Calamity Jane

Perhaps you could email Jane a copy of 250 C.M.R. with section 5.02(h) highlighted:

(h) A Registrant shall provide written notification to other Registrants in the event of substantial disagreement with the work of the other. When appropriate, both Registrants shall investigate and attempt to resolve the disagreement collaboratively. The notified Registrant is required to respond in a timely manner to the Registrant giving notice.

It specifies actions required between registrants, not registrants and clients, so suggest to her that Surveyor 2 should contact Surveyor 1 in writing. Furthermore:

(i) A Registrant shall not act in a manner or engage in a practice that brings discredit on the honor or dignity of the profession of engineering or land surveying.

Paragraph (i) is a basis for a violation she could file a complaint about. Avoiding the isssue because he is "too busy" would not sit well with the Board of Registration members.

Thank you for that suggestion. I'll do that.

You are quite correct that the two surveyors should be brought together to resolve their differences. What you are missing is that facilitating this meeting can and should be your first role in this effort.

I would avoid any major involvement in this situation, especially when it comes to offering any sort of advice, other than to have the two other surveyors meet, compare their findings, and hopefully come to a resolution.

As things stand now, there are already two surveyors in the mix, one is most likely right, one is most likely not and there is a remote possibility that both are missing something. Adding a third surveyor to the mix has the potential of further muddying the waters.

As I think somebody mentioned earlier in the threat, maybe reach out to both parties involved and see if you can get them to meet, but I would not get more involved than that. As the old adage goes, too many chefs spoils the soup.

If only these surveys were recorded maybe this mess wouldn't haven't got this far... 🙄

So I'll ask the already asked and discussed question about why don't surveyors want their surveys recorded?

Is it to protect their crappy work?

Is it to avoid the possibility of scrutiny or wholesale plagiarism and copyright theft of the signed drawings for IP and or something else?

I'm ready for the BS to stop from the way we've always done this because at some point we're all going to be out of a job esp the ones of us that are still clawing our way towards license and the promise of future and job security in a cool field.

Carry on.

I think I'm having a low blood sugar or high testosterone or both moment...

So I’ll ask the already asked and discussed question about why don’t surveyors want their surveys recorded?

I don't know that it's coming from the surveyor; the property owner could also be the one that doesn't want it recorded. I've never worked in one of those states though so I don't know the logic behind it, but I assume it's some sort of IP stance.

Whenever I see stories about those states though I immediately picture a bunch of pirates running around hiding treasure and then being hunched over drawing maps, stuffing them in their shirts, and then pulling a musket pistol and threatening everyone around them, and the whole scenario makes me laugh.

I'm not saying that's how it is, but that's definitely how I picture it.

Why don't survey drawings get recorded? I'll make three guesses for states where it's up to the property owner:

1. It costs money to record it.
2. The outcome wasn't what the owner hoped for.
3. The acreage increased; if the property tax authority finds out about it, the property taxes will go up.

It is hard to follow in the steps of those before us if you cannot find them.

costs $400 in fees to record in WA State...I am positive that encourages people to record...

Seems to me like the left hand doesn't know, or care, what the right hand is doing. The property tax authorities would like up-to-date surveys to draw good tax maps. The recording authorities want money to pay employees and keep the heat on. But high fees prevent up-to-date surveys from coming to the attention of the property tax folks.

I agree with those of you here who are wondering why surveyors don't record the map. Recording is only a $105 fee at the Registry of Deeds in our state. Our rules are that recording is not necessary unless new lines are created. However, my clients all record their existing boundary maps. It serves the public, and other surveyors.

"So I’ll ask the already asked and discussed question about why don’t surveyors want their surveys recorded?"

I’ll bite but I’ll not answer your question directly as your premise is incorrect. The PLS who doesn’t want his survey recorded and only sets corners on moonless nights is a fictional character existing only within the minds of some PLSs working in mandated recording states.

The main argument for mandated recording is that it ensures valuable survey data is readily available to the public and PLSs. It can be reasonably assumed that having records of all surveys performed, protects the public to a great degree. I’ll not argue against that. I appreciated the stockpile of plats when I used to work in New Hampshire. In fact, it was quite a shock when I’d survey in Maine (optional recording) and find that few surveys were ever recorded.

A minor problem with mandated recording is the potential of municipalities to use mandated recording as means of forcing land owners to provide them with valuable data for free. Since a survey must be recorded and it must be reviewed before being recorded, mandated recording puts a great deal of power in the hands of reviewers who don’t often look at the totality of their checklists. I’m all for towns and cities making wise decisions based on solid data, but I’ve seen their conditions for plat approval expand to the point of requiring commercial site-plan level details on retracement surveys.

The main objection to mandated recording is a somewhat esoteric argument that is much easier to understand in light of the Federalist (and anti-Federalist) Papers and other documents elucidating the underpinnings of the American Constitution. It should be easy to understand why America’s founders created the Fourth Amendment, as there was a moment in time when they were all traitors to the crown and in possession of documents that could prove it. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is also a recognition of a certain degree of exclusivity in regards to tangible and/or intellectual property. It’s not really my property if it is not exclusive to me. Mandated recording is well intentioned but as we can see on this and past threads, it doesn’t take long before its proponents throw out baseless accusations of impropriety at dissenters. The old trope that only someone doing something bad would ask for or need privacy comes to mind.

While it’s certainly nice to have a corner record and a plat, quality surveys can and are performed without them. Heck, most real estate transactions happen without a survey. Privacy, however, is a necessity for individual freedom and freedom is always positioned on a slippery slope.

In a non-recording state the surveyor's files, notes, and data may have some saleable value at the end of a long career. Less so in a recording state.

Recording here in Oregon has improved the cadastre, no question. But the act is getting to be mighty expensive. Not just the recording fees, which approach $500 in many counties, but also the 3 rounds of responding to red line comments from County Surveyor staff.