County Surveyor threaten to me

[land butcher]

Apology accepted. It's tooooooooo hot to argue anyway.

I am amazed at some of the slock work done by govt when they have almost unlimited budgets. But they can sure nitpik us.

I had a Caltrans office person tell me anywhere on the spike was close enough. No comment when I then asked, "then why the punch mark?"

CLB learned the hard way that when I can I return favors.

Have a good weekend, what's left of it.

[E_Page]

There is far too many discussions and concerns expressed as to the interpretation or application of the minimum requirements and rarely any discussion on how important or valid it is to consider actions that exceed those state minimum requirements as a normal standard of practice and which could prove to be more beneficial to the clients. I see this many times while exposed to disciplinary actions, but these arguments are often mirrored in open forums (here, seminars, workshopes, etc.). I can't help but wonder why there appears to be a mad rush to demonstrate a superior level of competency in performing or providing only the minimal requirements.

I'm not quite following your point here, Ric. Many of the opening questions posted on this forum and others seem to be focused on meeting the minimum (i.e., What do I have to do to stay out of trouble?), but I'd venture that the majority (in terms of both number of posts and number of respondents) of the advice and discussion that comes back goes beyond that of meeting the minimum and goes into what one should do to better ensure the most defensible answer, to serve the client and the public in the best way, to do the job in the most correct way regardless of what the minimal effort to keep your work from being reviewed by BPELSG, the local PPC, or being litigated.

I see the same in most seminars and conference sessions as well. Those that I attend may mention minimum standards of care, but tend to focus on improving one's knowledge and practice well beyond the lowest common (legal) denominator of the profession.

Perhaps you need to get out more. BPELSG, by necessity must be focused on the minimums. The exams test for minimal competency, with no extra recognition for those who pass well above the cutscore, and no exams for advanced certifications. Enforcement case reviews seek to answer the question "Did the licensee meet, or fall below the minimum standards of practice?". Most of the questions you receive probably ask "What is the minimum standard for...[fill in the specific task or practice]?" Virtually every metric BPELSG measures is the minimum because that is the only place that it has authority to act. Grant the authority to practice if one meets the minimum, and take it away (or other sanction) if one later falls below the minimum.

Some people ask about the minimum standard to clarify their target level of performance, which is unfortunate. That type of person is a licensed (lazy)technician who doesn't care about one's vocation, as a responsible professional seeks to improve one's knowledge and practice throughout one's career. Others ask so that they can know whether they have adequate justification to exhort someone they feel is practicing in a substandard way to improve, or whether they are justified in reporting that person to BPELSG.


I agree with Woodcutter's 8/17, 2:41 post when it is put in the context of level of service, which is how I believe he meant it, as opposed to quality of service. When meeting the actual needs of the client within the bounds of law and good practice, there are several instances where that level of service option is not only valid, but is an example of going beyond the minimum by determining what one's client really needs rather than what suits the surveyor best.

Quite often, when it comes to boundary surveys, any options are taken away based on evidence and conditions. Once it is determined that a boundary survey is required to meet the client's needs, IMO, it's not a matter of a difference between the standard service and the "gold plated" service. It's a matter of building a solid foundation to build my opinion on. How solid a foundation the surveyor builds is not the client's decision, but rather the surveyor's.

The surveyor who gets called on the carpet about his results will be judged against what other competent surveyors would have done under similar circumstances, or against what a more diligent surveyor did in the performance of a competing survey, whichever standard is more stringent.

If there is no competing survey, you prorate, and other surveyors looking at the record info and what you found say "given what evidence there is and the record info, I'd prorate too", then you're going to be OK. But if one of the adjoiners also had a survey done and that surveyor found original monuments that you missed or didn't look for, or if he finds through his research that monuments you rejected have pedigree back to the original points, then whoever is reviewing will wonder why you didn't find those mons or didn't uncover the documentation showing the pedigree. Obviously if one surveyor did these things, then surely it is reasonable to have expected the other surveyor to do them as well.

[TIB]

I vote we destroy the Corner Record and force Cities to charge reasonable fees for Record of Survey maps. By reasonable, I mean $0. I just submitted a Corner Record with so much crap on it, it's almost offensive. I sure would like to justify a Record of Survey to my client.

Additionally, a reasonable priced Record of Survey would alleviate the terrible discussion with my client where I inform him that I must file a Record of Survey now. Maybe….. some of the crooked surveyors would even file. Actually, probably not, they would have to have solid procedures.

Just my 2 cents.

("Destroy CR's") So you suggest that simple procedures such as replacing a destroyed record monument or setting ties to mons prior to construction and replacing them later should require a ROS instead of a CR? Try to justify the cost of an ROS to your client that shows an exist L/D to be destroyed and two reference ties. I don't think so. The simple and free CR is a good thing.
"Reasonable fees for ROS" A great idea. But $0 is not a reasonable fee. That is no fee. A $5 check fee will get you just that- a $5 check. $50-$100 per sheet would be more reasonable.
I believe that a "crooked surveyor" is more likely to not file as required due to cost, not poor surveying procedures.
There are a lot of Ma and Pa Homeowners out there that want a survey to make sure that they don't plant their new roses on the wrong side of the line that will agree to a $1500 survey. Until you tell them the ROS will be another $1500. Way too expensive for Ma and Pa. They could care less about a recorded map on paper especially if it costs more. All they want is a few line points. $1500 maybe. $3000- no way
So Mr Surveyor misses out on $1500 for 4 hrs of surveying work. and Ma and Pa don't get their line marked. Unless they can find a "crooked" surveyor that will do survey without filing an ROS. To Ma and Pa, the "crooked" surveyor is deemed more fair and reasonable by not strictly adhering to the unnecessary and crooked ROS requirements that they didn't want anyway. Ma and Pa Public do not feel protected by the rules. Ma and Pa feel that the rules are crooked by requiring them to pay for something they don't want or care about, thereby making the cost of a simple proper survey much too costly.
We as surveyors understand and endorse the benefits of the ROS
It's easy to see why Ma and Pa Public may not share our ideas.









.