"Yes, I am aware. I will also talk to the guy before doing so, if possible."
I totally agree that this is the way to go. Unless this surveyor explains that they are currently in the process of correcting this substandard survey then action is required on your part since a substandard survey is, in fact, a violation:
18.43.105 Disciplinary action—Prohibited conduct, acts, conditions.
(10) Committing any other act, or failing to act, which act or failure are customarily regarded as being contrary to the accepted professional conduct or standard generally expected of those practicing professional engineering or land surveying.
WAC 196-27A-030 Explicit acts of misconduct.
(1) Registrant's obligation to the public.
(b) Registrants must be able to demonstrate that their final documents and work products conform to accepted standards.
WAC 196-29-110 Land surveying practice standards
Failure by any registrant to comply with the provisions of the Survey Recording Act, chapter 58.09 RCW and the survey standards, chapter 332-130 WAC shall be considered misconduct or malpractice as defined by RCW 18.43.105(10).
It's not about busting their balls or being a prick - it's simply about protecting the unknowing public. Wouldn't you want a knowing medical or law professional to submit substandard medical/law practice to the medical board/BAR before that person had a chance to work on/for you?
Does that mean the PLS must be in the office that provided the field crew?
That does not appear to be the case for this project.
Paul in PA
I worked at a firm in the early '80s which only had a licensed engineer for design and PLS stuff and he was woefully inadequate concerning the PLS end.?ÿ I was not licensed so I had to leave the outfit and was surprised he got popped for maj0r faked PLS stuff which more or less ended his career.
I'll up front and name the man, Pat Streamer, WA & Oregon PLS. I assume he's dead now because advanced of age bit he really f*ckd up the record while he was still active.
There is a fellow who regularly gives talks on ALTA Surveys at the PLSO (Oregon) Conference. His business involves doing ALTAs in several western states. He literally flies his field staff to various cities for a day or 2 of field work, staging out of his headquarters in a eastern Washington State city. He may very well be the same fellow the OP is referencing.?ÿ
I have to wonder what happens when his flown in crew inevitably missing something.?ÿ ?ÿ
Years ago a Florida surveyor (now deceased) told me about an experience he had when turning in someone whom he believed to have been negligent. He swore that he would never do that again. He said the end result result was having the table turned on him. He cautioned that before anyone files a complaint against another surveyor the complaining surveyor better be darned sure that all his I's are dotted and that all t's are crossed.
Anyone who is well familiar with all his/her state rules/laws can find (it only takes one little flaw to be labeled "negligence in the practice of surveying") negligence on just about any other's survey that they closely inspect. The saving grace to such implied demand for perfection, however, may rest in the Board's own language. For instance...whenever a person who is trying to have their license restored, and submits the requisite number of map products for inspection/approval by the Board, the language used by the Board in restoring the license says something the effect of: "...(Board) finds the submitted maps in substantial compliance with the law...".?ÿ Substantial compliance does not mean "perfection".
Do what you feel appropriate, but just be aware your own work might be looked at by the Board.
Well said!!! Bottom line (forget the corporate shell game and across state lines BS), if the individual that placed his/her seal and signature on the final product did substandard work, for whatever reason, you are ethically obligated to file a complaint with the state's Board of Registration. The Board can decide the chapter and verse of violation. Remember, the action of filing the complaint is an effort to protect the public.
Every one of us that has a professional seal must make decisions on how much supervision we provide to those that work under us. That is an individual decision we must be comfortable with. If the signer never set foot on the site, or their own personnel did not conduct the field survey, that is their call and they will need to be prepared to answer for the survey as prepared. The issue, remains if the work was substandard then they must be turned in to the Board.
I totally respect the attempt to discuss the survey with the licensee first and would not take action until I have either spoken to them or made honest attempt to discuss. That is the mark of a professional respecting another professional!
My 2 cents ..
Scott
You have exactly stated the issue.
We all have a body of work that is easily searched and live in glass houses. Even if every complaint is found to be baseless, it takes time and money to deal with it. So, if you start down that road, it feels very dangerous.
I just want to talk to the guy, and see what went wrong in his survey and make sure that it isn't us. That conversation MIGHT lead to suspicion of negligence or whatever. Simply having incorrect (mistakes) on a survey would make everyone negligent at some point, it does happen.
It is exactly the protection of the public that concerns me.
"...what someone finds to be substandard survey..." can vary greatly. From what I can tell, Kent would have had to turn everyone of us into the board according to simply having a substandard survey. And, (around here) it seems that there is a wide variety of interpretations of what the standards are, judging by what I see from different surveyors.
But when and if it rises to threatening the well being of the public, there is a compulsion to act.
Yes it does. Two provisions of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) come in to play.
WAC 196-25-002 Designee, designated engineer, designated land surveyor. A currently registered professional engineer designated by the business to be in responsible charge of engineering activities for the business in Washington, OR, a currently
registered professional land surveyor designated by the business to be in responsible charge of land surveying activities
for the business in Washington.
196-25-050 WAC 196-25-050 Branch offices. An engineering
business or land surveying business maintaining branch
offices shall have a resident engineer or resident land surveyor, as applicable, in responsible charge of said engineering and/or land surveying services.
I think the key is the word "resident". This is a common topic at the BOR level I think.
I have worked for 2 Portland, Oregon headquartered companies that had branch offices in Vancouver , WA. Both did surveying in Washington, neither had any survey staff of any kind operating out of their Vancouver offices.?ÿ I've also worked for 2 other companies that did work in Washington out of Portland offices.?ÿ I am a registrant of both states. A lot of guys in the Portland area are. So you can do survey work in Washington State from an out of state office. It's just this matter of providing adequate professional supervision that is the rub.?ÿ The board assumes that it can't be done if you and your field crew aren't working out of the same office.?ÿ
Let me see if I can state this correctly from memory. A national restaurant chain contracted with a national survey coordination firm for an ALTA survey with elevations.?ÿ The survey work was awarded to a contract firm in another state which was run by a guy who had stolen the identity of a reputable surveyor in a different state. The contract firm faked the entire ALTA survey with elevations in yet another state, and paid a surveyor in that state $50 for use of his seal and signature.
What a mess. The horizontals were off by 7 feet and the verticals were off over 100 feet. I charged a bundle to do a correct survey and turned in everybody involved.
If it is who I think it is, he had quite a case against him according to OSBEELS minutes. From memory it was much of the same as OP but stamping work was the main issue. Jp
$50 for use of his seal and signature.
Race to the bottom...
I believe most every state has a rule requiring surveyors to turn in surveyors who were in violation of a rule. In recording states the exposure of errors would seem to be overwhelming, especially in states where all the maps are available for online viewing. I wonder how many on this site consider it their responsibility to file complaints whenever they notice errors/mistakes/blunders (ie "negligence in the practice of surveying") while viewing online maps? If being honest, I can imagine many, if not most, of us here, who are in recording states with online maps, have noticed quite a few bloopers. Just wondering if there are states where this (filing complaints for awareness of negligence in the practice of surveying via the viewing of online maps) is happening? Anyone?
My personal approach is to talk directly with the other surveyor whenever I catch something. Thus far, potential problems have been worked through with no harm to the Public.
I'm not a fan of snitch laws.?ÿ I'm also not a fan of compulsory speech or coercion and NC's law, regarding mandatory reporting of violations, has elements of both. Some of the most immoral (and dangerous if in a position of power) people I've encountered are those who can rationalize the harm their actions cause based on some yet-to-be-seen good or the prevention of a theoretical harm.
Before using sanctioned force against someone, remind yourself that there are 1:???ÿodds of most outcomes.?ÿ It's not typically an either/or scenario.?ÿ Also, since I'm ethically bound to refrain from speaking ill of my piers, how can I justify calling any of them bad surveyors?
?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
I have been officially reviewing surveys for over 20 years.?ÿ The list of problems I have found could go on for far too long.?ÿ But, we are merely human.?ÿ Some places have two or three workers check the surveys before they go out the door and problems can still be found by an independent reviewer.?ÿ I do not believe this is a sign of improper conduct.?ÿ It proves we are human.?ÿ We all make mistakes.?ÿ Recently, three co-workers reviewed one of their surveys then passed it to me for review.?ÿ I found a couple of things that needed fixed.?ÿ They submitted it at the courthouse.?ÿ They received a call that there was still one mistake on the plat that we all had missed.
Years ago I reviewed a very complex survey, which took well over an hour of review time.?ÿ Everything technical seemed to be perfect.?ÿ However, I found one HUGE error that had not been found by the submitting survey company.?ÿ They are based in ABC County and the work was done in XYZ?ÿ County.?ÿ The descriptions all read the tracts were in ABC County.
Section corner reports:?ÿ Generally, these are an opportunity to cut and paste the information at the start of the form.?ÿ That is all the surveyor identification and contact information, date of survey work, project number (if any) and such which then leads into the naming of the specific section, township and range plus unique identifier for the proper section corner being submitted.?ÿ Cut and paste works great because generally there are several for the same section being submitted but all on separate forms.?ÿ A recent example:?ÿ The survey was in Section 10-29-16.?ÿ The connected corner reports all read 10-35-15.?ÿ The 35-15 were holdovers, by accident, from the previously prepared forms for a different survey.?ÿ The section number had been changed to be correct, but the township and range number did not get altered for the first corner.?ÿ The error continued through on all six corners being reported.?ÿ The first thing I caught was that 35-15 is in a different county, so indexing was impossible.?ÿ Imagine relying on one of those reports that includes a reference tie to a certain bolt in the base of a railroad crossing signal when there has never been a railroad nearby.?ÿ Worse would be the case of there being similar physical items at the falsely identified corner that would encourage a future surveyor to seek/reset at the wrong point.
The canons of ethical behavior apply to many professional practitioners, land surveyors being just one. The fact that they are codified in law should not be the trigger for doing the right thing. In 40+ years of doing this I have notified my BOR of surveyor related issues only twice.
Most issues that I see in the record are simply drafting mistakes and I am not immune. if I think that there might be something significant missing or confusing on another's map I let the surveyor know directly. I've had guys thank me when notified that indexing information is wrong or a whole layer of information might be missing from the record. Why would I go beyond the author of the mapping? What they choose to do from there is their business.
I don't go looking for conflict and I fully understand that there may be other ways to look at something, and that I may not always be right. If I find a survey related issue between another survey and mine, it gets noted on my map and if the surveyor is available (alive), I will send them an image of my work in advance of recording, again not telling them what to do but putting them on notice my findings.
If I notice errors, my first step is to contact the surveyor.
I once contacted a surveyor to ask why there were no corner records where his plat said he set new monuments. He found the 3-year old record sheets in the project file and they showed up on the official site ASAP.?ÿ He thanked me.?ÿ
I never did bother him to ask why his plat seemed to show SPC distances with no indication of that, but considered it. Would you fuss over that? The difference was just about the required accuracy spec.