eapls2708, post: 373187, member: 589 wrote: 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.
That is very shocking, hard to believe! (I do believe you, just a figure of speech)
I really don't know what stance CLSA is taking on the various issues with the BPELSG. (there are more than just a couple)
I truly hope there is some aggressive activity behind that curtain. Transparency is Not something CLSA is good at these days
I understand Peter. I had a very difficult time thinking that there was some agenda at BPELSG that explained the really poor handling of the first case I had written a report for the respondent. After investigating and reporting on another nearly identically handled case and being now made aware of several others, I'm convinced of what was actually fairly obvious in that first case.
I also understand your attitude about CLSA, but I think that the majority of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors are trying to make a turn for the better with regard to transparency and with representing the interests of the membership. Time will tell, but I'm optimistic.
🙂 sorry for the grouchy stuff Evan. I am a long time fan of CLSA, my first membership was in the mid 70's, and have been a member for most of the years in between then and now, with several years on the Legislative Committee too. Stuff happens, things change. The core of it all is good, the spirit and the people. Same for BPELSG.
?oh=fd5bd4c55b064dd0b81d74cf12e7f866&oe=57D0FF9E
🙂 sorry for the grouchy stuff Evan. I am a long time fan of CLSA, my first membership was in the mid 70's, and have been a member for most of the years in between then and now, with several years on the Legislative Committee too. Stuff happens, things change. The core of it all is good, the spirit and the people. Same for BPELSG.
Jim_H, post: 372843, member: 11536 wrote: Not sure what state you're in, but here in Washington the rule of thumb is to accept retracement monuments within 0.5' of record positon. Of course there are always exceptions depending on the size of the parcel etc.
I would most likely indicate how far from calculated position they were, but accept them.
Jim,
I practice in Washington and would like to know the original of that custom. I am of the opinion that correct is an identity, not a distance.
I went and took a look at the board's website. Very interesting that only one member of the board is a surveyor.
That doesn't sound very satisfactory for technical and legal decision making about surveyors.
thebionicman, post: 375870, member: 8136 wrote: Jim,
I practice in Washington and would like to know the original of that custom. I am of the opinion that correct is an identity, not a distance.
I heard from an old-timey surveyor that the WA Board of Registration originally specified that a survey needed to be recorded when there was a "material difference" discovered in a found monument position. Since the term "material difference" was found to be ambiguous, the Board then instituted the so-called 'half-foot' rule. It may be in a WAC somewhere; I'm pretty sure I have seen it in print.
SellmanA, post: 376140, member: 8564 wrote: I heard from an old-timey surveyor that the WA Board of Registration originally specified that a survey needed to be recorded when there was a "material difference" discovered in a found monument position. Since the term "material difference" was found to be ambiguous, the Board then instituted the so-called 'half-foot' rule. It may be in a WAC somewhere; I'm pretty sure I have seen it in print.
RCW 58.09.090 (d) (iv)
SellmanA, post: 376147, member: 8564 wrote: RCW 58.09.090 (d) (iv)
WOW!
There is a HUGE difference in what the board has arbitrarily declared how far a "material discrepancy" is when dictating when a record of survey is required to be filed and when to "accept retracement monuments".
Still shaking my head....................
SellmanA, post: 376147, member: 8564 wrote: RCW 58.09.090 (d) (iv)
This is the Statute that tells us when a map is not required. It does not mean we have to hold bogus monuments that are close or reject good monuments that are not.
A few years ago a local surveyor rejected a 114 year old undisturbed monument of record. He then proportioned an adjacent lot corner 0.4 feet from where the old monument would have put it, also being 0.4 feet off of an ancient iron fence. By your read I should have left it alone. I don't see it that way at all. Does that make sense?
All I'm gonna say, is that I think the half-foot rule causes more problems than it solves; it seems totally arbitrary and can be mis-applied/abused.
thebionicman, post: 376154, member: 8136 wrote: This is the Statute that tells us when a map is not required. It does not mean we have to hold bogus monuments that are close or reject good monuments that are not.
A few years ago a local surveyor rejected a 114 year old undisturbed monument of record. He then proportioned an adjacent lot corner 0.4 feet from where the old monument would have put it, also being 0.4 feet off of an ancient iron fence. By your read I should have left it alone. I don't see it that way at all. Does that make sense?
The 114-year-old monument was original, verifiable, and undisturbed... I would've held it, notwithstanding beaucoup superior evidence that would bring it into question.
Whoever wrote that rule shouldn't be writing rules.
MightyMoe, post: 376178, member: 700 wrote: Whoever wrote that rule shouldn't be writing rules.
forgive them, they don't understand surveying.
Question to Washington surveyors: do you folks have some venue to make input to these rules? you guys really need to speak up!
I think I'll contact that old-timey surveyor and make sure I have my facts straight on what he told me WRT the Board and the half-foot rule before commenting further- I may be introducing ambiguities or possible errors in this thread, and I want to be sure I'm correct.
This rule sure would make life easier, you wouldn't have to think too much! Final boundary resolution could be done with the push of a button! 🙂 In fact, just about anyone could do it.
I really think folks are reading what isn't there. This rule only describes the threshold for filing a map. I see no language relating to holding versus rejecting.
I understand that. Filing a map may be an issue, especially when somebody bids a job, and the numbers don't work. Do they spend their own money and file the required map? probably not... that cuts into the bottom line.
I'll bet there are a lot of found points only 0.49 feet out of position (no matter where they are).
thebionicman, post: 376188, member: 8136 wrote: I really think folks are reading what isn't there. This rule only describes the threshold for filing a map. I see no language relating to holding versus rejecting.
I agree. It is ALWAYS the professional judgment of the surveyor whether or not to accept or reject a monument.
I just got off the phone with a PLS who knows the old-timey surveyor I mentioned, and the half-foot rule applies to recording a survey only- not whether or not to accept/reject monumental evidence. My bad.
