From 11 years ago on this site:
> But surveyors can't survey their own land, it's a conflict of interest. Land surveyors have special knowledge.
Well....alrighty then. I think I'll go out and survey all of my adjoiners property lines.;-)
What is written in statute is quite different from ethics.
I would disagree (of course, when do I not disagree) with this.?ÿ Ethics are the moral philosophy of an individual or group.?ÿ When groups of people live in proximity to each other, their idea of ethics tend to coalesce because they are learning from each other and other external influences.?ÿ The larger groups tend to then develop laws that impose their ethics as the main view of what is right or wrong within society.?ÿ Easily seen in the history of laws around marijuana.
While there are differences and the statutes might include or exclude some items, I would not characterize them as "quite different".?ÿ And I would actually consider the written laws of an area to be reasonably indicative of the general ethic of the people in that area - with the understanding that not everyone in the area has the same viewpoint as the recorded law.
What rational interpretation of "unavoidable" would include deciding to survey your own boundary?
Exactly!?ÿ Since you ask that question, you have proven my point.
Yuck.?ÿ That method of discussion actually felt as disgusting as I thought it would.
Seriously, the answer to your question (which is how conversations move forward) is that I do not know why Alaska states their statute in that way.?ÿ I knew you left off the section on disclosure because the theory of policy diffusion indicates that portion should also have been in the Alaska statute.?ÿ If Alaska adopted the language from some other states I'm familiar with, they intentionally added "if some conflict is unavoidable".?ÿ If some other states that I am familiar with adopted the language from Alaska, they intentionally removed "if some conflict is unavoidable".?ÿ Which is why I emphasized that particular language - it was different from several other states.
It is in the statute.?ÿ When the people preparing the language for presentation to the legislature included it, I do not know what the rational was for the specific way it is stated.?ÿ In their minds, did the word "some" carry enough import to refine what they meant by "unavoidable"??ÿ If "unavoidable" is as definite as "if there is any means to not perform an action", why have the excess verbiage about disclosure?
You are ignoring the crux of my argument against comparing us to attorneys.
Your example of an attorney representing both sides doesn't translate. A better example would be an attorney representing himself, and his opponent in a legal conflict.?ÿ
I have not ignored your argument, I don't agree with it.?ÿ Ignoring a point would be when it was pointed out that an attorney can represent themselves in a real estate transfer and they can represent both parties (and again this is in some states).?ÿ They could be the seller while representing the buyer.?ÿ Hence they could have a potential conflict of interest and hide something in a title opinion or fail to disclose items that would affect the completion of the transaction if it were in their best interest to do so.?ÿ You may not agree that this potential is on par with what a land surveyor could do, but it is the same potential conflict of interest that could harm one party while benefiting the professional party.?ÿ Yet full disclosure and professional judgement is a written opinion from some state bar associations.
What is written in statute is quite different from ethics.
I would disagree (of course, when do I not disagree) with this.?ÿ Ethics are the moral philosophy of an individual or group.?ÿ When groups of people live in proximity to each other, their idea of ethics tend to coalesce because they are learning from each other and other external influences.?ÿ The larger groups tend to then develop laws that impose their ethics as the main view of what is right or wrong within society.?ÿ Easily seen in the history of laws around marijuana.
While there are differences and the statutes might include or exclude some items, I would not characterize them as "quite different".?ÿ And I would actually consider the written laws of an area to be reasonably indicative of the general ethic of the people in that area - with the understanding that not everyone in the area has the same viewpoint as the recorded law.
You're speaking about morals, not ethics. Morals are concerned with judgments of right vs wrong, are often far more subjective (and provincial) in nature and do not require justification. (Trying not to use the "R" word here, but that's the best example in society today.)
Ethics is concerned with the principles of right conduct (notice there is no judgment in there), and unlike morals, it is actually a science and a field of study within philosophy.
The law is an imperfect and ever-evolving mishmash of both moral and ethical, but tends to lean toward morals since it is a reflection of what a society judges to be right and wrong.
Unfortunately, as a result, the law cannot be a comprehensive stand-in for ethics. The law is really necessary for those who have not advanced far enough along the stages of moral/ethical development a la Kohlberg's six stages.
As professionals, we're supposed to be operating at the post-conventional stage. Not many people get to that point, which when we really get down to it is why we have laws in the first place. In theory, a society operating on the universal ethical principles of that post-conventional stage shouldn't need a codified law.
Marijuana laws were always concerned with morals as opposed to ethics. Someone smoking a joint before legalization wouldn't be convicted of failure to apply ethical principles, and the action itself of smoking a joint, outside of any context (the way the law is applied) is ethically neutral. But they would just be judged (there's that word again) of breaking the law, regardless of context.
It would be possible for someone to ethically smoke marijuana but still be convicted for it. I'll admit to not being able to conjure up such a scenario, but that is the difference between the law and ethics.
Just because something is lawful doesn't make it ethical, and just because something is ethical doesn't mean you won't go to prison for it.
But the "attempt" part is separate from the "disclose" part. You should only disclose if you have already attempted to avoid the work, but were unable to. Unable as in, you had no other choice, or the other choices presented an undue burden.
Especially when it lets us actually avoid a potential conflict of interest. It's a very low bar to clear.
This is really where the disconnect occurs - the notion that if it's not specifically proscribed by law then it is totally OK.
I think the disconnect is the difference in opinion of if it is a conflict of interest.?ÿ The people who stated they have surveyed their own properties probably did not consider it to be a conflict of interest.?ÿ If they determine that to be the case, then they are separating the two matters.
Your choice of the phrase "undue burden" was timely.?ÿ I actually wondered briefly if that might be why the Alaska statute aliquot referenced was stated as it was.?ÿ Given the size of the land mass, I wondered if the people developing that language might have left open the potential that there might be no one else around to reasonable seek another surveyor.
@rover83 Definition 1 Merriam-Webster.?ÿ Etymology of the word from as far back as the Greek.?ÿ I'm discussing ethics.
What is written in statute is quite different from ethics.
I would disagree (of course, when do I not disagree) with this.?ÿ Ethics are the moral philosophy of an individual or group.?ÿ When groups of people live in proximity to each other, their idea of ethics tend to coalesce because they are learning from each other and other external influences.?ÿ The larger groups tend to then develop laws that impose their ethics as the main view of what is right or wrong within society.?ÿ Easily seen in the history of laws around marijuana.
While there are differences and the statutes might include or exclude some items, I would not characterize them as "quite different".?ÿ And I would actually consider the written laws of an area to be reasonably indicative of the general ethic of the people in that area - with the understanding that not everyone in the area has the same viewpoint as the recorded law.
You're speaking about morals, not ethics. Morals are concerned with judgments of right vs wrong, are often far more subjective (and provincial) in nature and do not require justification. (Trying not to use the "R" word here, but that's the best example in society today.)
Ethics is concerned with the principles of right conduct (notice there is no judgment in there), and unlike morals, it is actually a science and a field of study within philosophy.
The law is an imperfect and ever-evolving mishmash of both moral and ethical, but tends to lean toward morals since it is a reflection of what a society judges to be right and wrong.
Unfortunately, as a result, the law cannot be a comprehensive stand-in for ethics. The law is really necessary for those who have not advanced far enough along the stages of moral/ethical development a la Kohlberg's six stages.
As professionals, we're supposed to be operating at the post-conventional stage. Not many people get to that point, which when we really get down to it is why we have laws in the first place. In theory, a society operating on the universal ethical principles of that post-conventional stage shouldn't need a codified law.
Marijuana laws were always concerned with morals as opposed to ethics. Someone smoking a joint before legalization wouldn't be convicted of failure to apply ethical principles, and the action itself of smoking a joint, outside of any context (the way the law is applied) is ethically neutral. But they would just be judged (there's that word again) of breaking the law, regardless of context.
It would be possible for someone to ethically smoke marijuana but still be convicted for it. I'll admit to not being able to conjure up such a scenario, but that is the difference between the law and ethics.
Just because something is lawful doesn't make it ethical, and just because something is ethical doesn't mean you won't go to prison for it.
Thank you for this, I wanted to respond in this vein and was struggling, but you did it perfectly.
But the "attempt" part is separate from the "disclose" part. You should only disclose if you have already attempted to avoid the work, but were unable to. Unable as in, you had no other choice, or the other choices presented an undue burden.
Especially when it lets us actually avoid a potential conflict of interest. It's a very low bar to clear.
This is really where the disconnect occurs - the notion that if it's not specifically proscribed by law then it is totally OK.
I think the disconnect is the difference in opinion of if it is a conflict of interest.?ÿ The people who stated they have surveyed their own properties probably did not consider it to be a conflict of interest.?ÿ If they determine that to be the case, then they are separating the two matters.
Your choice of the phrase "undue burden" was timely.?ÿ I actually wondered briefly if that might be why the Alaska statute aliquot referenced was stated as it was.?ÿ Given the size of the land mass, I wondered if the people developing that language might have left open the potential that there might be no one else around to reasonable seek another surveyor.
You have succefully identified a theoretical situation where one could possibly successfully argue that it acceptable to survey ones own land in Alaska. There are probably other theoretical arguments that could made for other particular situations, but they would remain exceptions.
But the "attempt" part is separate from the "disclose" part. You should only disclose if you have already attempted to avoid the work, but were unable to. Unable as in, you had no other choice, or the other choices presented an undue burden.
Especially when it lets us actually avoid a potential conflict of interest. It's a very low bar to clear.
This is really where the disconnect occurs - the notion that if it's not specifically proscribed by law then it is totally OK.
I think the disconnect is the difference in opinion of if it is a conflict of interest.?ÿ The people who stated they have surveyed their own properties probably did not consider it to be a conflict of interest.?ÿ If they determine that to be the case, then they are separating the two matters.
Your choice of the phrase "undue burden" was timely.?ÿ I actually wondered briefly if that might be why the Alaska statute aliquot referenced was stated as it was.?ÿ Given the size of the land mass, I wondered if the people developing that language might have left open the potential that there might be no one else around to reasonable seek another surveyor.
Those are both disconnects in this conversation. I would love to hear an explanation from those who don't think it is a conflict of interest that isn??t a justification based on anology or comparison, because this is where I am having trouble understanding the argument.?ÿ
A quick Google for a definition of conflict of interst returns: "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity." Do those who are arguing its OK to survey your own property think this doesn't apply to a boundary survey??ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
Someone posted about informing the affected parties where there's a conflict of interest, or appearance of one.?ÿ
Consulting the code of ethics will let me know if what I'm doing is contrary to state rules.?ÿ Consulting myself will let me know if it's contrary to my morals.
I don't know one surveyor who hasn't surveyed for a family member, acquaintance, church or group where they're a member, or close friend.?ÿ
And as has been said, some think we're already influenced toward whoever's paying the bill.?ÿ So someone can argue there's never neutrality in what we do.
You'd have to rule out a lot of potential clients if you're going to try to avoid the slightest hint of bias
You have succefully identified a theoretical situation where one could possibly successfully argue that it acceptable to survey ones own land in Alaska.
Side track - I'm assuming you are in Alaska.?ÿ If so, what would be some of the largest distances between surveyor offices??ÿ In my area, there is one particular surveyor who is the only one within about an hour of anyone else.?ÿ I expect that is minuscule compared to Alaska.?ÿ Especially going by Daryl M? who used to post about his travels to jobs in Alaska.
I would love to hear an explanation from those who don't think it is a conflict of interest that isn??t a justification based on anology or comparison
Number 1, you are not going to like or agree with the answer and number 2, the answer has already been posted.
Statutory definition of conflict of interest (in some states).?ÿ Interest running contrary (not just interest, but contrary interest) to employer,client, public interest.
I think I'm about argued out on this one.?ÿ As mentioned before - this is something that won't get finalized on a message forum.
@aliquot?ÿ
Someone posted about informing the affected parties where there's a conflict of interest, or appearance of one.?ÿ
Consulting the code of ethics will let me know if what I'm doing is contrary to state rules.?ÿ Consulting myself will let me know if it's contrary to my morals.
I don't know one surveyor who hasn't surveyed for a family member, acquaintance, church or group where they're a member, or close friend.?ÿ
And as has been said, some think we're already influenced toward whoever's paying the bill.?ÿ So someone can argue there's never neutrality in what we do.
You'd have to rule out a lot of potential clients if you're going to try to avoid the slightest hint of bias
But no one is suggesting we try to avoid the "slightest hint of bias".?ÿ We aren't talking about bias here. A conflict of interst (see definition above) is when one has an interest that potentially can be harmed by your work. It doesn't mean you are biased. Many, even among those who I disagree with on this issue, are capable of an unbiased survey when they have a conflict of interst.?ÿ
We aren't even talking about avoiding the slightest hint of a conflict of interst. We are talking about avoiding the type of conflict of interst that waves itself in your face with flashing lights.?ÿ
?ÿ
I would love to hear an explanation from those who don't think it is a conflict of interest that isn??t a justification based on anology or comparison
Number 1, you are not going to like or agree with the answer and number 2, the answer has already been posted.
Statutory definition of conflict of interest (in some states).?ÿ Interest running contrary (not just interest, but contrary interest) to employer,client, public interest.
I think I'm about argued out on this one.?ÿ As mentioned before - this is something that won't get finalized on a message forum.
Yep its about time to wrap this up. Your interst your land runs contrary to the interst of your neighbors, seems pretty clear to me.
You have succefully identified a theoretical situation where one could possibly successfully argue that it acceptable to survey ones own land in Alaska.
Side track - I'm assuming you are in Alaska.?ÿ If so, what would be some of the largest distances between surveyor offices??ÿ In my area, there is one particular surveyor who is the only one within about an hour of anyone else.?ÿ I expect that is minuscule compared to Alaska.?ÿ Especially going by Daryl M? who used to post about his travels to jobs in Alaska.
You don't have to go to Alskanta to far exceed 1 hour between surveyors.?ÿ
Remote in Alaska means flying in. If you are a remote landowner in Alaska you will have a way to fly yourself in, that will work for the surveyor you hire too.
On the road system, outside Fairbanks and and southcentral (Anchorage/Wassilla/Plamer/Homer...) there are only a few surveyors scattered here or there, but most areas have a surveyor or two in Anchorage, Fairbanks that specializes in the area and will combine jobs on trips to keep down travel costs).?ÿ
Your interst your land runs contrary to the interst of your neighbors, seems pretty clear to me.
I'm not following how my interest is contrary to my neighbor's
?ÿ
But on this site, I think you and I have agreed maybe once on an issue.?ÿ
Being in PLSSia, there have been many survey jobs where at least one PLSS corner required for that survey is also common to a section in which I own real estate.?ÿ Yes, I own ground in more than a dozen different sections in my home county.?ÿ Should I refuse to accept work in any of those sections or sections that adjoin those sections because someone might believe I might change something that would then somehow benefit me?????????????????ÿ Horse feathers!
Your interst your land runs contrary to the interst of your neighbors, seems pretty clear to me.
I'm not following how my interest is contrary to my neighbor's
?ÿ
But on this site, I think you and I have agreed maybe once on an issue.?ÿ
I am confused. I think there must be some miscommunication going on, because it seems so obvious to me that I must be misunderstanding something.?ÿ
If the boundary between you and your neighbor moves one direction you gain land and your neighbor loses it. If it moves the other way the opposite happens.?ÿ
Being in PLSSia, there have been many survey jobs where at least one PLSS corner required for that survey is also common to a section in which I own real estate.?ÿ Yes, I own ground in more than a dozen different sections in my home county.?ÿ Should I refuse to accept work in any of those sections or sections that adjoin those sections because someone might believe I might change something that would then somehow benefit me?????????????????ÿ Horse feathers!
It sounds like a case by case analysis may be I?ÿ order.
