California Surveyors Forums

email from Jeff Lucas

To All My Friends and Colleagues:

Texas Governor Rick Perry wants to indefinitely suspend funding for the Texas Board of Land Surveyors in a cost-saving move that, no doubt, other states will want to follow. No funding means no Board. No Board means no enforcement. An unfunded Board will either have to become self-funding or cease to exist.

http://www.tsps.org/news/item/502-gov-p ... -for-tbpls

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/15674/

Some think that title companies are behind this so that they will be free to sell such services as “Express Maps.â€￾ Cheap and easy “surveysâ€￾ that are, in their own words, “an alternative to an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey.â€￾

http://landsurveyorsunited.com/group/te ... T5Xu9MNGzv

I’ve been preaching for years that our confusion over property boundary issues and the associated high cost of surveying land because we re-subdivide sections that have already been subdivided, we create multiple corners when only one corner exists, and we leave chaos in the wake of the “surveysâ€￾ we perform; would eventually lead to us reaping the whirlwind for our idolatry to measurements over common sense. Unfortunately, the day of reaping may be fast upon us.

If we lose our regulatory boards we are going to have to go out on our own and convince the public that they need us and that we actually provide a service that they want. And we will be competing with Express Maps when we do. We may also be competing against others who enter a totally unregulated field.

Question: Without our regulatory boards can we convince people that we offer a service that they want? (As opposed to a service they’ve been told they need or that only a registered land surveyor can provide).

The answer to this questions just may decide if land surveying as we know it will survive over the next decade.

Best Regards

Jeff Lucas

BTW - our Board IS self-funding.

The Texas Board is for Land Surveyors only. Other states like California have Boards that regulate other disciplines as well, such as Engineers and Geologists. It would be unlikely a board representing this many registrants could be suspended.

While, I do not think that it makes any sense whatsoever, there are plenty of folks on the warpath about spending and government regulation. They seem to have lost touch with the connection between spending and regulation and the resultant benfit therefrom. Basically we are in pain over the terrible shape of the economy.This pain is easliy co-opted for use by others whose motive is to reduce spending and regulation for their own private gain without regard to larger implications.

My understanding is that the CA board, just like the Texas board is revenue neutral. Actually, both boards generate surpluses. But this is not really the point. The core issue is how the crisis can be used to the advantage of corporate interests. There is nothing new in this.
This is an a battle as old a social organization of any type ever existed.

Can we cut off our nose to spite our face? You betcha, we can. This country passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit booze and then turned right around and repealed that amendent. So I have no doubt, if we are in enough collective pain that the idea that the source of our problems stems from over paid over benefited teachers, firefighters and union government workers could take hold. When this notion takes hold and becomes entrenched in the views of the citizens, it won't be long before it seems like a reasonable idea to remove license requirements for barbers, massage therapists and then surveyors.

First they came for the teachers, then the fire fighters, then finally they came for you.

Dane, i could not agree more

Well said, Dane.

To hear teachers and their union, they are all overworked and underpaid. Maybe, but they sure live good in retirement.

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/0 ... tem/75286/

"Combined you’re looking at 24,811 retired California teachers earning more than $75,000. That’s more than the entire population of Seal Beach."

Kind of interesting that someone is complaining about possible big business (title cos) taking away our "protection". When no one complains about big business (NCEES) pushing legislation requiring 4 year degrees and continuing education.

Maybe our costs could be reduced if we didn't have 4 year degree surveyors entering the workforce with $40,000- $60,000 in school debt to pay off.

And annual costs of $200 -$400 to pay for seminars for continuing education credits. Didn't one surveyor on here put his NV license on inactive just for that reason.

LB, I really would not know where to begin with your argument. Are you suggesting that we should not have education on the advanced level because it is too expensive? Are you suggesting that after people have made career choices based upon pay and benefits and they have then spent their lives in a carreer based upon these contractual agreements, that is now OKAY TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THEM? Oopsie, we made a boo boo, can't follow through on our agreements, so sorry.

So from your comments, if you are consistent, are you for getting rid of Union surveyors and licensed land surveyors? It will be cheaper if we do and then you won't have to worry about that nasty old NCEES.

Union surveyors, exc for public employees, has been on the decline in CA for years. And with the introduction of cad dwg/machine controlled earthwork, which will move into all aspects of construction staking the decline will continue. Big jobs where the Operating Engineers equipment operators can force the contractor to hire union field surveyor will not need field surveyors.

As for 4year degree, never saw the need for it in Land Surveying.

CE, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. No amount of CE is going to make a lazy surveyor a surveyor who takes pride in his work. And just how many boundary classes does one need.

NCEES is a big business lobbying States to pass laws which increases their business. NCEES's only vision is "more revenue".

You will never hear someone in or from academia not promote more education, but even today some of our most successful people quit college.

And what contracts? There are no guarantees in life. Ask the retires who worked 30-40 years for the Airlines, or steel mills that folded and found that their "guaranteed" retirement now administered by the Feds is worth about 30 cents on the dollar.
Did C2MH or URS, or anyone give you a contract when you were in school saying you would make $X dollars for life?

Maybe you should check with the thousands of graduate/licensed engineers that have been unemployed for 2 or more years about guarantees, or having a biased Federal program pull the rug out from under millions of working Americans.

Here you are complaining about the possibility of big Title Cos destroying your protection, but it's ok that NCEES has lobbied NM to not allow any Land Surveyor a license that doesn't have a 4 year degree, no matter how many years experience or number of other States he is licensed in. Talk about protectionism. And NM only offers Surveying in one college in BFE NM.

Are you suggesting that we should not have education on the advanced level because it is too expensive?

Are you suggesting that CONTRACTS executed by both parties in good faith, are worthless?

We all understand that agreements are made and broken everyday. That is a fact of life, one that no one is disputing. But the core of the discussion is WHAT KIND OF AMERICA DO YOU WANT?

Do you want an America where workers are trashed, where there is no value in ANY contract?

Are you saying that because CE cost money, that we should not have it simply because you do not want to pay for it?

I don’t think anyone is saying that, Dane.

However, it’s a simple equation. The cost of a four-year degree has grown disproportionately large compared to most other segments of our economy. When the COST of the survey work falls to a point where it is no longer possible to recoup the COST of the education, then the profession will cease to exist.

The COST of continuing education is high. The programs currently available are the same ones that have been on the calendar for years.

It’s a simple fact of economics: when the cost of education outweighs the benefits, in terms of increased income, the education will lose. Plain and simple.

When determining the cost of a field crew, a rule of thumb factor that covers overhead, profit, etc, is multiplier of three. For example, if the Crew Chief makes $30 per hour and the Assistant makes $20 per hour, the Crew Rate must be $150, ($30 + $20) * 3. When the rate charged drops because of lowballing, etc., something has to suffer. I’ve seen crew rates on construction project at $90/hour, recently! That leaves $30 per hour to SPLIT between the Chief and the Assistant. Do you think you’re going to find ANYONE willing to go to school for four or more years to earn $18/hour?

That’s what we’re talking about.


Forty years ago, there was one person on a government payroll for every 8 to 10 people employed in the private sector. That implies that approximately 10% to 12% of the productivity of the private sector employees went to finance the public sector employee. Today, that ratio has slipped to 1:4 to 1:6, depending upon the source. That’s 16% to 25% of the private productivity!

While Caltrans and other public sector employees have been forced into “furloughs” three days a month, the one thing no one has mentioned is that many of us in the private sector have been on four-day work weeks (or LESS) for a long time. That’s a 20% reduction in pay for those in private while those in the public sector on furloughs have lost less than 15% of their income.

No one is trying to insult public sector employees.


BTW - this past January (2011) saw the largest group of public sector employees begin retirement ever for a single month in the history of pensions for government workers. Yes, we did make contractual agreements with them. Yes, we need to honor those agreements.

"Maybe our costs could be reduced if we didn't have 4 year degree surveyors entering the workforce with $40,000- $60,000 in school debt to pay off."

Perhaps I misunderstood this, but it just seems like a race to the bottom scenario.

Clearly we need to take a good look at what we are doing. But my concern a stated before is that we are in so much economic pain, that dangerous and irresponsible notions will start to replace clear headed and sensible policy ideas.

You are correct that todays students are going to look into their options and when they see no avenue to a six figure salary when they finish school, they will look to other career options. The fact that the economic benefits of being a land surveyor are not on a par with other professions has been a problem for sometime and it is only made worse by the economic situation we find ourselves.

The 4 year degree requirement will become a very heated topic as time goes on. There are great arguments for both cases.

But - I agree with Dane. Today's students will look at their options and the job market before choosing a career choice and if they haven't committed to college before settling down the chances of going get extremely difficult.

I like the fact the Board increased the years of experience to sit on the test. We have a very active Board and I believe they have both our interest and the public's interest in mind.

So here is an idea. (dumb or not)

What if all new licensed surveyors where put on a two year probation or internship. In those two years they are required to have another surveyor sign their documents and map - dual signatures. This would allow the senior surveyor to mentor the newer surveyor - a check and balance. After the two year period the Board would remove the intern tag from that surveyor and they would be allow to sign maps and deeds on their own. Or maybe this would be the case for non four year degree surveyors.

I feel this profession will suffer greatly if the degree is required. If this happens I also see engineers being granted all surveying privileges to compensate for the lack of surveyors.

Let's keep this profession alive and strong.


My two cents....it's just a though.

JoeC,

It's a cool idea. I do, however, fall into a slightly different school of thought. If the exam is tough enough, i don't care how you pass it, you're in. I like this tactic for most anything. That being said, it is important for a young surveyor, such as me, to consult with other more senior surveyors, prior to making decisions that he doesn't have experience in, or does not feel comfortable with. For example, I've performed numerous boundary surveys all over the State, but I have never set a slope stake (once as a chainman). I am not going to just go out and start staking critical slopes without consulting someone. This tactic should be ingrained in all surveyors, really. There are many areas that I know inside and out, others not so much. It is on all surveyors to put certain checks in place to insure their own quality product.

Also, just to stir up trouble, I am a strong advocate for continuing education. Nothing bad comes out of learning.

Joe,

The Board increased the experience requirement? I just checked the PLSA (§8742) and it is still 6 years or a 4 year degree and 2 years responsible training experience.

Some of the particulars have been changed or made more specific as to what constitutes acceptable education and experience, but the Board doesn't have the authority to increase the basic requirements. Only the legislature can do that. The Board can only play around with the definitions of those requirements.

The intern idea is what the LSIT is supposed to be. What you are really talking about is a two year minimum between passing the LSIT and being permitted to sit for the PLS exam. That is probably a good idea. As a practical matter, it is probably happening in the vast majority of cases anyway.

I don't like the idea of subjecting licensed surveyors to another two years of internship because it redefines the license to something less than a license, and also because it does not account for those who have been practicing in other jurisdictions for several years and are just now obtaining their CA license.

I would like to see the experience requirement changed so that all 6 years, or at least 4 of them are required to be responsible training. I also think that just two years on top of the degree is a bit light.

But any wishing for a higher level of qualifications is just that in CA, wishing. The politicians have never been friendly to the idea of making our qualifications to entry (education and experience) to be on par with other states. Apparently, it makes it too difficult for some to enter the profession, as if that isn't the point.

How does the CA PLS Exam (state specific) compare to other state's exams? I am a CA PLS and felt, at the time, the exam was challenging. I know now that there is so much more to learn after licensure. I noticed that alot of PLS on this forum do indeed have licenses in other states. What do you professionals think of the exam comparison? If any of you have acquired licenses in other states within the last 5 years, I would like to hear your comments.

For the most part, from what I hear, the state exams range from very easy and just multiple choice type to more difficult similar to ours.

I have heard the same, but have no direct knowledge to compare myself. So is our Board on par with other states when it comes to examination? My guess would be yes. Can Someone attest to taking a PLS exam in another state that was more difficult than CA?

In these others states that offer exams that, lets say, are less difficult to CA exam. What are their requirements to sit for the PLS exam? Do they require a 4 year degree? What are their experience requirements?

This thread is wandering all over the place. I just took some of my thoughts on exams and started a new thread.

Getting back to the issue of the demise of licensing boards, I don't see it happening here. There are too many under the umbrella of BPELS. It may get tossed around as part of political theater, and certain cost cutting measures may occur from time to time, but the board won't go away in any of our lifetimes.

That fact has nothing to do with unions, benefits, members of the general public figuratively charging government offices with torches and pitchforks, or any real political issue. Most members of the general public, regardless of how they feel about the size of government or government spending, realize that certain functions requiring specialized knowledge should require some form of licensing or certification. The means to administer that licensing is not generally something most would choose to eliminate. Trim budgets perhaps, but not do away with.

Likewise, the most likely scenario for the TX board is that it will be merged with another board, like the engineers (it's almost always the engineers, which makes sense since they think they own surveyors anyway - just a friendly jab CE's, don't get your shorts in a bunch).

It is highly unlikely that the surveyor's license will become a thing of the past in TX. As long as it remains a licensed profession, there will be a home somewhere in state government, either as their own agency or as a portion of another, for those who must regulate the profession.

"Yes, we did make contractual agreements with them. Yes, we need to honor those agreements."

Why, it's not the case in in the private sector. How come public sector always expects guarantees that are non existent in the private sector

I hereby repeat myself
And what contracts? There are no guarantees in life. Ask the retires who worked 30-40 years for the Airlines, or steel mills that folded and found that their "guaranteed" retirement now administered by the Feds is worth about 30 cents on the dollar.
Did C2MH or URS, or anyone give you a contract when you were in school saying you would make $X dollars for life?

Go ask your Union surveyor if he got a letter last October stating one option of the retirement was suspended and possible reductions of others. I have read it 3x and still not sure what they are saying, gonna hand it to my CPA next month to see if he can decipher it.

As I stated before, we know that contracts are broken everyday. This fact is no reason for us to stop making contracts and stop attempting to enforce agreements between parties.

dmi wrote:As I stated before, we know that contracts are broken everyday. This fact is no reason for us to stop making contracts and stop attempting to enforce agreements between parties.

By that thinking then how does the legislature solve the budget crisis.

The elected promised no tax increases so they cannot break that verbal contact.

They can't cut spending as that would break numerous contracts too.

There is a difference between a campaign promise and a legally binding agreement between parties.. We are in a recession and that is our biggest problem. All of us who work for a living are feeling a lot of pain. Tearing down someone else is just not going to help me one bit. What will help me is, my conutrymen having good paying jobs with healthcare and retirement benefits.
When the folks have the basics covered then they can save for a vacation home or remodel and hire me to do the surveying needed.

Well don't expect anything to return to what we had in the 60s or 70s.
Our currant buying power is a fraction of what people had back then, and a big portion of that loss of buying power is tax freedom day moving from early March in the 60s to late May now.
Until we can export more than we import and keep jobs in this Country the middle class is gonna keep getting smaller and our economy will suffer along with it.

case in point
A friend
"wife is an international tax manager for an american energy company. she just found out her staff will be laid off and the jobs are going to india. She will keep her job to review the overseas work...so the worker bees get cut and only leaves mangement jobs.....wave of the future...used to be only manufacturing jobs, but technology these days makes it easy for businesses to do this in every position it seems"

my response
Where will they get the managers in 20-30 years? INDIA.

I read of a movement ~10 years ago to send engineering design to places like India then have engineers here check the plans. Every mgmt postion requires some years as a peon if we don't have peon positions for mgmt to get their basic training eventually these same mgrs that are patting themselves on the back for saving money by sending peon jobs overseas with find their job gone there too.

NOBODY is looking 20-30 years down the road, its how can I save money today and tomorrow.

Same friend
"You re 100% Correct. Right now my wife actually has better job security than before since there will not be anyone gaining experience here to move up the chain. BUT what happens in 20 years?? Man my kids are going to have to have some serious education to survive in the world economy that they will be living in."


Surveying and Civil Engineering are dependent on growth. We are not growing. Many homes now have three generations living under one roof, 30 and 40 year old's moving back home, where a family of four could have a nice home in the burbs and 1 or 2 cars with a single wage earner in the 50's and 60's went to having to have two wage earners by the 80's, and unless we become polygamists we have problem Houston right now.

Printing money won't help, and raising the living conditions of 3rd world toilets at our expense is counter productive to us maintaining any semblance of what I and your parents once had.