roger_LS, post: 372992, member: 11550 wrote: I agree and have no intention of taking this to the board at any point. I've notified the 2002 surveyor and the county surveyor will see this when my map is submitted, he can do with it what he chooses.
So, what I'm hearing is if an airline pilot found out another airline pilot was incapable of safe flying, but still chose to fly, then it is OK for him to turn a blind eye?
Or, if a surgeon found out that another surgeon no longer had a steady hand, but still chose to operate, then it is OK for him to turn a blind eye?
Is not the crashed airplane or dead patient borne from those also who choose to turn blind eyes? Just as the next bogus survey the 2002 surveyor spits out is something you could and should have stopped from occurring?
clearcut, post: 373025, member: 297 wrote: So, what I'm hearing is if an airline pilot found out another airline pilot was incapable of safe flying, but still chose to fly, then it is OK for him to turn a blind eye?
Or, if a surgeon found out that another surgeon no longer had a steady hand, but still chose to operate, then it is OK for him to turn a blind eye?Is not the crashed airplane or dead patient borne from those also who choose to turn blind eyes? Just as the next bogus survey the 2002 surveyor spits out is something you could and should have stopped from occurring?
I know...this is serious s**t...but the real question here is, given what you know, would you accept the pipes?
Use the original monuments. 2002 almost certainly can't overcome those without a very specific set of circumstances which won't arise if 2002 has been ignored all this time.
Are there two monuments in question for the subject corners? The original, undisturbed monument that wasn't found in 2002 and a second, pincushion, monument set on 2002?
DDSM (confused)
Dan B. Robison, post: 373062, member: 34 wrote: Are there two monuments in question for the subject corners? The original, undisturbed monument that wasn't found in 2002 and a second, pincushion, monument set on 2002?
DDSM (confused)
No, these corners of concern are the interior points where only the 2002 pipes are there, no originals next to them. I would be doing the puncushioning, if I reject them.
clearcut, post: 373025, member: 297 wrote: So, what I'm hearing is if an airline pilot found out another airline pilot was incapable of safe flying, but still chose to fly, then it is OK for him to turn a blind eye?
Or, if a surgeon found out that another surgeon no longer had a steady hand, but still chose to operate, then it is OK for him to turn a blind eye?Is not the crashed airplane or dead patient borne from those also who choose to turn blind eyes? Just as the next bogus survey the 2002 surveyor spits out is something you could and should have stopped from occurring?
This mentality concerns me more than a sloppy surveyor. Calling the authorities is not an automatic panacea. I can understand the desire to believe that a small group of people can use logic and reason tempered with great wisdom to extract the truth in any and all situations Sadly though, humans on Earth are imperfect and even board members could erroneously destroy a man's life over the potential, but not actual, harm of being off by half a foot.
I will contact the Board in cases of fraud and utter disregard for the profession but not for a half foot error. If you unleash the hounds, you share blame for every drop of blood they spill.
In NC, I would hold the 2002 corner monuments if I could not prove that the retracing surveyor set them with ill intent. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Murphy, post: 373067, member: 9787 wrote: This mentality concerns me more than a sloppy surveyor. Calling the authorities is not an automatic panacea. I can understand the desire to believe that a small group of people can use logic and reason tempered with great wisdom to extract the truth in any and all situations Sadly though, humans on Earth are imperfect and even board members could erroneously destroy a man's life over the potential, but not actual, harm of being off by half a foot.
I will contact the Board in cases of fraud and utter disregard for the profession but not for a half foot error. If you unleash the hounds, you share blame for every drop of blood they spill.
In NC, I would hold the 2002 corner monuments if I could not prove that the retracing surveyor set them with ill intent. Perfect is the enemy of good.
I do understand where you are coming from. I note again that this is in California, where I practice. California is a recording state and failing to record is considered a serious violation here. I can understand those from non-recording states not understanding why we take it so serious, but we do, at least those who respect the laws of our state as it relates to our profession and for those of us who also see the great benefit that recording provides. However, even more concerning to me is a surveyor who fails to search for the controlling originals when it is obvious that they are readily recoverable. This is not an accidental ommission or a mistake. It is complete neglect of the very basic principles of boundary surveying. I have no tolerance for that and our profession should not.
As for the 1/2 foot, I might accept that in a number of situations. This is likely not one. Not unless and until after I spoke with whoever the owners of both parcels were in 2002.
clearcut, post: 373073, member: 297 wrote: I do understand where you are coming from. I note again that this is in California, where I practice. California is a recording state and failing to record is considered a serious violation of and by itself here. I can understand those from non-recording states not understanding why we take it so serious, but we do, at least those who respect the laws of our state as it relates to our profession and for those of us who also see the great benefit that recording provides. However, even more concerning to me is a surveyor who fails to search for the controlling originals when it is obvious that they are readily recoverable. This is not an accidental ommission or a mistake. It is complete neglect of the very basic principles of boundary surveying. I have no tolerance for that and our profession should not.
As for the 1/2 foot, I might accept that in a number of situations. This is likely not one. Not unless and until after I spoke with whoever the owners of both parcels were in 2002.
BTW,
I'd pay attention to what Dave K posted above. I know he is very much opposed to pincusions and would not do so in many situations. He is also very well read on California case law and his opinion is based on both regards.
I, like Dave, am awaiting information on evidence of the OWNERS' knowledge of existence, acceptance, use, and reliance of the 2002 monuments.
I would feel more comfortable pointing to the 2002 stobs and stating to both owners "these were set in 2002 by a professional surveyor as your boundary corners..." than setting two new monuments a half foot away and explaining "your old 2002 monuments are wrong and my mathematics and other old stobs are right and better..."
One side is going to accuse you of trying to steal their land.
Flame away...
DDSM:beer::beer::beer:
[MEDIA=youtube]8Gv0H-vPoDc[/MEDIA]
Thank you all for the responses. This is not a theoretical situation and I was truly conflicted about what to do. I was not so much hung up on the fact that the survey was not recorded, but that this was not a defensible line for my client to work with. The 2002 guy is actually a decent surveyor but was running fast and loose at the time. He has since reformed. I think I'll be pounding his pipes below the ground some then set my own set up a tenth or so, so as not to cause confusion. Honestly, I think the property owners will not even notice the difference as there are no improvements nearby to provide reference. I also think, that if pushed, 2002 would probably back off his resolution as it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming weight of evidence is on my side, and he is a reasonable guy. Thanks again!
I practice in CA and would not turn in someone for not filing unless it was a chronic and oft repeated offense. Beside that, our Board has not been very good at being consistent in their enforcement in recent years. I've seen cases where surveyors who should have had their license revoked had the complaints dismissed, and others who went well above and beyond the standard of care practiced by others in the same region get hounded for years or cited because the Board's technical expert was unqualified to even recognize the issues present in the survey. I know of one surveyor that they have been hounding with a series of complaints since 2008 - all bogus or baseless - in an apparent attempt to drive him out of business. That was after 30 years of spotless record.
It is far better to approach the other surveyor yourself first to explain what you've found and to remind him of his responsibility to file a CR or RS as appropriate. Sometimes the best and most diligent have something that fell through the cracks of a complicated period of life. Roger says the 2002 surveyor played fast & loose with this one but has since reformed and has been doing good work for some time. All the more reason to go directly to that surveyor and keep the Board out of it.
Comparing the failure to file a map with a drunken airline pilot or incompetent surgeon is extremely melodramatic. Yes, perhaps the surveyor should have filed a map, and if so, still should do so. But I have never heard of an innocent person being killed or maimed because a map didn't get filed. If the worst that has happened in the 14 years since the survey was performed is that it created some confusion for the next surveyor, then I don't see the point in filing a complaint that may cost the 2002 surveyor several thousand to answer and the only useful thing to come from it might be that he is required to file a CR or RS.
IMO, save making complaints to the Board for those who are doing things that have a likelihood of actually resulting in harm to someone, for serial offenders, or for fraudulent or other highly unethical behavior. And only make the complaint after you have tried to address the problem directly with the surveyor, and failing that have tried working through your local chapter's professional practices committee or some other local peer review group of respected surveyors. For turning in other professionals, a complaint to the Board is a last resort after all avenues of professional courtesy have failed to resolve the matter.
The person who is ready to make a complaint against other licensees at the first indication of a possible offense, and especially one who does so regularly is one who places a target on their own practice. Sooner or later, the only person who has never made a mistake, the only surveyor who has never committed some manner of practice violation, is one who has never done anything at all. Be forthright, be reasonable, and on occasion, be forgiving, or be resolved to be more careful than is humanly possible for the remainder of your career. The Lord often has a way of turning arrows into boomerangs.
Evan, your lengthy dissertation missed the basis of my consideration. You only focused on the failure to file. I'll restate that the bigger issue is that the 2002 surveyor made no attempt at recovering the multitude of original monuments obvious and existent. This is indicative not of someone who played "fast and loose" but rather shows the symptoms of someone with little understanding or care of the most basic and important foundations of boundary surveying. Couple that with failing to file shows a complete disrespect of the laws governing our land surveying in our state.
As for harm, its true no one will die from it. But the law libraries are replete with cases of legal disputes over minute slivers at great expense and to the anguish of those involved. I just wrapped up a survey where both sides lawyered up over dispute regarding 2.5 square foot of land on lots with value far less than Roger LS is dealing with. No maybe it is not a life and death situation. To paraphrase Curt Brown, it is far more serious than that.
Finally, I'm am quite shocked that you would post on a public forum such an allegation about the board using bogus complaints as a purposeful attempt to drive a person out of business. You're making a very serious allegation with both civil and criminal ramifications.
If you're on good terms with 2002 and he understands his work isn't based on the best possible evidence AND the client's haven't been harmed AND you're going to set more accurate and precise interior mon's AND he never recorded his survey,
Why not ask him to pull them? Better than driving them deep... somebody is bound to find them sooner or later.
clearcut, post: 373169, member: 297 wrote: Evan, your lengthy dissertation missed the basis of my consideration. You only focused on the failure to file. I'll restate that the bigger issue is that the 2002 surveyor made no attempt at recovering the multitude of original monuments obvious and existent. This is indicative not of someone who played "fast and loose" but rather shows the symptoms of someone with little understanding or care of the most basic and important foundations of boundary surveying. Couple that with failing to file shows a complete disrespect of the laws governing our land surveying in our state.
As for harm, its true no one will die from it. But the law libraries are replete with cases of legal disputes over minute slivers at great expense and to the anguish of those involved. I just wrapped up a survey where both sides lawyered up over dispute regarding 2.5 square foot of land on lots with value far less than Roger LS is dealing with. No maybe it is not a life and death situation. To paraphrase Curt Brown, it is far more serious than that.
Finally, I'm am quite shocked that you would post on a public forum such an allegation about the board using bogus complaints as a purposeful attempt to drive a person out of business. You're making a very serious allegation with both civil and criminal ramifications.
I don't blame you for your shock. I was quite shocked when the BPELSG Executive Officer admitted to me why he held a complaint open against that individual for over 2 1/2 years even though the professional practices committees of two separate chapters and several other very experienced & respected boundary surveyors submitted letters or reports on behalf of the surveyor saying he had met or exceeded the standard of care.
When I told him that keeping that complaint open (it was ultimately dismissed) so long even with clear evidence and a multitude of opinions for dismissing affected the outcome of civil litigation between landowners, he replied "I know. That was by design." When I asked him how he justified that, he replied "Do you know how many complaints [the subject LS] has filed against other surveyors?"
I was almost as shocked by that justification as I was the admission just prior.
One of the core issues they've gone after him for: Having used evidence of unfiled surveys in retracing boundaries in an area where there are nearly as many unfiled records to be had as filed ones.
That particular surveyor had to take his client on one project to arbitration to get paid after an architect told him that he had never paid more than 25% of what the fee in the signed contract was. The client turned that proceeding into a referendum on the surveyor's practice, charging negligence, incompetence, and fraud. The arbitrator (a retired superior court judge) found that the surveyor had exceeded the std of care and there was no fraud. Surveyor was awarded full fees & attorney's fees. Client tried to retry it in Superior Court by adding an additional charge of fraud. Surveyor had previous award confirmed plus additional attorney's fees and interest. Client tried to take it to appellate court but had no legal issue to proceed so filed a BPELSG complaint instead based on all the same charges (verbatim) as alleged in the civil court system.
Board retained underqualified "expert" who didn't even have enough relevant experience to recognize that the project was well beyond his area of competence. Surveyor had reports by other experienced boundary surveyors on his behalf. Neither the "expert" nor BPELSG gave any consideration whatsoever to the civil court rulings or the reports. Surveyor challenged the citation through Administrative Hearing where he won on all but a minor point of one charge with fine reduced to $50 (statutory minimum). Even at that, the judge came to his conclusion based on the erroneous testimony of BPELSG "expert" who misinterpreted & misapplied a "rule of surveying" gleaned from a Robillard book. It seemed that he gave credibility to the BPELSG expert because he believed that BPELSG somehow verified the expertise of the "experts" they engage. They don't. Further, it seemed like he wanted to throw BPELSG a bone by grabbing onto something that sounded remotely plausible and so not hand them a complete loss.
In this case, the respondent surveyor had over 35 years experience with over 80% being boundary. His experts had a combined 75 years experience, each having 75% to 90% being boundary experience. The Board's "expert" had 35 years of experience, about 20% being "boundary related" (mostly staking new lot corners in residential developments) and of that, about 20 months retracing existing boundaries. The respondent surveyor and each of his experts, in addition to some manner of related college degree (AAS or BS), have each participated in various forms of continuing education throughout their careers. The Board's "expert" earned his AAS in Civil Eng Tech in 1982 and hasn't participated in any sort of training since.
BPELSG rejected the OAH decision and reinstated nearly all of the charges relying on the pre-hearing staff report alone to supply the justification. The surveyor has won in both the civil and administrative court systems and yet the Board, in closed meeting rather than a hearing, effectively says, screw the civil courts, screw the administrative courts, screw the combined 100+ years of boundary experience of the experts testifying for the surveyor, we want to find him guilty and place a stain on his record, so we're going to do that by considering only the portion of the record containing the reasoning that supports our predetermined outcome, ignoring the rest and ignoring the law.
When a surveyor can spend nearly a half million, have the endorsement of several of his peers, win at every unbiased forum he must go through only to have a clearly biased body (based upon the evidence they did consider and that which they did not consider), then I'm beyond shocked. I'm disgusted.
back-chain, post: 373181, member: 7900 wrote: If you're on good terms with 2002 and he understands his work isn't based on the best possible evidence AND the client's haven't been harmed AND you're going to set more accurate and precise interior mon's AND he never recorded his survey,
Why not ask him to pull them? Better than driving them deep... somebody is bound to find them sooner or later.
That thought crossed my mind, it would really be the ideal solution.
clearcut, post: 373169, member: 297 wrote: Evan, I'll restate that the bigger issue is that the 2002 surveyor made no attempt at recovering the multitude of original monuments obvious and existent.
Who said they were obvious? I cut 100' through a solid wall of overhead poison oak, berries and thistles, moved a huge pile of rocks then dug down three feet below asphalt to get there. 🙂
eapls2708, post: 373187, member: 589 wrote: I don't blame you for your shock. I was quite shocked when the BPELSG Executive Officer admitted to me why he held a complaint open against that individual for over 2 1/2 years even though the professional practices committees of two separate chapters and several other very experienced & respected boundary surveyors submitted letters or reports on behalf of the surveyor saying he had met or exceeded the standard of care.
When I told him that keeping that complaint open (it was ultimately dismissed) so long even with clear evidence and a multitude of opinions for dismissing affected the outcome of civil litigation between landowners, he replied "I know. That was by design." When I asked him how he justified that, he replied "Do you know how many complaints [the subject LS] has filed against other surveyors?"
I was almost as shocked by that justification as I was the admission just prior.
One of the core issues they've gone after him for: Having used evidence of unfiled surveys in retracing boundaries in an area where there are nearly as many unfiled records to be had as filed ones.
That particular surveyor had to take his client on one project to arbitration to get paid after an architect told him that he had never paid more than 25% of what the fee in the signed contract was. The client turned that proceeding into a referendum on the surveyor's practice, charging negligence, incompetence, and fraud. The arbitrator (a retired superior court judge) found that the surveyor had exceeded the std of care and there was no fraud. Surveyor was awarded full fees & attorney's fees. Client tried to retry it in Superior Court by adding an additional charge of fraud. Surveyor had previous award confirmed plus additional attorney's fees and interest. Client tried to take it to appellate court but had no legal issue to proceed so filed a BPELSG complaint instead based on all the same charges (verbatim) as alleged in the civil court system.
Board retained underqualified "expert" who didn't even have enough relevant experience to recognize that the project was well beyond his area of competence. Surveyor had reports by other experienced boundary surveyors on his behalf. Neither the "expert" nor BPELSG gave any consideration whatsoever to the civil court rulings or the reports. Surveyor challenged the citation through Administrative Hearing where he won on all but a minor point of one charge with fine reduced to $50 (statutory minimum). Even at that, the judge came to his conclusion based on the erroneous testimony of BPELSG "expert" who misinterpreted & misapplied a "rule of surveying" gleaned from a Robillard book. It seemed that he gave credibility to the BPELSG expert because he believed that BPELSG somehow verified the expertise of the "experts" they engage. They don't. Further, it seemed like he wanted to throw BPELSG a bone by grabbing onto something that sounded remotely plausible and so not hand them a complete loss.
In this case, the respondent surveyor had over 35 years experience with over 80% being boundary. His experts had a combined 75 years experience, each having 75% to 90% being boundary experience. The Board's "expert" had 35 years of experience, about 20% being "boundary related" (mostly staking new lot corners in residential developments) and of that, about 20 months retracing existing boundaries. The respondent surveyor and each of his experts, in addition to some manner of related college degree (AAS or BS), have each participated in various forms of continuing education throughout their careers. The Board's "expert" earned his AAS in Civil Eng Tech in 1982 and hasn't participated in any sort of training since.
BPELSG rejected the OAH decision and reinstated nearly all of the charges relying on the pre-hearing staff report alone to supply the justification. The surveyor has won in both the civil and administrative court systems and yet the Board, in closed meeting rather than a hearing, effectively says, screw the civil courts, screw the administrative courts, screw the combined 100+ years of boundary experience of the experts testifying for the surveyor, we want to find him guilty and place a stain on his record, so we're going to do that by considering only the portion of the record containing the reasoning that supports our predetermined outcome, ignoring the rest and ignoring the law.
When a surveyor can spend nearly a half million, have the endorsement of several of his peers, win at every unbiased forum he must go through only to have a clearly biased body (based upon the evidence they did consider and that which they did not consider), then I'm beyond shocked. I'm disgusted.
Other posters on the CLSA forum have shared similar experiences. This was not an isolated incident.
So it's not guilty until proven innocent as I thought, it's guilty even after being proven innocent. Thanks Evan.
BajaOR, post: 373526, member: 9139 wrote: So it's not guilty until proven innocent as I thought, it's guilty even after being proven innocent. Thanks Evan.
In some cases. There are times when a minor matter might be handled with a friendly phone call to remind/educate a surveyor about their responsibility in filing a map. There are cases where a respondent surveyor has messed up, has been given the opportunity to mitigate the violations but chose not to do so, and so received a citation or other form of consequences. Part of the problem I've seen is a complete lack of consistency. sometimes they handle an issue in a manner that is completely fair and satisfies everyone involved. Other times they come to conclusions that leave professionals who are aware of the facts of the matter either confused or completely frustrated because good practice is turned on its head. Had the licensee done what the Board said was correct, and had the matter gone to civil litigation, the licensee would have been found to have practiced negligently without question.
Those who I see as responsible for this situation at BPELSG have done and continue to do some things that are very good for the profession. But they've also seemed to have developed the attitude that they are above the law and that their actions are not, or should not be subject to question or scrutiny by others, certainly not by any individual licensee or group of licensees. I was pleased when each of them were appointed to their current roles and had high hopes for what that would mean for the profession. Sadly, it's not working out that way.
It's a very problematic situation.
