Standards of Responsibility and Rules of Conduct

Mr. Goodwin

Do you also walk around with a sign on your back that says "Kick Me"???????

😉

Mr. Goodwin

I can take it- i am just down the road from Kent-:-)

RA

Well, it's like this. They've been going at it since the whole "The surveyor can decide adverse posession" to "PLSS, which way you want it?" to it's just Kent.

I'm quite sure though, that JBS can take care of himself.

To be fair, that was actually pretty mild in comparison with some threads of yesteryear; however, Kent looks to be falling off the wagon a bit. I'm no better though. I told Keith to blow it out his a$$ just yesterday.

What I'm trying to say is, we can smell our own, ya know. 🙂

>
> In the thread below, "Junior Pin on senior line", you outright publicly bashed JBStahl and the State of Utah. I haven't been a member of this board for that long, so maybe I am missing something between you and JB, or maybe it was fun poking - I dont know. If so, I apologize.

No, you didn't miss a thing. J.B. Stahl has for years promoted substandard surveying practices that wouldn't even pass the laugh test in Texas. This whole discussion of the non-effect of junior surveys on senior surveys is a topic that began on another message board and J.B. made it perfectly clear there that his views pertained to some strange universe that I've gathered exists in Utah.

For example, in an earlier installment of this discussion, I posted the sketch below:

What the sketch shows is the subdivision of a lot that was platted in about 1928 and that remains marked upon the ground on its South (lower) line by the original iron pipes placed by the 1928 surveyor (Corners 130 and 128, lower left and right, respectively, in the sketch). The line between pipes 130 and 128 was also the line of a street dedicated to the public by that same plat.

Later, the lot was sold off in two pieces, beginning with the West 100 ft. of the lot and following with what was in effect the lot save and except the West 100 ft., although described somewhat erroneously as the East 110 ft., but calling for the line of the earlier conveyance.

The interesting situation was that there were two old pipes, Nos. 103 and 127 in the sketch above, neither of which actually marks the true corner between the properties conveyed. Pipe 103 is out in the street right-of-way 0.32 ft. and Pipe 127 while on the street line, was evidently set with the intention of it falling on the senior survey line (the East line of the West 100 ft.), but without actually recognizing that an excess of 0.72 ft. existed between the original lot corners.

J.B. was of the view that an encroachment of 0.32 ft. in that situation was inconsequential and that no surveyor should be expected to be able to run a line 210 ft. in length all that carefully. I read his present views on the subject of the geometric elements of deed descriptions with his earlier opinions in mind.

> Our Board Rules state that "the practice should be conducted with the highest level of moral and ethical standards..." and "the highest degree of integrity,truthfulness, and accuracy should be paramount...".

So, what does this rule of Texas land surveying practice have to do with Utah? For that matter, do you understand the board rules to apply to fair criticism of substandard practices? I would hope not.

I have no problem with fair criticism of any professional.

Side note Kent- are you going to make the TSPS Convention in Houston. would be great to meet you.

This would be the part where Kent opines about the Texas State Association, and State Associations in general.......maybe you should take the sign off your back now.

😉

Sicilian Rules of Conduct

Angelo, you have obviously read my posts too attentively over the years. :>

:good:

.
>
> Side note Kent- are you going to make the TSPS Convention in Houston. would be great to meet you.

Sorry R.A. but Kent is scheduled to make a few hundred posts here at that time which may include caustic comments about Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and East Texas.

Texas coffee is gross.

Thanks for watching my back, Ragoodwin. I've been swamped out lately so haven't had much time to spend on this, or any other forums, lately. I haven't read the "Junior Pin on Senior Line" post comments by Kent, but can only imagine that they are made in typical Kent fashion.

You pointed out the Board Rules regarding Ethics and Conduct which state that "the practice should be conducted with the highest level of moral and ethical standards..." and "the highest degree of integrity,truthfulness, and accuracy should be paramount..." While Kent has always striven for precision in all of his work (his abilities outshine many including myself), he has simply proven himself incapable of expressing any form of integrity, truthfulness, or honesty when speaking of another professional's abilities. That's just Kent. He's an excellent surveyor, but a poor excuse for a professional. His only defense is to denigrate those around him. It must give him some sick for of satisfaction.

His 15:25 post is a perfect example: "No, you didn't miss a thing. J.B. Stahl has for years promoted substandard surveying practices that wouldn't even pass the laugh test in Texas." Kent again shows no honesty or integrity in making such a public statement against a fellow professional surveyor. I don't care whether he agrees with me or not, ethics simply aren't in Kent's repertoire. Apparently, they're written for other professionals, not Kent.

In his post, Kent stated that: "J.B. was of the view that an encroachment of 0.32 ft. in that situation was inconsequential and that no surveyor should be expected to be able to run a line 210 ft. in length all that carefully." His statement of my "view" is a completely false misrepresentation of anything that I have posted and is contrary to my "view." Kent has shown a continual inability to read someone's post for what it says and to refrain from disparaging their comments whether founded in truth or not. Kent simply is incapable of truthfulness, honesty or integrity whenever he is talking about another surveyor who disagrees with or even suggests another alternative view than his own.

Kent's only problem, which he shares with many others in our profession, is that he fails to understand the basic premise of what makes a monument control a boundary location. Too often, we surveyors insist upon mathematical precision as the answer to acceptance or rejection of a monument. The courts never do. For Kent, it's the only conceivable answer. Any monument outside of Kent's expectation of perfection is rejected off hand without any consideration given to the laws regarding boundaries. I wonder why that is? Then, I also wonder why Kent is so publicly inconsiderate to other surveyors. I guess we'll never know the answers to some questions...

You all have a great day. You too, Kent...

JBS

> In his post, Kent stated that: "J.B. was of the view that an encroachment of 0.32 ft. in that situation was inconsequential and that no surveyor should be expected to be able to run a line 210 ft. in length all that carefully." His statement of my "view" is a completely false misrepresentation of anything that I have posted and is contrary to my "view."

Well, that is dishonest enough, J.B., that you can't acknowledge the truly bizarre things that you posted in connection with the threads dealing with the above situation. You definitely were arguing in favor of the pipe that encroached into the street by 0.32 ft. being the parcel (even though the senior survey line was controlled by original monuments nominally 100 ft. and 110 ft. distant), and apparently continue to be willing to do so here. For example, you remark:

> Too often, we surveyors insist upon mathematical precision as the answer to acceptance or rejection of a monument.

Translation into English: "The fact that a boundary is created as a straight line running between two original monuments nominally 210 ft. apart is a fact to be ignored at will."

JB

It is difficult to concede your point about professionalisms when you turn and use similar adjectives for Kent.

It is also difficult to imagine that one needs to be an “expert” measurer to get a point within 4 inches of a 210 foot line. Beyond that, MONUMENTS DO NOT CONTROL OVER SENIOR RIGHTS.

It is easy for me to agree with JBS, as every reader here has read of the unprofessional insults that Kent makes about me. It only shows his own pettiness! I would guess that JBS is one of the most professional land surveyor on here and for Kent to insult him is absurd.

And of course, he simply cannot understand the concept of monuments being set in order for the landowner to use his/her land without the constant threat of a super measurer coming along and changing the boundary.

If land surveying was as Kent believes, the courts would have said so long ago and then all we would be arguing about is how to measure even better.

It does not take much thought to come to that conclusion.

Keith

Keith

This is off the original subject of this thread but what's new about that?

The concept of monuments being set for the landowner to use is great, I agree. Isn't the landowner subject to a threat by a crappy measurer more than an expert measurer? If I own a piece of property where a line is defined by two original undisturbed monuments and the neighbor's surveyor puts a junior monument on my side of that line, should I just accept it?

Steve

Maybe you have nailed the concept of monuments!

If in fact the neighbor who believes the junior corner has encroached on his/her land; can he/she object to that position or can he/she accept it as a monument that a surveyor set.

Or the neighbor could hire another surveyor to check it.

Most neighbors would not be too interested in the distances that Kent talks about.

Do you know of any landowner who is concerned with a distance of 0.14 feet?

Keith

Keith

Unfortunately, I do know of such landowners. Usually, though, it's not the 0.14' they're really concerned about, it's just another weapon to beat their neighbors over the head with in a dispute about something else.

Back to the original thread subject, though, the insults back and forth are annoying to most of the rest of us but if I can sift that out of the threads, there are some good discussions going on. For some people, debating is an enjoyable game, I guess. I'd rather just cut to the chase and say what I want to say, as politely as I can muster. Most online forums are like this, rivalries develop over the years. I don't know if you ever go to the CLSA forum but for some reason the interaction is far more polite than here and there are hardly ever any posts about non-surveying subjects. Not a whole lot of traffic but what there is usually has some substance to it.

There are things that do control over senior rights. That evidence or lack of it needs to be considered.

Boundaries are things of human invention. Humans live on and are in control of their boundaries. The law has recognized this and thus there is a whole bunch of rules about boundaries way above the level of senior rights.

The precision, or math and geometry of boundaries is all but at the bottom of the list of controlling factors in boundary establishment. Those that have studied the law and will accept what the high courts have given us realize this. If the only evidence a surveyor considers is the precision of the geometry listed in the record then it's only luck that they locate the boundary in many cases.

Where I work the record is a sort of mathematical fiction. The record wasn't developed by precision surveys are even surveys all all in many instances. Trying to force this onto the real world just causes chaos. Higher forms of evidence need to be brought into the equation to locate the boundaries, it really isn't that hard other than you need to look beyond the record geometry, especially at what the landowners have done over time. It's sad that so many surveyors won't even go there and thus just do more damage to the landscape and the peace. Instead of solving the problem they become the problem.

I love it when it all fits almost perfectly, the monuments are there and record is precise and exact with what's on the ground. It's not much stress, almost boring, easy as taking candy from a baby. This just doesn't happen all that often in my world. All the old stuff never fits the record, even the GLO.

You can't force utopia onto a chaotic world, no matter how many thousand board posts you make. I compare it to religious fanatics that will preach their misguided and narrow sighted belief's to the death even when there isn't much truthful reality involved at all.

Steve

I was just on that sight this am- it is a completely different forum-i enjoy this forum much better - like you said, weed thru the unprofessional,comical bashing, and it is very informative:-)