Ethics

ethical standards which prohibit the doing of that which the law does not forbid.

Bevis: HEHEHE...I've downloaded the latest DOQQ aerial photos...
Butthead: I got the GIS tax parcel database...hehehehe
Beavis: Here is a link to the filed (scanned) Boundary Surveys...wink
Butthead...WOW...look at my NEW GPS gizzmo...lol
Bevis: ESRI software claims it can snap to end points and mid-points...
Butthead: GoogleMap has KMZ...
Bevis: Let's make a web site...B&B Surveys...
Butthead: Yeah, Man...
Bevis: You think we need to buy a shovel?
Butthead: Shut up...that sounds like work...
Bevis: Is this against the law?
Butthead:..Naw..the law does not forbid...
Bevis:...So we will meet the ethical standards?
Butthead: Yeah, those which prohibit the doing...
Bevis: Doing?
Butthead: Yeah...doing of that which the law does not forbid...
Bevis...HEHEHEHEHE...
Butthead:...TP for their bung hole...survey plats...hehehehe
😉
DDSM
(note that this is humor)

I don't think the surveying profession has advanced in terms of ethics. Surveyors will generally not turn in a fellow surveyor even if they know he is incompetent or unethical. The profession watching itself is like the fox guarding the henhouse.

Some won't turn others in because they think it makes them a snitch rather than a responsible professional protecting the profession and protecting the public.

Some won't turn others in because their board is either ineffectual or unwilling to act on complaints that won't produce large fines with minimal effort on their part. Hint: if you want them to act, have all the evidence for an airtight case in a nice neat package for them when you make the complaint.

Our board usually seems to do the best they can with the resources they have. I'm not really pleased with their lack of effectiveness in some unlicensed practice cases, but other than that, they normally do pretty well.

>
> A question to those with decades more experience than I:
>
> Has our profession realized a significant advance in ethics since Brown penned the article?

The answer is sorrowfully a resounding NO!.

While the majority of the surveyors I have come in contact with have good ethics, it is not translating well into the younger surveyors and into some of the older surveyors who have become disillusioned because of dealing with problems for so long and dealing with ignorant clients who WILL NOT be educated.

Too many are get the job done cheap, charge a lot, maximize profit and don't worry about what we might have missed. Let them sue, that is what insurance is for.

While that attitude has been around since I can remember and I do not doubt for many, many years before, it is sadly increasing at a rate that we as professionals cannot tolerate. Those must be weeded out as thoroughly as possible.

> A question to those with decades more experience than I:
>
> Has our profession realized a significant advance in ethics since Brown penned the article?

Ethics were the standard when Brown penned the article. You based your career off your word, your work and the stature of how others viewed both. I think all professions have seen a dramatic downward change in ethics since the 50's, 60's even 70's. Since then, it seems the average Joe is only looking out for their own bottom line.:-(

> Some won't turn others in because they think it makes them a snitch rather than a responsible professional protecting the profession and protecting the public.

That's an asinine non-argument, if you ask me. The malfeasances of their fellow surveyor undermines THEM as well.

> Some won't turn others in because their board is either ineffectual or unwilling to act on complaints that won't produce large fines with minimal effort on their part. Hint: if you want them to act, have all the evidence for an airtight case in a nice neat package for them when you make the complaint.

The Board investigators can only work with what they are made aware of - they may stumble upon more stuff on investigation, but it's foolish to assume that they will know the whole history, or be aware of the things that the respondent scrambles to hide. The more information they have, the better. Meanwhile the Board members themselves are more like judges and jury - they are essentially not allowed to go out and investigate or discover more information on their own - if they have outside knowledge about a case that is not presented in a hearing, they actually are expected to recuse themselves as they can't then serve impartially. So, the more information that is shared, the better.

> Our board usually seems to do the best they can with the resources they have. I'm not really pleased with their lack of effectiveness in some unlicensed practice cases, but other than that, they normally do pretty well.

Agree. BORs typically don't have much in terms of teeth or legal mandate to go after unlicensed practice issues. I think BORs need more teeth and/or closer ties to the enforcement agencies outside of their own who have the mandate for unlicensed practice issues.

Gunt...

Evan has personally fought the unlicensed practice battle.

Gunt...

> Evan has personally fought the unlicensed practice battle.

That's excellent... I was just pointing out that in some cases BORs have very limited capability within their enabling legislation to pursue things like unlicensed practice. That's not to say that BORs don't still occasionally drop the ball or otherwise not hand it off adequately to the agencies whose mandate it is to go after unlicensed practice. The system is far from perfect, but on the whole BORs do the best they can, given the parameters and limitations they are given to work with.

Ethics - Take Colorado for example

Take Colorado for example - Ethics is a big deal

Just look at all the recent Colorado board actions towards licensees. All of them have been directed to take an ethics course at New Mexico State University, amongst other things.

It is very true that the BOR can only instigate what they know.
If they don't know - THEY DON'T KNOW - you need to tell them

Some of the violations have been so bad, that the surveyors' practice is being monitored.

Gunt...

> BORs do the best they can, given the parameters and limitations they are given to work with.

I agree,
If you don't like what they are doing, get on the board and change it.

Ethics - Take Colorado for example

Another thing concerning Colorado
Compare the Real Estate Licensing Board to the Board of Engineers & Surveyors

It takes the surveying board sometimes over two years to investigate a complaint.
Ironically, these case are referred to the "Office of Expedited Settlement"

Compare that to the Colorado Real Estate Licensing Board. Every month dozens of realtors are sanctioned, fined or license revived. Their action is quick, just & swift.

Gunt...

Again, problem is that so much of it is not up to Board members to change. More often than not, the legislation itself would have to change to give to BORs more teeth, such as in the case of unlicensed practice.

Ethics - Take Colorado for example

Apples and oranges.

I think real estate and many other regulated occupations such as barbers and cosmetologists have a lot more straight-forward "traffic ticket" type offenses that can be quickly and easily resolved without much further investigation than the basic yes/no types of things, and administrative sanctions without hearings even needed in most cases, whereas engineering, medicine, surveying and REAL professions typically require a lot more investigation, hearings, and so on, to get to the bottom of the matter.

Gunt...

I agree with all of the statements that spun off my last one. The profession must be active in policing itself. That means each licensee has a responsibility to this end. The argument characterized by GC as asinine is exactly that. I wasn't trying to advance or supprt it in any way, just stating it as one that is common.

I really wish the Board had more ability to actually investigate and enforce, especially issues involving unlicensed practice. But far too often, it sems that our Board does not even bite hard enough with the teeth it already has. There is one outfit consisting of two unlicensed guys that taught themselves CAD and how to run a TS and DC. Neither had any experience or training under an LS, but they make nice looking maps and have an engineer who is willing to sign off for them when necessary. These guys advertise in local classified papers, and in the yellow pages under "professional surveyors". I have spoken to Board enforcement staff about them repeatedly, passing on the online YP ad link and other advertisements, yet they continue to have a steady business.

I have made the Board aware of another individual who lives locally, has a permanent sign in his front yard on a major road in our county, and regularly submits records of survey maps to the county using his retired father's stamp and signature. The father lives several hundred miles away. I asked the County Surveyor why he continues to accept maps from this guy. The CS said that he has reported him and several other unlicensed individuals to the Board over the years to no effect, and in complete frustration, has given up.

Looking over published Board enforcemnt actions, unlicensed practice is often met with just a cease and desist order. Usually there is a financial component involved, ordering the unlicensed person to pay costs of the "investigation", which is limited to a review of materials submitted with the complaint. In many cases, it doesn't take much review to verify that a person was providing survey srvices and has no license to do so, so the fines are usually pretty nominal. Occasionally they are more than $3000. Almost always they are low enough that the unlicensd practitioner can pay them and continue on with business as usual, considering the board fine a cost of doing business.

The Board has the authority to order phone service for the unlicensed person to be disconnected, and occasionally they do that. BUt they do not have the authority to prosecute them criminally. They have to rely on either the AG's office or the local DA's office to do that. I have not seen where either the AG or a DA has devoted resources to prosecuting a criminal case against unlicensed practice.

With these limitations on how much the board can, or in some cases is willing to do with respet to unlicensed practice, a licensee who fails to timely file a record of survey is likely to get a far stiffer penalty than a person practicing without a license. It almost makes it seem a good business decision for some to giv up thir license and just practice without it. OK, that's rather cynical, but it's a frustrating situation.

Gunt...

There are definitely a slew of issues involved - I believe a lot of the investigators typically come from a background of state, municipal or other law enforcement, and know rules of evidence, interrogation, and so on - but really don't know or understand the nuances of surveying all that well. Similarly, the prosecutors are not surveyors, they are attorneys, likewise with limited knowledge of land surveying - and the BORs, as the "judge and jury" really has its' hands tied, as they cannot give direction to investigators or prosecutors, to make prosecutions and investigations more effective. In some cases, there are serious firewalls between these, to avoid cases from being "tainted" - it would be like having the judge instruct the cops and D.A. on how to get evidence and prosecute a murderer. Though it sounds like it would good "gut" sense, it unfortunately violates the mandated principles of impartiality that judges and BORs are supposed to practice. Maybe if the BORs had very experienced staff surveyor expertise aboard, who could help them with gathering and evaluating technical evidence, and so on - the BORs could be more effective.

Likewise, to the unlicensed practice issues, a "cease and desist" letter is a slap on the wrist, and more often than not, even financial sanctions do not adequately outweigh the monetary reward that unlicensed practitioners are making anyways. There, the sanctions need to be harsher, and well coordinated with other agencies dealing with business practice.

Ethics - Take Colorado for example

>Surveyors will generally not turn in a fellow surveyor even if they know he is incompetent or unethical.

You hit that nail on the head!

I know a surveyor who bought a house from a developer in a new-ish half-finished neighborhood not long ago. Thanks to buying from the developer, he got the standard "rubber stanp" lot survey that the developer threw in as an incentive toward closing costs. After closing, the surveyor carried his "rubber stamp" survey around his yard with a locator and came up one lot corner short. The survey in his hand says the corner is there... Did he bother to phone the guy who stamped the survey? NO. Did he turn him in? NO. Did the surveyor who bought the house set the corner? NO.

I don't think there are any chickens in the hen house. There are just foxes sitting around looking at one another, scratching fleas.

Ethics - Take Colorado for example

> >Surveyors will generally not turn in a fellow surveyor even if they know he is incompetent or unethical.
>
> You hit that nail on the head!
>
> I know a surveyor who bought a house from a developer in a new-ish half-finished neighborhood not long ago. Thanks to buying from the developer, he got the standard "rubber stanp" lot survey that the developer threw in as an incentive toward closing costs. After closing, the surveyor carried his "rubber stamp" survey around his yard with a locator and came up one lot corner short. The survey in his hand says the corner is there... Did he bother to phone the guy who stamped the survey? NO. Did he turn him in? NO. Did the surveyor who bought the house set the corner? NO.
>
> I don't think there are any chickens in the hen house. There are just foxes sitting around looking at one another, scratching fleas.

Not trying to argue, but I think this shows why it is tough to "rat" someone else out. For instance, this example: the survey doesn't say the corner is there, it says it was there when the survey was done. You can find lots of new-ish, half-finished lots around here with plats saying there are corners here and there, and you will not find half of them. Between the landscapers and the fence builders...

And I think that is what happens, even if there is a mistake we give each other the benefit of the doubt, and besides you might have to work with this guy some day. That doesn't seem too strange.

Like a cop doesn't give another cop a ticket...

So how do you fight human nature?

Ethics - Take Colorado for example

Although I agree that a lot of guys don't want to "rat" other surveyors out, I also agree that to do that often takes more proof than innuendos, and suspicions. Another example might be that I knew a surveyor who often ran off his mouth about other surveyors to potential clients....or so I understood. However, even if I saw and heard it happen, I don't have much in the way of proof for a BOR to come down on the surveyor. Many cases you retrace other surveyors and get the impression that they are sloppy or didn't do the full job they said they did, but often it is not an actionable offense or you don't have the real proof you need to take it to a board.