are currently working on the early stages of development for this to be integrated into our online Connect system (now that we finally have a system which can help facilitate this). There will be a separate one for engineers, land surveyors, and geologists/geophysicists based on their respective acts/rules. Anticipate released sometime in 2024 (fingers crossed).