Hey Paul,
If this is the second PPC communication, I would think sending it to the Board would get his attention a little better. Problem is, I hear the Board takes about 5 years from complaint to enforcement decision on average.
Ryan
Cal statutes are pretty clear...azcailtx pls
> Isn't ignoring the fact that someone is continuously (not to mention blatantly) violating a statute considered aiding or abetting per your definition?
Nope.
Nor do I think it's aiding and abetting per the definition in Black's
Aider and abettor:
One who assists another in the accomplishment of a common design and purpose; he must be aware of, and consent, to such a design
I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe that knowledge after the fact can reach the level of "aiding and abetting". Now, whether I think it's ethical to have knowledge of a past violation and do nothing is a different matter.
PPC
Professional Practices Committee
That's basically correct, Paul. Most chapters of the CLSA have their own PPC or have members on a joint committee with another local chapter of a similar professional association like the ASCE or ACEC.
The PPC operates in confidence, meaning other than the committee members, the only one's aware of a complaint are the complainant and the subject. Generally, one committee member will act as the spokesperson or point of contact.
Once a violation is identified, the PPC's first goal is to advise the subject of potential violations and work with the subject to come into compliance. Only if the subject refuses to cooperate will the PPC forward the matter to the Board.
If the matter is resolved with the PPC, there is no record of a violation against the subject's license. It's done. No risk of revocation or suspension of one's license, no fines, no record of violation or settlement. Clean slate.
Working with the PPC is better for all involved on a variety of levels in most cases.
James
You kind of beat me to it, but here's what USLegal.com has to say about it. It seems that to aid and abet a crime, you have to actually be an accomplice. As you say, there might be ethical considerations other than the statute regarding aiding and abetting.
Aiding and abetting generally means to somehow assist in the commission of a crime, or to be an accomplice. It involves a plan to commit a crime or to commit acts, the probable consequences of which are criminal.
An accomplice may assist or encourage the main offender with the same intent to have the crime committed, but does not necessarily have to be present when the crime is actually committed. However, without sharing the criminal intent, one who is merely present when a crime occurs and stands by silently is not an accomplice, regardless of the harm that could've been prevented if he/she had acted.
eapls
When I first heard about the PPC's being formed, it rubbed me the wrong way to think there would be local survey cops that think they have authority over my work. Now that I've seen it work on that case that my client brought to the PPC's attention, I like it, as long as the PPC members handle it as well as our PPC did in that case. I still see potential for abuse, if the decisions on who to refer to the board were not made even-handedly.
Cal statutes are pretty clear...azcailtx pls
Right, Mr. Fleming.
Some states have in their licensing laws an affirmative duty to report known violations. I don't recall that in the CA law, but many consider it good or even standard practice to address such violations with the licensee who is in violation or to report that person to an appropriate authority.
So, what do I do now?-Ryan
> Hey Paul,
>
> If this is the second PPC communication, I would think sending it to the Board would get his attention a little better. Problem is, I hear the Board takes about 5 years from complaint to enforcement decision on average.
>
> Ryan
Yes. The second time that I am aware of. Once I contact a PPC member they take it from there. They have a great willingness to help someone get in line rather than one contact and then give the person over to the board.
Cal statutes are pretty clear...Steve
> Paul - I think azcailtx is saying that if you know he's violating the Professional Land Surveyors Act and don't turn him in, you're aiding and abetting his violation
I knew what he was getting at but since I stated in a previous post to Evan that I had contacted PPC about the two violations the part of 'aid and abet' was irrelevant to the thread.
Cal statutes are pretty clear...Steve
Well and now that I looked it up, I don't think you'd be "aiding and abetting" him even if you did nothing.
I have been contacted quite a few times by the PPC
...to come on over and have a few :beer: :beer: :beer: ..
Steve
What a bunch of great guys, eh!
Occasionally, the case is that two surveyors each view the evidence a little differently, come to different conclusions, and still each meet the standard of care.
Your case illustrates one of the differences between the PPC process and the Board process. Not all of the Board's technical experts may understand that what they are reviewing for is whether the subject surveyor met the appropriate stadard of care, and not whether or not the expert agrees with the subject's final solution. If the technical expert tapped by the Board lacks that understanding and decides he agrees with one of the surveyor's solutions, the other surveyor is screwed simply for having a differing opinion and may end up getting cited even though meeting the standard of care.
On the PPC, it is almost guaranteed that there will be differing opinions in how one might weigh evidence, but the members are professional enough to understand that and conduct their review only with respect to whether the subject exercised appropriate care. Several professionals are able to provide reality and mission checks for each other. When all involved keep that in mind, it works very well.
eapls
I haven't done it for about three years but I've reviewed 22 cases for the Board as a Technical Expert and I have always looked at it that way. There are often multiple logical solutions to surveys, especially those that get submitted to the Board. Not all the cases are about boundary solutions but they generally do come down to whether the appropriate care was taken or if negligence, incompetence, fraud or deceit or some combination thereof took place. Just because I might do something differently doesn't mean it was negligent or incompetent to do it the other way.
Do as Obama just did ..raid, shoot and bury evidence in sea.
RADU
Richard wrong category
Dont turn a great survey thread political
Richard wrong category
Yeah, that may have earned you a "strike 1" there RADU.
Abott-a-bad-BOY
.:-)
what the heck is a corner record anyway?
Abott-a-bad-BOY
> .:-)
>
> what the heck is a corner record anyway?
Perry,
That is a LOOOOONG story.
I usually leave pricks like that alone, usually another prick will take care of it for me.