A sizeable source of our revenue stream is derived from testifying in court cases brought to resolve boundary disputes. If ever there was any doubt of the need for continuing education, all you need do is request copies of the testimony of the surveyors involved in some of the cases in which I have testified. I am appalled at the apparent lack of knowledge of some surveyors concerning case law.

 

Some of my concerns with the proposed legislation have been delineated by others on this forum. There is no proviso for  mandatory continuing education for specific classes (i.e. ethics, case law, rules and regulations). I believe this is a serious short coming. It is apparent to me that the “board” should mandate a specific amount of time to be spent in predefined areas. The onus for approval is placed upon the provider, and the regulatory staff has already stated that review and approval, of the proposed classes, will be onerous and lengthy. How is a regulant to know a class he chooses to participate in will be approved by the time he is in need of the hours prior to renewal?  Suppose a hardware or software vendor offers a course, which I believe will be of benefit to me, and the vendor chooses not to apply for approval? Am I to be penalized for taking a course that will aide me in disseminating the information I receive from say a GPS receiver, and because the vendors class is in Denver Colorado the vendor chooses not to apply for approval in Virginia?

 

There are software vendors, i.e. AutoCad©, who update their software annually. If I decide to take a class concerning such software; when the software update is instituted in the following year and I attend another class concerning this software, I will not receive credit for taking the second class under the regulations as written.

 

The inability to “carry over” excess hours from one regulatory period to another is ludicrous, to me. North Carolina, in which I also practice Land Surveying, allows “carry over” up to a limit.

 

Since Professional Engineers are allowed to perform that Land Surveying that is incidental to the engineering project; I believe Professional Engineers should also be required to attend continuing education for Land Surveyors. Lest you think this is ludicrous the City of Suffolk requires all “as-builts” to be tied geodetically to the cities’ geodetic network, and the “as-built” plans be stamped by a Professional Engineer only (no Land Surveyors allowed). Now I am not sure, but I would be willing to wager there are not many Professional Engineers well versed in Geodetic Surveying.