Apparently there is or are folks trying to put me under.
Anonymous complaints suck.
If you got a problem with me - CALL ME
Or at least - Put your name on the complaint.
So much for Americanism and having the right to face your accuser !
Who Is Bob Port?
As far as I can tell, it is a made up name for an anonymous user in an anonymous state who is complaining about an anonymous complainer to an anonymous board.
Paul in PA
Chin up, bro..
Probably one of the worst feelings in the world. In Oklahoma one can "anonymously" complain about a surveyor to the board also. Doesn't seem fair. And it takes so darn long to wade through it all. You'll have some sleepless nights but I bet you'll eventually know the identity of the culprit.
I have figured out that most of the time, the squealers are the worst offenders. As I have often said, "People see in others what they know about themselves."
Chin up and take the high road. You'll be a better man for it.
BTW, I do know some motorcycle enthusiasts that have been known to break a bone or two for a couple of hundred bucks. I understand for a few hundred more they'll throw in a video for your personal enjoyment...Of course you understand we're professionals. And criminal behavior of that nature is strictly verboten!
Keep a cool head and cooperate. Probably much ado about nothing.
> Or at least - Put your name on the complaint.
In California the complainant can't be anonymous -- he/she has to declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the complaint is correct. I'm not sure when the complainant's name is provided to the respondent, but it's certainly not in the initial stages of the investigation.
> > Or at least - Put your name on the complaint.
>
> In California the complainant can't be anonymous -- he/she has to declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the complaint is correct. I'm not sure when the complainant's name is provided to the respondent, but it's certainly not in the initial stages of the investigation.
Well than, If I was in california - we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we.
> > Or at least - Put your name on the complaint.
>
> In California the complainant can't be anonymous -- he/she has to declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the complaint is correct. I'm not sure when the complainant's name is provided to the respondent, but it's certainly not in the initial stages of the investigation.
The CA complainant form requires a signature, however that is for the Board's use in performing their investigation. The board does not necessarily forward the complainant's form to the accused. Instead, the board becomes the accuser after the investigation finds sufficient evidence exists to forward the case to the DA, AG or Administrative Court.
And, if one does file an anonymous complaint with the Board, it will investigate it. It does not ignore complaints just because their anonymous. It prefers complainants sign the form, but it is not an absolute requirement unless the complaint is dependent upon the complainant's testimony.
> Apparently there is or are folks trying to put me under.
>
> Anonymous complaints suck.
>
> If you got a problem with me - CALL ME
>
> Or at least - Put your name on the complaint.
>
> So much for Americanism and having the right to face your accuser !
I feel your pain man. Several years ago I heard that our local planner told the planning board in an open meeting that I had been reported to the licensing board and they would soon strip me of my license.
I called our licensing board and asked if they had a complaint against me. Was told when a complaint is filed (in writing, signed and notarized) the first thing they did was call the PLS and notify them a case had been opened.
The whole thing was just a pack of lies. Sadly that has become the norm for planners in this area.
Larry P
In Tennessee you can send in substandard plats to the board and they will file the complaint. What difference does it make knowing who filed the complaint? Are you going to go to his house and "convince" him to retract the complaint?
Who Is Bob Port? Maybe a land surveyor...
> As far as I can tell, it is a made up name for an anonymous user in an anonymous state who is complaining about an anonymous complainer to an anonymous board.
>
> Paul in PA
Colorado isn't an anonymous State, and Robert Port is listed as a licensed surveyor in Colorado. But what if he was an anonymous poster? It's just an internet board, it isn't the same as falsely accusing someone where licenses and livelihoods are concerned.
> And, if one does file an anonymous complaint with the Board, it will investigate it. It does not ignore complaints just because their anonymous.
I wasn't aware of that, but good to know. I suppose if sufficient evidence is presented, it doesn't matter who brings it to the board's attention.
So, maybe I should make an anonymous call to the law authorities in your neighborhood and report to them that you are a rapist. Then they should squander their time attempting to find evidence verifying my anonymous notification. Meanwhile, your name should be drug through the mud, the same as if you were truly guilty of such a heinous crime. I, of course, would not be subject to any repercussions for making a false statement.
There is none amongst us who has not sinned in the eyes of someone else at some time over our years of work. That does not mean we are guilty of anything. Nevertheless, the fact that an investigation is launched in an attempt to find some proof of that sin is enough to put others on notice that you are, more than likely, a sinner to be avoided.
The accuser should stand accountable alongside the one being accused. To allow otherwise is folly. That merely encourages vindictive sorts to get their revenge, for whatever reason they have, by getting others to do their dirty work for them.
The removal of one's license to practice is similar to putting that person in prison. That person will never be whole again. The person making the accusation should be made to understand the seriousness of what it is they are starting and how that may impact the accused, his family and his community.
Being aware of one thing with which you do not agree is inadequate relative to the punishment that will be dealt to the accused, even if all charges are later dropped. Multiple examples of intentional wrongdoing should be the bare minimum to start the investigations. Errors are made. Sometimes they are caught immediately. Sometimes they are never caught. Sometimes they are caught after others have been injured. How the accused handles those cases is what is important.
Anonymous accusations should be ignored and destroyed. The first item of business in investigating an accusation should be to investigate the accuser and what they will gain by besmirching the integrity of the accused. Is the intent to injure a competitor in order to gain market share? Is the intent merely to punish someone who did not provide the answer desired by the client at a price they liked? Is the intent to threaten such a formal negative report to the licensing board in an attempt to extort a specific result, then going through with the threat when the professional refuses to deliver the specific result most desirable to the client?
I can think of dozens of instances where I do not agree fully with the method or the conclusion of another surveyor for a specific situation. Does that mean that person should be demonized, ostracized and no longer allowed to work at what they are most suited to do?
> I wasn't aware of that, but good to know. I suppose if sufficient evidence is presented, it doesn't matter who brings it to the board's attention.
I don't think the concern about it is "in the event that there is sufficient evidence". What concerns me is if it is insufficient evidence and someone is making false claims; and doing it anonymously to boot.
:good:
Exactly right. Make all the false statements you want. But you better be prepared for the consequences of doing so. When done anonymously, there are none.
This is why I am glad our board requires the complaint to be in writing, signed and notarized.
Larry P
Who Is Bob Port?
> As far as I can tell, it is a made up name for an anonymous user in an anonymous state who is complaining about an anonymous complainer to an anonymous board.
>
> Paul in PA
I didn't see Mr. Port list any names or pointing fingers at a particular person or company. All I saw was a person frustrated by injustice. With that, I agree.
Larry P
There is a whole lot of useless ranting there.
Never have I claimed I am in favor of launching investigations based on anonymous complaints with absolutely no other evidence. If have little more than your word, you should be forced to stand behind it.
Let's say I am in the same small town as another surveyor, and he is the most popular person in town. Suppose I have 100 different plats showing gross violations of the standards of practice. Are you telling me that if I send all those plats in to the board, that I should have to make a public accusation and have him lead a movement to ostracize me from the community? That is the very reason there are so many garbage surveyors out there now, it isn't worth the personal sacrifice to kick them out of the profession.
I agree, Bob. Not so much with the "anonymous" part, but by the audacity of filing a complaint with the Board without first giving opportunity to respond. They are the wrong venue for expecting any kind of action except discipline at a very high cost both financially and professionally. Most boards (comprised of 1 1/2 surveyors and 4 1/2 engineers at best) don't have the expertise to investigate or to sit in judgment of a surveyor and their practice on a particular project. There are too many factors at play for them to consider in an administrative hearing under Robert's Rules.
Each state society needs to have a peer review committee in place that can address complaints between licensed professionals. Often times there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication between the surveyors that has been blown out of proportion. Often, too, the complainant is the one who needs to be reviewed. With a peer review, each party gets an opportunity to explain their grievance and to receive input from a committee of peers.
The committee works best because they have no authority to do anything. Nothing they do or suggest is binding. They simply act as a mediator between the parties to assist them in resolving the issue. If the issue warrants discipline, then the society can file the complaint rather than an individual licensee.
I would expect that in most instances the parties will arrive at a resolution which alleviates the issue and both parties will walk away having learned something from the process. A positive outcome.
JBS
I believe a few state professional societies have considered this and decided it was a bad option. Last I heard the legal/liability risk for the professional society and the members of the society review board was prohibitive. Even if the outcome was not binding, either party could sue everyone involved for damage to professional reputation.
The nuts and bolts
of complaints to the Oklahoma Board are numerous and lengthy. Just because someone files a complaint doesn't necessarily mean they're automatically called on the carpet. Each complaint is reviewed for substance. Reviewed by a small staff, I might add. Complaints also need to be accompanied by documentable evidence.
Just because Charley got the job and Jim didn't and Jim got mad 'cause Charley didn't put caps on his pins probably doesn't really constitute a big fish to our Board. Lots more "biggies" out there to fry. And the Board keeps an eye on the engineers also. And by the way, in Oklahoma, it appears to me that most of the Board's complaint business is with engineering firms.
The Board here has a finite staff and a finite budget. Any case that makes it to a Board Meeting for review has had legal counsel wave their hands over it. This is not cheap because the board has no in-house legal, it's contract.
Tommy Young,
Excellent example of a common situation, to make it worse, the popular surveyor you are referring to has a reputation of doing questionable work, the local platting authority has problems with plats and surveys, the state platting authority and the licensing board is aware of problems and still the requirement is for a private surveyor to file an official complaint that may result in license and livelihood issues. The reporting surveyor is then known as the pointing finger ass that makes false accusations and its just competitive greed. If the problem is obvious then the board should have the balls to react without having a local surveyor take the heat.
