2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials

[Semper Fi 713]

I’m a newbee to this CLSA forum. I searched this forum for any posts regarding this topic, nothing found so I thought I would step up and be the first one to write about this topic that is very dear to my heart. I have (26) years of public agency experience that I’m bringing to this post. I'm sure that BOPELS intentions are good, but there is something very important missing that I (and others in the land surveying community) feel has been completely left out (or ignored).

There's a good write up on how “City and County Engineersâ€￾ should be doing their “PLAN CHECKINGâ€￾, of documents prepared by a Professional Engineer, but there is nothing discussing how “City and County Land Surveyorsâ€￾ should be doing their MAP CHECKING of land surveying maps and documents that are prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor. I'm referring to the PLS ACT that governs our practice of land surveying in California.

8726. Land surveying defined
(n) last paragraph reads:

The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying.

From 1979 to 1983 I worked in the Engineering office as a plan checker for a California Public Agency. I checked Grading Plans & Street Improvement Plans. ALL MY PLAN CHECKS were reviewed by a Professional Engineer prior to them being picked up by the private Civil Engineer for revisions. This was SOP (standard operating procedure).

After transferring to the Survey Crew (1983) which later became the City Land Surveyors office, ALL MY SURVEY MAP CHECKS were reviewed by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to them being picked up by the private Land Surveyor for revisions. This was also SOP (standard operating procedure).

In 2005 when I was transferred (UNDER DURESS) to a newly created Real Property section of the Engineering Department of the said public agency, "NONE OF MY SURVEY MAP CHECKS" were reviewed by a Professional Land Surveyor. Some Land Surveyors complained about this new local public agency procedure that I was forced to work under. I was an LSIT while working for this public agency and I was not being disloyal by coming forward to say that there are land surveying law issues here that need to be resolved. I became a Whistle Blower regarding this new policy and was eventually terminated after (26) years of being a Dedicated Public Servant.

I owe much gratitude to two legendary land surveyors (Paul Cuomo and Michael Pallamary) that stood side by side with me on this important land surveying battle. I'm committed to carrying the torch so that others in our land surveying profession can gain respect. We lost a major battle, but we must continue to fight for the respect of our land surveying profession.

It has been quite an eye opening and very disappointing experience for me. I was very naive to think that BOPELS and the Judicial System would make things right for me and the land surveying profession in general. I Have a Dream (ala Martin Luther King) that someday the world will respect the land surveying profession as much as it respects the civil engineering profession. I'm hoping that by making this public post, my CLSA colleagues will take some time to review this topic and hopefully agree to bring this to the attention of the BOPELS folks for an upcoming revision to a very important topic that has been ignored for some unknown reason. Someone (I'm assuming CLSA) lobbied to get this law incorporated in our PLS Act. Why was it not enforced in my particular case? How many more similar cases are there out there?

I will leave you with a quote by John J. Sweeney that I read on the National Whistle Blowers Center Website.
Workers who stand up for their co-workers and the public good against lawbreaking employers are among the unsung heroes of our society.

If you do not wish to comment on this topic via this forum because of possible retaliation, but would like to contact me directly, feel free to do so.

Semper Fi 713
Jack Gechter-PLS
jackgechter@cox.net
(619) 852-5440

[Jim Frame]

Just a note about acronyms/initializations: "The Board" has had some name changes over the years. What was once the Board of Registration for Engineers and Land Surveyors (acronym BORPELS) became the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (initialization BPELS). Then they added geologists to the mix and became the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists (initialization BPELSG). Where once there was an "of" there's now a "for," so there's no "O" in there anymore.

I've never seen a formal rationale for the change, but my thought is that they wanted to dispel the notion that engineers are merely registered, as opposed to licensed.

.

[E_Page]

If you were fired for pointing out that the law was not being properly followed by your agency, that's not something in the Board's purview. It's an employment issue and possibly an unlawful termination.

If you made an accusation to the Board against your licensed supervisor or agency, it would be up to you to provide the Board with sufficient evidence to show that the reviews were not being performed under the direction of an appropriately licensed person or person otherwise authorized by law to perform such review. Although that practice issue is under the Board's purview, if you did not supply sufficient evidence to support your complaint, there isn't much the Board can do about it.

[Semper Fi 713]

Thanks to all of my fellow surveyors that have read and responded with comments to my original post on this topic. I did in fact provide “the Boardâ€￾ with sufficient evidence to show that my reviews were not being performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying. I have a personal diary by which I documented everything that happened during this ordeal that I described on my original post of this topic. I also testified under oath for (3) days of Deposition regarding my case.

I have no idea why “the Boardâ€￾ and the “judicial systemâ€￾ did not agree with my claims that were backed up and documented by (2) highly respected land surveyors; Michael Pallamary-PLS and Paul Cuomo-PLS.

Here is a copy of the e-mail that was sent by Paul Cuomo-PLS to the public agency where I worked for (26) years and was fired for being a “Whistle Blowerâ€￾ regarding this particular section of the PLS Act that clearly states the intent of the law.

Dear Sirs and Madams:

Mr. Gechter has been a student and colleague of mine for 25 years. I have found him to be the most professionally minded and ethically motivated individual that I have ever come across.
My comments relative to the law regarding the responsibly of the City to insure proper protection of the public in regards to the examination and processing subdivisions and other related matters will be brief and to the point. Section 8726 of the California Business and Professions Code states that " The review, approval , or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying."
The current Organization Chart places the licensee, Mr. Al-Agha four positions above Mr. Gechter and is clearly a violation of state law.
There is a very good chance that the City may be subject to sanctions imposed by the State Attorney General via the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors.
A simple mitigation would be for the City to hire a contract City Surveyor to review and approve Mr. Gechter's work. Most cities that follow this route recover the cost from map checking fees.

Sincerely yours,
Paul A. Cuomo, P.L.S. 4136
949-777-2014
pcuomo@guidasurveying.com

If anyone is on a CLSA committee and/or a BOPELS committee that may have any thing to do with possible revisions to the 2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials, I would be glad to share any info regarding my personal experience regarding this topic. I lived it and it is all documented in my personal diary that I maintained and updated during the entire ordeal.

Also, If anyone has any info regarding how and when this particular section of the PLS Act became state law; I would like to hear from you. I’m assuming that this particular portion of the PLS Act was conceived by a CLSA committee around 1982 shortly after civil engineers were no longer allowed to practice land surveying.

Here is a definition of â€￾direct supervisionâ€￾ that I found on line adopted by the Kansas Society of Land Surveyors that I would like to share.

DIRECT SUPERVISION: Direct supervision defines the relationship between the Land Surveyor and those persons who are performing the work controlled by the Land Surveyor. Direct supervision means the Land Surveyor has control over those decisions that are the basis for the findings, conclusions, analyses, rationale, details and judgments that are embodied in the development and preparation of land surveying projects, plats, reports, and related activities. Direct supervision requires providing personal direction, oversight, inspection, and supervision of the work being certified.

Thank you for your support
Semper Fi 713
Jack Gechter-PLS
jackgechter@cox.net
(619) 852-5440

[E_Page]

Kansas law won't apply because California law has defined the required level of control and doesn't use the term "direct supervision", but rather "responsible charge", which may be different. IMO, the KS law doesn't refer to management structure but to involvement between the licensee and the worker performing the tasks.

Responsible charge is defined under Board Rule §404.2

Subsection (b) goes into detail of the criteria of responsible charge and determination of whether responsible charge has been/is being exercised.

Under that criteria, one could conceivably be several levels of responsibility above those actually doing the work and still exercise the requisite level of control, although it may seem to stretch the envelope. I know that there are several (several dozen, more?) private and public organizations in CA that have one or more unlicensed people between the licensee and the fieldwork but are still considered to be in responsible charge.

Conversely, it is possible that a licensee is only one level of responsibility up from those doing the work and not exercise the requisite control.

In short, the number of levels up from those directly performing the work is not conclusive as to responsible charge. You would have had to demonstrate that the licensee was not overseeing the work, was not adequately familiar with the projects, and not involved with the policies, decisions, and application of the map review. That would be very tough to do, even with a well kept diary. Again, if you couldn't provide solid evidence beyond your diary of the lack of oversight, there isn't much the Board can do with it.

Mr. Cuomo's letter provides a good character reference for you, but his opinion that separation of levels of responsibility is conclusive indication of exercised level of control is an opinion that can be disputed and might be adequately demonstrated to be incorrect in some cases.

If you were indeed fired for being a whistle blower, I believe that there are laws in place which make that illegal. It might seem a simple thing for an employer to find or manufacture a performance issue to justify termination, but if you can demonstrate a history of satisfactory or better performance prior to your Board complaint followed by documented failings after filing your complaint, you should be able to overcome the justification on performance grounds. I don't know what the remedies might be or what is involved in pursuing them. That's a matter for an employment attorney.

Good luck.

[land butcher]

Public employees do not get fired for incompetence or responding with a "attitude" to their superiors or the public.

Mr. Gechter was fired for being a whistle blower. It's obvious to anyone but proving it is another story, example; anyone can spot pornography 20 feet away but the best legal minds in the USA cannot define it.

As Evan said it doesn't matter how many levels were between Mr. Gechter and the licensed overseer. What does matter is whether this overseer reviewed Mr. Gechter's reviews or they were just sent from Mr.Gechter to the submitting engr/surveyor. I would guess the latter from what I have read here.

[Semper Fi 713]

My overseer (City Engineer-Land Surveyor) “DID NOTâ€￾ review any of my map checks (Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps, legal descriptions, etc). They were all sent directly back to the submitting Land Surveyor.

My intent of this post is to try and get the 2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials revised to include the proper land surveying map checking guidelines intended by the PLS Act.

8726. Land surveying defined
(n) last paragraph reads:

The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying.

Semper Fi 713
Jack Gechter-PLS

[Semper Fi 713]

Greetings Fellow Land Surveyors. I recently read the latest Borpels Bulletin (Summer 2014). On page 3 it sez that the 2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials is currently in the process of being updated.

In its current state, "The Guide" references requirements for Plan Checking, (see Page 15) of the Guide, but makes no reference to similar requirements for Map Checking.

The California Land Surveyors Act is crystal clear on this topic:

8726. Land surveying defined
(n) Last paragraph reads:

The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying.

If you agree that "Map Checking" procedures should be included in "The Guide" similarly to those specs shown for "Plan checking", please join me (and others) in any way possible to correct this .

Thank You
Semper Fi 713
Jack Gechter-PLS

[Ric7308]

Hi Jack,

I did receive your email last week on this topic and sorry I haven't responded yet. We are planning on visiting your request during our upcoming review of the guide.

Take care,
Ric

[LS 4722]

[Semper Fi 713]

Thank You “Ric7308â€￾ for Chiming in… GR…8ly Appreciated…!

LS 4722… Thank you for your question.

The City Engineer (City of Chula Vista) Sohaib Al-Agha RCE 45440 / LS 7792 refused to review any of my (Jack Gechter-LSIT) daily work that included subdivision map checks, parcel map checks, legal description writing, etc, and also refused to conduct any meetings with his office land surveying staff and placed a non-licensed person “Real Property Managerâ€￾ in charge to directly supervise the office land surveying staff (Jack Gechter and a Survey Tech II).

Sohaib Al-Agha RCE 45440 / LS 7792 signed off on the "Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps" only after I had gone back and forth several times with the Private Land Surveyor that prepared the maps. NO direct supervision during that map checking process by Sohaib Al-Agha RCE 45440 / LS 7792 that was supposed to be my “Direct Supervisorâ€￾.

[LS 4722]

[Semper Fi 713]

Thanks to all of my CLSA Land Surveying Colleagues for your comments regarding this topic. It’s a topic that I have had a lot of experience with while working for a public agency for (26) years. The late Paul Cuomo -PLS was my #1 land surveying mentor while I was studying for my PLS License. As stated above in earlier posts, Paul Cuomo and Michael Pallamary supported me 100% during my experience dealing with this whistle blowing matter that I have outlined above for you folks to kick around.

My intent of this CLSA post is plain and simple: To try and get the “2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials” revised to include the proper land surveying map checking guidelines intended by the PLS Act.

8726. Land surveying defined
(n) Last paragraph reads:

The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying.

BTW1
LS 4722 (aka PLUTAE, PAUL MALCOLM…?) or whoever you are… Your first question was a valid question. Your last comment “What was he supposed to do? Stand over your shoulder and approve every single decision you made? TBH, this sounds like nothing more than one big cry! Reminds me of my 4 year old step granddaughter”

I find your comments so un-professional. It sounds like it came from an Unsub from one of my favorite TV Shows “Criminal Minds”. …. !@# %^&*() _+ Check yourself… LS4722…!

As “land butcher” said on his post “What does matter is whether this overseer reviewed Mr. Gechter's reviews or they were just sent from Mr. Gechter to the submitting Engr/surveyor. I would guess the latter from what I have read here”.

BTW2
6 months after I was fired for being a whistle blower in June 2005, The City Engineer Sohaib Al-Agha RCE 45440 / LS 7792 was forced to resign from his position. 6 months after that, the City Manager that appointed this City Engineer was forced to resign…!@# %^&*() _+

As John J. Sweeney said “Workers who stand up for their co-workers and the public good against lawbreaking employers are among the unsung heroes of our society.”

Thank, Jack..
Semper Fi 713

[PDub]

What? Qualified professionals aren't checking my maps? Outrageous! Sadly it's becoming more prevalent. More often than not, I am dealing with an RCE with a diploma that's barely dry who can't think outside the check box and asks me for closure calcs on CL easements...I send in my mylars with a prayer I haven't missed anything, but considering all of the errors I find on other maps, I probably have...

[LS 4722]

LS 4722 (aka PLUTAE, PAUL MALCOLM…?) or whoever you are…
I find your comments so un-professional. ...

Make a professional post to get a professional comment

[Warren Smith]

Jack,

Depending on the size of the organization, it may be that routine review of maps - particularly first checks - are done by staff members utilizing a checklist.

When substantive questions arise, that's when the conversation needs to take place with the registrant who ultimately signs the map.

A checklist and sufficient training is key to this process. The front line checker needs to be able to pose questions directly to his or her supervisor as they come up anytime during the process, and not have to be the conduit to the submitting surveyor.

I was a City Surveyor for 20 years prior to working in the County Surveyor's office. There is a tremendous difference in the scope of mapping activity between these two entities.

Your issue seems to speak to the autonomy of map checking, in fact a disconnect with the approving registrant. That aspect is indeed a situation which is detrimental to those submitting maps and their clients. In the 15 years I worked in the private sector, this was a particularly galling feature whenever it occurred.