Liar Liar pants on Fire...

in my state, as probably with most, if a registrant is aware of violations occuring or one that has occured, I believe you would be in violation by not reporting.
in this case, dont know if too much time has elapsed- a 7 month "fudge" is tough one on a 10 year requirement- better have all the facts.- good luck

The first thing I would do is double, triple, and quadruple check myself on what I was stating.

While not impossible, it does seem improbable that a person would lie about a few months of work and jeopardize many decades of a career.

A former surveyor here in NY had his license anulled for fabricating the time stated to take the exam for his license; it happens.

How "past" is the alleged violation and what about counting calendar years?

I don't know the particulars of your situation but is it possible that someone may have determined/justified the amount of years based upon hours worked i.e. overtime hours yielding more years worked than just counting the calendar?

Personally, I would move on.

Assuming you are employed as Surveyor how did you manage to access personnel files? If you plan to persue this issue you better make sure all your ducks are in a row or you are liable to end up the defendant.

You used the term "may have lied".

Until you can say "most definately lied" and that you obtained the information legally, you should just stay quiet.

B-)

1. Blackmail them
or
2. Mind your own business

Your choice

I would say that information doesn't help my clients with their current projects, and my company make any money so I would get back to work. I'd then most likely BS with said individual about the discovery over a beer or two when available. Our world is too small to grind axes in a scenario that doesn't appear to have harmed the public in anyway. Just my 0.02c

:good:
I think I worked 10 years in my first 6 or 7 on the job. 20-25 hours O.T. every week forever it seemed like.

Checking OLD records...Move on and stick your nose into something worthwhile...I would be more concerned about 10 years experience doing everything under a mentor that didn't know his arse from a hole in the ground...

Pablo B-)

If the BOR has granted a license, who am I to question what they took under consideration and say anything about something without knowing all the facts.

well, first, I wouldn't have wasted my time looking through records that had nothing to do with me. Are you the owner of the firm? were these your subordinates at the time or are they now working for you?

Second, I'd put them away and not even worry about it.

I imagine that when there was an 'experience only' path to licensure, this was a fairly common occurrence. The State was asking the mentor to make a judgement call about the skills of the SIT.

I agree with the general consensus.

You are saying that someone may have been 7 years short of the required 10 year experience? Are you calling the references who verified his employment liars? Have/did you even read his application for licensure? (no of course not, judging from your post).

I'd be more interested in a surveyor who doesn't know what he is doing even if he had 15 years; or someone who had only 1 year and lied to make it 10. Stretching (possibly) 9 yrs & 5mos. to 10 years but not knowing if they guy might even have had a year's experience somewhere else....is worrying about way too much.

If they guy is an incompetent surveyor, then it's his incompetence and danger to the public that should be reported.

I was 5 months shy of 9 years when I applied in Oklahoma. The form plainly stated that the application must add up to 9 years. It didn't.

My sentiment at the time was that the application process took 6 months anyway. And by the time I took the exam my experience would add up to 9 years (as long as my employment continued). I guess they bought it, I was allowed to take the exam.

I can't see a few months being any big deal. The applicant was apparently otherwise qualified and did satisfactory on the exam. Let it be.

I've been around so long I know some dirt on a lot of folks that have elevated themselves to lofty heights in our profession. A couple of them could do time with some things I know.

History is like an old mean dog on a porch: It's better observed in its present state than to awaken it. Leave it alone.

Some States have, or had at one time, a practice of allowing one to take the examination within so-many months of fully meeting the State's requirement. The license would not be issued until such time as the full time requirement was a certainty. This sometimes came up when the applicant did not receive as much time credit as what they felt they were due based on someone else's opinion of how much time credit should be issued. The giant CAVEAT was that this would preclude reciprocity with States who strictly enforced completion of the minimum time requirement prior to application to take the test.

Shoot, I have two RPLS college professors who want to sign off on a young man who works for me to take the first part of the exam. He say's he has worked for me for 4 years and deserves a chance to take the exam. Somehow they see his working summers, holding the rod and smoking dope on the job, and going to school in West Texas the rest of the year as adding up to responsible charge. I bust his bubble every time he brings it up.

Bruce