California Surveyors Forums

Comments anyone? Every day there are new cases published, new rules for surveying and land planning and things like how to prepare a condominium plan and what does a Certificate of Compliance get you. Who teaches ethics and understands the latest rulings of the court in this area? Does anyone give a hoot?

do not want to hear it ... and there are many who will not say it ... but I believe it to be a disservice to the public and the California PLS community to NOT require continuing education (CE) in the State. And we are to blame ...

There is so much variety (and oft-times complexity) in surveying challenges, the conscientious PLS has to invest significant time to keep abreast of changing statutes, survey case law, etc.. Hell, why not get credit for it?! Frankly, I NEED those CE requirements so that, if nothing else, it forces me to keep learning. Or at worst, to keep relearning in areas where, due to infrequently performing performing certain aspects of surveying, I have probably become technically deficient.

If that isn't enough: All of the investment (time, money, etc.) by the examee in preparation, as well as the State's investments (money, exam materials, reviewers, etc.) to issue the "mother of all exams" appears to be merely the ultimate end goal. Thereafter, by not having a CE requirement tied to bi-annual renewals, it's pretty much saying: "Who gives a hoot whether you're STILL qualified. Just send in those renewal checks!"

Lastly, I believe that this issue is ultimately a direct reflection of the members of the profession. And the image is not a complimentary one.

and plumb bob and getting a 1 in 20,000 closure is really, really good. That's half a hundredth in a hundred feet over the length of the traverse. Impressive stuff.

Did your transits have optical plummets or did the transit sit above the traverse point with a plumb bob hanging over the point blowing in the wind?
;-) That was always a tough procedure, blocking the wind so that the gun was over the point. But there were always a couple of guys on the crew standing upwind that could help. Memories.

are not too proud to still want to learn.

Had a young surveyor having an issue with a traverse. When he closed his loop (somewhere around 8-9 TPs), he was over two tenths off in the verticle. He thought maybe the gun was 'out'. I first reviewed the DC file. Everytime he moved the gun and backsighted from a new TP, I saw a hunderth or so bust. But he just kept chuggin' along. Being the guy who is always looking for the simple reasons, I asked him about the rod height he was using (default) versus the 'actual' measured rod height. Inspecting the rod, I found the tip was pretty worn. Measuring it showed he was a strong hundredth short versus the 'default' height in the DC. Needless to say, he made it a habit to check the rod height AND the bullseye level on the rod everyday. :)

-------
The there are those who's heads no longer have room.
Had a party chief staking C&G. (This guy is the classic "I can walk on water and I should be paid more" button pusher) Contractor calls me saying there is a 'problem' with some staking. I do a quick review of the DC file and notice we have a cut in the middle of a line of fills (the DC job file is point staking). So I visit the site to see if perhaps the ground has some 'bump' where he placed the grade stake. I have the PC pull the plans to see what we have for design: a straight line run on continuous grade. Well, this PC was staking along a road that was previously staked and graded to subgrade, which means it's following the design, and there are no 'bumps'. So we go the to suspect stake, where we have a beautiful grade stake saying 'C' xx feet, with grade stakes 50 feet either side saying 'F' xx feet.

So I ask the PC a few questions:

Me: "What exactly were you thinking when you have a 'cut' between 'fill' stakes on a straight sloping grade line?"
PC: "I just marked the stake from the point file I was given."
Me: "So you never looked at the plans?"
PC: "Did not need to. The points are in the DC."
Me: "And you never considered that the point 'might' be a bad calc?" (the calc was a 2 foot 'typo' that he could have easily fixed in the field)
PC: "I didn't do the calcs. It's not my job to check them."

Needless to say he did not last much longer in my purview.

Is there a "mandatory" CE class explaining the amount of error in any measurement and how accuracy is only as accurate as the equipment and operator.

Dhanrion wrote:are not too proud to still want to learn.

Had a young surveyor having an issue with a traverse. When he closed his loop (somewhere around 8-9 TPs), he was over two tenths off in the verticle. He thought maybe the gun was 'out'. I first reviewed the DC file. Everytime he moved the gun and backsighted from a new TP, I saw a hunderth or so bust. But he just kept chuggin' along. Being the guy who is always looking for the simple reasons, I asked him about the rod height he was using (default) versus the 'actual' measured rod height. Inspecting the rod, I found the tip was pretty worn. Measuring it showed he was a strong hundredth short versus the 'default' height in the DC. Needless to say, he made it a habit to check the rod height AND the bullseye level on the rod everyday. :)

-------
The there are those who's heads no longer have room.
Had a party chief staking C&G. (This guy is the classic "I can walk on water and I should be paid more" button pusher) Contractor calls me saying there is a 'problem' with some staking. I do a quick review of the DC file and notice we have a cut in the middle of a line of fills (the DC job file is point staking). So I visit the site to see if perhaps the ground has some 'bump' where he placed the grade stake. I have the PC pull the plans to see what we have for design: a straight line run on continuous grade. Well, this PC was staking along a road that was previously staked and graded to subgrade, which means it's following the design, and there are no 'bumps'. So we go the to suspect stake, where we have a beautiful grade stake saying 'C' xx feet, with grade stakes 50 feet either side saying 'F' xx feet.

So I ask the PC a few questions:

Me: "What exactly were you thinking when you have a 'cut' between 'fill' stakes on a straight sloping grade line?"
PC: "I just marked the stake from the point file I was given."
Me: "So you never looked at the plans?"
PC: "Did not need to. The points are in the DC."
Me: "And you never considered that the point 'might' be a bad calc?" (the calc was a 2 foot 'typo' that he could have easily fixed in the field)
PC: "I didn't do the calcs. It's not my job to check them."

Needless to say he did not last much longer in my purview.

Would that time frame have been about as long as it took him to drive to the office and unload his personal equipment from the truck?

At present, it is the Governor's office. From my travels and speaking with surveyors across the state, I have heard that the overwhelming majority have no problem with CE (or PDHs for those that want to deal with semantics).

This is particularly true when the Board of Registration continually claims that they are testing for minimal competence. If that is the case, it is making the argument to require CE (PDH).

The efforts of CLSA on various fronts to formally require CEs (like most other professions) have been rebuffed by the Governor's office as an unrealistic requirement to continue licensure in a state that needs more licensed professionals.

I am of the opinion that most of the licensed surveyors that I have met would meet any CE requirement as a matter of course of their pursuit of their upgraded knowledge of our profession by attendance at seminars, conferences, teaching classes, etc. Others may disagree.

That having been said, CLSA does have a voluntary program that is sparsely enrolled.

I am of the opinion that we as Land Surveyors necessarily have to be better as professionals than others to be accepted at this point as professionals. This means a higher order of ethics, community involvement, professional courtesy and respect, and high quality services and products produced that benefit the community. One way to do this is to continue your professional development (education) at all times and at all turns.

Just my thoughts,

At present, it is the Governor's office. From my travels and speaking with surveyors across the state, I have heard that the overwhelming majority have no problem with CE (or PDHs for those that want to deal with semantics).

This is particularly true when the Board of Registration continually claims that they are testing for minimal competence. If that is the case, it is making the argument to require CE (PDH).

The efforts of CLSA on various fronts to formally require CEs (like most other professions) have been rebuffed by the Governor's office as an unrealistic requirement to continue licensure in a state that needs more licensed professionals.

I am of the opinion that most of the licensed surveyors that I have met would meet any CE requirement as a matter of course of their pursuit of their upgraded knowledge of our profession by attendance at seminars, conferences, teaching classes, etc. Others may disagree.

That having been said, CLSA does have a voluntary program that is sparsely enrolled.

I am of the opinion that we as Land Surveyors necessarily have to be better as professionals than others to be accepted at this point as professionals. This means a higher order of ethics, community involvement, professional courtesy and respect, and high quality services and products produced that benefit the community. One way to do this is to continue your professional development (education) at all times and at all turns.

Just my thoughts,

Sorry for the double post. This is problem with the web site.

Mr. Pallamary presents and interesting philosophical stance, though heard time and again at least by my generation.

I recently drove through the new Devil's Slide diversion tunnel on Highway One above Half Moon Bay, the new Bay Bridge is near to open, the water and wastewater treatment infrastructure in California compares to the best in the world, and engineers in California don't have CE requirements either.

I don't buy into the mandatory continuing education argument, however I belong to the voluntary continuing education camp because I hold that one can only be a professional through constant striving to advance his/her expertise.

During my university days, I was sure the engineering schools had a built in weeding out process. Those who couldn't hang didn't, they flunked out and/or changed majors. Same is true in the professional world, at least for engineers.

Crappy engineers are discovered right away because they cost their clients money and time, tangible things that people can experience and feel, and contractors are quick to call a crappy engineer out.

I think land surveying is a bit different. The bad land surveyor goes unnoticed by the public, and the contractor, though not necessarily by the engineer. When the engineer works from a bad survey, the engineer still gets blamed for the problems down the road no matter how vocal he/she may be about warning about tragedy impending. And secondly, the public thinks boundary surveying is nothing more than pure Voodoo.

My mother-in-law raised two sons, doctors, and my wife, architect of social functions. Before my intensive, enlightening, and continual engagement with her regarding the history, virtues, and function of land surveyors throughout history she thought the surveyor was the clown on the side of the road taking pictures. I have had to answer her questions about why I spend so much energy on technician work. She is beginning to understand now.

Focusing on Mr. Pallamary's question, I reflect on Lucas' recent "The Pincussion Effect", and specifically on his prelude, "The Pincussion". The surveyor's prestige died somewhere during the first half of the 20th century, possibly due to the ability for engineers to practice land surveying back then. Remember, Thoreau was a surveyor and performed a lot of civil engineering related studies through his surveying expertise. All the surveyor heros normally performed their tasks in association with some type of civil engineering related function. For example, ancient road alignments weren't selected by surveyors, but by engineers with command of the art of surveying.

I don't know "Who killed Continuing Education". And I don't really care.

I will however rephrase the question to "Who Needs Continuing Education?" My answer is simple. It is those who don't know their identity, their function in society, and their value to society. They are everywhere, and they leave a wake of problems and stench behind them.

Mr. Pallamary,
On continuing thought, let the idea of mandatory continuing education go the way of the DoDo.

I recall a time when I had no choice but to learn, in painstaking detail, how to use a USACE hydrology and hydraulics engineering program. I learned it, I learned it fast, I learned its functions, advantages, limitations, all in a few days time. It is a pretty good program, but it is full of holes, subject to the whole garbage in garbage out type of thing you hear about. Soon I will need to explain to opposing council that I learned it myself, I did not take the $2000 USACE course on how to use the program. When the course was being offered in Boston two months away from the time I needed my personal expertise, I took it upon myself to learn the program, to master it. Oh, no verifiable continuing education credits either.

So again, "Who Needs Continuing Education?"

Clark:

There are always going to be those of us who can, will and do learn on our own. One of my friends calls me “Outlier” for that very reason.

For the majority of the remainder, Continuing Education provides the impetus to continue learning and improving skills and knowledge.

For those of us who are “outliers”, Continuing Education provides us with both an opportunity to learn and a yard stick with which we can measure our knowledge and learning.

There are roughly 4,000 surveyors, licensed by the State of California, who are practicing. Less than 10% of them show up at our annual conference. Less than 5% are enrolled in the CLSA Continuing Education tracking system. At most seminars I attend or present, there are between 40 and 80 people in the audience…and they are usually the same group of people within any geographic area!

The argument AGAINST Continuing Education is that there are so few good seminars and most of those are getting old. To me, that’s actually an argument FOR Continuing Education!

If 4,000 surveyors had to earn even 8 hours of Continuing Education credits per year to keep their license current, at $150 per 8 hour seminar, that provides a pool of $600,000 for presenters to chase. That provides an incentive to come up with new, better and more varied programs.

In my experience, presenting an 8 hour program takes roughly 80 hours or more to put the program together. None of us are getting rich presenting, but the opportunity to put on 5 or 6 seminars a year is appealing to some of us! I enjoy presenting. I find that I actually learn from people who come to listen to me. I also find that I learn more from “live performances” by good presenters than I wouls just by reading the material at home.

Market place economics will weed out the field of presenters. How many programs have you been to that you would never attend again because of the speaker? How many speakers have you listened to who you would spend good money to see again? Over the years, I have been to Mike Durkee’s SMA Seminars at least half a dozen times, because he is a dynamic speaker and I learn something EVRY TIME.

I spoke vehemently against Continuing Education for many years. I came to the realization that this position was not a supportable position from a logical stand point. I argued that the numbers of violations or citations do not appear to decrease in states that go to Mandatory Continuing Education. I did not fully consider the improvement in service to the public or the benefits to the profession. I’m still not sure of the appropriate metric to employ, but I do know that I trust the people I see in seminars regularly and consider them some of the best our profession has to offer.

That’s my viewpoint, Clark, and I’m sticking to it.

Ian,
What is the CLSA Continuing education tracking system?

I am required 15+ hours per year(4 of my licenses require CE) and currently use Ausable LLC to keep up with my hours.

SJ

Stephen,

Here is a link to the CLSA Professional Development Program. I use this to track my Continuing Ed credits for my Utah license which requires 30 hours every two years.

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/profdev.html