Jointly Prepared R.O.S.
-
PLS7393
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
- Contact:
-
pls7809
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Chino, CA
Here is a previous thread talking about this situation along with an attached example within it from D Ryan...
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... veyors+map
You would both sign the regular statement and then in your notes specify what portion of the map each surveyor is responsible for.
Attached here is another sample of one recorded in LA County for Cal Poly Pomona...
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... veyors+map
You would both sign the regular statement and then in your notes specify what portion of the map each surveyor is responsible for.
Attached here is another sample of one recorded in LA County for Cal Poly Pomona...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
-
pls7809
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Chino, CA
If allowing two or more LS's to sign wasn't allowed then maybe this section of the Board Rules would be in conflict with that board resolution Mr. Harris posted...
411 (g)(3) When signing and sealing documents containing work done by or under the responsible charge of two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done under each licensee’s responsible charge.
I say do it, you have samples (at least two) posted on this site, the board rules allow it.
411 (g)(3) When signing and sealing documents containing work done by or under the responsible charge of two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done under each licensee’s responsible charge.
I say do it, you have samples (at least two) posted on this site, the board rules allow it.
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
-
tharris
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:00 pm
When that board opinion in regards to 8764.5 was written, they could have taken a position that 411 (g)(3) allows for multiple LS's to sign, yet that did not happen. And as far as I can tell the language of 411 (g)(3) is the same today as it was in 2005, the date of the letter.
I don't know exactly how to reconcile the Board Rules with 8764.5, but my own reading of it - along with the board opinion - indicates that there are in fact documents which can bear the signature and seal of multiple LS's, just not a record of survey. And I realize some might be offended by this, but the fact that there are ROS's out there with multiple LS's signing it seems like shaky ground for justifying it as an acceptable practice. I would even add that the County Surveyor who signs such a map is just as guilty of violating 8766 (a)(2) as the co-signing LS's are of violating 8764.5. That is, IF you buy into the same interpretation of 8764.5 as the board did in 2005 (and 1971).
Since the board has already (fairly recently) rendered an opinion on 8764.5, I would be very interested in their take on the Board Rules, at least as it pertains to the particulars of multiple signees.
I don't know exactly how to reconcile the Board Rules with 8764.5, but my own reading of it - along with the board opinion - indicates that there are in fact documents which can bear the signature and seal of multiple LS's, just not a record of survey. And I realize some might be offended by this, but the fact that there are ROS's out there with multiple LS's signing it seems like shaky ground for justifying it as an acceptable practice. I would even add that the County Surveyor who signs such a map is just as guilty of violating 8766 (a)(2) as the co-signing LS's are of violating 8764.5. That is, IF you buy into the same interpretation of 8764.5 as the board did in 2005 (and 1971).
Since the board has already (fairly recently) rendered an opinion on 8764.5, I would be very interested in their take on the Board Rules, at least as it pertains to the particulars of multiple signees.
Thomas E. Harris, PLS
-
pls7809
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Chino, CA
I agree there is some question. I am going to write the board and ask how they reconcile the two.
Personally, I guess I don't really see what the big deal is about it anyway. Maybe they just want one person to be responsible. The successor law in the Board rules basically states that if you take a project over from someone, then you are accepting responsibility for their work. But 411 (g)(3) is describing a situation of almost working along side another licensee.
In my head, I think, why can't we just put two surveyor certs on the map. You aren't saying anything different or adding anything to the map that isn't already allowed, just two of them.
It may take some time to get a response, but I'll send a letter and see what comes back.
Good info Mr. Harris. Thanks for attaching that letter to Mr. Emmons.
Personally, I guess I don't really see what the big deal is about it anyway. Maybe they just want one person to be responsible. The successor law in the Board rules basically states that if you take a project over from someone, then you are accepting responsibility for their work. But 411 (g)(3) is describing a situation of almost working along side another licensee.
In my head, I think, why can't we just put two surveyor certs on the map. You aren't saying anything different or adding anything to the map that isn't already allowed, just two of them.
It may take some time to get a response, but I'll send a letter and see what comes back.
Good info Mr. Harris. Thanks for attaching that letter to Mr. Emmons.
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
-
D Ryan
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:20 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
An observation on that 1971 opinion. How many attorneys know the facts surrounding a Record of Survey; what it shows, why it's prepared and filed, the history and practice of filing surveys, and what other laws are intertwined in the reasons for filing?
It appears he didn't find that the original law ever contemplated more than one surveyor needing to be involved in preparing a Record of Survey, therefor he opined it's prohibited. The fact that many have co-signed surveys, and have been doing so for many years, shows it's a practice that is not viewed by many licensed individuals as a violation. This fact is pertinent to the discussion of what a rational interpretation of the law may be.
If a licensed surveyor reads the law, doesn't interpret a prohibition in co-signing, and in fact then relies on the Board Rule outlining just how to take responsibility for a co-signed document, is he in violation of a law?
Apparently he may be at odds with the Boards' interpretation, but I'm even skeptical of that. How much thought did the Board give for that 2005 opinion?
If one sees a law as black and white, then chooses to ignore it, like jay-walking for instance, that represents a risk assessment. Will the enforcers be busy enforcing other more serious laws that have more egregious outcomes in cases of non-compliance?
If one interprets an action of not being a violation of law, where his licensing Board may hold a different view, he runs the risk of whether they see serious harm being done to the public necessitating discipline.
That attorney's opinion is unfortunate.
It appears he didn't find that the original law ever contemplated more than one surveyor needing to be involved in preparing a Record of Survey, therefor he opined it's prohibited. The fact that many have co-signed surveys, and have been doing so for many years, shows it's a practice that is not viewed by many licensed individuals as a violation. This fact is pertinent to the discussion of what a rational interpretation of the law may be.
If a licensed surveyor reads the law, doesn't interpret a prohibition in co-signing, and in fact then relies on the Board Rule outlining just how to take responsibility for a co-signed document, is he in violation of a law?
Apparently he may be at odds with the Boards' interpretation, but I'm even skeptical of that. How much thought did the Board give for that 2005 opinion?
If one sees a law as black and white, then chooses to ignore it, like jay-walking for instance, that represents a risk assessment. Will the enforcers be busy enforcing other more serious laws that have more egregious outcomes in cases of non-compliance?
If one interprets an action of not being a violation of law, where his licensing Board may hold a different view, he runs the risk of whether they see serious harm being done to the public necessitating discipline.
That attorney's opinion is unfortunate.