California Surveyors Forums

Evan Page,

The Governor's opinion doesn't need to be qualified. He is the Governor. The architects went through the process. I recall CLSA watching this bill very closely. The idea was if the architects were willing to spend the money, carry the water and realized success we could follow in their steps. When it made it to the Governor's desk CLSA was hopeful the path had been forged. Although I do not recall, I am reasonably sure CLSA supported the bill all the way through. They mostly likely wrote a letter of support. Again, I remember a tremendous amount of discussion at the time. Hopeful discussion.

Another strategy was the CLSA voluntary PDH tracker which I believe came about in 2008-09. The thought was to create a tracker and encourage licensees to register and input their hours into the system. The state association would keep track of the hours - automatically for conference attendees. Those that volunteered had a special symbol placed by their names and received a certificate. The premise was to get the majority of licensees to sign up and take that to the Legislature to make it official. If the professionals did it on their own it would show the Legislature they supported mandatory continuing education. After serveral years of pumping the program I not sure if they ever broke 100 members.

Be sure, CLSA committed to continuing education. A lot of effort went into the PDH tracker.

Lastly, the Governor then, the Governor now, made it quite clear there would be no continuing education for professionals. The architects, an educated bunch on whole, couldn't do it. We surely couldn't do it - simple as that.

If you or anyone else has a better idea speak now. Absent a better idea, I say we nail down SB 1085 with language and institute a take home exam upon renewal.

DWoolley

(from an ipad. Graciously, accept spelling errors.)

As to CLSA supporting anything, by and large, as a profession and certainly an association, we are impotent. If we wanted - and only if we wanted - we could lobby and educate. That will not happen as the culture of the association is not conducive to such actions.

Years ago when we were a presence, we did so by meeting with legislatures, testifying before committees, and being more proactive. There does not seem to be any desire or interest to get involved. We need to change our mission.

This issue is another example. CLSA has been placed in a reactive mode to this topic and for many of us, we had to bang on the door real loud to peak inside.

Why is that?

Requiring them to pay fees to "continuing education providers" is an unwarranted burden."

I happily attend seminars on my own, but being forced to line the pockets of the "seminar" industry rubs me the wrong way.

Gary Schenk wrote:

Requiring them to pay fees to "continuing education providers" is an unwarranted burden."

I happily attend seminars on my own, but being forced to line the pockets of the "seminar" industry rubs me the wrong way.

I don't understand why you see it that way. CLSA presents many of its own educational opportunities e.g. chapter meetings, special presentations, workshops, webinars, seminars, conferences... These are all low-cost tools to increase professional fellowship and networking as well as personal development. Of course, you could also pay some outsider for an 8-hour PDH certificate each year if you choose and I'm certain that many will do that out of laziness, pride or resentment against CLSA but to use that potentially negligible expense as an argument against a continuing education requirement is disingenuous in my opinion.

I don't feel strongly either way about this requisite CE idea. I think the requirement would give us credibility as a profession. In Texas, where I cut my teeth, CE was a legislated requirement for me to keep my S.I.T. certification and it did not seem onerous. In fact, I felt (oddly?) enlightened after attending one of these events! I continue to educate myself out of personal intrigue, fulfillment and obligation and I agree that those who feel they are 'above' education can circumvent the process easily enough regardless of any statutory requirement so to me there is little point in devoting any of our limited resources to the effort.

W/R/T the OP, I also think the wording of the law is too vague and ripe for exploitation in it's current form. On first read, I also felt that BPELSG or any other regulatory body, could (and does on occasion by my reckoning) take advantage of an opportunity to use a vague law like that as a weapon for a biased enforcement action and that does not appear to be the desired effect or intent here.

David Kendall wrote:

Gary Schenk wrote:

Requiring them to pay fees to "continuing education providers" is an unwarranted burden."

I happily attend seminars on my own, but being forced to line the pockets of the "seminar" industry rubs me the wrong way.

I don't understand why you see it that way. CLSA presents many of its own educational opportunities e.g. chapter meetings, special presentations, workshops, webinars, seminars, conferences... These are all low-cost tools to increase professional fellowship and networking as well as personal development. Of course, you could also pay some outsider for an 8-hour PDH certificate each year if you choose and I'm certain that many will do that out of laziness, pride or resentment against CLSA but to use that potentially negligible expense as an argument against a continuing education requirement is disingenuous in my opinion.
.

Chapter meetings, special presentations, workshops, etc. are wonderful ways to learn and keep abreast of your profession. However, most of those don't count for continuing education credits. I believe it costs about $25 more per hour to take a course that provides for continuing education. Most people can only budget so much for training. I would rather use that money to attend an additional course, then to pay this non-beneficial administrative fee. How much more would the CLSA conference cost to attend if all the seminars were continuing education courses?

I read the first paragraph and I'll be short and blunt.
HAVING TO TAKE A TAKE HOME EXAM EVERY TWO YEARS TO RENEW A LAND SURVEYORS LICENSE IS INSANE.
As far as I know no one has proven that a 4 year degree or CE makes better surveyors, in fact there are many of the opinion that the best LS education is on the job training coupled with jr college classes.
Requiring surveyors to spend 8 hours every two years to renew will definitely reduce the number of new surveyors into the profession. Is that the unstated intent? Of course the govt employees won't care as they will take the test on taxpayers dollars and by reducing the number of private surveyors opens up more moonlighting opportunities for govt employees.

CLSA cannot be at the forefront of pushing for continuing education requirements, it would only be viewed by legislators and the Governor as self-promoting. Same can be said for any other group or individual that puts on seminars and/or workshops. CLSA can certainly support the legislation and Dave is correct CLSA has always supported CE’s. But any proposal coming from CLSA would be DOA. And I also agree with Dave that this would be a waste of time.

BPELSG would have to provide a report, along with background data detailing the need for licensees to obtain CE’s in order to renew and how it would help protect the public, to the state legislators in order to gain any acceptance. I just don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Getting back to the original post, I do not have problem with a renewal exam, but I agree with Evan the bill needs more clarity.

Armand

"I recall CLSA watching this bill very closely. The idea was if the architects were willing to spend the money, carry the water and realized success we could follow in their steps."

Exactly. Watching timidly from the shadows rather than adding our voice to that of the architects. Did the architects approach CLSA on the matter? Did CLSA even consider offering to join the architects at any point as the proposal progressed?

For some reason I don't even recall it. That must have been the year that I stepped back from active participation on various committees to deal with other obligations.


"CLSA cannot be at the forefront of pushing for continuing education requirements, it would only be viewed by legislators and the Governor as self-promoting. Same can be said for any other group or individual that puts on seminars and/or workshops."

If legislators see the CLSA or any other professional society as being in the business of selling seminars & workshops, then we are not representing ourselves properly.

The CLSA is not in the business of selling seminars. It is a non-profit organization representing the interests of the land surveying profession in California. If the CLSA were to start showing profits in its tax statements, it would lose its 503(c) status.

The CLSA and its various chapters have a history or arranging educational opportunities for members of the surveying community. Monies made over and above expenses generally go to other outreach programs and scholarship funds. Presenters are sometimes engaged from outside of the CLSA, and sometimes found within the CLSA.

In some instances, the speakers make some money, and in other instances they volunteer their time and effort for the betterment of the profession. If CLSA or its leadership has ever financially benefitted from arranging or sponsoring a seminar, workshop, or conference with that financial benefit not having been directed toward valid non-profit purposes, I am unaware of it.

How can anyone characterize that as self-serving with even a shred of credibility?

Someone had been feeding the Guv a bowl of BS and no one countered it.

Again I go back to the legal and medical professions which have each had such requirements in place for quite a while. Have those requirements been the reason that fewer have entered those professions? Has it been the reason for any responsible members of those professions to quit? Since the numbers of lawyers per capita seems to continually grow, I would be amazed that there has been a single person decide to stay out of law because of CE requirements. In the medical profession, I'm sure that insurance companies are a deterrent that eclipses all other reasons (except tuition & time) why a person who would otherwise want to enter the profession, would decide not to.

There are only two real reasons why the CLSA, together with similar organizations would not try to get CE passed. It's either that, as an organization, we don't really want it, or that newer members simply accept the lore passed down by older members and so get convinced to not make the effort.

Here is some more information I obtained from the Board. Any thoughts?

I would very much like to see the background information on the 45% numbers.

Another CLSA member emailed a Fact Sheet put out by Senator Roth's office. It says pretty much what the Background document posted by Mike says and more or less reflects what Rob & Jon have said. I don't have any argument with the background justification, the intent as stated in documents issued to explain the bill, or of the benefit to a method of ensuring continued competence.

I simply want more precise wording in the proposed statute language to better reflect the stated intent.

Sen. Roth's document states that it will be an online exam. OK, put that in the bill.

Sen. Roth's document states that failure to complete the exam would not affect the status of a license or put a hold on renewal. OK, then why not clarify that in the bill? But that brings up the question: What's the point of the exam if failure to complete does not affect renewal?

Sen. Roth's document states that failure to complete the exam would be grounds for disciplinary action. That is clearly stated in the bill. But within the justification is the explanation that lack of knowledge of current laws is a major reason licensees become the subject of complaints. The implication is that requiring a licensee to demonstrate knowledge of current laws ensures that licensees are better educated about the laws which should translate to fewer (45% or so by the number supplied by BPELSG) complaints of relatively minor infractions. If the goal is to decrease enforcement workload, then why does the bill not hold up renewal until the exam is passed but instead provide for an enforcement action for those not completing the exam?

It begs the question whether the goal is actually to set up the situation where a licensee can violate the statute relatively easily, and possibly thinking that they've complied*, and thus be subject to a citation. The design of this bill seems contrary to one of the implied stated goals.

Other questions relative to these documents:

- Would the renewing licensee be tested across the full content of the PLSA & Board Rules, or only on those sections that have been added or amended within the last renewal period?

- Would the estimated time to complete the exam for a licensee who is familiar with the laws be 30-60 minutes, 1 - 2 hours, 4 - 6 hours? If I understand the method correctly from the various explanations received, the exam would be much like many of the internal training exams that many state employees must complete every 12 or 24 months. There may or may not be online course content with the exam, and then multiple guess or T/F questions given. If you answer at least the minimum number to meet the cut score, you're done. Otherwise, you are redirected back to the beginning of the material and then presented with questions at the end of it again. Those questions are usually not the same, or in the same order as given previously, but cover the same material. A person who is not as familiar with the material as they should be may take 1.5, 2, 4... times longer to complete the exam as the person who is familiar with it going in. There's no way to provide a reliable "average" time estimate, but a reasonable timeframe based on the licensee familiar with the laws could be stated.

- Will the exam be designed to test the licensees familiarity with the content of the codes, i.e. the text & location, or will it be a problem based exam designed to test the licensees knowledge of application of the laws?


*(Those not familiar with the online testing regime may not recognize that if they answer all questions, but fall below preset cut score, they have not officially completed the exam. Sometimes the results page is reasonably clear about that, but sometimes not for those unfamiliar with such testing formats.)

In reviewing the attached Fact Sheet I noted the following:

"Would give the Board the authority to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee who failed to complete the examination. Such action would be pursued under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act to ensure the licensee’s due process rights."

I am pleased to see the BPELSG staff recognizing the rights of Americans (licensees) granted by the US Constitution. I had nearly given up any hope of BPELSG staff actually following the most basic legal tenets in their hodgepodge legislative attempts. Equally encouraging is documentation stating that BPELSG staff will follow the law i.e. the Administrative Procedure Act.

This bit of encouragement, however small, is a marked change from the direction I have noted in recent years.

Again, I support SB 1085. I would like to see it pass for the reasons I have previously stated.

DWoolley

I have no problem with testing and some kind of process for verifying licensee's knowledge. I agree with Evan. This is potentially career and company threatening and based upon some of the actions of the Board, their intent is to threaten careers and companies.

It needs clarity. It sure would be nice of the profession was in the loop instead of being reactionary and the notion that some committee is holding secret meetings does not bode well.

If you are having issues with the quality of the people entering the profession maybe you should think about this;
I forget the author but "In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in High School to teaching remedial English in college."

Now that's what I call educational progress and bi-annual testing will not correct that deficiency.

If there is a need for bi-annual testing of licensed surveyors maybe those surveyors should never have been licensed.

"In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in High School to teaching remedial English in college."

Translation: we've gone from educating only the pampered children of the elite to educating everyone's children, no matter their socio-economic background.

That's a good thing.

Here's the text for the SB-1085:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 0160SB1085

Nothing mentioned in the BPELSG Winter 2016 Newsletter:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin45.pdf

Not a fan of this SB-1085, but I'm a fan of continuing education. Utilize the CLSA Professional Development model, do random audits of the RCEs and LSs, don't think this would be too much of a financial burden to the Board. But adding an additional standardized test every two years would most likely have to add some financial burden to the Board and the licensees.

Gary Schenk wrote:

"In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in High School to teaching remedial English in college."

Translation: we've gone from educating only the pampered children of the elite to educating everyone's children, no matter their socio-economic background.

That's a good thing.

That's what they have done, dumbed down education to it's lowest possible level.

I haven't received one, but I have been told emails were sent out regarding this bill from a govt source that are extremely misleading to point where the person who wrote the emails is either grossly uninformed or just outright lying, we all know that govt never lies.
Currently trying to find out who actually wrote them so an accurate email can be sent out.

One statement is there is no cost increases for this testing. Didn't the State just a few years ago almost double our licensing fees due to increased budget costs? Do they think we are stupid enough to believe some national corporation is going to create, administer, and grade these tests for free. ROTFLMAO. We all know administering renewal licensing testing is beyond the abilities of any govt agency and it will be contacted out, probably to NCEES.

The FAQ clearly does not reflect the language in the original submittal... It is like another blank check.
You need to have Faith! (I don't)

I received this today, I am on the mailing list. you need to sign up...
========
Dear Licensee,

Attached are a FAQs regarding Senate Bill 1085 (Roth), which is a legislative bill that the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists is sponsoring. We are sending you these documents to provide you with information regarding this proposal. Should you have any further questions, please contact Kara Williams, the Board's Legislative Analyst, at Kara.Williams@dca.ca.gov

Stay up to date on all Board news and activities, including licensure requirements, new laws and regulations, industry trivia and much more by reading our quarterly bulletin. Follow the link to read the most current bulletin: http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin46.pdf

Email List - By subscribing to the Board's e-mail subscriber list, you will receive notification of Board activities. Notifications include Board and Committee meeting notices, publications, notices of proposed legislation and regulatory actions (rulemaking changes), and other related information, as appropriate. There is no charge for this service. If you wish to be added to the e-mail subscriber list, please click on this link. https://www.dca.ca.gov/webapps/bpelsg/subscribe.php

Sincerely,

The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists

Do not reply to this message as this mailbox is not monitored.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

The Bill was reported out of committee yesterday with amendments, and referred back. The revision now characterizes the test as an assessment.

Here is the current version:


8801.1. (a) At the time of renewal specified in Section 8801 or 8802, the board shall administer an assessment of the licenseholder that includes questions to reinforce the licenseholder’s knowledge of state laws and the board’s rules and regulations regulating the practice of professional land surveyors. Failure to complete this assessment within 60 days after the date of expiration of the license shall constitute a cause for disciplinary action under Section 8780, but shall not affect the renewal of the license.

(b) The crime in subdivision (j) of Section 8792 shall not apply to this section.

Something else to keep in mind is that engineers and geologists are proposed to be subject to the same requirement. To the extent there is cynicism about the Board turning this into a real exam, that doesn't comport to the reality of administering such a beast across these disciplines.

I just sent the following email to the Chair of the Legislative Committee. If you agree, consider bringing this idea up with your chapter rep, or anyone else that is concerned with the onerous nature of SB 1085. If the goal is awareness, there's more than one way to achieve that goal.

"I would like to propose an alternative to the test being contemplated in SB 1085.

The goal of 1085 is to do something to make sure that all licensees are: 1) aware of, and understand, new changes to the laws and, 2) aware of and understand, existing laws that need to be emphasized and reinforced.

I am licensed in 7 western states and most of them send out letters at renewal time that include items that licensees need to be cognizant of. My suggestion is that, when renewal notices are sent out, a letter is included with paragraphs that summarize laws or rules that the Board wants to reinforce in the minds of licensees. Each paragraph would have a place for the licensee to initial. At the end of the letter the licensee would place their full signature (and date) that they have read, and understand, all of the changes above. Receipt of the signed letter could be required of all licensees.

Each paragraph could contain links and references that the licensee could make use of to better understand the law or rule in question. As opposed to SB 1085 this Information Letter would:

• Accomplish the same goals of SB 1085
• Be much easier to administer
• Be much cheaper to administer

Please circulate this alternative idea to all appropriate parties."

Peter Ehlert wrote:The FAQ clearly does not reflect the language in the original submittal... It is like another blank check.
You need to have Faith! (I don't)

I received this today, I am on the mailing list. you need to sign up...
========
Dear Licensee,

Attached are a FAQs regarding Senate Bill 1085 (Roth), which is a legislative bill that the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists is sponsoring. We are sending you these documents to provide you with information regarding this proposal. Should you have any further questions, please contact Kara Williams, the Board's Legislative Analyst, at Kara.Williams@dca.ca.gov

Stay up to date on all Board news and activities, including licensure requirements, new laws and regulations, industry trivia and much more by reading our quarterly bulletin. Follow the link to read the most current bulletin: http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin46.pdf

Email List - By subscribing to the Board's e-mail subscriber list, you will receive notification of Board activities. Notifications include Board and Committee meeting notices, publications, notices of proposed legislation and regulatory actions (rulemaking changes), and other related information, as appropriate. There is no charge for this service. If you wish to be added to the e-mail subscriber list, please click on this link. https://www.dca.ca.gov/webapps/bpelsg/subscribe.php

Sincerely,

The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists

Do not reply to this message as this mailbox is not monitored.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Peter, now you've done it. You've violated the confidentiality of this document by posting it on this website for all eyes to see, not just those for whom the communication was intended. Now you've gotten us all in trouble.

The new wording of this proposal is significantly better in that it represents some of the intent expressed in commentary here and, as I understand from Ric, in the legislative analyst's file.

When preparing a legislative (or rulemaking) proposal or evaluating one, you cannot rely on what proponents say the intent is, what a fact sheet prepared from extrinsic (outside of the actual language of proposed statute or rule) information, or even necessarily on what has been done in the past for similar circumstances. You must look at it with an eye to the full spectrum of how the actual language contained in the proposed statute or rule could be interpreted.

Why? Because as personnel in positions to implement or enforce those laws & rules change, or as attitudes of people in those positions change, so too can the interpretations of what is allowed under the language of the statute or rule and accordingly, the actual implementation or enforcement of the rule. Today's Board and staff see some matters quite differently than they were seen by the Board and its staff many years ago, or in a few cases, just a few years ago (see the thread last Fall regarding tagging found, untagged monuments).

Also note the thread last year that Ric started in which he was quite adamant that surveyors are not to rely on or even distribute old Board policy resolutions. The reason given was that some attempted to elevate those policies to equivalent authority as law. I strongly suspect that the more overriding concern is to more solidly reserve the right to alter the interpretations of various laws and rules on a more fluid basis. That suspicion is based on the observance of the actions of the Board and staff in several situations rather than being conjecture based on paranoid prognostication.

If the rule were as vaguely written as the initial proposal and implementation were to change at some point in the future to be something most of us considered to be onerous, and the CLSA or some other party challenged it in court, the court has rules to interpret statutes. Those rules can be found in the Code of Civil Procedure along with the rules for interpreting written instruments (almost all of the same rules apply). If the language of the statute or rule appears to the Court to be clearly written, then they will interpret its meaning from the words contained within it only and not allow any extrinsic evidence to interpret it by. The words of the original proposal were pretty clear that the Board had the authority to administer an exam to test a licensee's knowledge of laws & rules and that failure of the licensee to complete it is grounds for discipline.

It doesn't necessarily need to spell out the form or extent of exam or form & severity of discipline to be adjudged to be clear. Just like the rules applied to a deed, if the terms are clear to identify the parties and the nature of title, no extrinsic evidence will be admitted to help interpret that which needs no further interpretation, but when it comes to the description of the boundary locations, the courts have long recognized that the particulars often, if not usually are not fully precise in describing just what the intended boundaries are. There is great latitude given to the parties in how they actually have or will establish the boundaries. If that were not so, our boundary surveys would be a matter of authority and upon finding that the parties did not describe the boundaries exactly as established, they would be required to move their established boundaries to the "correct" ones as determined by the surveyor.

Likewise, licensing boards are given a good deal of latitude in how they implement statutes and rules. As long as the rules promulgated stay within the bounds of the intent of the statute as determined from its language, and the implementation of the rule remains within the bounds of the intent as reflected in the language of the rule, there's no legal basis to uphold the challenge.

The court would resort to extrinsic evidence such as the bill's history as documented in the legislative analyst's file only if it was not clear what authority (as opposed to specific implementation of authority) was granted to the Board or if it was not clear what general form the consequences might take. That is, whether it is failure to complete or failure to pass the exam that triggers consequences, and whether the consequences might be non-renewal, disciplinary action, or both. Since it designated disciplinary action, there is already a system of laws & rules in place to address that process, so no further detail would be required for that part to be considered clear and unambiguous.

So under the original wording, the authority to make the exam as short or extensive, as easy or as difficult as the Board (whoever comprises it and whoever makes up the staff advising it at the time it is initially implemented or changed) feels is appropriate is there without specific limitation.

The current wording clarifies that renewal is not affected, so that limitation is in place. Further, it changed "exam" to "assessment". That word in itself does not place a limitation as to extent or difficulty. What it does do is add just enough ambiguity to open the door to the legislative analysts file to determine what the difference between an "exam" authorized for the two-levels of the licensing exam, and an "assessment" authorized by this rule is.


I would still prefer that the guard rails were fully within the language of the bill itself, but this is close enough for me to take back my objection. I can live with this one as it now exists.

MUCH better idea. Doesn't have some national corp making big bucks off of us administering the test.

Lee Hixson wrote:I just sent the following email to the Chair of the Legislative Committee. If you agree, consider bringing this idea up with your chapter rep, or anyone else that is concerned with the onerous nature of SB 1085. If the goal is awareness, there's more than one way to achieve that goal.

"I would like to propose an alternative to the test being contemplated in SB 1085.

The goal of 1085 is to do something to make sure that all licensees are: 1) aware of, and understand, new changes to the laws and, 2) aware of and understand, existing laws that need to be emphasized and reinforced.

I am licensed in 7 western states and most of them send out letters at renewal time that include items that licensees need to be cognizant of. My suggestion is that, when renewal notices are sent out, a letter is included with paragraphs that summarize laws or rules that the Board wants to reinforce in the minds of licensees. Each paragraph would have a place for the licensee to initial. At the end of the letter the licensee would place their full signature (and date) that they have read, and understand, all of the changes above. Receipt of the signed letter could be required of all licensees.

Each paragraph could contain links and references that the licensee could make use of to better understand the law or rule in question. As opposed to SB 1085 this Information Letter would:

• Accomplish the same goals of SB 1085
• Be much easier to administer
• Be much cheaper to administer

Please circulate this alternative idea to all appropriate parties."

I like Lee's idea as well.