The thing to remember when talking law with lawyers is that they're not in a search for truth. They're looking for the spin that will benefit their client, that's just the way our system works. In an easement seminar I went to the lawyers giving the seminar would usually answer our questions by saying "It depends on who my client is".
I think Ralph is right. I have a concern that we are failing to replace retiring licensees with young blood and we are largely failing to provide a stable job market. Most people can't afford to work in a business that some want to require an Engineering degree yet they only work 5 days per month.
Also we have utterly failed at public education but on the other hand what we do (particularly boundary) is so esoteric that the public doesn't really see the need. The construction industry at least is aware of the need to build things in the right location and use our profession at least until they figure out how to do it themselves.
I think if we fail to serve the need (with sufficient licensees) then eventually the laws will move beyond us and we will become a part of history.
Boundary surveying in particular often doesn't serve any immediate need other than new construction. We have to sell it; I mean the insurance industry is highly successful at selling a product most don't use so we know it could be done but it will take time and effort. The insurance industry (or the Realtors) did not get where they are overnight. I wonder if the State threatened to abolish insurance agent or real estate agent licensing if those groups would even care. They would probably be happy to get out of paying the fees.
I agree with Ralph more than this discussion shows. I just think there is an easier case to be made to continue the statutory definition of boundary work than there is to maintain a statutory definition of construction/engineering survey work.
I do think that surveyors need to be involved in construction work, boundary work et al. Without a doubt we bring professional expertise to the vast areas of specialty. I think that the "professional" aspect becomes extremely nuanced outside of boundary work. I agree that we should be getting involved more with emerging technology and industries.
New technology is further splintering the already broad scope of the land surveying profession. We have become divided, mainly in what constitues professional practice. Governors, legislatures, contractors, developers and engineers are clued into that. Hence the attempts to change regulation and licensing.
I am just saying we better have a clear objective to maintain our profession and clearly identify how we fit into the future. If we just become data collectors for GIS and scanning technologies we become technicians. We need to clearly identify how we can contribute professionally in every area of land surveying practice.
I am wet behind the ears compared to most on this board, so I would like to know what the seasoned professionals here think. Not here to argue just here to have a discussion about the future of the profession.
Too many retirees, not enough new blood? I agree.
How do we salvage the profession?
Wasn't that the basic question Steve was asking?
I don't have the answers, but I can certainly see what is happening.
Respectfully,
Kevin Samuel
I agree with you Ralph.
I just want to know how we achieve that goal against the mounting legislative/industry pressure.
Our profession is facing difficult circumstances and there are no easy answers.
Respectfully,
Kevin Samuel
No problem with that.
I think a lot of the members of our profession get hung up on words which no one knows what they mean, like professional versus technician.
My Dad had a BSCE from Cal but he didn't sit around all day worrying about whether some work task was professional or not (like most of his generation). There is a job to do and if you do it in a quality fashion and are responsive to the other professionals then some of the issue of self image will take care of itself.
Maybe familiarity breeds contempt; when I deal with professionals outside of the Engineering profession it seems like they have a higher view of us. The Foresters understand they need someone to show them the boundary and the fire leadership, well they just are amazed at our ability to make maps and models and locate things. I've heard "you probably can't do it but..." Uh, yes I can, watch this... Oh wow I had no idea. It's kind of fun.
They might not know it but the end users of the GIS and scanning data DO need trained professionals that know something about geodesy and boundary determination to be involved. Until the hardware becomes smart enough to resolve the data for them, they will end up with the products that are worse than useless that we see now in so many places.
> No Disrespect intended,
> But I respectfully disagree.
> Now my question to you is, would you quoting Brown, Robillard et al hold up in court?
>
> I have about 30 college credits in legal course, including evidence and procedures and Boundary Control and Legal Principals, and many others. I then realized that para-professional legal status was not what I was after.
>
> In my opinion you or I or any other Licensed Surveyor can only formulate an opinion as to where the boundary belongs, that's it.
>
> To Pigeon Hole yourself in such narrow confines is your choice.
>
> The same trivial trillion dollar international industry which is GIS, is probably the one with the lobbying power to steam roll your assertions.
>
> Stay Tuned
>
> Ralph
As surveyor's we don't practice law in that we don't (or shouldn't) advocate what the law means to the benefit of our client, or advocate our client's position in any way when it comes to determining boundaries. But we most definitely (or should - remiss when we don't) apply the law to our boundary decisions. We must follow court decisions when doing so. Most of our statute law applicable to boundaries has been interpreted by the courts, and much of our boundary law is based upon common law available only through guidance from the courts.
It is our role to attempt to anticipate how the courts will view the evidence we find and to use it as they would to determine where existent boundaries are. If you consider that the practice of law, then we had better be practicing law or we are malpracticing.
I draw the distinction at advocacy. As surveyors, when surveying boundaries, we apply the law to arrive at a well reasoned opinion regardless of who it benefits, while an attorney advocates for an outcome advantageous for his client.
Will a court respond well to a surveyor quoting Brown or citing a case? I guess that depends upon the court. Will a court respond poorly to a surveyor testifying to something beyond the measurements he made? Again, I guess it depends upon the court, but also upon the surveyor. If you testify only to your measurements and what evidence you found, you are not an expert witness but a fact witness. If the court is going to recognize you as an expert witness, then they will seek your expert opinion as to how those measurements apply to the boundary, which you cannot competently do without applying legal principles.
Other than other surveyors, I work primarily with lawyers who work strictly with land use issues. We rely on them to tell us what the law is, and they rely on us to tell them how that law applies to our evidence to allow us to determine where the boundary goes. The few engineers we have around here don't even pretend to know what it is we do. But they are petroleum and marine engineers, not civils.
It has been quite a relief to not work with civils over the past few years, as it became very tiresome working with or for some arrogant clod who presumed to dictate my professional opinion to me when most knew less about surveying than any of my chainmen.
One of our obstacles in GIS is that as surveyors, we hold accurate measurements as being pretty important as a basis for any mapping effort. Where the politicians and planners who were the initial end users and often continue to be the primary end users of the municipal GIS data saw value in an accurate base, that had the potential of working out well for a surveyor willing to take the lead. But too often, cost and speed of getting the system usable are the prime or only considerations considered by the decision makers.
Who needs accurate rectimiwhatzis of the data to state planned cornnuts? The assessor's techs can just digitize the tax map data for less than 1/10 the cost of the surveyor gathering and inputting survey data, and get it done months sooner. And where there is some computer tech planner type to give that proposal, countering the surveyor's proposal, the politicians and county controllers, not knowing good data from a colorful picture say "Yeah, let's just get it done at a fraction of the cost. We can tell our constituents how much we saved."
So while not taking the early lead in GIS is undeniably at least partly due to a lack of interest within the surveying profession (although you wouldn't have known it by looking at the amount of press it has gotten in various survey publications), in most municipalities it was or would have been a difficult uphill battle to convince the decision makers that a surveyor leading the effort to create an accurate and more usable base was worth the cost.
I do agree that we need to protect existing licensed practices where we can make reasonable arguments for doing so, and likewise expand practice in areas where we commonly perform professional level work.
Construction can be a prime example of that. Throughout my career, when working with construction plans, the surveyors often were the ones to adjust designs to be workable in the field. Sometimes that was as simple as adjusting a grade or two. Often it included refiguring grades over significant portions of roadway or site design and realignment of some features. It was not uncommon to have to "fix" slope or ground drainage designs. Occasionally, it was the surveyor who would fix pipe or structure design flaws or make changes to fit field conditions.
A few states used to include site grading, road design, and design for gravity flow pipe systems in the practice of surveying. Fewer, if any at all still do. Some surveyors are still more competent than some engineers at this level of design work.
The division of civil engineering and surveying, at least in CA, and I suspect in practically all other states was not for the ability to create cheap parcel maps, but in recognition that education for civil engineers had changed over the years to include little or no survey content in most degree programs. In short, the engineers were not competent to survey by virtue of their engineering degrees and design experience. Surveying was rightly recognized as a complex seaparate but related professional level discipline.
Nothing has changed in that respect. One of the main challenges to our continued status as professionals is that so many surveyors have allowed themselves to believe that we are merely measurement technicians and that any professional level decisions have to be directed to "real" professionals. Anything having to do with design or land use planning we pawn off to engineers. Anything having to do with a boundary conflict we send to the attorneys. Any difficult decision about where an ambiguous boundary should go, and we throw our hands in the air, shrug, and tell our clients that "only a judge can decide".
Any of you who want to believe that the surveyor's role begins and ends with measuring, you can relegate yourself forever to the level of technician if you like. That's fine, the role of a skilled survey technician is a very important one. I filled that role exclusively for several years before becoming licensed, and still fill it upon occasion today. But don't presume that because you choose to limit yourself to that level that others cannot choose to operate at a professional level, making professional (as opposed to only technical) decisions.
When someone asks me to survey a boundary, they are not expecting me to tell them that I con't tell them where their boundary is because "only a judge can decide", and then charge them handsomely for the privilege. They expect me to be the expert and tell them where their boundary is, or if it may go to court, where I think the court will decide where the boundary is. Doing anything less is less than fully professional. I continue to operate at the technical level every day, but I also operate at the professional level because I choose to and because it is expected of me. And I will work to preserve and improve my own professional stature and that of the profession for as long as I'm able.
[stepping off my soapbox now]
Well stated Evan.
Thank You Kevin,
The point I'm trying to convey here is that this is not about boundary, construction, geodesy, gis/lis or any of the sub-disciplines that make up surveying.
Most everybody on this board realizes and appreciates the value of a proper boundary survey.
But here's the kicker, "We are in a very very small minority". And it would be Naive of anybody to assume we're not. It really isn't about the area of expertise.
The battle that's about to take place is not about reality but about perception. And what's the first casualty of war?
THE TRUTH
So let's say some GPS entity or Organization with deep pockets decides they want to de-certify surveying to suit some agenda. If they hire the right lobbyist and wines and dines the local political hack (pays for a couple of call girls etc..). Then proceeds to take the Political Hack out in the field to demonstrate. In the process he downloads whatever map corresponds to the cadastral stuff, hands him/her the map and the latest high powered hand-held gizmo, inputs the coordinates and lets the Politician track the gizmo. They get to the location and uncover a pin. Voila!!!! Instant survey.
That example is pretty simplistic, however that's where it will start.
I've been surveying since I was 15 and I'm 46 now. Times are changing, the day of the old school boundary surveyors which I apprenticed under are pretty much gone. Change is good, some would like to resist this; but I believe that in order for this profession to continue to be viable on a Macro Scale, it needs to reinvent itself and it needs to happen soon.
Ralph
As surveyor's we don't practice law in that we don't (or shouldn't) advocate what the law means to the benefit of our client, or advocate our client's position in any way when it comes to determining boundaries. But we most definitely (or should - remiss when we don't) apply the law to our boundary decisions. We must follow court decisions when doing so. Most of our statute law applicable to boundaries has been interpreted by the courts, and much of our boundary law is based upon common law available only through guidance from the courts.
It is our role to attempt to anticipate how the courts will view the evidence we find and to use it as they would to determine where existent boundaries are. If you consider that the practice of law, then we had better be practicing law or we are malpracticing.
I draw the distinction at advocacy. As surveyors, when surveying boundaries, we apply the law to arrive at a well reasoned opinion regardless of who it benefits, while an attorney advocates for an outcome advantageous for his client.
I agree with the above.
Will a court respond well to a surveyor quoting Brown or citing a case? I guess that depends upon the court. Will a court respond poorly to a surveyor testifying to something beyond the measurements he made? Again, I guess it depends upon the court, but also upon the surveyor. If you testify only to your measurements and what evidence you found, you are not an expert witness but a fact witness. If the court is going to recognize you as an expert witness, then they will seek your expert opinion as to how those measurements apply to the boundary, which you cannot competently do without applying legal principles.
I agree with that statement also
When someone asks me to survey a boundary, they are not expecting me to tell them that I con't tell them where their boundary is because "only a judge can decide", and then charge them handsomely for the privilege. They expect me to be the expert and tell them where their boundary is, or if it may go to court, where I think the court will decide where the boundary is. Doing anything less is less than fully professional. I continue to operate at the technical level every day, but I also operate at the professional level because I choose to and because it is expected of me. And I will work to preserve and improve my own professional stature and that of the profession for as long as I'm able.
In the above case I still say that all you formulate is an opinion.
Ralph
That was a good post by Evan, wasn't it? I don't see how you can say that our determinations of boundaries are anything but opinions. If all affected property owners abide by our determinations, that's what sticks, not our new shiny monuments or maps or stamps on pieces of paper.
> That was a good post by Evan, wasn't it? I don't see how you can say that our determinations of boundaries are anything but opinions. If all affected property owners abide by our determinations, that's what sticks, not our new shiny monuments or maps or stamps on pieces of paper.
Absolutely Steve, I have always had a great deal of respect for Evan going back through the years. But that's what I said originally, most competent Surveyors don't get contested.
The one case that stands out in my mind for boundary brilliance was Frank Willis', in that case his work was contested, Robillard was flown in as an expert and Frank stood his ground and prevailed. The point here was that neither Robillard nor Mr. Willis made the final determination, they simply expressed expert opinions (on very high levels). If anybody has the transcripts of this case ( I believe Mr. Willis has a summary on PDF somewhere) I'd be interested.
Ralph
If I recall correctly, Walt was caught a little flat-footed in that case, but that doesn't mean he's some kind of chump by any means. People can honestly argue for one theory or another but if the gavel comes down against their theory, that's the breaks.
> If I recall correctly, Walt was caught a little flat-footed in that case, but that doesn't mean he's some kind of chump by any means. People can honestly argue for one theory or another but if the gavel comes down against their theory, that's the breaks.
Okay here we go again, Robillard is authoring these books. Why would he participate in this if he was unprepared/under-prepared? For the $$?
Ralph
Maybe I should just step away at this point. I know there was a lot of discussion about Walt's testimony and his preparation or lack thereof, but I have no horse in this race.
No problem Steve,
I understand your position.
Ralph
For the record: In New York State
§7203. Definition of practice of land surveying.
The practice of the profession of land surveying is defined as practicing that branch of the engineering profession and applied mathematics which includes the measuring and plotting of the dimensions and areas of any portion of the earth, including all naturally placed and man- or machine-made structures and objects thereon, the lengths and directions of boundary lines, the contour of the surface and the application of rules and regulations in accordance with local requirements incidental to subdivisions for the correct determination, description, conveying and recording thereof or for the establishment or reestablishment thereof.
99% of Boundary Surveys never get litigated. Most of the time the Land Surveyor is the final word. The property owners can implement the Survey (build their fence to it for example), ignore the survey (do nothing) or contest it. Few contest it, some ignore and some implement (usually where the survey is in conjuction with a construction project).
Well, yes, when we present a boundary determination, it is an opinion, but it's a professional opinion. But then so is a court decision. It is the opinion of the judge or justices presiding over the case. And each court below the Supreme Court is subject to review by a higher authority.
The judge in the Superior Court (or whatever the lowest court of competent jurisdiction is called in any given state) does not decline to make a decision because the Appellate Court has the authority to review and possibly overrule his decision. He understands that he is expected to make a decision because parties have brought a problem of the law to him to consider as an expert in the law. Likewise, the Appellate Justices do not decline to offer their opinions in a ruling because the Supreme Court has authority to overrule them.
In the same way, parties come to us to answer their question of where their property lines are. They expect us to have and exercise the requisite expertise to answer that question for them by giving them an opinion which would hopefully stand up in court. It's just an opinion, but like every level of court, it is the highest level of expert decision making that many will go to. In that way, we often become, by default, the lowest court of competent jurisdiction that the parties avail themselves of.
The difference between the judge's professional opinion and the surveyor's is that the judge's professional role is to interpret the law and apply it to the facts. The surveyor's is only to apply the law as interpreted by the courts to the facts and not to reinterpret the law. We can't decide what the law means, we can only look to the courts to give us guidance in that area.
Thanks, both of you for the kind words. I appreciate it and appreciate both your contributions to the forum. Ralph, it's good to see your name back on the forum. I was afraid for a while that we had lost you completely to the golf circuit.
I don't really know anything about the case where Frank and Walt were opposing experts. I had heard some vague comments sometime back about a case that Walt had testified in and not made a particularly good showing. Everyone has a bad day (or week, or month...) now and then. That's not taking anything away from Frank; he must have been very well prepared and very solid in his opinion to prevail. My hat's off to him. I would be looking over my own facts and reasoning very closely if I found myself as the opposing expert to either one of them.
> For the record: In New York State
>
> §7203. Definition of practice of land surveying.
>
> The practice of the profession of land surveying is defined as practicing that branch of the engineering profession and applied mathematics which includes the measuring and plotting of the dimensions and areas of any portion of the earth, including all naturally placed and man- or machine-made structures and objects thereon, the lengths and directions of boundary lines, the contour of the surface and the application of rules and regulations in accordance with local requirements incidental to subdivisions for the correct determination, description, conveying and recording thereof or for the establishment or reestablishment thereof.
I was concerned in reading that definition that NY had completely relegated its surveyors to being merely techs in a very limited portion of engineering until I got to this part: "and the application of rules and regulations in accordance with local requirements incidental to subdivisions for the correct determination, description, conveying and recording thereof or for the establishment or reestablishment thereof."
One can't correctly determine the reestablishment of parcel lines without going beyond just the math and applying the law to the problem. So one cannot adhere to the law in this aspect of survey practice without applying law.
It still bothers me that NY law ignorantly defines surveying as just a branch of engineering. Although related to each other, these professions separated long ago. They are more like cousin professions than parent/child as this definition suggests.
