California Surveyors Forums

a little obscure...
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/about_us/rulemaking.shtml

Citation Program... some hidden issues with that one.

RE: Amend 16 CCR § 472.2 and § 3062.2
Date of service vs Date of issue of a citation effectively reduces the time needed to respond. It is quite possible that the 30 days after ‘The date of issuance’ could run without the accused being actually notified of the charges... no ability to make a timely appeal.
Bad change.
I know it is convenient for BPELSG staff to key things to the date that they write things, but using the date of service is essential... Huge Difference!!!

I did not review the proposed changes to Corner Records

I have to agree with Peter. Being as the language remains unchanged in that the citations are to be served (personally or by certified mail), said date of service should be when the tolling period for appeal begins.

I notice that the reason given is the Board's claim that "date of service is ambiguous". I would think that the date of certified mail receipt or date of personal serving would be absolute. I am unclear what would be ambiguous about that.

I would like to know what precipitated this. More and more of these proposed rules and changes such as the new testing question for licensing pose a number of problems, all of which crates hardship for practitioners by making them susceptible to prosecution and vulnerable to fines and loss of their license.

Is the board doing anything to protect the practice of land surveying or are they more interested in creating enforcement cases.

Who is protecting encroachment into the practice of land surveying?

mpallamary wrote:I would like to know what precipitated this. More and more of these proposed rules and changes such as the new testing question for licensing pose a number of problems, all of which crates hardship for practitioners by making them susceptible to prosecution and vulnerable to fines and loss of their license.

Is the board doing anything to protect the practice of land surveying or are they more interested in creating enforcement cases.

Who is protecting encroachment into the practice of land surveying?

those are some good questions Mike, but to get back on topic: Initial Statement of Reasons>>> http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/about_us/472_473_isr.pdf

=====****======
side note, we can all be thankful that this one got dropped, it sounded like a witch hunt to me
"The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists (Board) has decided not to proceed with its rulemaking action described in the Notice published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on May 23, 2014 (Register 2014, No. Z-2014-0513-08), regarding the Substantial Relationship Criteria regulations (Title 16, California Code of Regulations Sections 416 and 3060)."

I agree with what's been posted here so far. Some of the changes are really non-substantial, but the change from "data of service" to "date of issuance" can only serve to shorten the time the licensee has to respond if there is any difference between the two dates, and those dates could easily be manipulated to the detriment of the respondent should someone at BPELSG decide to do so.

I'm certain that it was the legislature's intent in corresponding statute to give the respondent a full 30 days to respond, not 30 days less the time between when the Executive Officer signs a citation and the date that a service receipt shows it to have been delivered.

Thank you Evan for your thoughts and observations. They are invaluable!

Peter Ehlert,

You're right to be concerned. It is important to become a part of the process by either writing or testifying, preferable both, during the public comment period. Be forewarned, your comments will likely fall on deaf ears - there is certain smugness which currently permeates the process. Do not let this discourage you or others from participation. I speak from experience.

The reference to proposed Board Rule 416 and 3060 went through several votes to approve - without the slightest balk. I had written a coherent objection which was ignored. I testified, ignored. Finally, at the last and final step, I wrote another objection letter which a board member, Colby King, took the time to read and consider. See the attached correspondence. Note the letter date of January 2, 2014 was really January 02, 2015.

Besides wasting my time, the most discouraging part was the board staff has an attorney (s) available and yet, even after reading my letters, they plodded on. Simply ridiculous. Equally interesting was after Colby King stated that he had read my papers and agreed with my analysis the board voted to halt the language - the same board that had approved it on several occasions. There was no new information presented in my second letter that was not in my first letter. If you have an occasion to attend a board meeting please take a minute to thank Colby King for, rightfully, killing that proposed regulation by leading the vote to oppose.

Surprisingly, I took some heat from a few of the CLSA Directors for opposing the language. That is a story for another day.

It is in everyone's best interest to monitor the board and the board staff closely. It is important to differentiate between the "board" which references the appointed members and the board staff which are state employees. There is a difference. Most often when folks refer to the "board" they are actually referencing the board staff i.e. Ric Moore, Nancy Eissler, Tiffany Criswell et al

Best,

DWoolley

If not for Dave's perseverance on the proposed changes to BR 416, it would have passed. Thanks for your efforts Dave.

Of course there are a few who care. There always is.

But, maybe not in the way many might think.

Interesting but disappointingly obvious situation –
The BoR no longer understands the purpose for regulating the work of professional land surveyors – and the land surveyors no longer understand the purpose of being a profession and having a BoR. Yes, it's almost that simple. And the attempt to differentiate between Board and Board Staff is a tiny bit understood, but it is lame and almost meaningless.

Good luck to the many of you who are not yet retired You missed the profession at the pinnacle (a few decades ago) and it's not going back up there because there are now so many tugging in many different directions. It's a me, me, me, I, I, I, culture. That's evident from some of these posts and other writings. And don't blame the present situation on all your elders. Some tried to warn.

Also – Are we now saying “protect the public” without having anywhere near a common idea of what that means. Surveyors now rarely try to protect the public or each other. They are often more like cannibals. Especially on the private / public issues.

Should a truly professional land surveying practitioner need to be protected? Protected in what way? Your survey shows what your client wants it to show – and you should be protected? Who is doing the survey? Client or surveyor? Are we surveyors, lawyers, or politicians? (I know, some would like to think of themselves as all, but –– )

More than enough said and likely very little of it understood.

It's not uncommon for those "certified" letters to be written on a Friday and postmarked (not always postmarked) the following wed or thursday thereby receiving it over a week after it was dated.
It also appears govt agencies can send a letter regular mail, no signing required on either end, with a letter inside stating "this is an official Certified letter". Whether it is delivered or not is the recipients issue not the senders.

I appreciate the comments. The is kinda a small thing but it could bite any one of us. I would like to pursue it.

on their Facebook page I got this response: Please contact Nancy Eissler at 866 780-5370
... that is the main public line and I Hate using the phone, my hearing is not so good and I often can not get a clear connection.
Is she a person in decision making capacity or a clerk?
For me the US mail is very slow and far from inexpensive... I prefer email.

does anybody have a recommendation on a proper way to make contact? and who to contact?
I considered using this facility: https://www.dca.ca.gov/webapps/complain ... plaint.php
that seems to be the catch all for all comments and complaints... but I don't want to abuse the system.

Thanks, Peter in Baja

Peter, the contact info - including email - of the individual taking comments is given at the bottom of the attached rulemaking notice:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/about_us/472_473_notice.pdf

William Magee wrote:Peter, the contact info - including email - of the individual taking comments is given at the bottom of the attached rulemaking notice:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/about_us/472_473_notice.pdf

thanks, I missed that

Peter, I care & the State level CLSA BoD should care on our behalf. Thanks for posting these proposed BPELSG Rule making actions. I suggest that State Level CLSA BoD be the "interested party" wishing for a hearing by the Board** before April 11th, 2016. CLSA as a group is the only one with enough clout to get Board** attention on some of these back door dealings like this and SB1085. Others that care such as MP, Evan, Dave W and others just can't protect the future of our profession by themselves. **As Dave W says it is everyone's (CLSA) best interest to monitor the Board**, The Board Members we address should be the appointed members, who then should direct the State employed Board staff on how to protect the public (which includes us). Keep up the Good Work and keep us posted.

Thanks Paul
are there any State Level CLSA BoD members here that can move into action?
there are only 9 calendar days left to go.

Any one person can request a hearing. I think as many people as possible should oppose and request one.

All:

There's a lot going on regarding this issue. Believe me, it has not been silent on the channels I've been tuned to. As soon as we have something to report, we will. I promise.

Regards! Hoist a cold Pacifico for me tonight as the sun goes down, Peter. Let me know if there's a green flash on the horizon.

that is clear as mud my fiend.

summary: CLSA supports/instigated this rule change, or maybe not. We may never know.

ok, I will drop it.

“There is nothing more enjoyable than being a member of an enlightened group of people that meets in complete darkness in complete secrecy. I have no idea why the other members joined, when they joined, how they joined, or if, in fact, there are any other members.”

― Jarod Kintz, This Book is Not FOR SALE

I just received notice of a Leg Comm conference call (I'm assuming this and probably review of pending legislation are the subject of the meeting) and we are finding dates and times that fit our schedules (10-15 members of the committee). When there's a position to report it will be reported. No one (that I know of) is hiding anything and PLEASE stop insinuating that we are doing so.

With legislation and other items the Leg Comm is reviewing there is no official CLSA position on anything until the Board of Directors approves the recommendations of the committee.

Hi Ryan,

I hope all is well. Perhaps a better way to express the concerns of many is, giving the importance of this potential rule change, it would seem preferable that any discussions relative to this topic be circulated as quickly as possible and to a broad an audience as possible. By doing so, any committee discussions can have the benefit of of a broad base of input. Based upon Peter's comments, there is very little time to make a presentation.

As to testifying or appearing, many of us do not have the luxury of time or resources to do such a thing. It is also possible the committee may not have enough time or resources to discuss this topic. As soon as this issue came up, a broad email should have been disseminated to the entire association so that everyone is aware of what is going on. That way, there can be a broad discussion and the community can be informed. Otherwise, what happens is folks are told that they "are too late" and everyone wakes up and asks "what just happened?"

I have been involved in many organizations including CLSA over some 40 years and it has always been my practice and policy to get the word out fast and far. As soon as an important topic came up, I let everyone know. I trust that my observations make sense. I also trust Peter's concerns are of merit.

No committee should ever embargo information; they answer to the members as does the Executive Board. It should be distributed immediately.

Many thanks for your time and efforts. I appreciate all of your hard work!

Whenever discussions about proposed legislation or rulemaking proposals like this occur on this forum, members of Leg Comm do take notice and the various concerns are discussed.

However, it seems that no matter how the CLSA and its committees conduct business, somebody is ready to hop up on a box and say it's wrong in some fundamental way.

If the committees keep an eye on issues under their purview and address them without taking the pulse of the full membership, then they are engaging in some sort of elitist conspiracy in dark smoky rooms and keeping everyone else in the dark.

If they were to broadcast an alert on every piece of proposed legislation, every rulemaking proposal, and every other matter they are tasked with looking into prior to providing a recommended course of action to the Board of Directors, then the cries would be "Why can't they handle these things we've entrusted them with on their own? Do they have to bug us with every matter that hits their in-box?"

I have never known the Leg Comm to refuse to allow an interested member from sitting in on a meeting to observe or offer comment. We are asked not to disclose specific recommendations until after the BoD has had the opportunity to act on them, or to discuss details of matters that are at interim states and are not yet to the point of being actual proposals as some may confuse discussion points brought up by individuals as being part of an actual proposal.

Any member can forward an idea for a legislative proposal to the Leg Comm to consider and perhaps turn into an actual proposal that CLSA can take to a legislator to sponsor. Any member is also free, and at least on my part, encouraged to provide comment to the Leg Comm on any legislative or rulemaking matter that they are aware of that has a potential effect on the practice of surveying and of which they have some specific concern. If you were to contact the chairman with at least a few days lead time, you would probably be welcome to sit in as we discuss the matter related to your concern and you'd likely get a few minutes to state your concern. For more than a few minutes, you'd need to contact him earlier in order for room on the agenda to be planned for.

I've been on the Leg Comm for about 10 years now. Although there are sensitive matters that we often deal with, there are no big secrets. You can either trust that there are members discussing matters from various perspectives, all trying to do what's best for our profession and the public, and that we are carefully considering all matters with the best interests of the members in mind, or not. But if you don't trust the members of the committee, then you can ask to sit in when you are aware of a particular issue of concern to you, or just to observe how the meetings are run. And you can always send in your views by letter or email.

Or, I suppose, if you'd rather complain from a standpoint of paranoia and a desire to foment unrest, you can ignore any and all opportunities for direct participation and input and just post comments online that implies that all of the committees are comprised of some unknown and faceless elite few whose primary interest is to keep the general membership uninformed of any important matters. (@where's that sarcasm font when I need it?/@)

Thanks! As you know, I was on the legislative committee for many years and I spent hundreds of hours working on a large number of of legislative matters. I flew to Sacramento to lobby on behalf of CLSA and spent a lot of time lobbying local legislatures. I had some important members speak at local meetings. It was all very rewarding.

Under the current paradigm, members cannot readily monitor the committee's activities. The membership should be able to peek into the workings of the committee via the forum; it would be nice to see what is going on. It is hard to participate when it costs money to fly to, say Oakland for every meeting.

It is not an issue of trust. The issue is the manner in which the association has evolved over the years, that is all.

I applaud everyone who volunteers and does this hard work!

E_Page wrote:Whenever discussions about proposed legislation or rulemaking proposals like this occur on this forum, members of Leg Comm do take notice and the various concerns are discussed.

However, it seems that no matter how the CLSA and its committees conduct business, somebody is ready to hop up on a box and say it's wrong in some fundamental way.

If the committees keep an eye on issues under their purview and address them without taking the pulse of the full membership, then they are engaging in some sort of elitist conspiracy in dark smoky rooms and keeping everyone else in the dark.

If they were to broadcast an alert on every piece of proposed legislation, every rulemaking proposal, and every other matter they are tasked with looking into prior to providing a recommended course of action to the Board of Directors, then the cries would be "Why can't they handle these things we've entrusted them with on their own? Do they have to bug us with every matter that hits their in-box?"

I have never known the Leg Comm to refuse to allow an interested member from sitting in on a meeting to observe or offer comment. We are asked not to disclose specific recommendations until after the BoD has had the opportunity to act on them, or to discuss details of matters that are at interim states and are not yet to the point of being actual proposals as some may confuse discussion points brought up by individuals as being part of an actual proposal.

Any member can forward an idea for a legislative proposal to the Leg Comm to consider and perhaps turn into an actual proposal that CLSA can take to a legislator to sponsor. Any member is also free, and at least on my part, encouraged to provide comment to the Leg Comm on any legislative or rulemaking matter that they are aware of that has a potential effect on the practice of surveying and of which they have some specific concern. If you were to contact the chairman with at least a few days lead time, you would probably be welcome to sit in as we discuss the matter related to your concern and you'd likely get a few minutes to state your concern. For more than a few minutes, you'd need to contact him earlier in order for room on the agenda to be planned for.

I've been on the Leg Comm for about 10 years now. Although there are sensitive matters that we often deal with, there are no big secrets. You can either trust that there are members discussing matters from various perspectives, all trying to do what's best for our profession and the public, and that we are carefully considering all matters with the best interests of the members in mind, or not. But if you don't trust the members of the committee, then you can ask to sit in when you are aware of a particular issue of concern to you, or just to observe how the meetings are run. And you can always send in your views by letter or email.

Or, I suppose, if you'd rather complain from a standpoint of paranoia and a desire to foment unrest, you can ignore any and all opportunities for direct participation and input and just post comments online that implies that all of the committees are comprised of some unknown and faceless elite few whose primary interest is to keep the general membership uninformed of any important matters. (@where's that sarcasm font when I need it?/@)

Thanks Evan, I appreciate your response.

dead issue?