Texas Punishes Violators for failure to note ID caps on plat/description

Link to Minutes May 2015:

http://txls.texas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ADOPTED-TBPLS-Minutes-05292015.pdf

Shawn Billings, post: 343629, member: 6521 wrote: I was just made aware of the administrative prosecution of surveyors in Texas for failure to mention ID caps on iron rods set. These violations carry a fine of $1500. The minutes from May 2015 note that this is a violation of Rule 663.17d, specifically, which states:

(d) Where practical, all monuments set by a Professional Land Surveyor to delineate or witness a boundary corner shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer.

Well, it's about time that the TBPLS is cracking down on the slackers and malpractitioners who don't actually describe the monuments they find and set. In my opinion, the operative rule is å¤663.17(b) which contains this provision:

All survey markers shall be shown and described with sufficient evidence of the location of such markers on the land surveyors' drawing, written description or report.

If a surveyor sets a monument that is actually a 5/8 in. Iron Rod with a 2 in. Aluminum Cap stamped "Jan Lightyear RPLS 6666" but reports that he or she has
actually set a 5/8 in. Iron Rod with no mention of any identifiable cap, he or she has not described the monument set. Likewise, if a surveyor recovers that same rod with identifiable cap, but neglects to actually describe its identifiable elements, he or she has only scrambled the trail of evidence in the public record in a way that is contrary to the entire reason why land surveying is a licensed profession in the first place.

The point of surveyors describing monuments is so that some other surveyor in the future will be able to identifiy it as the same one, for example, reported as set by Jan Lightyear as described in a particular record. I set monuments that are uniquely identifiable and very, very seldom see anything approaching a competent description of the stampings on the cap. That pretty much defeats the entire purpose of the monumentation rule if there is nothing in the public record to maintain the chain of evidence.

The rule cited in violation says nothing about describing the monument.

The detail with which a surveyor must use to describe a monument per statute is minimal. Specifically 'found' or 'set'. The rule you cite simply says that the monument must be described. I'm not attempting to argue what does or does not constitute good survey practice. I'm wondering how one gets fined $1500 for violating a rule that doesn't actually address the stated violation. Can you explain that?

Shawn Billings, post: 343654, member: 6521 wrote: I'm wondering how one gets fined $1500 for violating a rule that doesn't actually address the stated violation. Can you explain that?

Sure. The short answer that there were three complaints against different surveyors working for the same surveying "company", all of whom signed maps indicating that an iron rod had been set to mark a corner and none of which mentioned any marking that would be traceable to the responsible registrant or his employer. Under Rule 663.17(b), all of the surveyors were obliged to describe those markers, so the absence of any mention of a marking such as a cap traceable to them is prima facie evidence that they neglected to affix it. Note that two of the three complaints were resolved with agreed orders. In other words, the registrants agreed with the facts alleged. The third complaint was against a surveyor who was no longer registered at the time of the board action.

The takeaway from this is that it is much less expensive to comply with the monumentation rules than to ignore them.

Complaint 12-36 Rule 663.17(d) was also violated when the surveyor stated on the subject survey plat that he had set an iron rod and there was no mention of an identifying cap on the rod.

Complaint 12-37 The surveyor in this complaint followed the survey performed by the surveyor at his company who had previously surveyed the property. [...] As a result, he received the same violations as the previous surveyor. He also violated rule 663.17(d), Monumentation, when he stated on the subject survey plat that he set an iron rod but did not mention the identifying cap on the rod.

Complaint 12-38 Mr. Billingsley reported on complaint 12-38 which was filed by the same complainant in complaints 12-36 and 12-37 regarding the same piece of property and the same surveying company but a different surveyor. [...] It was determined that the subject surveyor violated rule 663.17(d), Monumentation, when he stated simply ‰ÛÏIron Rod Set‰Û on his survey without reference to an identifying cap on the rod.

Again, rule 663.17d says nothing about describing the ID cap, only that when practical, set monuments should have ID traceable to the surveyor or company. How did the board come to the conclusion that 663.17d was violated?

You'll notice that the charge was not failure to affix, the charge was failure to describe the ID. The rule cited was 663.17d. Rule 663.17d doesn't say anything about describing the ID cap.

Shawn Billings, post: 343656, member: 6521 wrote: Again, rule 663.17d says nothing about describing the ID cap, only that when practical, set monuments should have ID traceable to the surveyor or company. How did the board come to the conclusion that 663.17d was violated?

Actually, I quoted the summaries of the violations reported in the TBPLS newsletter above. Failure to describe an iron rod set as being an iron rod set with specified professional identification is a presumptive failure to affix professional identification.

The fact that no violation of Rule 663.17(b) was found is simply consistent with the registrants's agreements that they had correctly described the markers set as being without professional identification.

I'll leave it at this. The charge said nothing about failure to affix. This seems to be a detail of your own creation. The charge cited a failure to describe the ID and that this failure to describe was a violation of 663.17d.

Shawn Billings, post: 343660, member: 6521 wrote: I'll leave it at this. The charge said nothing about failure to affix. This seems to be a detail of your own creation. The charge cited a failure to describe the ID and that this failure to describe was a violation of 663.17d.

If you read the summaries of the three violations that I cited above, the mention of setting an iron rod without describing of affixing professional identification is, purely as a matter of logic, proof under the premise of Rule 663.17(b) that no such professional identification was affixed.

The flow of logic goes like this:

If a surveyor sets a monument and it is determined that it was practical to mark in a way that was traceable to the registrant or his employer, then if a monument is not marked, that is a violation of Rule 663.17(d)

If a surveyor sets a monument, it must be correctly described.

A surveyor sets a monument and describes as just a 1/2 in. Iron Rod.

Therefore if the surveyor has correctly described the monument, it is just a 1/2 in. Iron Rod without an identifying cap affixed to it and Rule 663.17(d) has been violated.

That's not logic. That's supposition. It's also based on a subjective interpretation of another rule that the summary did not mention - describing monuments. That rule contains no language regarding the description of ID caps. If your understanding is what happened, then this punishment is an injustice. We don't prosecute people based on supposition nor based on subjective interpretation. It's enshrined in our founding documents. Due process.

Furthermore, the summaries make no mention of failure to affix. You keep landing there, but it's pure speculation on your part. The summaries don't literally support the claim only that they failed to describe the ID on the set monuments. A violation for which I have yet to find a rule.

It would seem that if the surveyor noted that he had set an iron rod, and, the surveyor stamped the map, and, the reference to the surveyor who performed the survey is in the description, and, the law requires that the iron rod set is to be capped with identifying markers identifying the surveyor, then even if the marker is not referenced in on the map or in the description, it would be presumed that when someone found the marker that referenced the surveyor, who is already identified on the map and in the description, then it should satisfy any requirements of the law. "He set a marker and you can identify the marker he set by the cap you find on the marker in the field, should not have to be further referenced on the map or description." Just my two cents worth.

Complaint 12-36 Rule 663.17(d) was also violated when the surveyor stated on the subject survey plat that he had set an iron rod and there was no mention of an identifying cap on the rod.

Is this really an issue in Texas? Surveyors setting their rods, noting it on their plans/plats, but not setting caps with identification?

On my plans, I always note the LS number of found rods with caps. I never mention the cap on the ones I set, because to me it seems obvious whose number is on the cap.

....set monuments should have ID traceable to the surveyor or company.

Also, I'm not sure about the legal definition of should. I see that as a strong suggestion, not as an absolute. The word, shall or must would be more definitive here.

Should was my word. I quoted the statute verbatim in the opening post. It says shall.
It also says where practical, leaving some discretion to the surveyor as to practicality.

For the love of all that is Holy, set the damn thing, cap the thing with and identifiable cap, describe the thing fully and accurately on the map/report, collect your check and move on to the next one. Fail to do any of the first three and prepare to take your licks, plain and simple.

Why should a person prepare to "take licks" from a governmental entity for something that isn't a violation of law or statute?

It doesn't say anything about documentation though.

My questions is what should the CAP have stamped on it. My CAPS have my name and number, but I have seen CAPS with just a company name. I can understand if the company only has one RPLS, but I have seen companies with several RPLS just having a company CAP.

Because as best I understand it, the entity responsible for interpretation of the rules governing the practice of surveying in Texas (violation of which is the topic of this post) is the board which levied the fine in question. As such they have the final authority on the "meaning" of these rules...ergo you're arguing with a fence post. I recommend that you request in written clarification of whatever rules that you find ambiguous, and do your best to comply with their written interpretation. Leave the nit picking to the attorneys.

...traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer

By statute, it appears to be acceptable. I prefer a link to the actual surveyor, too.

My biggest problem with the associated employer is that sometimes vague company name used on some of the caps, such as initials, when the company isn't known by initials. Or, a DOT contractor company I followed a year or two ago, set rods with initials "ABC Inc" for the company name. Problem is that there never was an ABC, Inc. The company name was Alpha Bravo Charlie, Inc. and it was bought out by Big Survey, Inc, five years ago. But they are still setting "ABC Inc" ID caps. You got to get pretty sleuthy to make that connection.

My other problem is that when a company with multiple surveyors goes out of business, you have no link to the responsible surveyor anymore.