Dear Senator Yee:
I have read the response provided to you by the Executive Director of the State Board of Technical Registration. I believe it is my obligation as a citizen, taxpayer, and a registrant that is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Technical Registration (BTR) to offer my opinion as to the performance of the BTR. In the overly simplified and generalized response provided to you; I would like to provide some detail. Specific to Factor #3: In 2009 the Arizona Professional Land Surveyors Association presented to the BTR’s Legislation and Rules Committee a plan for a Continuing Education program for the surveying community. For your edification, to become a Registered Land Surveyor in the State of Arizona there is no education requirement mandated or implied. Unlike the professions of Engineering and Architecture. A group of Surveys brought the question to the BTR to draw attention to the lack of training and educational support in the surveying community; in the attempt to promote a higher level of practice and expertise. In 2013 the question was brought before the BTR after a poll had been taken by 5000 respondents. The executive director was correct in her response to you that there was an overwhelming negative response. However what she has carefully omitted was that the negative responses by majority were from dual registrant engineers. When a careful statistical analysis of the data is done it is clear that the Registered Land Surveyors who responded gave a positive response. This was ignored. Why? Because the engineering community that dominates the BTR membership voted against it. It would have been very easy to apply a Continuing Education Program for the Land Surveyors only. However our multi-disciplinary will not support it.
The surveying community has made several attempts to make the BTR aware of the remedial testing provided to applicants. The lack of a true definition of the core knowledge required to practice land surveying. In addition, there seems to be no interest by the BTR to become proactive in training support and education. They would rather maintain a prejudicial system of responding to complaints. Action to a complaint driven process is a reaction to events in the past. Why is it considered a good effort to punish a professional after the damage has been done. Would it not be better to elevate the level of practice; or create a proactive registration and education process that could potentially mitigate harm to the public. If an agency is charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public then wouldn’t a proactive approach be better than a reaction to harm already done?
Specific to Factor #10: Termination of the Agency….. Can an argument against deregulation be sincerely made by an agency that reacts to complaints instead actively trying to prevent disciplinary action? I do advocate for deregulation. I support the regulation of the surveying profession. However the surveying profession cannot be regulated in the same way the engineers, architects, and other members are. The surveying community’s impact on society is a totally different experience than other technical professions. For instance, if a building falls down; or a bridge fails; engineers and architects can follow a simply yet painful process and fix the damage. When a land surveyor improperly executes a boundary survey and files it with the county recorder; it becomes a stain on that property’s chain of title every day that survey remains in the county’s official records. Corrective surveys can be filed; however the original mistake remains. With only one surveyor member on the BTR our community has not been effective in communicating our position.
Specific to Factor #11: Comparisons with other states: What the BTR carefully omitted was that with regard to the Land Surveying profession; Arizona is one of a handful of states that does NOT have an education requirement for licensure. Arizona is also one of a select few states that does not have a requirement for continuing education. This was data carefully omitted from the survey in Factor #3. Our BTR relies on anecdotal responses as to whether or not education causes complaints to increase or decrease. However a closer look at the agencies like the Department of Real Estate and the Arizona State BAR Association; both of which require continuing professional development; and have to my knowledge reported success since implementing it. The BTR is the only agency to my knowledge that documents the fact that they wish to remain ignorant and are proud to stay that way. Personally I am registered to practice surveying in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. All of those states have mandatory professional development and an education requirement for licensure. You cannot regard yourself as a professional without submitting yourself to professional development and education.
In conclusion; my impression of the BTR and its approach to regulating this profession is the Walmart approach. Provide a large amount of licenses at a lower rate; and then punish those who happen to get complaints filed against them. This is not effective nor is it proactive in protecting the health safety and welfare of the public. What is the level of protection the BTR offers when they show up after a land owner has been damaged by fraudulent practices. I would rather see the BTR prevent fraudulent practice instead of reacting to only the fraudulent practices they are made aware of. This type of action is policing a profession not regulating one.
I pray that my comments to you do not fall upon deaf ears. I am also Cc’ing Melissa Cornelius in hopes that she will distribute this to the BTR members for their contemplation. I have also added colleagues of mine for their edification.
With the kindest regards.
Daniel R. Muth PLS, CFedS
No comments:
Post a Comment