Did everybody measure both directions from the "disturbed" monument?
The new fellow needs to learn that nothing is perfect. I can show him block after block where it is possible to get a different answer for a specific lot based on what you chose as being correct. In fact, that is frequently mulitple different answers.
One surveyor started at the south end of the block in 1937 and measured perfect distances to the north, as far as the lot of interest. The next surveyor in 1947 started at the north end of the block and measured perfect distances to the south, as far as the lot of interest. What are the odds that the lots in between those two early surveys measure exactly the number shown on the plat from 1883? That's only considering a north-south issue. Adding in east-west issues further fogs up the mirror.
Let sleeping dogs lie (or bark untruthfully).
let the board do it's job.
stop protecting idiots.
the problem is the lack of jurisdiction and ethics
if you're afraid to report someone to the board that means you know you've done something wrong to begin with which means you don't want to be reported to the board don't do crappy work and then you don't have to worry about the board.
of course I saying this not being licensed yet, but I don't care, cuz if I think I'm doing something questionable then I'm not going to do it...not without a rationale and explanation.
it really is that simple
The Board does not exist to settle arguments. It exists to find SOMEONE guilty of various improper practices that are CLEARLY spelled out in the standards we are to follow. That is the appropriate allegation that must be proven one way or the other. Otherwise it's no different than the old Miller Lite commercials. Tastes Great..........................Less Filling...................Tastes Great...............................
Those who submit the allegation are subject to being put under the exact same microscope as the other guy. And, FGS, don't make some silly-ass statement like, "Well, I went out and dug two feet deep in a 30 foot radius around the alleged wrong point...BY HAND...... in the middle of Murphy Road and found (whatever). Your credibility just went flying out the window.
@jitterboogie Nothing is that simple. There are gray areas everywhere. Not wanting to report someone to the board is not an indication of work done poorly by the reticent individual. Thinking something is so black and white seems overly naive.
I'm not licensed. I read lots. Any professional group like lawyers, doctors, surveyors, engineers etc that avoid invoking sanctions for the sake of possibly being ostracized or retaliated against is cheating the public from the process that's supposed to be protecting them.
I only said let the job be done by the board, unless every single member of the license surveyors the state are a board member, this isnt their business of meteing out punishments or direction or anything because it's not their job.
the board has the responsibility for the process
if the members don't have time they should resign their board ship
and yes it is that simple otherwise we don't deserve to exist
Going to throw out a hypothetical situation here…
You find 3 of 4 Survey monuments set by the original surveyor perfect per their plat. You then find the 4th monument 2 ft off their platted dimensions. An established fence matches the “erroneous” monument. At what point is enough evidence to determine the monument has been disturbed? Do the 3 other monuments set by the original surveyor have any credence as evidence to the 4th being disturbed? How about a cap being waffled (typical of fence builder resetting our monuments). Or maybe the monument is up a foot while all the others are flush? Does the person who moved the monument need to confess to you before acceptance of it being disturbed? You might say none of that matters if the monument has been relied upon over a certain amount of years. If it’s the latter, then what’s deterring a homeowner from moving the monument the moment we leave?
Back in the Olden Days around here all the local surveyors got along really well. OK most. It seemed like everyone had worked for or with another at some point. There was never any mention of going to the board. The two surveyors that disagreed would get together with their information and discuss the issue. Most times one had evidence that the other didn't find and would share it. Surveys would be altered to reflect what both guys agreed on. Then maybe a beer or two when done.
I somehow don't see that happening much anymore. Too much distance between surveyors, too much I'm a better measurer than you with my flawless GPS even though I have no clue how it was done before electronics. The shame of it is that the public suffers and there is more and more crap filed every week. I liked things better when we all could get along and admit it if we were wrong every now and again. It didn't hurt that much at all and you got another chance to learn something.
All we can do is present the evidence as we found it, where we found it, when we found it.
Some one else has to determine the judgement...
All we can do is present the evidence as we found it, where we found it, when we found it.
Some one else has to determine the judgement...
I agree to a certain extent, but if that is the case do we not reject monuments unless there are multiple at the same location, only by accepting one over the other?
There is a dream called perfection. That dream does not fit the real world of land surveying. It would be nice if it did. There would also be far less of us involved in the profession if it was really that simple.
I'm not sure when we started arguing about the boundary resolution. The issue is not that two surveyors' opinions differ, it's that no one has any idea why they differ, due to someone withholding information.
The OP, and initial discussion, was how to handle one licensee refusing to share critical information with another licensee - information that led the first surveyor to reject a monument in place and set another that is apparently at odds with an established, monumented boundary (and apparently occupation as well).
If it's not spelled out in the statutes, at the very least I would want to see a Board opinion on the statement that "licensees are under no obligation to share critical information with other licensees regarding conflicting boundary resolutions".
If that statement is true in his state, I may not like it, but there it is in black & white. Client will probably need to discuss options with the neighbor and perhaps get an attorney involved. And at least I have done my part and followed through as much as I can (even if I do not like the result).
If that statement is not true, then I would be sending the Board opinion to the other surveyor with a second request to kindly fulfill his or her professional duties and show me how they arrived at their conclusions.
But I'm not asking the Board to rule on a boundary solution, or force my solution on anyone else, or even saying that the other surveyor is a terrible professional and deserves sanction.
If the other surveyor has additional evidence, I'd like to look at it as well, because it's entirely possible that I might be the one needing to re-evaluate the line or monument in question.
By the tone of the OP I was under the impression he was voicing his concern about the rejection of the monument. The response was inappropriate by the new Surveyor, but I didn’t see where it mentioned that he withheld evidence. That’s at least how I read it.
We reject monuments all the time; if we find evidence to support that. That doesn't mean someone else can't pass judgement on our determination.
@holy-cow The duty of the Board is to protect the public. One way they do it is enforcing the laws, rules, and standard of care. When a licensee practices outside the norm to the point of harms, a board absolutely must put an end to it. That may or may not include violation of an objective law or rule.
