Holy Cow, post: 354045, member: 50 wrote: Yeah, sure. One guy with seven crews spread across the entire state doing highway contracts. He was number one on the list of who to hire for every DOT job. Well, except for the company owned by the State Representative, of course. Neither one left the office .
That sounds pretty unfair. Any government contracts should follow the Brooks Act and not give all their work to one firm. I would hope you could contest that if that is what Kansas is doing.
"Less than precise" Educate
"Less than honest" Terminate
Tasks can be delegated. Responsibility cannot.
People are more likely to do what you inspect than what you expect.
Some can do
Some can't do
Some will do
Some want do
What you have to have is can/wills.
Tom,
That's someone else's battle, not mine. Not interested in going after that kind of work. I'm pretty sure that the technicalities of getting such a high percentage of the work were met, but, it makes one wonder why. My intended emphasis was to point to a case where the "supervision" would be minimal at best.
How much is your license worth to you? That's the bottom line here.
Kent McMillan, post: 354041, member: 3 wrote: ...Well, I'm certainly on the outside looking in, but it's fairly clear that large organizations engaged in surveying tend to fragment the work to the point that plausible deniability is the natural quality model by default...
Astute. I can show you several cases where our local Board dragged one-horse operations over the coals for clerical infractions such as not filing record corners in a timely manner or issuing a survey that stated "set iron something" on a date before that iron something actually got set. But several large firms, operated by weighty and influential silver-backed members of the "inner circle" got away with the exact same infractions with a mere explanation of "over sight" during the process with which a number of people got their fingers in the pudding.
I wrote several letters indicating my opinion was the Board was breeding the plausible deniability disease in an environment that was designed to distinctly place "responsible charge" of a project upon an individual's shoulders.
I have received several letters in reply that basically state, "we've read your letter, thank you very much".