you all should come to Illinois
1) no recording
2) no caps
3) the last I hear - no investigator
SURVEYLTD, post: 344948, member: 319 wrote: you all should come to Illinois
I like Texas just fine. We are headed in the right direction, but for all the hours and hours of continuing education on ethics that Texas registrants attend, it's amazing to me that there is any question at all about what the rules we've been discussing actually mean and, more fundamentally, why they are rules in the first place, i.e. what professional purpose they serve.
Kent McMillan, post: 344963, member: 3 wrote: I like Texas just fine. We are headed in the right direction, but for all the hours and hours of continuing education on ethics that Texas registrants attend, it's amazing to me that there is any question at all about what the rules we've been discussing actually mean and, more fundamentally, why they are rules in the first place, i.e. what professional purpose they serve.
"Why?" is a good question.
You mention that 663.17b "obviously" intends surveyors to describe ID caps set on monuments. Do you happen to know when 663.17b was originally made law? In its original form it was not known as 663.17b, it was 663.19 B(6).
"Boundary monuments found or placed by the surveyor shall be described on the survey plat, including those controlling monuments to which the survey may be referenced. The surveyor shall note upon the survey plat which monuments were found and which were placed as a result of his/her survey."
Do you know when 663.17d was originally made law? "Found or placed" is mentioned twice in this statute. Do you suppose this was this intent of this law? That surveyors should clearly state which monuments were found and which were placed?
663.17b [originally 663.17 B(6)] was effective September 1, 1992
663.17d was effective January 10, 1999
Recorded in the Texas Registry (24TexReg 139), the purpose of rule 663.17d was explained.
"The amendment will provide a method for the public to identify the responsible registrant or associated employer who sets boundary corner monumentation."
Please contrast this explanation with your own, Kent:
The primary object of the rule is to make it possible for future surveyors to identify original corners of boundaries being created today. I don't think that a company name alone does that if they are using the same style of rod and cap for years and may return to a property to replace original markers with markers of the identical style.
The secondary object of the rule is to connect a monument with the survey that placed it so that the evidence from which the corner was reestablished is available in the future. If the survey generated a metes and bounds description that was used in a conveyance, mission accomplished since that metes and bounds description is required to set forth that basis in evidence from which the corner was determiend. However, just a generic cap doesn't get you there without a stamping that is truly unique to each marker.
Naturally, another purpose of identifiable monuments is disciplinary, but that is not the main purpose of the rule.
The purpose of 663.17d is so that someone from the public, seeing the monument, can identify who placed it should there be a question about it. That's it. Rule 663.17b could not have anything to do with 663.17d because it appears nearly a decade before rule 663.17d.
Logically.
Hey Shawn, did you receive any clarification from the board yet?
Shawn Billings, post: 344978, member: 6521 wrote: You mention that 663.17b "obviously" intends surveyors to describe ID caps set on monuments.
Actually, as I mentioned at least a couple of times above, Rules 663.19(b) and (e) are even more obvious as requiring surveyors to describe the professional identification that is required to be affixed to monuments set by the registrant, both in descriptions and on maps:
663.19(b) Every description prepared for the purpose of defining boundaries shall provide a definite and unambiguous identification of the location of such boundaries and shall describe all monuments found or placed.
663.19(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
So, the only excuse a malpractitioner has for failing to describe the professional identification affixed to monuments would be that that it really isn't part of the boundary monument, that "set 1/2 in. Iron Rod" is identical as a description to "set 1/2 in. Iron Rod with Mickey Mouse style purple plastic cap stamped 'WALT DISNEY, RPLS 0001' ". In that office, presumably "Large tree" would also be identical with "Center of 20 in. Live Oak with scar of old mark 'X' on Southeast face"
One thing that this thread underscores for me is how poorly many Texas registrants understand the letter and intentions of the Texas laws governing survey monuments and how they are described on maps and written descriptions. This is squarely in the middle of professional ethics, so I think I'll write a paper on the subject and post it for discussion when complete.
One thing this thread has shown me is the lack of respect that some intelligent people have for other equally intelligent people. Having a difference of opinion has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Differences of opinion are normal, everyday occurrences. We all have graduated from our pre-adolescent stage of life and should be able to conduct ourselves as adults who can reason and debate without name calling and finger pointing.
Kent McMillan, post: 344985, member: 3 wrote: One thing that this thread underscores for me is how poorly many Texas registrants understand the letter and intentions of the Texas laws governing survey monuments and how they are described on maps and written descriptions. This is squarely in the middle of professional ethics, so I think I'll write a paper on the subject and post it for discussion when complete.
[SARCASM]Can't wait[/SARCASM].
I've posted the letter and the intention of rule 663.17d. You keep ignoring it. Save your effort. I can't even trust you to restate what I've said with much accuracy. Why would I trust you to restate a rule or its intended purpose?
Andy Nold, post: 344979, member: 7 wrote: Hey Shawn, did you receive any clarification from the board yet?
No not yet, Andy.
I swore this thread off until I found more information. The origination of these rules and the stated intent of 17d, which not at all resembles Kent's wild speculation, was interesting to me and seems relevant. Remember, the entire question of this thread was specific to 17d.
Holy Cow, post: 344986, member: 50 wrote: One thing this thread has shown me is the lack of respect that some intelligent people have for other equally intelligent people. Having a difference of opinion has absolutely nothing to do with ethics.
Actually, where the ethics are formally stated in State law, differences of opinion about what the law requires have everything to do with ethics. You probably are thinking about informal ethics that do not have exactly stated rules.
Shawn Billings, post: 344987, member: 6521 wrote: I've posted the letter and the intention of rule 663.17d. You keep ignoring it.
Are we to understand that you don't think that the provisions of 663.19(b) and (e) apply? Basically, you've wanted to ignore the implications of their existence on the facts that resulted in the finding that 663.17(d) had been violated as the registrants agreed had happened.
B and E both include describe monuments found or set. It's as if the description is particularly focused on 'found or set' more so than the description of the monument itself. You mention the 'letter' of the rules. Which letter points to describing the ID cap?
Good practice would dictate that a surveyor give some description of the monument, but per the letter of the law, the actual letter, not good practice, or Kent's rules for surveying, but the letter seems to minimally require a surveyor to show on his plat or description 'Found Monument' or 'Set Monument'. There are rules for the monument itself. Stable, sufficient depth and if set, then affixed with a traceable ID, among a few other rules. Describing the monument is largely left to the discretion of the surveyor with the notable exception of found or placed being stated. I'm confident that this is because surveying is a profession and that professionals can be trusted, having demonstrated competence in their field, to make decisions regarding finer points of their practice without statutory obligation.
Shawn Billings, post: 344989, member: 6521 wrote: Remember, the entire question of this thread was specific to 17d.
Possibly in your mind, but the real question was whether the facts stated in summary in the newsletter supported a presumption that Rule 663.17(d) had been violated. The key fact in all three cases was that they had described a boundary marker set without mentioning any professional identification affixed to it. Since Rules 663.19(b) and (e) both require registrants to describe boundary markers set, the fact of a violation followed unless the registrants had been able to show that it was somehow "impractical" for them to have affixed that professional identification. It really was that simple.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 344945, member: 9981 wrote: If we are talking about putting caps on monuments we have set I agree. There isn't much excuse. But plastic caps weather away in time. Not that much time when exposed to the elements. And they pop off pretty easily.
I think of the plastic caps as an interim measure intended to get land surveyors into the habit of setting identiable monuments, not any sort of really good solution for most cases. Unfortunately, the minimum seems to become the maximum fairly easily for many practitioners.
Of the plastic caps, the Morasse collars seem to be the best, most durable design, but I don't see them very often. Caps that cost a couple of bucks are apparently waaay beyond the purchasing power of the majority of surveyors, odd as that sounds.
Shawn Billings, post: 344992, member: 6521 wrote: B and E both include describe monuments found or set. It's as if the description is particularly focused on 'found or set' more so than the description of the monument itself.
Well if one were to actually read the rules I quoted above, he'd see that it is clear that the mention of whether a monument is found or set is quite separate from the description of the monuments. What your construction would say is that "Monument Found" and "Monument Set" are acceptable descriptions. If you want to do it, I'll hold your beer and watch. :>
I'd be content if you would simply point to the letter of the law that requires a surveyor to mention ID in a description or plat - the actual specific words that require it.
You were all ready to educate me and all the other ignorant surveyors in Texas. Surely this would be a good place to start. Remember, letter of the law... no need to interject personal opinion. Just letter of the law, it should include 'describe' and 'ID'.
I don't think we need look any further than the plain English meaning of the word "describe", which is as follows:
Describe: give an account in words of (someone or something), including all the relevant characteristics, qualities, or events.
Or, if you prefer the MacMillan Dictionary:
Describe : to give details about what someone or something is like
What you have to argue is that whether, say, an iron rod set for a boundary marker has professional identification affixed to it or not is irrelevant. The TBPLS has already closed the door on that one, though, and quite a long time ago.
Now there you go again, doing the twist. No doubt, Chubby Checker your favorite Rock & Roll star..
Okay, we'll mark you down as not interested in how the other rules of the TBPLS relate to Rule 663.17(d) in the violation of the same reported in the newsletter.
Kent McMillan, post: 345002, member: 3 wrote: I don't think we need look any further than the plain English meaning of the word "describe", which is as follows:
Before you climb too high on your soapbox, I suggest you consider your refusal to accept the plain language in 663.17(d).