The Task Force on the NCEES Model Law on Surveying
By James R. Plasker, ASPRS Executive Director

Editor's Note: This July 2000 PE&RS article is intended to provide an update to the information published in PE&RS in October, 1998.

The National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES) modified the Model Law on Surveying in 1995 to include the practice of photogrammetry within the definition of surveying. At the same time, the Model Law incorporated a reference to the use of Geographic Information Systems and Land Information Systems (GIS/LIS), when applied to the practice of surveying, as being within the practice as defined in the Model Law.

Registration of Photogrammetrists

The initial reaction of the photogrammetric community to the 1995 action by NCEES was to resist the proposed changes due to the lack of a "grandfather" provision within the Model Law and the need for ease of mobility by the practicing photogrammetrists, among other issues of concern. In early 1997, five organizations agreed to participate in a task force to advise NCEES on further modifications to streamline the Model Law and to address these concerns. The organizations comprising the original task force included the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS).

While member organizations in the task force also had concerns with the GIS/LIS language in the Model Law, the first priority of the task force was to address the issues related to photogrammetric practice. The task force also recognized that additional organizations would need to be consulted to fully address the GIS-related issues. The task force concluded its early efforts in late 1997 with a report that made a series of recommendations. That report is available on the web site.

Several of the original recommendations have already been adopted by NCEES during their 1998 and 1999 annual meetings. The website also contains copies of the 1995 Model Law and other related material addressing subsequent changes to the Model Law, including the latest (1999) version.

Current Task Force Discussions on GIS Practice

Once the task force completed the initial review of issues of concern to the photogrammetric community, the decision was made to expand the task force and to engage the GIS community in addressing perceived shortfalls in the model law affecting GIS practitioners. In spring 1999 the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), and the University Consortium on Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) were invited to participate in an expanded task force. As of spring 2000, URISA and NSGIC have identified representatives and the expanded task force has initiated a review of the GIS-related issues.

To date, issues of concern with the model law identified by the GIS community to the task force include: 1) the breadth of the model law (definition section) preamble paragraph; 2) the reference to the specific tools of GIS/LIS within the definition section of the model law; and, 3) the concern that many applications of GIS (and probably LIS) clearly do not fall under the jurisdiction of the surveyor. For that matter, many in the GIS user community believe that most, if not all, activities involving the use of GIS do not fall under the general concern for the "public health, safety and welfare," and thus should not be controlled by any regulatory process.

Regulation of Practices versus Tools

An important component to this debate is the concept that regulatory processes are applied to professional practices, not to the use of a specific tool. In the most fundamental form, GIS and LIS are tools, albeit very sophisticated tools. In this regard the GIS tool, as related to professional practice, is really no different than a hammer. Clearly a hammer is a tool whose use is not regulated. While a number of regulated professions utilize tools such as the hammer including, among others, doctors and surveyors, no jurisdiction would consider requiring the simple use of the hammer to be regulated. Thus the question arises "Why require registration when using the GIS tool?"

In reality, there are no jurisdictions currently regulating the use of GIS as a tool, or even contemplating such regulation. In fact, to date, the GIS representatives on the task force have not provided evidence that the use of GIS tools has been limited in any manner by regulating bodies. NCEES, in creating/modifying the current model law, does not appear to have intended the model law to cover the use of specific tools. However, the fear that such regulation may be forthcoming exists, and the task force is examining further modifications to the model law that will reduce that fear.

Preamble Paragraph

Unfortunately, the existing model law uses overly broad language in the preamble paragraph when defining the practice of surveying. In addition, the GIS and LIS tools are referenced later in a key subsection which reads "creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized data, including land information systems, and geographic information systems, relative to the performance of the activities in the above described items (a) through (c)." The combined effect of the overly broad preamble language and this subsection can reasonably be interpreted as a potential threat of regulation to the general GIS practitioner. Upon closer reading of the subsections, items (a) through (c) define areas of surveying practice that are generally not controversial in their definition; nevertheless the perception that additional controls on the use of GIS is intended in the model law can, and probably should, be addressed.

Public Health, Safety and Welfare Considerations

Recent developments in GIS technology, and related data acquisition strategies, now make it possible for unregulated practitioners to complete certain surveying activities that, if not accomplished properly, would be detrimental to public safety or an individual's property rights. While savvy GIS practitioners would not likely err in this regard, the increasing use of GIS to produce or derive parcel-related data in formats that are easily modified and/or utilized to provide property boundary data raises legitimate concerns by the surveying community and their regulatory Boards. This is especially the case if the innocent user may be exposed to suffering financially or legally due to GIS-derived information affecting property rights.

Similarly, the use of GIS-related technology to develop topographic surveys and other geospatial products for use in engineering and/or construction projects has the potential for producing undesirable and dangerous outcomes if not accomplished properly and accurately. In many instances the "public health, safety and welfare" risks are not readily apparent until the project is completed, or even for a long period thereafter. The public must have confidence in the safety of the constructed works of man, and accurate and complete geospatial data is the "foundation" for many of those works.

The GIS community is rapidly moving from the "conversion era" to the "measurement era." The article titled "Conversion Is Out, Measurement Is In-Are We Beginning the Surveying and Mapping Era of GIS?" by David Gibson, director of the University of Florida Geomatics Program, provides an excellent perspective on this issue. The paper was first published in the March 1999 issue of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping journal Surveying and Land Information Systems, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1999, pp. 69-72, and is also available at http://www.asprs.org/news.html. As the GIS community takes advantage of modern measurement tools, it becomes technically more likely that non-regulated practitioners will inadvertently encroach on the regulated practice of surveying.

Task Force Proposals

The task force is currently debating many alternative approaches to address the concerns of the GIS community. Modifying the model law in order to reduce the overall level of concern, while simultaneously honoring the regulatory mission of protecting the public health, safety and welfare, is the challenge both to the task force and ultimately to NCEES itself.

There is currently no recognition of the use of the GIS tool, in and of itself, as a profession in any jurisdiction and the likelihood of such recognition is no greater than for any other tool. The GIS community is comprised of many individuals very capably applying the tool of GIS to a wide variety of problems, yet the community of GIS users does not, as a group, comprise a "profession" as typically understood by the lay community. Individuals utilizing the GIS tool-set are often members of existing jurisdiction-recognized professions, including foresters, geologists, landscape architects, engineers and surveyors, whose practices are already subject to regulation in many (or all) states. In each of these professions it is the application of the tool of GIS, rather than the use of the tool itself, that a jurisdiction must consider when determining whether an individual's practice requires regulation. However, further modifications to the Model Law can be accomplished to assist in clarifying this issue by emphasizing the concern for the regulation of the practice regardless of the tools used.

A related proposal calls for "national" licensing or regulation of geospatial professionals. This concept has support in several sectors of the community and is seen as one possible mission for the recently proposed National Spatial Data Council. While this approach would theoretically eliminate or supercede the jurisdiction-specific regulation of geospatial activities, it would not address the "public health, safety and welfare" function without being implemented through statute. The enactment of such a National statute or law does not appear to be viable, especially in the current deregulatory climate. The task force has not begun to analyze this alternative as of early April.

Future Task Force Actions

The current activities of the task force are expected to continue until consensus is reached on proposed recommendations to NCEES for further modifications to the model law, or until it is apparent that such consensus is not possible within the expanded task force. If the latter were to occur, the original task force member organizations could decide to drop further consideration of the issue, or possibly make limited recommendations of their own to NCEES. In any event, final disposition of any task force recommendations for changes to the existing Model Law will be determined solely within the NCEES governance structure. It should be emphasized that the Task Force is not an organ of NCEES, and while its recommendations have influenced NCEES actions in the past, there can be no assurance of future model law modifications as a direct result of any task force recommendations.