it's been my experience, in almost a decade of being licensed, that many of these issues arise when you have guys (ladies too, i suppose, but i've personally never run into a technical conflict with any of the local female RPLS) who are coming from, or are conditioned to, the "money talks, b.s. walks" approach to work. land development in this area has been off the charts for most of the past two decades, and i've spent a good bit of that time working for clients in that field- almost a decade for a land development civil firm.
the need to meet deadlines for well-paying clients lends itself to interjecting a new set of considerations into many decisions- mainly this manifests itself in the question of "what is the likelihood this relavtively minor, historically overlooked potential conflict is going to bite me in the arse at some point down the road?" i've had this very discussion with former clients, employers, and attorneys of both. i saw one former employer, in complete conjunction with the agents of one particular state agency, completely neglect a serious, fundamental question of riparian rights by rationalizing that it would be cheaper to just buy the area in question from the "owner" rather than spend the time to properly examine the issue. this was prior, even, to me taking the SIT- i was just a tech who shoulda kept my nose out of things i didn't understand was the subtext of their conclusion. bottom line there- there's a 300' r.o.w. over the area in question now, somebody got paid, and the issue really was moot, for all practical purposes other than theoretical ethics.
i've also been the thorn in the side of said former employer in several notable cases- specifically because i refused to come to the most expedient conclusion for our client in terms of project schedule. in one particular case my conclusion (which i'd go to the mat to defend) ended up potentially and retroactively hanging them (the former employer) out for several multiple-story office developments that would appear to be encroaching into right-of-way by several feet. they weren't happy, but they understood i wasn't going to budge because i could support everything i'd done.
i've also had several complaints filed against me with the board- in no case did i first receive a call/letter/email from the other surveyor (one of which being the former employer in the riparian issue discussed above), and in each of the three incidents the board basically laughed at the complaint and tossed it in the garbage.
i, for one, would go to the board with a complaint against another surveyor only as the very last resort when dealing with somebody who is completely incompetent, unethical, and obstinate. i don't think that even any 2 out of the 3 would suffice for me. i would go to the ends of the earth to sit down personally (or at least talk personally) with the surveyor in question before assuming i knew better then he or she did. the older i get, the more i appreciate that most times people have a pretty good reason for doing what they do, and that i'm usually not any smarter than the next guy. perhaps it's my inherent personality trait of conflict avoidance or just neuroses or whatever, but i assume that a part of my job is to attempt, at least, to resolve any conflicts that arise- if possible. that means coming to agreement with other professional surveyors- again, if possible. and it's not always so. sometimes it means exactly the opposite- but i'll always extend the courtesy of opportunity to any surveyor in possession of conflicting opinions and/or determinations.
Well....my 2¢ worth.
I don't know the exact citations or the nature of the complaints...but in my opinion, surveyors trying to cite or complain about other surveyors for boundary determinations to the State Board (or to the County Surveyor for that matter) are wrong. I don't think it is the County Surveyor's nor the State Board's place to make a boundary determination and decide if/that the surveyor that set it wrong in their eyes should be cited. Those are professional determinations. Period.
The only way to resolve these types of things should be through an intelligent and calm discussion between surveyors; or if you can't come to a reasonable solution, the landowners need to get their boundary dispute resolved through legal means or some kind of compromise. It might be easier if it's a small piece of land to just let the other side have their way instead of spending all the money in court. But it is not the county surveyor's nor the State Board's place to resolve boundary disputes (in my humble opinion).
If this guy is making complaints against you to the State Board, the State Board should tell him that they are not there to resolve a boundary dispute. I don't know how bad it gets or has gotten, but there is a possibility of slander or libel on one person's part if they are telling lies and/or intentionally trying to defame the other surveyor. Everyone throws out the terms "original monuments" and/or "senior lines" with little or no regard to more of the back-story. Sometimes the alleged "original monument" is a secondary or later monument, Sometimes the "original monument" has been moved. And sometimes the Junior boundary line might even be evidence as to where the senior line once was. I just don't think everything is as "cut and dried" as we often make it sound, and it certainly shouldn't be decided by one agency or official against a licensed professional.
If a surveyor is committing gross negligence, and his boundary determinations are proven wrong time and time again by the appropriate authority (courts) that might be a point that the state board steps in, and determines whether or not the person should be licensed. But they aren't surveying the parcels and deciding where the correct property corners go. It is beyond their purview.
(Okay, that sounded more like a rant than '2¢' worth. Sorry)
Be patient, ...
and remember that it's "best served cold."
I disagree to an extent.
If two surveyors come to different boundary conclusions because one of those surveyors is using BS measurement methods, then yes, the board has the right to step in.
Be patient, ...
Cliff, I appreciate your comment. Really. This guy is a sort of religious fellow, and that won't fly.
Maybe cheesecake?
🙂
N
Be patient, ...
Nate,
Not necessarily so ... he can just sit back and watch it happen.
"Karma" is a religious concept.
🙂
Be patient, ...
I really want to thank you all for your valuable input.
to Adam 3000 - yes, the Board does have a rule that makes it a violation to "falsely or maliciously injure the reputation or business of another surveyor"
They chose not to act. By code, they are not obligated to act unless another surveyor, citizen or professional practices committee makes a complaint about other surveyor's behavior.
to JB Stahl - I was not the complainant, the other surveyor's client was. This happened in your state. To simplify for others, in many states a Record of Survey is called a "long form plat" and a corner record is called a "short form plat".
to Jon Payne - no, the board did not question ethics of other surveyor, just stated they were "familiar with that person."
to Bill 93 - you ask how the board decided incompetence since they routinely refuse to engage in a boundary analysis ? I believe their "expert consultant" was impressed with the narrative in the other surveyors map whereby I was described as not comprehending the boundary situation. That coupled with the fact of the other surveyor used to write for a national surveyor's magazine a number of years ago. I don't know.
When you learn your state board is investigating you, the first thing that happens to you is that you begin to suffer from insomnia. That goes on for a couple of years until the state's complaint is closed and resolved. I am back to sleeping much better now. All I have to do is look around; there are a lot bigger injustices done to people that what was done to me.
Be patient, ...
> to JB Stahl - I was not the complainant, the other surveyor's client was. This happened in your state. To simplify for others, in many states a Record of Survey is called a "long form plat" and a corner record is called a "short form plat".
I realize that you weren't the complainant. Perhaps you should have been. The board could/should deal with ethics violations, not boundary determinations (I'm in full agreement with Tom Adams' post above).
I don't believe this happened in "my" state (UT). We don't have "short form plats" or "long form plats" here. We also don't get review or approval from county surveyors for our surveys or corner records. Their duty is to file them. Some of the counties do a non-binding cursory review and will give you a courtesy call if they notice something missing on your ROS. Very grateful for the second pair of eyes. Most counties don't even have a county surveyor so no review is made at all.
JBS
Be patient, ...
Sorry for the confusion JB. It happened in the state that the above D. Karoly works in.
County Surveyor
just to clarify that in Colorado, there are statutes that do allow a county surveyor several legal procedures to help resolve boundary disputes.
Unfortunately, this process requires either two COOPERATIVE surveyors or two COOPERATIVE landowners, so these procedures are not often ultimately utilized, even though I get many calls from people who start out hoping I can help.
Fortunately, these several procedures CAN get a dispute resolved legally WITHOUT GOING TO COURT.
And, also very importantly, the county surveyor CAN provide a dispute resolution process between two surveyors as a far better alternative than fighting in court or through the State Board. It is an ADVANTAGE that it can be done in a non-binding manner.
Going to Court is the place where 2 landowners fight (and there is no such thing as winning in court).
Court is by far the last place, the worse place, for 2 surveyors to fight.
ww CO PLS
- Have a nice day! Or, may your monument prevail over some guy's touchscreen.