# Glad I'm not in Connecticut. . .



## EM_PS (Aug 28, 2009)

Hell, my State's deficit is hurtin worse than this. . .but we're not considering these extremes



> Connecticut PEs Oppose Elimination of Licensing Board:
> Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell's attempt to save the state money by abolishing the Board of Examiners for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors has met stiff opposition from the Connecticut Society of Professional Engineers.
> 
> CSPE Executive Director Paul Brady released a statement rallying professional engineers to speak out against this proposal. He believes that eliminating the board would cripple the engineering profession and negatively affect many businesses and government agencies that depend on professional engineering
> ...


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 28, 2009)

ouch


----------



## Katiebug (Aug 28, 2009)

CT resident here.

As I'm sure a lot here know, I'm a mechanical engineer who has no current professional need to have a PE. I'm going to get it due to possible opportunities later in my career as well as a professional challenge/to mentor young engineers in this organization who see absolutely no value in getting a PE themselves.

I will say that the prospect of the PE license renewal fees being doubled is frightening. My employer won't foot the bill (although if I agree to stamp for them on the rare occasion it's required, I'm told they would) and right now the fee is $225 a year. At $450/year to keep it active, and not being likely to "use" my PE much/at all, the cost of renewing would be something to think about. I think Rell's bright idea to generate revenue by doubling license renewal fees across the board - from a PE to a driver's license - is insane. Absolutely freaking insane.

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the situation re: the Board. I do think that many things could be handled more easily by some bureaucrat - I'm quite positive that all of the actual work associated with paperwork, renewals, etc. is handled by a state employee now. The Connecticut board probably didn't need to discuss much about me for my EIT application; I'm a Connecticut resident who graduated from UConn with an ABET-accredited mechanical engineering degree. No-brainer! A bureaucrat (versus the Board) could easily see that my credentials match up with the standard requirements for that license class, check my transcript and application for completeness, and rubber stamp the decision. I suspect the majority of EIT/LSIT applications could be handled by a state employee rather than the Board (and in fact that's how it may have gone down, despite the Board officially "approving" me for the EIT in their meeting minutes). Where it can get dicey is if there's a nonstandard educational/work background, or for a PE applicant (when things like work experience and endorsements _matter_). What about a PE applicant with an engineering tech degree who's spent the last 10 years working as a used car salesman? That sort of situation/judgment call is why the Board exists.

So generally, I'm curious if it'd save any money for a state employee to evaluate the majority of EIT and LSIT applications, and let the Board handle the nonstandard EIT/LSIT apps and the PE/LS apps. It seems like there are a lot more EIT applicants than PE applicants here anyways and if most of those are easy to verify, then it would potentially free up the Board to handle "real" business.

I do believe the Board serves a valuable purpose and it would be foolish to eliminate it completely.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Aug 28, 2009)

Katiebug said:


> CT resident here.
> As I'm sure a lot here know, I'm a mechanical engineer who has no current professional need to have a PE. I'm going to get it due to possible opportunities later in my career as well as a professional challenge/to mentor young engineers in this organization who see absolutely no value in getting a PE themselves.
> 
> I will say that the prospect of the PE license renewal fees being doubled is frightening. My employer won't foot the bill (although if I agree to stamp for them on the rare occasion it's required, I'm told they would) and right now the fee is $225 a year. At $450/year to keep it active, and not being likely to "use" my PE much/at all, the cost of renewing would be something to think about. I think Rell's bright idea to generate revenue by doubling license renewal fees across the board - from a PE to a driver's license - is insane. Absolutely freaking insane.
> ...



My suggestion is get licensed in a neighboring state that doesn't want rediculous fees. Many of them also allow you to go "inactive" then just charge you a fee to reactivate once you want to be current again.

I do have to admit though for the type of service they provide, it seems most of the State Boards are bloated, but that in no way will make up a billion dollar shortfall. Really laughable when you think about it, how many employees does the state board even have?


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 28, 2009)

I can see eliminating state boards for like auctioneers, barbers, cosmetologists, morticians, real estate schlubs - but not for Engineers, Surveyors or Architects. Most board members are part-time anyways, i don't see how having a GED holding state employee (or equivalent) is gonna save enough money to justify eliminating a board of peers ok'ing or not ok'ing the next pool of licensee candidates or handling formal complaints or censure responsibilities. It seriously needs to be done by those holding appropriate licenses, and having an actual board (vs. 1 employee) is protective of not only licensees in general, but certainly the public at large too. Eliminating the state board would seem to result in an ethical dilemma anyways.

and raising fees? thats just chickensh!t politics, attacking a specialized segment of the State's population in an effort to raise $$.


----------



## Fluvial (Aug 28, 2009)

This is a horribly stupid idea. I hope it is shot down quickly.

Our law in MS is also one of the 'sunset' type, and we inevitably end up fighting for it every.single.time. it comes up.

*sigh*


----------



## csb (Aug 28, 2009)

Plus, if the boards and commissions are anything like the ones in my state, a LOT of money is wasted entertaining them....bringing them to locations for meetings and then the meals and what not. It's all the perks of being on the board.

I'm not so sure I'm in favor of total elimination though...seems like there has to be some system of checks and balances. However, I imagine business costs can be brought way down.

I agree with the above...get licensed somewhere else. It'll be a hassle, but it may save you. I can't imagine you're the only one who would be trying it.


----------



## MGX (Aug 28, 2009)

Your state could save a ton of cash by abolishing death row; I'd rather see that than ridding the value of the licensing board. Perhaps cutting some welfare is in order?

I know that doesn't get politicians reelected but it might pull you out of the slump.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 29, 2009)

whoops, missed part of the full article quote (a rather crucial one) -



> The board is composed of 12 volunteers who are not financially compensated for reviewing licensure applications and reviewing disciplinary issues. The board members receive reimbursement only for car mileage to attend six annual meetings.


PE Magazine Aug/Sept 09


----------



## Katiebug (Aug 29, 2009)

If the Board here isn't even compensated, then why the hell would getting rid of it be a cost cutting measure?!? My tax dollars at work, here... To my knowledge at the state office building there's one employee who handles the paperwork for the Board (so all the EIT, LSIT, PE, and LS applications and supporting documentation, renewals, etc.). She also works in other areas related to the Dept. of Consumer Protection, so is not full-time for the Board. Every time I've called, she's the only one I seem to speak to.

I'm going to be writing a letter to the Governor, as a concerned taxpayer and engineer (albeit not a PE).

Re: renewal fees. I've considered getting licensed in RI or MA but CT is obviously more convenient. When the time comes to take the exam, if the license fee doubling has gone into effect I'll be seriously considering a surrounding state. Really, anywhere in New England is workable in terms of geography. It's been debated for months now if Rell's proposal to double every.single.license fee in the state is going to succeed or not - it literally ranges from driver's and fishing licenses to a medical or nursing license to a PE license. It's not going to be a pretty scene if it does through.


----------



## Dleg (Aug 30, 2009)

^There's probably several employees running the actual program, keeping the records, mailing the renewal notices, etc. PLUS there is the NCEES dues.... Our "state" quit paying their dues to NCEES a few years back and now we're kicked out. I was one of the last few to be allowed to have an exam proctored for me in the neighboring territory of Guam. Our applicants are now not allowed to take any NCEES exam, unless they apply through another state (I've seen the letter from NCEES to the Guam Board, telling them to refuse to proctor an exam for any CNMI applicant).

I don't know what's happening with our licensing situation now, especially since we do not have an organized engineering society here to speak up, but I can say this: I would not want to be an engineer in CT right now, especially if I did not have my PE yet. I speak from experience.


----------



## C-Dog (Aug 31, 2009)

Ugh! I hate my state government. I would love the government to be cut, but not this. I, like KB, do not need it for my 9-5 job, kind of just a status thing, but it does help me out with my adjunct position at the local university. It allows me to teach graduate classes in my field, becuase I do not have a PhD. It gets me a couple of dollars more a term (but not $225!). So if the cost were to double, I don't know what I would do.

If they need to cut cost, why not extend the term of the license from 1 year to 3 years. This would cut down on the amount of work in the office and therefore could reduce staffing some.


----------



## C-Dog (Aug 31, 2009)

Katiebug said:


> If the Board here isn't even compensated, then why the hell would getting rid of it be a cost cutting measure?!? My tax dollars at work, here... To my knowledge at the state office building there's one employee who handles the paperwork for the Board (so all the EIT, LSIT, PE, and LS applications and supporting documentation, renewals, etc.). She also works in other areas related to the Dept. of Consumer Protection, so is not full-time for the Board. Every time I've called, she's the only one I seem to speak to.
> I'm going to be writing a letter to the Governor, as a concerned taxpayer and engineer (albeit not a PE).
> 
> Re: renewal fees. I've considered getting licensed in RI or MA but CT is obviously more convenient. When the time comes to take the exam, if the license fee doubling has gone into effect I'll be seriously considering a surrounding state. Really, anywhere in New England is workable in terms of geography. It's been debated for months now if Rell's proposal to double every.single.license fee in the state is going to succeed or not - it literally ranges from driver's and fishing licenses to a medical or nursing license to a PE license. It's not going to be a pretty scene if it does through.


Oh, I think you are right, there is only one person who works engineering!

Getting a license in another state may be the way to do it - great idea! If this goes through, will have to see what MA, RI, and NY fees are and if they have any additional requirements.


----------



## Supe (Aug 31, 2009)

MGX said:


> Perhaps cutting some welfare is in order?




Trying to cut welfare? In CT? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've got a better chance of ice skating on the river Styx.


----------



## chaosiscash (Aug 31, 2009)

$225?

If it makes you feel better, we pay a $400 annual professional privledge tax, as well as a $140 biennial registration fee in TN, which is a much lower cost of living state (and therefore, lower average income) than CT.


----------



## Roy T. (Aug 31, 2009)

I've said it before and folks think I'm nuts - but I honestly think the Fed. Government will take over licensing of many professions in the future, Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers being among them. Connecticut won't be the only state that sacrifices public health over expediency.

The Feds are *huge* consumers of engineering services and want the cert (even though it's not necessarily required) for engineering contractors.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 31, 2009)

[No message]


----------



## Katiebug (Sep 2, 2009)

C-Dog said:


> Oh, I think you are right, there is only one person who works engineering!
> Getting a license in another state may be the way to do it - great idea! If this goes through, will have to see what MA, RI, and NY fees are and if they have any additional requirements.


Seriously, every time I've called it's been the same person who I've spoken to! Is it really that big of a deal for Connecticut to keep that one person's salary (s/he will be a state employee regardless) and then foot the bill for mileage for 6 Board meetings a year?!?

I'm looking into it. Just to have options...



Supe said:


> Trying to cut welfare? In CT? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> You've got a better chance of ice skating on the river Styx.


Word. We allegedly have a state budget now; the governor isn't going to veto the Democrats' budget proposal. She did cut $1 million in earmarks to teach the elderly how to avoid slipping on fall rugs, though.



chaosiscash said:


> $225?
> If it makes you feel better, we pay a $400 annual professional privledge tax, as well as a $140 biennial registration fee in TN, which is a much lower cost of living state (and therefore, lower average income) than CT.


It does make me feel better! What on earth is a "professional privilege" tax? The biennial fee seems very reasonable, but that tax adds a nasty little twist, doesn't it?

Right now it's only $225, which is no big deal. If the Governor gets her way and doubles all license fees in the state, it'll be $450/year. Kinda steep, considering that we're a small state with other states in very close geographic proximity. Most mechanical engineers who are licensed here don't "need" to be, and I suspect that either licensure rates will go down, or people will just hop over to RI, MA, or NY to get their license there. We have options, you know?

Ironic, since the "You Belong in CT" campaign was Rell's doing. Trying to convince young professionals - engineers included - to stay in CT rather than fleeing for the south and midwest. Stay here, kids - make only slightly higher salaries and have a higher cost of living, all so that you can pay higher taxes than most states!

(I shouldn't complain - I do like CT, our families are here, etc. But it's depressing how much we paid/pay for housing WRT to household income.)


----------



## chaosiscash (Sep 2, 2009)

Katiebug said:


> It does make me feel better! What on earth is a "professional privilege" tax? The biennial fee seems very reasonable, but that tax adds a nasty little twist, doesn't it?


Basically any person in TN that requires a license to perform work (except for realtors and nurses) have to pay a yearly state tax. Its a sliding scale, with doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc paying $400 and other folks (like barbers) paying less. That includes people who aren't residents but have a TN license.

Its not a big deal for me, because the company foots the bill, but I know other engineers (esp. mech and elec) that don't NEED their license that have gone inactive because of the tax.


----------



## Supe (Sep 2, 2009)

Katiebug said:


> Ironic, since the "You Belong in CT" campaign was Rell's doing. Trying to convince young professionals - engineers included - to stay in CT rather than fleeing for the south and midwest. Stay here, kids - make only slightly higher salaries and have a higher cost of living, all so that you can pay higher taxes than most states!



Not to mention most of the jobs available in CT downright suck. Every headhunter who has called me from CT is for a manufacturing position. How they honestly expect to entice engineers to stay in CT when you look at the opportunities in industries like power and O&amp;G is beyond me.


----------



## C-Dog (Sep 2, 2009)

Well, I like my little state. Supe, what is O&amp;G - oil and gas? Did not know that was an industry. Manufacturing jobs pay a hell of a lot more than service jobs - this is one of th roots of the high cost of living in CT since the economy, since its founding, is based on manufacturing - though, the Chinese are taking that slowly away.

Back to licensure. I think Mama Rell has given up fighting with the Dems. that control the legislature (who btw need to all be voted out).

On the surface, it would be nice if the Feds took over licensure of engineers - it would make moving to other states easier - but that is probably it and I am not moving.


----------



## Supe (Sep 2, 2009)

C-Dog said:


> Manufacturing jobs pay a hell of a lot more than service jobs



What service jobs are you referring to? Everything I've seen points very much to the contrary in terms of engineering.


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 2, 2009)

> Faced with a two-year state budget deficit of $8.56 billion


hell don't know what i was smoking earlier, but I in fact retract my earlier statement that my state's deficit is hurtin worse than that! Wow, what the hell you crazy Connecticut-ukians been doing over there?

I never thought Connecticut to be a manufacturing mecca. . . Michigan's been one for say over 100+ years now, and our cost of living has never been high (perhaps understandedly for other reasons) - Manufacturing here paved the way for a new 'middle-class' that could afford to send their kids to college while never having attended it themselves.


----------



## Katiebug (Sep 3, 2009)

C-Dog said:


> Back to licensure. I think Mama Rell has given up fighting with the Dems. that control the legislature (who btw need to all be voted out).
> On the surface, it would be nice if the Feds took over licensure of engineers - it would make moving to other states easier - but that is probably it and I am not moving.


Yeah, looks like Mother Governor has let it go into law, although apparently she could and did veto certain pork barrel line items.

And I agree with you re: licensure by the Feds.



error_matrix said:


> I never thought Connecticut to be a manufacturing mecca. . . Michigan's been one for say over 100+ years now, and our cost of living has never been high (perhaps understandedly for other reasons) - Manufacturing here paved the way for a new 'middle-class' that could afford to send their kids to college while never having attended it themselves.


My job in CT has very little to do with manufacturing. I do product development, qualification testing, and field support. Our components are made in Asia and Europe. I've never even been to the factories, although I do know how product is made so that I can troubleshoot field issues.

The manufacturing base in Connecticut is focused primarily on defense work. Pratt &amp; Whitney, Sikorsky, Electric Boat. In the less-defense related sector, there's Kaman, Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Johnson Controls, etc. We used to have a big Torrington Bearing factory and engineering center here. And there are a ton of smaller vendors and job shops that support the big players. Slowly things have been going overseas or just closing up entirely.

Growing up here, more than half of my friends' dads were machinists at Pratt (that was also 20 years ago). It's not that way anymore, but it used to be like that.

A lot of the engineers who I go to grad school with work at Pratt in manufacturing engineering, but they have a lot of test and design types as well. Personally I'd never be happy in such a huge engineering organization. At my place we have to sort of become a jack-of-all-trades and I like being able to do a lot of different things.


----------

