First of all, West Virginia has no recording law. Second, the Board has a section in their rules that reads:
"Licensees should not reveal or disseminate facts, data, or information obtained in a professional capacity to the public, including other professionals, without the prior consent of the client or employer if it has the potential to damage or harm the client or other parties except as authorized or required by law, rule or written contract."
It's not usually a problem, as most professionals I come in contact with are willing to provide copies of plats when asked, and I do the same. I have never refused to provide a copy of a plat to another surveyor. In my opinion, the section that reads: "if it has the potential to damage..." gives anyone who is willing to cooperate with another professional the ability to do so, if in fact that potential isn't there. Most of the time, it is more of a help than a hindrance.
I have a boundary dispute I am working on and the surveyor who completed the boundary survey for the neighbor refuses to provide any information at all. He will not even discuss what evidence he recovered or how he arrived at his opinion of the boundary location. Even if I wasn't comfortable with providing a copy of my plat for some reason, I would invite the other surveyor to my office to discuss our differing opinions and supporting evidence. Oh well.
Ok, I'm finished griping. Thanks for listening. :beer:
Part of our Standards of Practice, "2.In the event of substantial disagreement with the work of another surveyor, contact the other surveyor and investigate the disagreement."
Seems to me the State of WV is doing a huge disservice to it's public. Is there any reasoning behind this stance? I mean, the surveyor owns the data, don't they?
Maybe he feels it could cause his client damage, in which case he is bound by the law to not discuss anything without his client's consent...
In WV the client owns the data
> First of all, West Virginia has no recording law. Second, the Board has a section in their rules that reads:
>
> "Licensees should not reveal or disseminate facts, data, or information obtained in a professional capacity to the public, including other professionals, without the prior consent of the client or employer if it has the potential to damage or harm the client or other parties except as authorized or required by law, rule or written contract."
>
> It's not usually a problem, as most professionals I come in contact with are willing to provide copies of plats when asked, and I do the same. I have never refused to provide a copy of a plat to another surveyor. In my opinion, the section that reads: "if it has the potential to damage..." gives anyone who is willing to cooperate with another professional the ability to do so, if in fact that potential isn't there. Most of the time, it is more of a help than a hindrance.
>
> I have a boundary dispute I am working on and the surveyor who completed the boundary survey for the neighbor refuses to provide any information at all. He will not even discuss what evidence he recovered or how he arrived at his opinion of the boundary location. Even if I wasn't comfortable with providing a copy of my plat for some reason, I would invite the other surveyor to my office to discuss our differing opinions and supporting evidence. Oh well.
>
> Ok, I'm finished griping. Thanks for listening. :beer:
Haven't actively worked in WV for many years. I do remember in the late 1970s the surface mine reclamation laws required surveyors to notify all adjoining surface owners in advance. Think it may have also required registered letters and requesting written permission to enter. I was on the field crew and there were often headaches getting to some locations. If the owner didn't sign for the letter we tried to track them down in the field (renter/occupant wasn't acceptable). Because of the above we could only repeat what was in the letter and tell them to contact their neighbor or the mining company.
Unless stated otherwise in the contract, the surveyor retains ownership of the data.
6.2.c.2. The licensee should retain all rights of ownership to the work product and the production of survey related documents, including the original survey documents and records.
6.2.c.3. The client may retain the right to preclude dissemination of the work product or survey documents if set out in writing.
I understand the notion that releasing data a client could get them pissed off, but that ignores the fact that there is IN FACT a true corner for every corner for any client we deal with. That means that whether our client gets pissed, damaged or otherwise put out, that he nor the neighbor are the determining factors of a boundary. The evidence determines that, we collect the evidence and the law sets the boundaries as best it can based on what we collect. So basically there is a truth about the adjoining line and in an attempt to find and represent that truth we surveyors should work together.
This is one of the main reasons I believe that surveyors in this country should be required to take further coursework and more years of experience under their belts similar to Canada. Also, certain parts of Europe the surveyors are sworn in and are officers of the court. The boundary takes what it takes, but their experty opinion is law and what they place on the ground is the boundary. No ambiguity, no law suits, no neighborly disagreements. .................0.04'
I was licensed in WV a number of years ago I don't recall anything like this, but then again I was licensed by reciprocity and never tested.
Aren't Land Surveyors considered to be quasi-public servants in WV? Here we are charged with protecting the health and welfare of the public. Land Surveyors are not advocates, nor should their clients wishes be their paramount concern. Fact reporting and solutions is what we offer.
Is the assumption that discussing conflicting data with another professional considered a risk of some sort? or is the concern that the clients need attorneys present?
What prompted this in the WV code anyway? There must be some background or story to go with this!
You are correct, I violated one of my own rules: regurgitating what I have heard others say before looking it up for myself.
I'm sorry but your response is a red herring. Not that your sentiment is incorrect, but we are prohibited by law - whether it runs contrary to our ideals or not.
Seems to me that it's not about whether fellow professionals usually ignore the rule and share and discuss things with each other. You are all breaking the rule (as you posted it) if you don't get prior consent from the client. And, once a client or the other party retains an attorney in the matter, the rule is irrelevant; you can't discuss matters other than with the attorney present.
The potential for harm exists because of competing rights. It is always there. Under that rule I would just explain to clients the pros and cons, and have a line item in the contract that they can choose to check or not. But still, if a dispute arises and they retain legal counsel you have to stop communicating outside the attorney.
Not making a judgement on how things should be, just my view on the way things are.
This situation hasn't progressed to that point yet. The neighbor had a survey and my client disagrees with where the surveyor placed the boundary. No attorneys are involved yet. I was just trying to figure out how the surveyor formed his opinion and to make sure I wasn't missing something.
And my contract states that I retain ownership of my product. If someone argues that point, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
So you own it per the contract, but under the rule it seems you can't talk about it without the clients permission. Kind of a tough rule. A similar rule I think in NY, says no relating of "personally identifying information" without consent (or something like that). I think this allows us to talk about the job to the extent we don't mention anything about what our clients plans are or what their testimony about evidence has been without their consent. But we can talk about things we have found and measurements, etc.. I would guess that's probably the intent of the WV rule as well. Maybe you could get an opinion from the board on what is permissable under the rule. Of course the other surveyor could still fail to cooperate unless there were another rule requiring cooperation like the one another poster mentioned.
I think its time for some Surveyors in your area to sit down and have lunch or a drink and discuss some of those survey stories and "hypothetical" situations.;-)
> This situation hasn't progressed to that point yet. The neighbor had a survey and my client disagrees with where the surveyor placed the boundary. No attorneys are involved yet. I was just trying to figure out how the surveyor formed his opinion and to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Why don't you just ask the abutter for permission to talk to his surveyor?
I'm working on that. We'll see.
I seem to remember those rules getting stuck in there my some attorney type who had his fingers in the code the last time it was opened for some other changes.
I have since added a line to my standard contract that always gives me the right to discuss anything with whomever I feel needs the information. If you want to hide something related to the boundary, you'll need a different surveyor.
The Society and/or the board needs to push to either remove that piece of code OR require recording, IMHO.
Surveyin' in WV (update)
I obtained permission from the adjoiner to speak with the their surveyor. Funny thing though, they wouldn't show me their copy of the plat without permission of the surveyor. They told me they would call the surveyor and give him permission to speak with me. I talked to her again a couple of days ago. She said she has called the surveyor numerous times, leaving a message each time, and she hasn't heard back from him. I haven't heard back from him either.
I am going to try to set up a meeting with my client and the adjoiner to discuss the differing opinions and seek to resolve the issue.
We did discuss this board rule at our latest monthly chapter meeting. We are beginning the process to try and add a rule similar to the Mass. rule Foggy posted earlier.