URISA and NCEES Model Law Exemptions

[MPaulk]

Hey Everyone -

Thought this may be of interest to you all. URISA is lobbying NCEES to change the model law for land surveyors. I was at the URISA-PRO conference and saw this slide in a presentation. "Certain conditions" are unclear to me, but I am guessing they would be offered under the supervision of a GISP. These changes are preliminary, but I figured I would share them with you because they concern land surveyors and GIS.

The reason it gives me pause is item number one indicates "determining by measurement the configuration or contour of the earth's surface or theposition of fixed objects thereon. (Emphasis mine) Fixed works would include pressurized gas lines...seems dangerous when you consider datum shifts, state planes, etc.

[CBarrett]

I think GISP's need to learn abut quantifying precision and stick to low precision and low accuracy work. That's the biggest beef with GIS, people assume it is more accurate than it is and GIS side is not good at explaining it.
Accuracy levels don't stop at +/- 1 foot. For certain applications +/- 20 feet is enough (road navigation), for others you need to be at the higher level, up to 1st order networks or bridge and other steel structure building.
It is the duty of those seeking to map the things to understand and explain the accuracy of their maps, so they are used appropriately. This includes GIS professionals. Just build that into the GIS curriculums and practice.

[DWoolley]

I know there are folks that are not able to log in to see the attachments. The slide from the conference, refenced by MPaulk above, states the following:

"Proposed Revision to NCEES ML&R Practice of Surveying:
Inclusions and Exclusions

Under the proposed definition, the following products and services could be offered non-licensed GIS professionals, under certain conditions:
1. Determining by measurement the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface of the position of fixed objects thereon.

2. Determining by performing geodetic surveys the size and shape of the earth or the position of any point on the earth.

3. Creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized or other data, relative to the performance of the activities described in the two prior slides."

[Emphasis in the original]

Restated, the unlicensed GIS folks want to be able to use GPS (geodetic positions) to do topography (configuration or contour of the earth's surface or positions of fixed objects thereon) and make maps of the same (Creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized or other data).

One of the intents of the model law is for states to adopt for a commonality amongst states. There are fifty states, fifty different tests and fifty different licenses. States that adopt a model law could more easily accommodate reciprocity between states. The GIS folk's strategy would include changing the model law and then, getting states to adopt the law. The model law concept has been around for over 20 years.

The GIS and geospatial folks are only looking to legitimize their current business model. The legal process is formalized, requires consensus and takes to much time. I see it happening much more definitively and abruptly. The unlicensed community will simply continue to do the work they are already doing, market forces will facilitate it and the land surveying well will run dry. The technology i.e. robotics, RTN GPS, L5 GPS, UAVs exists and are currently being utilized to provide services that are legally and traditionally land surveying in California. What are you doing about it? What will you do about it? Nothing and nothing, nada for my Spanish speaking friends. The land surveyor's phone will simply quit ringing.

The alarm was sounded well over 20 years ago. This is further exacerbated by the over 55 crowd - the majority of land surveyors - that are satisfied they got theirs. These folks have one eye on their 401k and other eye on the door. I could spend the entire day writing examples of forks in the road over the last 25 years.

Assuming the posture of Rodin's "The Thinker"... maybe we should try to make ourselves useful in the vanishing market by offering something, something quite niche, specific to the land surveyor's knowledge and training, something that has value to the market's end users, say, accuracy certifications via statements? Lol, nah, just kidding. Let us die peacefully. If nothing more, we are an accommodating group.

Their message is simple, don't go away mad, just go away, please. They said "please".

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Instead of getting sidetracked into discussing specific measures, why don't we do some big picture planning, SWOT analysis at our next local chapter board meeting... then as we get that structure in place we can identify most efficient tactics to accomplish some of the goals.

I seldom encounter surveyors who have enough business education to try and embark on a more structured plan.

Without people understanding overall goals an education our membership of this, individual measures will fail, because everyone introduces just their own individual point of view, and digs their heels into a "no" in when pressed into a hasty decision. Campaigning for membership support on a matter most are not paying attention to takes time and effort.

[LS_8750]

Did the engineers take over land surveying? Nope. The LS community rightly kicked them out. And those pre-82 engineers are vanishing due to age.

My take is young ones coming up are getting educated in GIS and GIS is just another visualization platform that land surveyors need to have in their tool belt.

The struggle will continue like the Site Plan mess we continually see.

[bryanmundia]

I think as surveyors this is our time to shine and bring forth an interesting concept. Looking at the LSIT, really there isn't anything that they are allowed to due responsibly without the oversight of a licensed land surveyor. Maybe we proposed legislation that would require a minimum of an LSIT to perform any work that a non-licensed GIS professional would be able to do according to the slide in the discussion? This would bolster the number of people exposed at least to the mathematics of surveying and those GISP folks would get a good understanding of datums and epochs in regards to their work.

I find that GIS is a valuable tool for surveyors and could be even more valuable with additional input and guidance from us as professionals to the GISP community. By no means do I think GISP folks are going to replace professional surveyors, but they are going to replace alot of what surveyors do that we would consider our "easy" work.

The LSIT requirement may also funnel more people into licensure in order to perform more complex tasks associated with GIS.

Just an idea, please don't be too harsh in the replies. I would love to hear anyone's constructive feedback on the idea as this is something I have thought of but haven't put too much time into the structure/nuts and bolts of how it would be implemented.

[Warren Smith]

One of the fundamental issues with the parcel base for GIS is the potential for lay people to make faulty conclusions based (pun intended) on poorly registered aerial overlays. More effort needs to be applied toward improving such registration - particularly in sparsely populated areas.
Having technicians trained in such activity would be beneficial.
The last two Counties I have worked at have had CAD techs who were trained in the County Surveyor's office. This helps tremendously in correcting anomalous parcels, working with someone with surveying background.
The adding of aerial coverage needs to be done with the goal of accuracy, if not precision.
It helps to have a strong working relationship with the GIS group at local agencies by the County/City Surveyor's office.

[CBarrett]

Maybe we can start training GIS people to quantify accuracy of their product and understands where certain levels matter.
I hear frequent arguments from GIS people how mot everything has to be survey grade accurate. This is very true, accuracy levels don't stop at fourth order topo mapping, the scale can continue well into cartographic applications (as it used to).

Where electronic applications started confusing things is that one can often zoom very tightly into an area (which you obviously could not on a, let's say old thomas guide street map or a USGS quad. This ability to zoom in gives people false impression that the line is still representative of the boundary location when zoomed in beyond it's intended use. I've asked couple gis people (online) why isn't this being taught in GIS programs? it's not that hard to be able to quantify mapping accuracy.

Maybe surveyors should offer to teach this, along with basics of boundary laws, so that GISP's understand the ramifications of what they do.

[Dave Lindell]

I had a helper once (and only once!) who needed help on a curb and gutter staking job for a contractor friend of his.The plans were sparse, but doable.
He brought the "control" for the job which turned out to be county assesor background data for assessment mapping. He also had a friend who worked at the county assessor's office who got him the data. It was given to 16 decimal places, but only wrong by over a hundred feet.

[DWoolley]

The model law allows the land surveying community a seat at the table. The land surveyor is recognized as a professional and as such, is in a position to negotiate their future.

Arguably, the model law is the least of our concerns:

The US Department of Labor received approximately 47,000 letters concerning the reclassification of land surveyors from being recognized professionals to being reclassified as laborers. Suppose all 50 state professional associations wrote a letter and every CLSA corporate member wrote a letter (which they did not) that would be approximately 1600 letters. I would wager those other 45,000 letters came from AFL-CIO affiliates advocating for land surveyors to become laborers.

Laborers do not enjoy the benefits of the Brooks Act or in California, the Little Brooks Act which is the qualification-based selection process that supports professionals. In practice, there will be no quarter for quality work anchored in licensure, knowledge and experience. By law, the work has to be awarded to the low bidder.

Currently, Operating Engineers, Local 12, will dispatch their “surveyors” directly to a contractor – circumventing the professional land surveying firms all together. There are currently several large freeway construction projects in Southern California without the usual professional service providers. In order for these large contractors to compete with each other they have to emulate their competitor’s business model. Hiring a large engineering and land surveying company will put the contractor out of the competition.

Now, imagine paying Local 12 for access to their members, thereby supporting through funding, to continue to work tirelessly to deregulate the practice of land surveying. Simultaneously, Local 12 is subverting by diverting the large-scale construction work from the firms that pay them. Salt meet wound, the public agencies hire these same firms that fund the deregulation machinery. Simply stated, we are funding, therefore encouraging, our own professional demise.

Question, are these the same professional practitioners, running headlong to their professional death, we expect to make a stand with the GIS community that tried for years to work with the land surveying community?

If the reader is on the edge of their seat as to the outcome, spoiler alert, Google “William Travis, James Bowie, David Crockett and Santa Anna”. We are not Santa Anna. Anyone think the over 55 crowd – mentioned only because they make up the majority - has the tenacity to charge the hill? I will short that stock.

I welcome a convincing counter perspective.

DWoolley

PS I will take the suggestion not to get sidetracked by offering specific ideas or plans. I will join the hand wringing crowd and simply hope for the best.

[bryanmundia]

Currently, Operating Engineers, Local 12, will dispatch their “surveyors” directly to a contractor – circumventing the professional land surveying firms all together. There are currently several large freeway construction projects in Southern California without the usual professional service providers. In order for these large contractors to compete with each other they have to emulate their competitor’s business model. Hiring a large engineering and land surveying company will put the contractor out of the competition.

Dave,

So with that being said, who is in responsible charge of these surveyors dispatched directly to the contractor? Is there a subconsultant with an LS on staff? Is Local 12 checking to see if their signatory companies have an LS on staff in responsible charge?

I find it troubling that Local 12 would just send out a surveyor to any Tom, Dick or Harry that asks for one if they pay into the union. If that is the case, it is almost as if Local 12 is a quasi subconsultant to the contractor as the land surveyor for the project. Am I understanding what you said correctly?

[Peter Ehlert]

My point of view, when I was active in Local 3, they acted as a hiring agency. The actual employers needed to comply with relevant regulations and laws. ... hence the contractor of today has the actual obligation.

[DWoolley]

To provide the readers context, the projects I am familiar with range from $200M to $1.2B in construction costs.

bryanmundia asked:

Question: Who is in responsible charge of these surveyors dispatched directly to the contractor?
Answer: The contractor has one licensed Local 12 party chief dispatched to the job. He may not know it, but he is in responsible charge. There is unlikely to be an Organizational Record because the contractor will not acknowledge they are surveying – I believe this is a liability issue. They prefer to call it layout work. The final kick in the pants is the contractor, under the last contract, hires the union surveyor for less money per hour than the land surveying firm has to pay.

Q: Is there a subconsultant with an LS on staff?
A: No. One project, 11 miles of freeway with 8 or 9 bridges had an engineering and land surveying subconsultant onboard until the bridge work was far enough along and then, the contractor cut the land surveyors loose. It is my understanding some union field staff members from the land surveying firm went to work for the contractor.

Q: Is Local 12 checking to see if their signatory companies have an LS on staff in responsible charge?
A: No. Historically, their position is it is not their job to monitor licensing compliance. This is not ignorance, there is a Local 12 representative on the BPELSG.

Q: Am I understanding it correctly.
A: Yes.

Mock conversation:

Operating Engineers to the professional land surveyors “we are reallocating your work resulting in reducing your billable hours, f.o.r.e.v.e.r. Also, we are working to deregulate your professional status. Our unfunded pension liability will make your firm worthless on the resale market, you’re welcome.”

Signatory surveying firms reply “cool, besides financing you, what else can we do to help facilitate our own professional demise? Thank you for getting us reclassified as laborers and pushing for our deregulation.”

Public Agencies reply “we have minimum hiring standards that require licensure as a PLS or minimally, an LSIT to be a party chief. We give millions of dollars in contracts to hire firms that field staff that do not meet our own MQs i.e. LSIT or PLS and yet, complain about a lack of qualified applicants for our vacancies. The millions of dollars in contract money finances the deregulation/reclassification to laborers. Additionally, we adopt Project Labor Agreements that by law exempt professionals from the agreements, except land surveyors are classified as laborers in the agreements."

Professional survey community (majority) reply “Meh. I am marginally focused on this one unlicensed site plan guy, telling the GIS community and my fellow surveyors to pound sand and less focused on the entire deregulation of the profession. Besides, I have my AARP card, I am about to punch out, good luck. Surveying was good to me.”

Professional survey community born after 1975-80 “Hard to believe it is 2035 already. I got a line on a parking garage security guard job – my former party chief is trying to get me in. No more living in my parents basement with a family of four for me. I should have taken the test while I was still working in the [former] profession.”

Although there has been a not to be specific with solutions, I believe the land surveying community should distinguish itself through licensure (especially the most vulernerable, field staff) legislation and the regulation process.

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

Apathy: lack of interest or concern : INDIFFERENCE
political apathy

[mpallamary]

Who do we blame?

[LS_8750]

Big Energy, Big Comms, Big Ag, Big Development, Big Emergency Response, Big Education, Big Health, Big Brother all own California. The unions own California. Wake up to what it is. It is much more that deregulating land surveyors. Technocracy.

[CBarrett]

Honestly, lately I started thinking it is more ignorance than apathy. I see a lot of surveyors who only know the technical side of things and lack a lot of additional education (either formal or autodidactic) which would allow them to move with the changes.
Business concepts, economic factors, management of human resources, leadership skills etc...