Mr. E offers mapping and "property pin locating" services. His is not licensed and is careful to omit the word "surveying" in business advertisements.
Mr. R is licensed but lives out of state. He has no ownership interest in Mr. E's business. Mr. R stamps documents for Mr. E, presumably for a fee. Mr. R has no contact w/ Mr. E's clients.
Is Mr. E working under responsible charge for Mr. R ?
The state in question is middle of the Pacific, if that matters.
Questionable, I would submit to your licensing authority for their ruling. Mr. R has to be able to review the work done by Mr. E. Mr. E can not advertise those types of services, only Mr. R. can.
Does this fit as 'responsible charge' ? NO!
"Responsible Charge" includes physical presence, some states specify more than 50% of the work week.
A lot of offices with remote robotic crews may not meet those conditions either.
Paul in PA
Does this fit as 'responsible charge' ? NO!
> ...some states specify more than 50% of the work week.
Others even have distance restrictions. I can't look right at the moment but one of the states I am licensed in (I think WV) requires the Surveyor-In-Charge to live within a 50 mile radius of the office.
> Questionable....
Personally, I don't see what the question is. The facts, as presented, are of classic cases of both unlicensed practice and stamp for hire.
Turn them in.
What you have described is similar to a party chief who is taking fees from clients and using an LS to rubber stamp his maps.
The fact that the LS is across an ocean just makes it more blatant, but it would be the same if he lived across the street.
How many states are in the middle of the pacific?
Mr. A has his license suspended, yet again. He continues surveying by using Mr. B's tags and seal, even though Mr. B is several states away on vacation. (True story.)
I agree with others that question the validity of the relationship. But to be fair, things sometimes are not as they seem. Mr. R presumably has business contacts in the State if he is licensed there. It could be that he has a valid employer/employee relationship with Mr. E for the occassional project that comes along needing an LS. You would need more than the allegations posted in order to report something to the board. There would have to be some evidence to back up the claims. How do you know it is merely stamping rather than thorough direction, review, decision making? How do you know the work is not procured by or directly for Mr. R under his authority?
An LS should be able to maintain responsible charge without visiting the site, if they have experienced and educated technicians employed. With satelite offices the concern is more with volume. If one LS has 3 offices and 10 crews producing work I don't see how they can possibly maintain responsible charge of all that. Of course in some companies very little of the work may need stamping, so it's hard to make bright line rules.
> Mr. E offers mapping and "property pin locating" services. His is not licensed and is careful to omit the word "surveying" in business advertisements.
i.e., he is functioning as a "party chief" would in any office under any reasonable amount of supervision. However, according to the above, and to the next paragraph, he is operating as if he has a "business". From what I read, he is charging a fee for his services.
> Mr. R is licensed but lives out of state.
> The state in question is middle of the Pacific, if that matters.
If we were on the mainland, "out of state" could be one block away just across the state line. There are many LS's with multiple licenses who shuttle from state to state to perform and or supervise work by others. It is possible that "responsible charge" could easily be established for work under such circumstances. But in Hawaii, "lives out of state" means he is thousands of miles away. In order to prove "responsible charge", one would probably have to show a trip to Hawaii every time a survey was stamped and issued, or at least substatial correspondence back and forth showing some kind of review of the work.
> He has no ownership interest in Mr. E's business. Mr. R stamps documents for Mr. E, presumably for a fee. Mr. R has no contact w/ Mr. E's clients.
Again, we are establishing that Mr. E has "a business" and has "clients", with whom Mr. R has "no contact". Mr. R has not established a contractual relationship with Mr. E's clients.
> Is Mr. E working under responsible charge for Mr. R ?
I think the answer is apparent.
Duane has a point: things are not always as they seem.
For many yrs. Mr. E offered surveying services (um, property pin location...) w/out Mr. R.
Calls to Mr. R go unreturned. Mr. E says "stop hassling me."
Mr. E intends on sitting for licensure and using this relationship as his 'responsible charge' requirement. Our board is rather lax (IMO) and state laws not as well defined as, say, Calif., where this activity would not fly. (BTW Mr. R is licensed there too.)
Competition doesn't bother me. The questionable ethics of using this relationship as a path towards professional licensure does.
Ric: There are 2 states in the mid-Pacific: The State of Hawaii and the State of Bliss 😉
Aloha to the channel islands chapter.
> Ric: There are 2 states in the mid-Pacific: The State of Hawaii and the State of Bliss 😉
> Aloha to the channel islands chapter.
I believe the Guam operates under the oversight and semi-control of the US system.
My guess is the situation being described is more likely Guam than it is Hawaii.
Larry P
A similar situation occurred in South Australia where the Court held that by defininition "supervision" required that the supervisor had a degree of of sanction over the person being supervised. It was held that in a situation where the supervisee was paying the supervisor there was no sanction sufficcient enough to constitute supervision.
Translating that to the US it can be partaphrased that there can be no responsible charge unless the person in charge has control over the survey and has the power to enforce that control by sanction (ultimately dismissal).
Cheers
Graham
From what is posted, I would say no.
In my state, Mr. E would have other problems with offering the services he offers no matter how many disclaimers he has on his business advertisements. Mr. E and Mr. R would be in hot water pretty quickly.
I have heard rumors (no proof of anything) that in my part of the state there is an individual who lost his license still practicing, but having his work stamped by a licensed surveyor. Seems like a similar situation, but I guess it would depend on the actual 'supervision' occurring. That is a difficult value to determine from the outside looking in.
