A recent article from the American Society of Civil Engineers’ webpage infrastructurereportcard.org provided numerous examples of an on-going effort across many of these United States to eliminate or severely curtail licensure requirements for many professions, including surveying. Similar efforts have in the recent past had a negative affect on the ability of the boards in some states to protect the public’s interest.
While this issue has been addressed to some extent previously in this column, the current onslaught requires a renewed focus because this topic is not going away any time soon. Those in the surveying profession who think that licensure is important—which had better be all of us—need to be prepared when the effort to delicense rears its head in your state (if it has not already).
In the chapter entitled,“The Drift from Domesticity” in his 1929 book entitled The Thing, Gilbert Keith Chesterton—a prolific writer and thinker of the early 20th century—laid out a principle that has become known as Chesterton’s Fence, viz.:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road.
The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”1
In short, don’t tear things down until you understand why they exist in the first place. This should be the starting point for explaining why licensure of professional surveyors is necessary. Why were we licensed in the first place?
In its short article, ASCE reported on legislative initiatives introduced in Florida, West Virginia, Indiana and Nevada that would bypass or curtail current licensure regulations. Do not think this is too crazy to happen in your state.
I recall about ten years ago when a commission was formed in one state to review licensing laws and recommend which professions should be delicensed. The minutes of one of their meetings recorded one argument as to why engineers (engineers!) should no longer be licensed in that state: There are very few complaints against engineers.2
This is where Chesterton’s fence should come into the conversation. The reason that there are very few complaints against engineers is that they hold a license by virtue of having proven competency by education, experience and exam.
That does not even consider the redress that an aggrieved person can receive from a licensed individual by virtue of the professional liability that attends licensure. No licensure, no professional liability! Seemingly, the attitude of those that push these initiatives is, ‘Oh well, if a faulty design results in the deaths of 7 people, by God, we won’t hire that company again!’
While some of these efforts have been at least partially side-railed, every state surveying society and every professional surveyor needs to understand that the push is not over. There is at least one national organization that has the deregulation of licensed occupations/professions high on its stated list of priorities and it provides legislators model legislation to that effect.
Fortunately, NCEES is on the case as is NSPS. Your state needs to be in the game also. Why is licensure of professional surveyors important? How will the public suffer if they are not? You need a succinct, persuasive argument that answers those questions and that does not take 23 pages to express. It needs to be a brief message that the right persons can deliver effectively and convincingly. The alternative will not be in the public’s best interest whatsoever.
- 1 chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down
- 2 There was an exception in the proposal that would have excluded engineering that involved design of a foundation.