January February 2018

The Oregon Surveyor | 26 Vol. 41, No. 1 WFPS spread to the others, and WFPS can be (and has been) in the right place to boost the good trends and help defend against the bad ones. Although the 13 WFPS member states account for 50% of the area of the country, their clout with NSPS is limited to just 13 votes (there are currently only two states who have not es- tablished MOU’s with NSPS). That makes the MOU between WFPS and NSPS, effective October 31, 2017, an additional benefit to all member states by insuring representation at NSPS and agreeing to the “…right and responsibility to pro- vide recommendations to NSPS on all matters in support of WFPS state associations.” But don’t take it from us. Those non-quantifiable benefits have also been recognized and ex- pressed in letters and emails of support from some national and regional leaders. • In a letter dated January 12, 2018 to WFPS Chair Matt Gingerich, NSPS Executive Director Curt Sumner writes: “NSPS recognizes the importance of dedicated efforts on behalf of our profession from among local, state, regional, and national professional organizations. It would be impossible for any single organization to adequately perform unilaterally to address all of the issues that arise at every level. We can only be effective if dedicated profes- sionals at all levels are willing to engage and advocate for the profession and react (independently or collectively as needed) in a timely manner to those issues.” Mr. Sumner concludes: “As previously noted herein, NSPS values its rela- tionship with WestFed and encourages its continued efforts as a forum for discussion of issues that are common among its member states, as well as in conjunction with NSPS regarding issues affecting the profession as a whole.” • In a letter dated January 8, 2018 to WFPS Chair Matt Gingerich, NSPS Western Director’s Council Chair Amanda Allred writes : “So whenever I hear that there are some with the opinion that any level of these activities are duplicated or unnecessary it concerns me very much.” Ms. Allred continues, “Anytime one or more of us gather in support of our profession and to open dialogue among colleagues with a common goal in mind of professional advancement, the time and effort is never wasted and always worthwhile.” Ms. Allred concludes, “My concern is that we cut ourselves off from one another’s organizations by saying that any level of this system is unimportant or unnecessary. This in my mind will be the beginning of the demise of our profession as a whole. So I would encourage you and anyone with whom you choose to share this letter to think long and hard about who and what you deem necessary and unnecessary. A professional surveying organization should not be in the business of determining what other surveying organizations are valid or necessary. After all, if we cannot uphold and support one another then how can we expect the public to do the same for us as a profession?” • I n an email dated January 12, 2018, LSAW Chair and former WFPS Director Carla Meritt writes: “Having served as past WFPS delegate, I saw great benefit from this organization through networking with the leadership of other organizations (other WFPS delegates). After social- izing and networking with this group over the course of a two-day trip and a full eight hour meeting with high level and long-time leaders from other state associations, you would be exposed to ideas and opportunities that might be incorporated into your own organization’s strategic plans. While the value of WFPS attendance may not be apparent to all of an organization’s membership, it is truly a value to the EXCOM and Board of Trustees, who can use it to leverage information and resources from these similar associations. Part of the benefit and value is derived from consistency in the delegates that creates an environment conducive to candid conversations about what is working and not working for their associations.” Complete copies of the missives quoted from above are avail- able from your chapter officers. ISSUES The question of whether PLSO will continue to participate in WFPS was heavily debated during the January Board Meeting and presented to PLSO members the next day at the PLSO Annual Meeting. For some, information about WFPS was news, as the regional organization has been “under the ra- dar” for them. That is about to change. While there was strong support for WFPS at the board meeting by way of the letters quoted from above and testimony from the authors, togeth- er with comments in support from incoming NSPS President Kim Leavitt, there were issues that were raised and that need to be addressed. In our view, the issues boiled down to two: 1. Cost/benefit: Do the issues addressed by WFPS and the NSPS Western Director’s Council overlap, so that the two groups are duplicating their efforts, putting the relevance of WFPS in question? Does WFPS participation offer enough of a benefit to PLSO to justify the expense of sending representation? 2. Communication: Why is there no communication between WFPS and PLSO beyond the reports written for each board by the WFPS representative? Why has the WFPS administration not responded to emails from the PLSO Executive Director? 3. Regarding the cost/benefit questions, the authors submit that WFPS and NSPS don’t detract from each other. As we described above, the principal NSPS leaders, and others, recognize that WFPS compliments NSPS, and they are in full support of the regional representation provided by WFPS. We also understand that the NSPS Western Director’s Council typically meets for just a couple of hours twice a year to discuss each western state’s position regarding national survey issues such as acts before Congress, certification of floodplain surveyors, A.L.T.A. Standards, the Davis-Bacon Act and other federal survey issues. WFPS meetings are more regionally focused on issues such as existing and proposed state laws, licensing board issues and