Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

CBarrett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by CBarrett »

hellsangle wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:35 pm Ahhhhh . . . but we have the sun, stars, Polaris and now - GPS

If everyone employed a solar, (or geodetic), basis of bearings . . . retracement could be had if only one passive-point remained!

Yeah . . . I'm old and crazy, huh?
Right, astronomic and geodetic basis of bearings are also acceptable.


Mikey, great questions, I was thinking some of the same things, including whether the sample was large enough where the statistical expression would give us meaningful numbers.

Also, I am noticing that among civil engineers that I interact with on daily basis internal policing within the profession is not as active as it is among surveyors. I'm curious how many engineering complaints come from customer complaints and how many from engineers turning each other in, and compare that to surveyor numbers.

Every now and then I have conversations with engineers regarding signing for things and how their laws govern then, and in most of these conversations (anecdotal sampling, I know, put it in it's right perspective) they are not as aware or concerned about the intricacies. as surveyors tend to be.

Interpreting statistics and data samples is always tricky.
DWoolley
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by DWoolley »

Mikey:

Pressed for time today. I am not going to gin up some root causes mumbo jumbo to try and explain away the grifting. I am sure someone shot their dog as a kid, mama ran off with the neighbor, poor as a church mouse [insert sad story here]. Due to our professional inbreeding and nepotism, I suspect it more closely falls along the lines of “my daddy’s daddy was a bootlegger and so am I”. I have had mano y mano conversations with a lot of these rascals (I personally find most of them likable). Same song, same dance. Their “reasons” for ridin’ dirty do not have much variation. One particularly candid fella summed up every excuse when he said to me “Dave, you know we cannot follow the law and make a living.” Any claims of ignorance are feigned.

Chew on this, in the 8 ½ x 11 format the PLSA consist of 23 pages. The meat and potatoes are 8 pages - the balance is defined terms, board composition and structure etc. I doubt there are any other professions in California that define the practice issues in a mere 8 pages and yet, land surveyors make up 50% of the complaints while they make up about 8% of the licensees. It appears to be bad seed.

DWoolley

I have certain songs indelibly tied to movie scenes. For instance, The Good, the Bad and Ugly song ([whistling], wuh, wuh, wuh) conjures a vision of Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef an Eli Wallach standing in a circle eyeballing each other or Simon and Garfunkel’s “Mrs. Robinson” is tied to a young Dustin Hoffman floating in a pool with sunglasses. Any song from any Tarantino movie are irrepressible movie scenes in my mind’s eye.

Equally vivid, unstoppably, when I see a unknown private survey crew driving down the road my vision turns black and white, queue slow motion, and I hear the first 0:45 seconds of Chamilllionaire and Krayzie Bone spitting “Ridin’” in a loop. Rap fans, dating back 25 years, know what I am saying. If unfamiliar, don’t do it, it will forever be etched into your mind.

They see me rollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin' and tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
My music's so loud
I'm swangin'
They hopin' that they gon' catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
CBarrett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by CBarrett »

As Far as additional monumentation requirement on an RS...

One could use similar form/legal mechanism to what subdivision map act has already done, allowing the counties and cities to pass local ordinances with more restrictive requirements (for example, requiring well monuments in some cities in OC, or RivCo ordinances 420 and 421 IIRC, for monument types etc...).
Ie. setting monuments on all SFR and similarly zoned properties (if it is possible to define vulnerable land owners by zoning).
I haven't delved into this sufficiently yet to be able to offer details. This is just a the quick idea level right now.

Initial rationale behind it:
In areas where I check maps, it seems like the bulk of the legally contended boundaries tend to be between SFR individual homeowners.

With large development projects, most clients have already assessed or expect to assess the property for title issues and tend to be prepared to settle them out of court. In many cases I have seen them yield to smaller neighboring home owners in order to be a 'good neighbor'. I am encountering the same with public agencies and public utilities.

My experience is that it is usually the least technical client that needs most protection from predatory practices (ie. SFR homeowner). Are other surveyors experiences significantly different?
Mike Mueller
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by Mike Mueller »

DWoolley wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:17 pm
Rap fans, dating back 25 years, know what I am saying. If unfamiliar, don’t do it, it will forever be etched into your mind.

They see me rollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin' and tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
My music's so loud
I'm swangin'
They hopin' that they gon' catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Tryna catch me ridin' dirty
Dave, your in for a treat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
DWoolley
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by DWoolley »

Mike Mueller wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:31 am ...
I am only aware of the BPELSG reports about complaints IE (https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin.latest.pdf) Any chance you have more granular data on that topic? IE what percent are staking vs boundary vs topo vs subdivision vs legal description vs whatever?
...
If you send in a public records request to BPELSG for a copy of the citations or formal complaints they will send them to you. The details are in the citations and complaints. They cannot send you anything related to a current investigation. I believe they keep these files five years.

Additionally, if you find the link to the Office of Administrative Hearing (OAH) you can download the calendar of scheduled hearings. The calendar will name the respondent, have the complaint and the date of hearing. Hearings are open to the public. I have attended numerous hearings.

The citation statistics are in each of the BPELSG meeting materials published approximately every six weeks. Past meeting materials are available on the website.

Based on my observations, the bulk of the citations
and complaints are violations of 8762, failure to file and/or 8759 contract issues and/or 8761 signatures and seals, run of the mill negligence by failing to substantiate a boundary with sufficient monuments i.e. two monument tangos and/or record boundaries. Once the enforcement staff begins rummaging through the file the violations begets more violations.

Any surveyor could inadvertently allow the filing of a record of survey to slip through the cracks. A two monument tango, "record boundary" or an ALTA that left the office with two monuments or no monuments is not an accident or oversight. For every such ALTA or record boundary that you happen into there are hundreds behind it that look the same - none of which have records of survey filed. In the case of ALTAs specifically, some land surveyors are willing to break the law to save a multimillionaire money.

Based on my observations, there are very few subdivision violations that result in complaints. The violations exist in the form of subverting the Subdivision Map Act. I believe they go unreported or are not recognized by the local jurisdiction staff. The violations I see are 4x4s or a flavor thereof, violations of the PRC, bunk site plans, Amended Maps that change title lines, bad boundary surveys with insufficient monument and/or title research to properly establish the lines. I believe BPELSG has some jurisdictional limitations on some of these cases.

Construction, rarely reported. Negligence in construction is usually settled between the parties - trading time/services is not uncommon. The construction citations, in my experience, are a result of self-reporting claims over $50,000 and/or the expert reporting to BPELSG after a case is settled.
Mike Mueller wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:31 am ...
8 outa 20, pretty close to half. 2-3 of those LS folks have pretty low numbers. If there was an easy way to check the LS# of cited folks I would be interested to see if there was a trend or pattern, IE is it changing rules that catch old dogs?
If these so-called old dogs were practicing before 1936 (born in '06 or so) I guess they may have a leg to stand on for noncompliance. Today's Professional Land Surveyors’ Act is relatively the same as '36. Parcel Maps and Corner Records were the last major additions, some 40-50 years ago.

In my experience the citations are all over the board, new and old licenses.
Mike Mueller wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 11:31 am
...
On the other hand, if you consider that tightening laws would lead to more infractions, can we read the disparity as our existing laws working?
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
I think additional laws would clarify practice issues by eliminating the faux loopholes our brethren imagine. Moreover, the public is better protected from the community. Generally, the public does not know what they should receive i.e. record of survey. They do not know a tacked hub from a tagged pipe. The honest practitioners cannot compete with a two monument tango and unfiled maps.

Read the forum, many surveyors have a contrived preoccupation with saving strangers, often wealthy-ish strangers, money. But, do they really? I don't think so. They use the client's price "savings" as a way to rationalize their misdeeds, nothing more. Why else would they accept the work? Rhetorical question. It is a flim-flam service. If it is a question of money, tell them save their money and call back in a year or two or maybe sell the cow.

DWoolley

PS Awesome Weird Al parody. I appreciate that, hilarious.
wingding
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 9:04 am

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by wingding »

Here's what CHATGPT says
Capture.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1416
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by Jim Frame »

Well then, that settles it!
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
[url]framesurveying.com[/url]
CBarrett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by CBarrett »

wingding wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:48 am Here's what CHATGPT says

Capture.PNG
Well, darn, I just tagged two monuments today so I can to go file a corner record on a third 'all proper like'.
I better go pull those. :p
marchenko
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:24 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by marchenko »

Hi Ed R. I have an email from his LS partner at the Board that said there is no legal requirement to tag an untagged monument.

George Marchenko
DWoolley
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by DWoolley »

Business and Professions Code 1941.pdf
DWoolley wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:42 pm ...
If these so-called old dogs were practicing before 1936 (born in '06 or so) I guess they may have a leg to stand on for noncompliance. Today's Professional Land Surveyors’ Act is relatively the same as '36. Parcel Maps and Corner Records were the last major additions, some 40-50 years ago.

In my experience the citations are all over the board, new and old licenses.
...
DWoolley
To be 100% accurate I looked up the old Land Surveyors' Acts. The reference cited by me previously as 1936 was actually 1939 and was modified again in 1941.

I ask forum readers to review the attached 1941 LSA and compare it to today's version (which is the 1985). Once reviewed, offer any theory as how any surveyor could read the '41 to be mandatory filing is exclusive to setting monuments.

Maybe it is my reading comprehension skills. Read sections 8762 and 8765 of the '41. Note the "preliminary" under 8765. Curious as to the meaning at the time.

It has been '82 years and we have folks saying "I didn't set monuments". Their complete sentence is actually "I didn't set monuments so nobody will ever know I was here". Snatch up the check and "feet don't fail me now!".

DWoolley
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
CBarrett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by CBarrett »

marchenko wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:12 pm Hi Ed R. I have an email from his LS partner at the Board that said there is no legal requirement to tag an untagged monument.

George Marchenko
Wouldn't that be true, unless you are filing a corner record to document it. If so it says that you are required to rehabilitate said monument.
I don't know of surveyor who is likely to claim that an untagged monument has been rehabilitated.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... Num=8773.3.

What is the context of the email you have?
kwilson
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:02 pm
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Contact:

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by kwilson »

I was shocked to see basically the same wording in the 1941 law that exists today. This tells me that a a good portion of our own people (surveyors) have been cheating by not filing for DECADES. I believe it’s partly because of a failure by the test preparers. If you get this question wrong then NO SOUP (license) FOR YOU!! to borrow from Seinfeld. And also ourselves for being too easy on offenders.
CBarrett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by CBarrett »

At the risk of getting tarred and feathered, I will say that I think having continued education would be helpful with this.
Mike Mueller
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by Mike Mueller »

CBarrett wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:36 am At the risk of getting tarred and feathered, I will say that I think having continued education would be helpful with this.
I have often wondered about the merits of that topic, and I think most of what is idealized as the accomplishment of that would also be accomplished by requiring the passage of the take home exam every time you renewed your license.

I think it would be an easier political lift, and I think it would allow the Board to continually change the take home test to address whatever is the most common complaint/citation. It should be easier sense it shouldn't cost too much extra (I can hear the board folks curse my name here) to implement and is a 30 minute effort for anyone who knows their stuff.

CE allows the KBP (Known Bad Practitioners (thanks Phil for that one, I think I will use if for the rest of my life)) to continue to shirk their duty, while mostly benefitting the CE industrial complex. All they got to do is show up for some random course that they fall asleep through and get a certificate... or they are someone who doesn't know they are ignorant, so they don't take classes on the "basics" like when to file.

20 questions about recordation requirements impacts everyone equally, forces them to research the answers when they get it wrong, and makes it impossible to say, "well they must of changed the laws since I passed".

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS edited it to fix a typo.
User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by Warren Smith »

Mikey,

The irony is that BPELSG did have a rule change enacted in order to administer such a 'survey' at renewal on those topics which comprise the bulk of complaints.
Waiting for my shot when I renew.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County
CBarrett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm

Re: Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

Post by CBarrett »

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:53 pm
CBarrett wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:36 am At the risk of getting tarred and feathered, I will say that I think having continued education would be helpful with this.
I have often wondered about the merits of that topic, and I think most of what is idealized as the accomplishment of that would also be accomplished by requiring the passage of the take home exam every time you renewed your license.

I think it would be an easier political lift, and I think it would allow the Board to continually change the take home test to address whatever is the most common complaint/citation. It should be easier sense it shouldn't cost too much extra (I can hear the board folks curse my name here) to implement and is a 30 minute effort for anyone who knows their stuff.
I was thinking of the same thing just today too. Then I started thinking about how do we get surveyors to actually pay attention to what is written in the law, rather than copy from one another... So I started leaning towards a video. I do know that for training it is possible to prevent the video from being fast forwarded, and even have a test-out and you have to watch the video only if you fail the initial test out. (our company uses these to keep people from shortcutting mandatory training), and you still have to pass the quiz in the end to complete it. This way if the information is 'fed via video' you can work in legal language interpretations where the board has already issued letters and recommendations, instead of having surveyors fight over interpreting legal code (where they fail frequently).

I do agree that doing something associated with renewals would be a lot lighter lift, politically. On the other hand, I am not sure how much our board or has in a way of staff or funds to make this happen, and if a redirect of some sort would be beneficial.... to be determined when all the stakeholders chime in...
Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:53 pm CE allows the KBP (Known Bad Practitioners (thanks Phil for that one, I think I will use if for the rest of my life)) to continue to shirk their duty, while mostly benefitting the CE industrial complex. All they got to do is show up for some random course that they fall asleep through and get a certificate... or they are someone who doesn't know they are ignorant, so they don't take classes on the "basics" like when to file.

20 questions about recordation requirements impacts everyone equally, forces them to research the answers when they get it wrong, and makes it impossible to say, "well they must of changed the laws since I passed".
Haha, yes, the rationalizations from recluse self employed surveyor...
Warren Smith wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:09 pm Mikey,

The irony is that BPELSG did have a rule change enacted in order to administer such a 'survey' at renewal on those topics which comprise the bulk of complaints.
Waiting for my shot when I renew.
oh, nice, so there is hope in the horizon... I hope for hope.
Post Reply