Kris Morgan, post: 343775, member: 29 wrote: It is well founded in case law that the surveyor is supposed to be viewed as doing what he said he did. Proof to the contrary is needed. So, in that vein and following that logic, if TBPLS requires some identification of the registrant who sets a corner, and they purport to set a corner, then logic follows, that if they are following the rules, that they did indeed mark it in some identifiable way, whether stated or not. That would be the causality you were looking for.
By your logic if a surveyor is required to describe the monuments that he or she sets and states that he set "an iron rod", you assume that he or she really set a rod and cap monument because that was what he was supposed to do? Is it a common assumption in East Texas that surveyors really do what the minimum technical standards provide even when the surveyor states otherwise?
Shawn Billings, post: 343748, member: 6521 wrote: Bruce, I have always had great respect for you and still do. Having said that, your sympathies and your personal standards are irrelevant. I know that you have high standards, which I appreciate. This is a question of the application of statute and punitive action taken based on statute. Can you identify a statute in this thread that was violated that would result in a $1500 fine?
Shawn - Didn't your Board already do that?
Kris Morgan, post: 343776, member: 29 wrote: This is an excellent time for [USER=3]@Kent McMillan[/USER] to actually put his money where is mouth is and go and apply for the chief surveyor position at the GLO.
LOL! So, what you're saying is you ain't gonna properly describe the monuments you set until someone makes a rule that specifically identifies you by name as tells you EXACTLY how to describe a rod and cap monument? Why exactly is land surveying a licensed profession if you need this sort of hand holding?
Kris Morgan, post: 343793, member: 29 wrote: So what you're saying is that Kent isn't qualified enough to occupy that position. That's gold!
Yes, you have to hold an LSLS license to be Director of Surveying, but what is more important is you have to have a high tolerance for working for a State agency where the only way you "win" is by not "losing" as opposed to the private sector where it doesn't take ten memos and fifteen meetings to make routine decisions.
It isn't a well-kept secret that I think the LSLS license should be abolished as a failed experiment. Ultimately, the staff at the GLO decide whether or not to approve some submission anyway.
Yes, they did.
Rule 663.17(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.
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 SetÛ on his survey without reference to an identifying cap on the rod.
Since the surveyors were obligated to describe the monument that they had set, the fact that they described them without mentioning that an identifying cap had been set was prima facie evidence that no cap had been affixed to the rod. All the board should have needed to have done was to have made the determination that it would have been practical to have set caps on the rods.
I'm really not sure what Shawn and Kris are worried about if they have been setting monuments with professional identification and have been properly describing those monuments on the maps and in the written descriptions they create.
Bill93, post: 343743, member: 87 wrote: Isn't it a principle of law that a criminal case gets dismissed if the facts alleged do not constitute the a violation of the law cited?
There are several rules, including a couple that obligate a registrant to describe the monuments placed under his supervision to mark property boundaries. So, if the claim is that the registrant really did set a cap and failed to mention it, that in itself is a violation.
There are three rules that would catch the malpractitioners who either aren't setting identifiable monuments, giving descriptions of those monuments on maps or in written descriptions that would be sufficient to identify them, or both. I think you guys may want to review your office practices for compliance.
Kent McMillan, post: 343760, member: 3 wrote: So, your view is that the rules of the TBPLS that require surveyors to describe markers found and set do not require the registrant to actually describe them? Did I get that right?
Or is your view that it isn't necessary to describe an monument that has professional identification on it by actually describing that professional identification?
You've changed my words, so no, that isn't what I'm saying. I said what I'm saying:
What I'm arguing is that I find no statute that compels a surveyor to describe an identification mark, and thus far you've yet to provide such a statute.
He didn't state otherwise.
You've been reading the thread, right Jim?
I hope I've made my case clear based on the minutes of the meeting and the language of the actual rules.
no. it's not.
No one has argued that it isn't good practice Kent. However, it has been well argued that it is not obligated by statute. Surely you can see the difference.
Shawn Billings, post: 343817, member: 6521 wrote: You've changed my words, so no, that isn't what I'm saying. I said what I'm saying:
What I'm arguing is that I find no statute that compels a surveyor to describe an identification mark, and thus far you've yet to provide such a statute.
Well, the following are provisions of that part of Texas law known as the Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Part 29, Chapter 663, Subchapter B:
Rule 663.17(b): :When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey (survey being defined in the Act, å¤1071.002(6) or (8)), the land surveyor shall set, or leave as found, an adequate quantity of monuments of a stable and reasonably permanent nature to represent or reference the property or boundary corners. 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."
Rule 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."
Rule 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."
Yes, obviously it is
The following are provisions of that part of Texas law known as the Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Part 29, Chapter 663, Subchapter B:
Rule 663.17(b): "When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey (survey being defined in the Act, å¤1071.002(6) or (8)), the land surveyor shall set, or leave as found, an adequate quantity of monuments of a stable and reasonably permanent nature to represent or reference the property or boundary corners. 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."
Rule 663.17(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."
Rule 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."
Rule 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."
Yes, obviously it is required by Texas law.
The following are provisions of that part of Texas law known as the Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Part 29, Chapter 663, Subchapter B:
Rule 663.17(b): "When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey (survey being defined in the Act, å¤1071.002(6) or (8)), the land surveyor shall set, or leave as found, an adequate quantity of monuments of a stable and reasonably permanent nature to represent or reference the property or boundary corners. 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."
Rule 663.17(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."
Rule 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."
Rule 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."
Okay so I think I see the problem. You don't think that a survey monument that consists of a rod and cap needs to be described as other than a rod and think that any mention of the actual identifiable feature of the monument, the cap, is optional. Is that really your view?
Not one of those statutes mentions ID caps.
Bruce Small, post: 343746, member: 1201 wrote: How much effort could it actually take to correctly note the monument you set? Not much, I would think. The problem, probably, is that the drafter is not familiar with either the rules or what was set, and the surveyor signed without actually taking a glance at the sheet. In that case I have no sympathy. My standard note:
SET A 1.5" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED RLS 12122 ON A 1/2" IRON REBAR 18" LONG WITH AN ATTACHED 3/4" BRASS TAG STAMPED RLS 12122.
That is precisely the point. It takes next to no additional effort to actually describe monuments but makes a huge difference in the ability of future surveyors to actually identify your monument. So far, I have heard zero reasons/excuses that make any sense at all for not doing this and have to wonder why any surveyor would not want to work overtime dreaming up convoluted excuses for failing to properly describe a monument set to makr a property corner.
None of the statutes with language pertaining to describing the boundary location or monuments say anything about describing ID caps.
...optional. Is that really your view?
yes. it's good practice, but not compulsory by statute in my view.