> So, the ethical course is one that serves:
>
> - the system,
> - the client, and
> - oneself
>
> with due regard to the most enlightened interests of each.
And it strikes me as axiomatic that members of a true profession will almost always understand their clients needs better than their clients do. Left to their own devices clients will insist that they only need one line surveyed or that they just need to know where their "approximate" corners are, for example.
yep.
a boundary line agreement is fine for clearing up an uncertain line, as JB mentions. If a line is clearly defined, it's not a boundary line agreement anymore, it's a conveyance, as foggy suggests. And there are operations for conveyance, obviously, but those operations must satisfy the statute of frauds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Frauds
I think BLA's are great. They just need to be applied properly, otherwise they just exacerbate the mess they're intended to cleanup.
1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?
I catch ya doing the above, your proctologist will be busy!
-JD-
1) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in accepting an existing survey
monument as a property corner?
Presume the previous surveyor performed well because denegrating others in the profession is unethical as it hurts the public by destroying confidence in their ability to retain competent professional service, leading to self service and harm that stems from it.
1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?
It destroys confidence in the surveyors opinion because a second opinion is denied access to all of the evidence. Leads to appearance of favoring one side over another rather than an impartial opinion. Destroys public confidence in the profession and leads to public harm.
2. Does a court order nullify the significance of monuments?
Only for the disputed lines in question. May still have significance for other parcels.
3. Does a boundary agreement nullify the significance of monuments?
See #2 above.
4. What are the surveyor’s responsibilities in preserving / perpetuating
monuments?
Only those mentioned in the contract. You do have a written contract right?
2) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with a “pincushion”
corner (e.g. where a single property corner is represented by multiple
monuments).
The surveyor must report what they find and not hide anything.
1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?
Same as in question #1.
2. Does a court order nullify the significance of monuments?
Same as in question #1.
3. Does a boundary agreement nullify the significance of monuments?
Same as in question #1.
4. What are the surveyor’s responsibilities in preserving / perpetuating
monuments?
Same as in question #1.
3) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with the potential
destruction of survey monuments by a client or a contractor working for the
client?
Inform them of the law that the surveyor knows (potentially illegal to remove).
1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?
Clients and those in their employ usually can't remove or destroy enough to affect a proper retracement survey. But their actions could lead to much more cost for themselves or their neighbors.
2. Does a court order nullify the significance of monuments?
Same as in question #1.
3. Does a boundary agreement nullify the significance of monuments?
Same as in question #1.
4. What are the surveyor’s responsibilities in preserving / perpetuating
monuments?
Same as in question #1.
> 1) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in accepting an existing survey
> monument as a property corner?
>
> Presume the previous surveyor performed well because denegrating others in the profession is unethical as it hurts the public by destroying confidence in their ability to retain competent professional service, leading to self service and harm that stems from it.
I think that possibly a better statement is that the surveyor must first determine that an existing survey monument does mark the property corner in question acceptably well. One will find from time to time that survey markers have been established improperly and that better evidence exists that would definitely place the corner in some other location. So, the professional surveyor's work includes attempting to assess the basis upon which some corner was marked to determine if there is some latent problem that needs to be examined more carefully.
> 1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?
>
> It destroys confidence in the surveyors opinion because a second opinion is denied access to all of the evidence. Leads to appearance of favoring one side over another rather than an impartial opinion. Destroys public confidence in the profession and leads to public harm.
On the other hand, leaving monuments that are known to be significantly erroneous in place when there is no good reason for doing so works against the public interest as well. If the affected land owners agree and there is no reason to preserve the monument (meaning no land owners have relied upon it and no surveys of record have tied to it), then there should be no problem caused by removing it. To do otherwise eroded the confidence in surveyors because it suggests that blunders and gross errors by surveyors are somehow more sacred than the rights of land owners to avoid unnecessary confusions in their land boundaries
I agree with the surveyor responsibilities you elaborate on. But from an ethical standpoint I think one needs to approach the situation with confidence in their fellow professionals (at least as far as what we express to our clients and the general public).
We may have suspicions going in about quality of the opinion because of previous encounters, but these should not be broadcast. There are proper channels for grievances and reporting. In addition, there are legitimate differences of opinion that occur.
Stability of land boundaries also depends on surveyors agreeing with previous retracements if they can. Many situations have ambiguity that was resolved slightly differently than I would have done, but are a reasonable resolution that I can agree with. How different it has to be before I give a contrary opinion is going to depend on how long the retracement has been in place. In NY a record retracement that has gone unchallenged for 10 years is prima facia evidence of its contents. The level of proof to overturn it goes up to clear and convincing rather than an equal battle of who has the preponderance of evidence. This is so to promote stability of land boundaries. If surveyors refuse to agree because of slightly differing analysis of evidence, or measurements, based on retracing record boundaries, then Utah may be on the right track.
Once a situation is resolved by agreement or court action, removal of pipes, posts, stakes, etc. is quite appropriate because they have been determined not to be "monuments" of land boundaries. Leaving them in at this stage only creates monuments to a failed opinion, unless of course they are needed ties to something else.
> I agree with the surveyor responsibilities you elaborate on. But from an ethical standpoint I think one needs to approach the situation with confidence in their fellow professionals (at least as far as what we express to our clients and the general public).
Yes, certainly one has to express opinions in a way that doesn't raise unnecessary doubts about the general quality of surveying. However, on the other hand pretending that it is somehow a novelty that some serially defective surveying office has turned out another faulty survey would not seem to be ethical either. So, fine line between giving an honest opinion in neutral terms and going too far in either direction.
> We may have suspicions going in about quality of the opinion because of previous encounters, but these should not be broadcast. There are proper channels for grievances and reporting. In addition, there are legitimate differences of opinion that occur.
Well, my own opinion is that the injured members of the public are the ideal complainants when they have been damaged by some surveyor's malpractice. They have suffered the loss and they are members of the class, the public, that most registration boards exist to protect. So, in that light, if something is so incompetently or negligently done to merit a complaint, I think a surveyor is better advised to let the client know and to assist them in preparing the complaint.
> Stability of land boundaries also depends on surveyors agreeing with previous retracements if they can.
I think I'd put that somewhat differently as: "Stability of land boundaries also is enhanced when surveyors do not disagree arbitrarily with decisions that prior surveyors have made. Particularly in situations where multiple solutions are possible and none are obviously incorrect, the fact that a solution has been previously chosen by a prior surveyor should be accorded substantial weight and not lightly disregarded."
> "Stability of land boundaries also is enhanced when surveyors do not disagree arbitrarily with decisions that prior surveyors have made. Particularly in situations where multiple solutions are possible and none are obviously incorrect, the fact that a solution has been previously chosen by a prior surveyor should be accorded substantial weight and not lightly disregarded."
The underlying issue in my opinion is one of costs vs. benefits and those have to be weighed on a case by case basis. It will depend upon the client, adjoining land owners, the land values involved, likely future land uses, etc.
Any problem that costs more to fix than the benefit likely to be realized by the proposed solution over, say, twenty years, may not be much of a problem to begin with.
I like that definition as well. It explains the distinction quite clearly.
That being said, don't you think that the OP's questions were meant to be in the context of professional responsibility (what we should do)?
Again, I don't disagree. But there's a difference between how one should approach the situation and how one deals with it as it unfolds, and I think therein lies the ethical rub to it.
If a client contact tells me "so and so surveyed the neighbor, the line now runs through my house that was built in 1886, I think the survey is wrong, can you take a look at it?" I could reply "you're probably right because that idiot is incompetent!" Or, I could reply "well, the evidence you present makes it likely I might have a different opinion, let's meet and I'll take a look".
When it's all said and done, if there is incompetence rather than a legitimate difference of opinion, I will then address that with proper advice and contacts for the client to make a complaint. But I will not disparage the other surveyor even at this point. Rather, I will point out what I consider standard practice or knowledge in the surveying community and where the other survey strayed from it.
It was mentioned in another thread that many don't know what they don't know. That doesn't make them bad people or idiots. That only shows a failing in the licensing process. Which of course is why it is hard sometimes to get action from boards that rely heavily on the experience route. Because, the board is more culpable in a situation where it is they who have credentialed the licensee. They could be very reluctant to find malpractice in this case.
If a board finds malpractice in a licensee who was given credit to take the exams based 100% on experience, then the board is 100% responsible for the malpractice because they are also in charge of approving the exams and writing the questions in many cases. The licensee has been credentialed by the process and may well think they are doing everything correctly.
This is an ethical situation we could discuss further. There is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. Which is why some states, including NY, have a division that investigates complaints that is seperate from the regular board.
> Again, I don't disagree. But there's a difference between how one should approach the situation and how one deals with it as it unfolds, and I think therein lies the ethical rub to it.
>
> If a client contact tells me "so and so surveyed the neighbor, the line now runs through my house that was built in 1886, I think the survey is wrong, can you take a look at it?" I could reply "you're probably right because that idiot is incompetent!" Or, I could reply "well, the evidence you present makes it likely I might have a different opinion, let's meet and I'll take a look".
It probably would be possible to prioritize the needs of the system within which land surveyor practice. I'd place the appearance of impersonality or objectivity ahead of the need to have members of the public assume that any land surveyor is competent, for example.
The reality seems to me to be that the marketplace has arranged a solid niche for surveyors who cannot be fairly said to be highly diligent or thorough in the work they perform. The fiction that all surveyors are somehow equivalent is part of what has driven the growth of that abscess/niche.
"I'd place the appearance of impersonality or objectivity ahead of the need to have members of the public assume that any land surveyor is competent, for example.
The reality seems to me to be that the marketplace has arranged a solid niche for surveyors who cannot be fairly said to be highly diligent or thorough in the work they perform. The fiction that all surveyors are somehow equivalent is part of what has driven the growth of that abscess/niche."
Well maybe, but don't you see that that attitude expressed to the public only serves to perpetuate the problem?
The only reason for a profession is to regulate the practice of that which the public does not understand. When we individually claim things like the above, it only serves to make the public think that NO Surveyors have the knowledge necessary to help them.
> The only reason for a profession is to regulate the practice of that which the public does not understand. When we individually claim things like the above, it only serves to make the public think that NO Surveyors have the knowledge necessary to help them.
Well, I think that a surveyor owes a client a frank disclosure of the facts that a surveyor would himself or herself want to know were the roles reversed. The fact that a client has been the victim of a serially defective surveying firm, for example, would strike me as something a client ought to know.
What makes the defective niche surveyors possible is perpetuating the fiction that all surveyors's opinions/products are equally good. Under that misimpression, i.e. prevailing equivalent quality, it is strictly rational to want to find the cheapest service, which only perpetuates the status quo, doesn't it?
Naturally, the context of such a frank appraisal as I mention would be after having been retained by a client in connection with a matter in which those unpleasant facts are relevant. I agree that there's no point in airing the profession's dirty laundry just to demonstrate how far market forces have pushed standards down.
