California Surveyors Forums

I would like to pose a simple question.

What is the purpose of CLSA? What is our mission?

According to the organization:

The goals of the California Land Surveyors Association are to advance the sciences and technologies within the surveying profession, increase awareness of the surveying profession, promote cooperation between the public and private sectors, establish channels of communication with other organizations, advance the protection of public welfare relative to surveying and mapping issues, encourage ethical and professional behavior, monitor and shape national, state and local laws and regulations, foster educational opportunities and to honor persons for service to the public, the surveying profession, and the Association.

Is this still current?

Other than the standard goals, when have we done the following?

encourage ethical and professional behavior

monitor and shape national, state and local laws and regulation

All of this debate about accuracy standards is a time to pause.

What are your thoughts?

Let us split this into individual concepts, and see what they actually mean and look like when put into action.

advance the sciences and technologies within the surveying profession:
Which specific sciences and technologies? Where re we lacking and falling behind?

increase awareness of the surveying profession
Where and to whom? How? Why?

promote cooperation between the public and private sectors
Where do we have gaps?

establish channels of communication with other organizations
I can't say I am picturing this one well. We should have liaisons in many professional organizations. ASCE, AIA, APWA, on the technical side. Others on the business side of things.

advance the protection of public welfare relative to surveying and mapping issues
Where do we have gaps?

encourage ethical and professional behavior
Oh, my favorite. This warrants a lot more discussion. What does a professional surveyor look like? I don't mean someone registered, but ideals we should aspire to. There is a lot more to it than technical prowess.

monitor and shape national, state and local laws and regulations
We seem to be fairly active here. Where are the gaps?

A good start.

Well, add your thoughts to it!
I know you have a lot to say on the subject and I know you can write, unless someone hijacked Mike Pallamary's account.
while I have been a surveyor in OC for last 30 years, I am not one of the CLSA officers (yet), so I have a lot more questions than answers.

Does CLSA have a business plan? At the minimum general business plan framework is a good guide for one's thinking when contemplating these kinds of things.

I noticed when professionalism comes up, we have a few people who have latched on to several symptoms and are trying to legislate them out of existence, and not seeing, or not talking about the rest of the elephant in the room. I recognize it is a much harder and lengthier process to extract the elephant out of the CLSA meeting rooms as opposed to putting couple Band-Aids on it and tabling the discussion.

You are quite observant. I have said for years that the only way for the association to effectuate change is to work on it. I would like to see us hold a real conference where we discuss these matters. There is only so much you can talk about LIDAR and subdividing sections of land.

What about a REAL conference where all of these topics are discussed?

mpallamary wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:04 am ..
What about a REAL conference where all of these topics are discussed?

I think you'd get about five people to show up.

What is the elephant in the room?

Edward M Reading wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:13 pm

mpallamary wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:04 am ..
What about a REAL conference where all of these topics are discussed?

I think you'd get about five people to show up.

Edward, that in itself is a symptom.
Here is what I see - we are not demanding enough of ourselves on a professional level. Like I said, by that I don't mean technical abilities. I mean the overall quality of an individual. I know several people are pushing for college degrees, and to a degree (corny pun intended) I agree. People in college tend to get exposed to a wider level of general education as opposed to what they might learn in trade programs. This doesn't mean that trade programs are a bad thing, they are great at getting people functional with specific tasks in an occupation. What happens in a long run is that continued education is not encouraged.

I don't mean continued education by having to get certain number of credits per year to keep your certification current. This is a last ditch effort, again a band aid measure to be a police dog watching the tail end of things. Surveyors need to be encouraged to grow more, by their bosses, by companies they work for, by their outside mentors, by professional organizations...

Sure, it's great to have people who are concerned about minimum standards. We have people who say they want to rise the level of professionalism by clobbering on and insulting the weakest in the profession. It makes me cringe, and it makes it look like we are still in 1950's type of management style (and level of emotional intelligence). "Don't be lazy, don't be stupid, what kind of surveyor are you" and similar archaic confrontational phraseology which makes me cringe. While it may be loud and opinionated, this is not leading. This is the kind of an approach where, if I am faced with is is likely to earn someone a smack up side the forehead for being bullheaded and just all around negative and oversimplifying things.

Anyhow, enough about the lowest element, there will always be those who are barely making the minimum, this is never going to go away, in any profession. Beating up on the weakest element doesn't show strength. It is the easy part - spotting outliers. We need to focus on learning how to be better leaders, in middle and top levels.

Those of (us) who want to be leaders need to learn how to inspire people into investing into themselves and move up. This does take a lot more effort than squinting and spotting outliers. It takes a more systematic approach.

Like you said, maybe five people would show up for the discussion. I do agree with you that this is the reality. Why are we so accepting of this? In surveying, there is very little peer pressure and competition to rise to higher levels of business education, management education (and many other things - I need a cheat sheet what they all are because I am still learning myself and right now I am shooting my thoughts from the hip).

I see us joking in the other thread how we are similar to prostitution in 'moving up purely through the trades'. It's is really kind of sad. It makes it look like the collective self esteem of the profession is low. This could be funny if there was a strong other side to balance off this statement. This collective low self-image of mid stream of our professionals is not the fault of low performers and outliers. This is a leadership shortcoming.

I don't know how to fix it or improve it. Best of part of writing business plan is not having the business plan in hand. Best part is the discovery process one goes through when asking many difficult questions, and searching for answers. Another thing I like about business plans (and similar efforts) is that they are ongoing efforts. Ongoing growth, business plans are meant to be evaluated and re-evaluated as new evidence turns up, or as we gain clarity on issues or as market and business conditions change.

When I start talking about things like this, you know how many surveyors follow with, oh I know what you mean, or, oh I had a business class, or I read this or that book and I wonder how this can be applied to surveying.
***crickets*** ***crickets*** ***crickets*** ***crickets***

So, I tell myself, people probably think, well who is she to want to discuss this in the first place... but I see the same Crickets, for example in this thread so far when Mike has raised the same question.

On the other hand, it is not me. I had many business related conversations with professionals outside of surveying, and the conversation flows, whether they are listening to what I am saying or they are explaining things to me, etc...

LS_8750 wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:35 pm What is the elephant in the room?

I'd like to hear what it is that you see, or don't see, or would like to see?

mpallamary wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:04 am You are quite observant. I have said for years that the only way for the association to effectuate change is to work on it. I would like to see us hold a real conference where we discuss these matters. There is only so much you can talk about LIDAR and subdividing sections of land.

What about a REAL conference where all of these topics are discussed?

Conferences are difficult, if you mean face to face meetings.
First, anyone that is younger or more 'out of the box' thinking has to penetrate through the levels of establishment which is willing to pay money and time to attend a conference. This means that in large numbers they are already conditioned to perpetuate and safeguard the establishment. If you keep polling the same, let's say demographic, you will continue getting same results.

Now that we have many other means of communication, we need to take advantage of them.

This thread, and the accuracy statement thread, are indicative of the reasons why I have not been a CLSA member for over 40 years. The dissention is untenable. I have supported and contributed to the profession in many ways, including presenting at CLSA conferences and being a ghost editor for Cal Surveyor when John Wilusz was the award winning editor. I just won't do it as a CLSA member.

The elephant in the room? Our inability to recruit quality people to our profession. Having a degree of some kind may help, but having a degree in surveying, well, I am not so sure? Many of the least receptive surveyors I have ever met touted their four year ABET accredited degree as why they had nothing to learn from me. Fine, I have no time or desire to invest in a know-it-all. I would rather invest my 45 years of knowledge and experience into a receptive "lump of clay", as that is how I started my career. I have seen many of them enter the profession and do great things.

I agree that more emphasis needs to be placed on obtaining an LSIT. There are countless, highly productive party chiefs in the industry (not the profession) who have no desire to pursue a license, nor are they encouraged to do so by their employers, because they make them money. I am fortunate to work for an agency that requires an LSIT to be honored to hold the title of "surveyor" and provides financial incentive to do so. We bring employees in at the lowest technician level and provide a path to a career and profession. Many obtain their LSIT within a couple of years and they are on their way. We "grow our own", but it still isn't enough to address the supply and demand problem.

We can't continue to do new things in old ways. UAS, BIM, SUE, AMG, GIS (oops, missed that boat), and others are the keys to our survival. Boundary and geodetic control aren't enough. But, if we can't fill the shoes behind us, something will fill the void. Guaranteed.

Check the ego at the door, folks.

SPMPLS wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:46 pm This thread, and the accuracy statement thread, are indicative of the reasons [snipped for brevity] Check the ego at the door, folks.

I think you hit that elephant right on the head.

Knowledge is knowledge no matter how attained. College degree vs. trade school is a false dilemma. They are two different products, and both have their positives and negatives.

How do we get a more well rounded surveyor?

Dissention... yes, well, saying no is usually the easy way out. Saying yes requires investment, more open mindedness, more security. With the prevalent low self esteem among surveyors in general, I am not surprised majority is guarded. Change is difficult, takes a lot of energy, and one needs to feel secure enough to take the step into the uncertain. If someone feels insecure in one way or anther, the guard will go up.

How do we cut down on the dissention? How do leaders assure those who are protesting that their interests are being considered? Blame for dissention is not necessarily on the shoulder of dissenters (except for a small handful of chronic complainers). Dissention usually means something went wrong with the leadership. It could very well be leadership from some years past that created problems and would that ended up getting neglected moving forward.
How does one start healing this? I know healing is a bit of a cliché expression. The point of healing is not to coddle the dissenters, the point is to recognize the failures and start fixing them. Healing tends to be the result.

Here is a question for everyone - where can *I* make the change. Start not with 'whom can I change', but where can *I* change the person staring me in the mirror; to get more favorable results.

Good discussion folks.

CBarrett wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 7:41 pm ...
How do we get a more well rounded surveyor? ...

I would submit that the mentor-only paradigm that we currently have in this state is the way to have the least well-rounded surveyor.

Edward M Reading wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:01 pm

CBarrett wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 7:41 pm ...
How do we get a more well rounded surveyor? ...

I would submit that the mentor-only paradigm that we currently have in this state is the way to have the least well-rounded surveyor.

This has been a long standing assertion by a significant group of members.
I am sort of tired of it. This is not because it may or may not be wrong, but because this is where our thinking stops. We're just pointing out one of tbe obvious conditions.

The thought nees to be analyzed an expanded.

So mentoring often fails to produce a more rounded experience.

How do we improve that?
We can go tbe easy route and push for banning the mentorship. (Current status which is not getting us anywhere)

We could also quit pointing fingers and get more invested in higher quality mentoring.

Mentoring is not going to go away. Once an individual is out of school, which I had said gives them basic startup skills to get a job. First 4 years. Remaining 40 years of one's career learning comes from, in large part from mentoring.

Right now, I am fortunate enough to be working in a company which has invested more than the usual amount of effort into employee growth and mentor/mentee relationships. What has been a small epiphany for some, and in part myself is that mentors too get equipped with learning material, guidance, structure and a level of accountability.

In surveying at large, in my 35 years in business, mentor structure and guidance and accountability with respect to mentoring is something I almost never heard of. There is a small amount of accountability present in fact that when you sign off on someone's experience, you may come under the scrutiny of the board if it turns out to be problematic.

I know, the knee jerk reaction is to do away with mentoring, which assumes only the initial few years of someone's business life... and we are hoping this will produce a better quality professional and we continue to neglect the remaining 40 years.

I am developing this thought as I am writing it, and I am coming to a point where I have to ask myself, how is this even a realistic thought. I am being slightly naive thinking that few years of school which we recieve during time of our lives where most of us are not mature enough to even fully appreciate it is going to .... well, fill in the blanks. We havent formulated yet what a well rounded professional surveyor is yet.

I have some ideas of what a well rounded surveyor may be, but they are still vague. Not because they are behind what the industry at large thinks. They are well aligned with badge industry wide statements. I even have a benefit of having come from a family of many well educated professionals (in our industry and outside). This doesn't mean I have the clarity or the know how to produce one.

I too can say, hey, I have 35 years of experience, and education too, and have worked for prominent companies... blag blah... and get wrapped up into my own status management.

Reality is, teaching, mentoring, questions of professionalism, let's throw in a somewhat closely related ethics and business management. These are different disciplines.

As I am writing this I've already fallen into the thinking of, ok, schools have it all organized etc... and have already forgotten that I just said - What happens during the other 40 years of one's career. After you are taught the entry level skills?

Well said! Please continue. Well articulated.

General thoughts on improving the profession that CLSA could be involved with:

1.) Mandatory Professional Development (Continuing Education),
2.) A more extensive "Code of Conduct" than Board Rule 476,
3.) After a certain number of years (10?) require a test to maintain your license,
4.) A clear definition of professional ethics for LSs,
5.) Clear definitions of Negligence and Incompetence,
6.) Establish an outreach program for Grade School students, and
7.) Encourage the Board of Registration to take more decisive disciplinary actions.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head on a Saturday morning.

2 cents

I believe Caltrans is the best employment model. Thirty years ago, it was determined the Caltrans party chiefs were required to be licensed (minimally competent). If my memory is correct, they gave their existing unlicensed employees five years to get licensed or be demoted. The profession would be far worse off today if this license mandate was not put into place.

One way test the fidelity of a company’s existing “mentoring program” is to count the number of licensees, secondarily, the LSITs as a ratio to the unlicensed people in the firm. A firm that has been in business for more than five years and has a ratio greater than 4:1, unlicensed staff to licensed staff, does not have a mentoring program. Clearly, their business model is not focused on professional competency.

I firmly believe every public agency that contracts for land surveying services and does not demand licensed staff, especially Caltrans, is doing a professional disservice to the public. The other public agencies require an LSIT in their organization to be a party chief. These public agencies are struggling to hire staff that meet the MQs and yet, they award meaty contracts to firms that do not improve their hiring pool. These agencies must require an LSIT minimum, ideally, a PLS, qualification to qualify for a public agency contract. If I was a licensed party chief working for a private firm on a Caltrans project I would WAY rather work for Caltrans than as a Caltrans contractor. The agencies reward these firms that clearly place zero standards on their staff.

Bottom line, you want private firms to mentor staff in a meaningful way? Incentivize these firms by throwing away any SOQs that present unlicensed (PLS or LSIT) field crews and that exceed 2:1 ratios in the office. Anything less is lip service.

Lastly, the private professional community needs to evaluate their hiring standards. The profession is no longer for those with strong backs and weak minds. I recommend the OC CLSA Ten Minute Surveyor, Episode 9, Recruiting an Educated Class for Professional Survival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcc7snIwz3A

DWoolley

Great stuff guys!

This all sounds like Deja Vu all over again......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE

For the uninitiated, Caltrans solicitations for contract land surveyors’ states under the minimum qualifications for “Party Chiefs”:

a. “A Professional Land Surveyor licensed in the State of California and be in good standing with the BPELSG.

b. A pre-January 1, 1982 Registered Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and be in good standing with the BPELSG.

c. An experienced surveyor/union-certified party chief/journeyman with a documented minimum of five years of field surveying experience who serves as chief under the direction and supervision of a person who is a Professional Land Surveyor or pre-January 1, 1982, Registered Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and be in good standing with the BPELSG….”

Wait, what?! One of these things is not like the other. Know this, most union contracts prohibit the Professional Land Surveyor “providing direction and supervision” from working on a crew in the field. How is that direction?

A licensed land surveyor is required to provide a documented six years experience in both the field and office and pass a test and yet, five years and no LSIT is the equivalent? Please, you're embarrassing yourself.

Understand the “journeyman” surveyor has taken and passed five classes – two of which are the most basic of basic classes. Also, understand that the “union-certified party chief” very likely did not take the additional handful of courses to become “certified”. No, they are likely to be self-certified by having the employer sign off on a given number of hours of work. Self-certifications include; Land and Boundary, Topo/Hydro, Heavy Construction, Light Construction and GPS. One certification and you are on a Caltrans project.

Point of fact, Operating Engineers states their field survey people are incapable of thought and decision making, essentially dullards, (not an exaggeration) and are not "professionals or even sub-professionals". This is in writing from OE to the US Department of Labor. Proof positive this contracted firm fielding "journeyman" is not the "most qualified firm" and there is certainly no education or mentoring program in place at that firm. Why have standards or mentoring in place if a private firm can get paid to field folks with no credentials? It is a contractual milk run.

Again, why are there two wildly different qualification standards for Party Chief? Also, equally curious, how do these private firms, aware of these 30 year old minimum requirements, allow folks to linger about their firms and not be on a path to licensure after 5, 10, 15 years. Sorta makes the conversation about "mentoring" appear nonsensical.

Caltrans is currently in need of licensed qualified field staff - I counted 18 vacancies for Transportation Surveyor today. None of the “certified” folks being paid by Caltrans under a contract can apply for the same job they have been doing under that contract. The Caltran’s low contracting standards are working against their own best interest. Why would Caltrans pay a company for staff that could not meet the MQs for the same job in-house and have no qualified applicants apply for the posted vacancies? Ridiculous on its face.

The other public agencies, most of which rightfully require an LSIT of their in-house staff to be a party chief, have staff vacancies and must demand the same LSIT minimum qualification from their contract surveyors.

Caltrans has been a professional thought leader and standard bearer for the entire duration of my career. I am not sure how this low double standard in their contracting process came into being – however, by eliminating “c” above their hiring issues diminish and the private industry will initiate real mentorship programs. I can guarantee private companies wanting to work for Caltrans would hold classes every week to get their folks licensed. It is not unreasonable to demand contractors, getting paid handsomely, meet the minimum competency testing required by public agency employees.

No credential, no work.

DWoolley

This topic has been flogged and regurgitated for many years.

Let us go to the next step.

How do you propose to compel Caltrans and the union to make these changes?

CBarrett wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:28 pm This topic has been flogged and regurgitated for many years.

Let us go to the next step.

How do you propose to compel Caltrans and the union to make these changes?

Interesting, I do not recall the topic being "flogged and regurgitated for many years".

We are seeing several agencies re-evaluate their Request for Qualifications. One local agency requires a licensed party chief and two others now demand an LSIT.

CLSA has a committee specifically dedicated to evaluate RFQs and offer language to agencies looking to upgrade their minimum qualifications. I expect big things out of this committee in 2022. The agencies, through LCSO, has been very receptive to the idea.

The union will only respond if the employers demand it. The union says, although not true, the following:

“No State Licensure or Certification for Field Surveyors

States and municipalities do not require that field surveyors hold a license or certification. By contrast, as discussed below, all states require licensing of office surveyors.

The fact that the job of office surveyor requires licensure and the job of field surveyor does not even require certification demonstrates a vast difference in levels of skill, knowledge, and responsibility involved. The WHD [Wage and Hour Division] should view the absence of licensure or certification requirement as a key factor in determining that work that is not “mental”, as the term is used in 29 C.F.R. 5.2(m).”

Apparently, according to the union, the union field surveyors have a low mental capacity. I would be hard pressed to pay someone to tell me I am "not mental", a dullard. The letter actually says far worse things about land surveyors. In my experience, I didn't really see my signatory brethren as dullards. I suppose the union knows there folks better than I do and that might explain to the low rate of licensure among their members.

In the event there was a motivation to upgrade the apprenticeship program there is a Ten Minute Surveyor video discussing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7T1KTi4Vg0

CLSA is doing a good job by having the committee to work with agencies wanting to upgrade their RFQs, offering classes for licensure and having public surveyors in leadership positions.

DWoolley

I graduated from the union program back in 1979 and it was a great program. Maybe, as a condition of licensure, applicants could be required to attend certain programs. There is too much fraud in the existing system. I have seen too many instances of companies falsifying applicants' experience so that they can fill an employment quota.

Years ago, I hired a wonderful surveyor who is now a principal in a very large company. I tested him out by having him survey a rugged piece of land using tapes and a transit. I told him I would hire him if we got at least a 1/20,000 closure! We got a lot better than that! We used to evaluate surveyors by their ability to measure land. Not anymore! Everyone measures.