Property Value and Standard of Care

[DWoolley]

Keith Nofield:

I have heard a couple of flavors of this conversation. Frankly, it makes no sense to me, yet.

When you say "the Board" will you provide a more precise source?

Were you provided a citation to authority?

Based on the limited information, at first blush, this appears to be another land surveying wives tale. Experts in all fields throughout the state, throughout the country, testify as to the standard of care. This is precisely how professional negligence is determined - the testimony of experts, real experts, that have practiced extensively in an aspect(s) of a field or in other fields, academia.

With no "standard of care" there is no professional negligence. Does that make sense? Ridiculous on its face.

What was the context and qualifier of "jurisdictions"? The 58 California counties? The 482 cities and towns?

"This is getting curiouser and curiouser!" said Alice.

Clearly, there has to be more to the story. Please provide more precise details, I would greatly appreciate it.

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

I have heard a couple of flavors of this conversation. Frankly, it makes no sense to me, yet.

I am not an expert, but we all know Southern CA surveys, and has different thought processes from the Central Valley, Bay Area, and Northern CA.
Maps get reviewed with different perspective of a survey from every County Surveyor, even though they are only suppose to review a map on technicalities, per the PLS Act.

When you say "the Board" will you provide a more precise source?

Section 8706 is the definition, if you have any questions when one references the "Board".

Were you provided a citation to authority?

Not a relative question, and I don't appreciate you asking such on a public forum.

Based on the limited information, at first blush, this appears to be another land surveying wives tale.

Not a wives tale as I heard it from the Executive Officer, of the Board. I suggest you contact the authorities and get clear definition to better understand "Standard of Care".

With no "standard of care" there is no professional negligence. Does that make sense? Ridiculous on its face.

I concur, see above.

Clearly, there has to be more to the story. Please provide more precise details, I would greatly appreciate it.

I do not have the time like others on this forum, as I am in business to assist the public, and have a retaining wall to stake this morning, so please see above.

[PLS7393]

Sorry for the double post, but this fine system won't let me delete.
Maybe the administrator should have simply seen this double post and deleted, haha.

Keith Nofield, PLS

[DWoolley]

Were you provided a citation to authority?

Not a relative question, and I don't appreciate you asking such on a public forum.

I thought a public forum was an ideal place to provide a citation to authority. I believe one of the reasons the community is occassionally uninformed is we often pass wife's tales around rather than textbooks.

According to Blacks' Law online edition:

What is CITATION OF AUTHORITIES?

The reading of, or reference to, legal authorities and precedents, (such as constitutious, statutes, reported cases, and elementary treatises,) in arguments to courts, or In legal text-books, to establish or fortify the propositions advanced.

Keith, I apologize for offending your sensibilities by asking for a legal reference on a public forum. Peculiar to my way of thinking, but to each their own.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

What is your definition of Standard of Care?
I ask this because in a recent meeting with the Board, it was clearly pointed out to me that there is no such thing as Standard of Care.
If there was, there would have to be many definitions for all of the different jurisdictions throughout the sate and currently there are none.

I took this statement as saying there is no singular uniform definition of standard of care in California which I believe is the point of this entire thread. It varies by jurisdiction and situation. However, I can see why someone might find Nofield's wording confusing

[LS_8750]

Property value and standard of care.

As so many of us have also experienced, I for example have seen monument maps in San Francisco from 1906 breaking down distances to the nearest 0.001'. And, I have retraced surveys in the Santa Cruz Mountains dating back to the 1890s where I'm finding monuments and missing distance calls by 40 feet.

It is what it is.

[rmaher]

Were you provided a citation to authority?

Not a relative question, and I don't appreciate you asking such on a public forum.

I thought a public forum was an ideal place to provide a citation to authority. I believe one of the reasons the community is occasionally uninformed is we often pass wife's tales around rather than textbooks.

According to Blacks' Law online edition: What is CITATION OF AUTHORITIES?

The reading of, or reference to, legal authorities and precedents, (such as constitutious, statutes, reported cases, and elementary treatises,) in arguments to courts, or In legal text-books, to establish or fortify the propositions advanced.

Keith, I apologize for offending your sensibilities by asking for a legal reference on a public forum. Peculiar to my way of thinking, but to each their own.

--- I sincerely wanted to discuss how some law as written and as I read applied ---

Is this really so? When I read the statute I see:

66412: This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency.

Go ahead Rich and do whatever you want to confuse your client.

Perhaps it's a case of living la vie en rose, but I see a pattern...

Don't care what people say. Don't give a damn about their laws.

[E_Page]

Keith,

Read slower. You are taking offense at comments which were offered as a means of trying to understand and help.

The topic of Standard of Care and Standard of Practice is one that requires more discussion than I have time to put into a post at this time. although Ric is on the record as stating many times that BPELSG enforces the Standard of Practice and not the Standard of Care, I am not aware of his ever offering a cogent definition of the difference.

In legal parlance, the courts quite often use the terms interchangeably. The PLSA and the Board Rules are quite clear that the standard that BPELSG is to enforce is the Standard of Care. The basic definition of negligence refers to the Standard of Care and the definition found in the Board Rules reflects that widely accepted definition.

Nowhere in statute is there authority to devise some other standard by which to determine negligence, and nowhere in the Board Rules is there any indication that negligence is to be judged by any standard than that of not exercising due care.

BPELSG typically determines the Standard of Practice according to the opinion of a single retained technical "expert", or according to Ric's opinion of what that standard is. BPELSG has refused to publish any standards of practice, and unless they are able to clearly substantiate that a particular practice is the standard practice which must be followed, they fail to properly establish that a standard practice even exists. Quite often, they issue citations and final decisions of discipline based on standards which amount to nothing more than the personal practice of one surveyor and offer nothing authoritative to demonstrate that opinion to be an accepted standard.

If, in your case, BPELSG asserted a particular standard of practice without considering whether you exercised due care in your actions, and particularly if they failed to offer appropriate CITE TO AUTHORITY (look it up before you take offense to a non-offensive term) to support their asserted standard, a decent attorney should be able to make a successful appeal for you.

[PLS7393]

I think I now understand Standard of Care, by surveyors, relative to this thread.
I found a fine surveyor set property corners today in Fremont, to satisfy their standard of care, and protect the public. The neighbor hired a surveyor because he did not believe my nail and tag were set in the correct location, and yes a CR is still in review after several months.
Does this picture clarify Standard of Care for some, LMAO!!!

They even put a pen mark in the center of that there monument to show the exact property line/corner. Damn they are good!!!

[DWoolley]

I think I now understand Standard of Care, by surveyors, relative to this thread.

Wait a minute, did I miss something?

KN, I think Evan Page offered good advice if you are being hunted down on a negligence charge. I apologize if you accidentally gave up the fugitive status when I was simply asking if you were given a reference (citation to authority) for the information you were posting. RUN Forest! RUN!

You may find the BPELSG enforcement process ridiculously sketchy.

Good luck,

DWoolley

[jonwheat]

I was just looking for opinions and discussion. Not criticisms of other surveyors' post. Why do threads on this forum always degenerate to a negative place?
...maybe that's a different post.

[ksoze]

[Peter Ehlert]

@ksoze

[jonwheat]

Touche

[DWoolley]

“To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing” Elbert Hubbard.

I believe criticism is essential to the process and more importantly, progress. Criticism is an issue in our professional community and in a broader context, modern society – it appears as though we do not want to offer or accept it. In this regard, I may be a throwback to another era.

If we want to have an honest discussion about the standard of care, we must acknowledge who is asking and why they are asking in each instance. Understanding the motivation and the numerical minority i.e. subsets within the practitioners is instrumental in understanding the need to cause confusion where none should exist.

The Halfwits

I do not know how our community stacks up against society as a whole, but halfwits plague our professional ranks. The challenge is these particular folks are not the beautiful sweet simpletons that stir our compassions and reminiscent recollections of Lennie Smalls in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men; quite the contrary, our homegrown simpletons think of themselves as unrecognized genius in land surveying and have the disposition of a Ringlefinch troll. Their instant reactions to as much as a raised eyebrow of curiosity or intrigue is a visceral anger. I suspect this is symptomatic of having to navigate a world they find confusing.

The halfwits exist primarily due to poor hiring practices and low minimum professional development standards over the last 30 years. The profession has evolved in the last 30 years and as such, there is less and less room for a 10 to 15 year employee without a dream of an LSIT. Licensure has to be in the career path of everyone working in the profession – if not, you’re out. Caltrans is the ideal model – no license, no party chief job for you. Make no mistake, most of the halfwits in my mind's eye are licensed practitioners.

Halfwit hallmarks: “I have been doing it this way for 30 years and never had a problem” or “I don’t have time for [classes, studying, learning my trade, debate]” and/or being generally belligerent. When challenged they are quick to fallback on their resume, simply measured in years, rather than reason their way through a problem by presenting facts with research. Take their ball and go home types.

Halfwits refuse to consider a standard of care until they are in trouble and then, they oddly argue against the facts.

Side note, the profession has changed and the milk run, showing up to work to simply collect a check without continued self improvement, is nearing the end. The trades will continue to eat the unlicensed and routine construction skillset alive. Regardless of your age or the number of years of experience, if you are on a path to licensure you are contributing to your own longevity and future success.

The Flock of Delicate Flowers

I further acknowledge a few of our land surveying brethren have sensibilities as delicate as a little prairie flower. This becomes an issue when these sensibilities are coupled with a propensity to rely on informational cascades (Google “social proof”). Their nonsense is easily dispelled by facts, yet they persist. They flock like sheep with similarly minded folks. They spend their days working the backroom wringing their hands trying to do away with any perceived interlopers that challenges their do nothing status quo. They like to sneak and move about the shadows. This crowd likes to use pseudonyms and have secret meetings with unpublished agenda items. Transparency is their kryptonite.

Delicate flower hallmarks: They flock up in backrooms. The classic good ol’ boys club – although they do have some women in their ranks. If you have someone appear unannounced from a faraway chapter, dragging in with them a couple of out of town sidekicks, to talk to you about people or chapters not present you have met the good ol’ boys club. They have been known to raise Cain over the publication of their group emails or distribution of their correspondence. A pseudonym or signing on as collective group, sans names, is a dead giveaway to this ne’er-do-well crew.

They upset the orderly progress of the majority by use of sabotage and ambush.

The Dirty

A final acknowledgment is that part of our professional community simply makes their living by dishonest means. In my experience, the attorneys are routinely astonished by the land surveyors lack of understanding of their liability, the willingness to not comply with the statutes, a lack of technical mapping knowhow and a willingness to defend the undefendable actions of themselves or others. The dishonest practices are throughout the state. However, there are entire communities in which these dishonest practices are the prevailing practices. On many occasions I have explained land surveyors’ negligence to members of the public, attorneys and public agency folks - they are always astonished that a licensed professional would violate the law. The Dirty are willing jeopardize their license to save a millionaire money e.g. providing an ALTA Land Title Survey based on two monuments, often times violating the accuracy standard by using RTN, and not filing a record of survey. This is the "I didn't set anything so I do not have to file" crowd. The complete sentence is actually "I didn't set anything, therefore nobody will ever know I was here" - feet don't fail me now!

The Dirty make land surveyors an easy target for deregulation.

The Dirty hallmarks: Failure to file a record of survey, establishing boundaries using two monuments aka two monument tango, ignoring contrary boundary evidence, setting temporary and/or approximate markers, "record boundary" on topographic maps - there is no such thing as a record boundary connected to a field survey [if a contrary opinion exist please provide a reference to a manual describing the process], misuse of tools e.g. RTN. Resounding ability to rationalize their illegal practices. They are not ignorant, they’re dirty. They are The Dirty.

Who is Offended Now?

The identification of a these three subsets of our professional community is only likely to offend those particular subsets. If you have read this far into the post and do not feel offended you are probably not in one of these three subsets – except maybe the halfwits, we likely lost them somewhere in the second paragraph. These three subset groups are not all encompassing or exclusive. For example, we have licensed halfwits and delicate flowers doing dishonest business. Yes, halfwitted delicate flowers exist in our community.

Each subset stands in the way, for differing reasons, of establishing our own published, clearly defined, standard of care in California. In the meantime, we can continue to pick off the fish in the barrel for sport.

Standard of Care

Back to the Original Post concerning the Standard of Care. The dishonest sectors of the community would like nothing more than to paint their poor practice as being “local” by misusing the term local as it applies to determining a standard of care. Local, as it relates to a standard of care, does not mean “Everyone does it in this geographic region, so that makes it our standard of care”. False. The standard of care is not a county by county or a NorCal/SoCal difference and has little to do with individual County Surveyors. The idea of creating differing standards of care is largely due to protectionism of the substandard practitioners in a geographic region. It will not wash. Forum readers, watch were the standard of care discussion originates geographically and then, review a couple of the locally filed maps in that county. I believe you will see why a differing standard of care is a topic in that geographic region.

A Judge in Wyoming said it Best:

“Courts are more likely to look for state or national standards. If the professional organizations have not established “standards of practice,” the courts are more inclined to establish their own than allow a small number of local co-professionals to collusively protect each other”.
Banner vs. Town of Dayton, 474 P. 2d 300 (Wyo. 1970)


Define the Standard

Ask yourself, does your boundary survey comport with the NSPS/ALTA minimum standards? Do you use a published standard or language from a published standard in your contracts? In my experience, the land surveyors tend to be a fish in a barrel for a negligence allegation and it usually starts in the contract language.

Have you met the duty of care in establishing a boundary and not examining the property rights – a partial list includes the evidence of unwritten rights i.e. improvements and/or encroachments and the conveyance documents of all the adjacent owners? If you have not examined the evidence of the property rights of the adjacent owners you have not met the duty of care, therefore the land surveyor has failed to meet the standard of care, therefore the land surveyor is negligent. It is really that simple. Negligence by definition, in the simplest of terms, is the failure to meet the standard of care. Ask yourself, which written standard am I applying in determining [insert here]?

The cost of doing a proper job or a client's willingness to pay has no bearing on the standard of care. This answers the original question asked in the OP. Bottom line, some property is not worth enough money or the owner may not have the means to pay for a survey - this is not a land surveyor's problem or concern. The land surveyor is not required to accept any project. However, when the project is accepted the end result will be the same as though there was an unlimited budget. No squirrel note on a map will save you. In fact, for a negligence allegation squirrel notes often serve as the rope used to hang the licensee. In most instances, the squirrel note evidences or acknowledges the failure to meet the standard of care.

Halfwits beware, there are no exception to the standard of care for you – you are held to the same standard as a reasonably prudent person with no exceptions for mental deficiencies.

Background for the Opinions

I suspect most readers are uninterested, practically annoyed, when someone drags out their resume. I am no different. I will offer a couple of facts only to qualify my previous responses. I have testified many times in land surveying negligence cases. I have been designated as the court’s expert – accepted by but independent of the plaintiff and defendant. Land surveyors or their insurance companies have paid over $3M dollars in claims in the cases in which I was involved. The dollar split is approximately 70% boundary negligence and 30% construction negligence. I taught an 8 week course at the local community college for four years. The curriculum was centered on the standard of care for land surveyors. As part of the class we walked through individual land surveyor negligence cases, the depositions and the outcomes. I have some responsibility for over 15 licensees having their licenses revoked or voluntarily surrendered – this number should be much higher. The handouts on standard of care required a 4” binder filled to capacity. Standard of care cannot be thoroughly explored on this forum.

Here ends my standard of care opus.

Dwoolley


K. Soze, you made me laugh aloud. I was wondering if anyone else caught Jon Wheat’s double speak. I was thinking he did it on purpose.

[William Magee]

The standard of care for the individual goes far beyond just the care taken for project tasks. It involves much more, including public relations and those items encapsulated in CLSA’s mantra: “to promote and enhance the profession of surveying, to promote the common good and welfare of its members, to promote and maintain the highest possible standards of professional ethics and practice, and to elevate the public's understanding of our profession.“
And while it would be my desire that we all focus on providing such a positive and forward thinking public picture of our profession, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Dave’s failure to include one of the recently most damaging personalities to infect the industry’s standard of care as it relates to leadership of the profession.
The Narcissist:
These individuals traits include emphasizing superiority, including being arrogant, believing they are special, of a higher intelligence, demanding admiration, lacking empathy and manipulating and taking advantage of others. When seeking positions of power they will use lies and deceit while going to great lengths to falsly portray their intentions as noble in order to achieve their desired goals.
Beware of the Narcissist.

[bruce hall]

just goes to show you, I can still learn something.

[DWoolley]

The standard of care for the individual goes far beyond just the care taken for project tasks. It involves much more, including public relations and those items encapsulated in CLSA’s mantra: “to promote and enhance the profession of surveying, to promote the common good and welfare of its members, to promote and maintain the highest possible standards of professional ethics and practice, and to elevate the public's understanding of our profession.“

And while it would be my desire that we all focus on providing such a positive and forward thinking public picture of our profession, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Dave’s failure to include one of the recently most damaging personalities to infect the industry’s standard of care as it relates to leadership of the profession.


The Narcissist:
These individuals traits include emphasizing superiority, including being arrogant, believing they are special, of a higher intelligence, demanding admiration, lacking empathy and manipulating and taking advantage of others. When seeking positions of power they will use lies and deceit while going to great lengths to falsly portray their intentions as noble in order to achieve their desired goals.
Beware of the Narcissist.

Magee, the narcissist is defined by psychology today:

"The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding."

Close enough.

I gladly accept your perspective and criticism to my recent post - frankly, I didn't think to add narcissism. I do not think it fits very well, but consider it added - an example of criticism being part of the process. Are we collaborating?

Please cite a reference for "public relations" and "leadership" being an element of the standard of care. At first blush, it sounds incorrect, conveniently contrived.

....I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Dave’s failure to include one of the recently most damaging personalities to infect the industry’s standard of care as it relates to leadership of the profession.

Lastly, although it is unclear, if your reference is directed towards me, please elaborate on a damaging personality as it relates to the "industry's standard of care", again this sounds contrived to me.

Ah, wait a second Magee, is that a pseudonym you're writing under?

DWoolley

[mpallamary]

To the extent anyone believes the State Board is qualified to determine the Standard of Care on land surveying, the law would suggest that they are unable and unqualified to do that. I am qualified to opine on this topic as various courts across the State of California have recognized me as an expert in this area. In a court of law, where I am vetted and challenged and then permitted to testify, it is my opinion and my opinion alone that counts. This is not a statement of vanity - it is how the courts work. Absent a qualified opposing expert testifying, the court will not recognize any other opinions. The State Board's position(s), if any, are largely irrelevant. See the Wheeler decision attached.

Part of this reasoning has to do with the applicable provisions of the California Code of Regulations, to wit:

415. Practice Within Area of Competence.

A professional engineer or land surveyor licensed under the Code shall practice and perform engineering or land surveying work only in the field or fields in which he/she is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient.

Nothing in this regulation shall be construed:

(1) to prohibit a professional engineer from signing plans which include engineering work in areas other than that in which he/she is fully competent and proficient, if such work was performed by other engineers who were fully competent and proficient in such work;

(2) to prohibit a professional engineer from performing engineering work or a land surveyor from performing land surveying work in areas which involve the application of new principles, techniques, ideas or technology;

(3) to prohibit a professional engineer from supervising other engineers or a land surveyor from supervising other land surveyors who may respectively be performing engineering work or land surveying work in areas other than those in which the supervising professional engineer or supervising land surveyor is fully competent and proficient; and

(4) to prohibit a professional engineer from signing plans which include engineering work, portions of which were designed or required by any governmental agency.

********************************************************************

This is the law and not an opinion. The mere fact that one is employed by a government agency like a County Surveyor or City Surveyors does not make one an expert. What that means is one fulfills a job that is defined by state law or a local agency. Being licensed does not make you an expert on anything - especially on Standard of Care.

[E_Page]

This thread began with what I perceived to be an honest question. It is a valid question to come from someone who is not licensed yet, is newly licensed, and, given the lack of educational and continuing education requirements in this state, perhaps even from someone who has been licensed for a few years.

By the wording of the first post and some of the follow up posts, I also perceived that the OP was confused between measurement precision and overall standard of care. IMO, the standard of care is far more concerned with the diligence employed to ensure that the locations identified by the surveyor are the most provable or most likely to be the same as the boundary as originally established on the ground than it is with the precision of the measurements made of the locations identified by the surveyor.

My previous answers address that perception and I don't intend to add to that here.

This post is about the general degradation of threads on the forum. To be fair, it's not a phenomenon unique to this forum or even to surveyors. Much of it has to do with a wider breakdown in decorum and common respect for others throughout society.

Constructive criticism is useful, and although the recipient might not appreciate it at the time, can usually acknowledge the value of it at some later time.

Criticism for criticism's sake, is more than counterproductive, it's destructive.

Criticism has become so prevalent that many are ready to take offense and get defensive before they've fully read or taken the time to properly comprehend what was written by others, and in turn respond with criticism and insults of their own.

That type of reaction demonstrates another destructive trend in modern social behavior. We're being conditioned, or have been conditioned to believe in the sanctity of our absolute right to be offended, and furthermore believe that our own such right is a superior right than is anyone else's right to be offended.

I'm offended that you're offended at my taking offense to what I thought you said! How dare you take offense at my feelings of being offended!!!

It's absolutely ridiculous and we're seeing it all in this thread.


I occasionally fail to follow my own advice, but will typically apologize when I've responded to another with unwarranted comments. But I suggest that we all try to...
- Take the time to fully comprehend comments made by others before responding - particularly responding from a standpoint of defensiveness or anger.
- Ask for clarification from others before responding to the substance of their posts if we are at all unsure of their meaning or intended tone.
- If criticism serves no positive or educational purpose, refrain from including it in your posts.
- If you have something negative to say about or to another forum participant and that criticism does not add anything educational or positive to the thread but it is truly warranted and there is the possibility of it improving decorum in forum threads, handle it by PM rather than subjecting everyone to it.
- If you have criticism of another yet it somehow adds clarity to the discussion, go ahead and put it on the public forum, but keep it civil. Once it begins detracting, stop. Take a few minutes, days, weeks away from the forum... whatever it takes to cool down.
- If you have what you believe is a legitimate criticism of another, you believe placing it in the thread will somehow add clarity, have the courage and decency to make it clear who the comment is directed toward. If it is not a comment that you would make directly to them or make in their presence, then keep it to yourself. Indirect insults made simply for the sake of attacking another's character or reputation made from a place of anonymity is a sure mark of immaturity and cowardice. (still talking to you, magee)
- Avoid broad brush characterizations. When categorizing professional practice, what should or should not be included in the standard of care, peoples actions as indications of whether they're half-wit, delicate flowers, dirty, or narcissists, valid exceptions can almost always be found (that's you primarily, Dave). When judging practices and standards of all projects under any conditions by those applicable to the projects and conditions one primarily or exclusively practices in, valid exceptions can always be found.

While I don't disagree that the categories of persons described by Dave and added to by magee exist, I also believe that rather than half-witted, someone might be trying to speed read and reply fast. That's not a stupid person, but one who should choose to respond when they have more time, and avoid the forum (any forum) when they don't have adequate time to understand posts and form appropriate responses.

Someone who seems to be a delicate prairie flower might be someone with a heap of frustrations in life who responds defensively before thinking about it and whether the target of the post is really a major contributor to that stress and frustration. If you are the target of a seemingly uncalled for defensively worded post, although usually difficult to do, try for clarification before considering return fire. You may find that you get an appreciative response for that.

I believe that many surveyors are very poorly versed in the laws that govern our practice, and even more so regarding laws that merely affect practice. Yes, licensed professionals should take personal responsibility for educating themselves on the laws that directly affect them and their work, but from BPELSG, to the CLSA, to employers and many (possibly most) licensees, there just doesn't seem to be a strong push to create an atmosphere of placing value on knowledge of laws or on standard practices. Many surveyors truly believe that setting monuments is the only thing that triggers a map requirement. Yes, there are those who knowingly violate the law, or who would even if they were familiar with it. But I think that a large percentage (possibly half) of those who may appear dirty for not adhering to a practice law would willingly comply if they were aware and had a recognition of the need to update and maintain their knowledge through regular training opportunities. On a forum like this, as to the importance of continued learning, we would typically be preaching to the choir.

I would add the category of Ignorant to Dave's list to account for those who don't follow the law because of not knowing the law. That's not a derogatory label unless one is purposefully ignorant. Ignorant simply means you don't know. It's a condition which is easily remedied with the help of someone who does know and is willing to properly inform. By contrast, purposeful ignorance is stupidity.

As for the narcissists, I think practically all of us fit at least a little into that category. We need it to have strong opinions and to argue for them. To think independently, we have to often feel that our opinion is better than or more correct than others. In moderation, it's a counterbalance to group-think. In too high a concentration within one who is otherwise insecure, it poses a danger of mandating or coercing others into group-think and takes offense to differing opinions rather than welcoming positive debate.

Perhaps I should have started another thread with this post, but I'll leave it here hoping it stops or slows the pettiness in this one.

[David Kendall]

I reckon I’m a junior Dirty Half-Wit Narcissist who sits among a flock of delicate flowers

[Mr. Smith]

I qualify for the "Half-Wit" per some of Mr. Whooley's diatribe, but do not take offense, been called worse.


Brian

[DWoolley]

Messrs Smith, Page and Kendall:

You have restored some of my faith in today's world of snowflakes by recognizing the levity of my comments and playing through with your own comments. All in a day's work. If we cannot laugh at ourselves, the best and the worst of us, and enjoy furthering the conversation for fear somebody will walk away pouting - what progress will be made?

To quickly dispell Magee's comments before they become another land surveyor's wives tale - no, the CLSA mission statement, "leadership", "public relations" and any other nonsense he has spewed above has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the legal standard of care. Magee, I welcome evidence or a reference to the contrary. Experience tells me it will not be forthcoming from him. He and his ilk like to drop misplaced comments at the contributing member's expense and/or the expense of the practice-based chapter with no basis. No hard feelings here - remember he chooses to be nameless, faceless. The OC chapter will remain focused on practice-based member benefits, the OC newsletter, helping our neighboring chapters etc..

Magee and his pals have lost most of their credibility over the long haul e.g. the CLSA taxes were not prepared correctly by the CLSA CPA - for over 10 consecutive years - according to the California Attorney General's office and yet, a handful of folks gave the Board of Director's repeated assurances everything was fine with the taxes. A few years ago, these same people thought I should be expelled from CLSA - even though it was the OC chapter's fiduciary business - for questioning the CLSA taxes (turns out we were right, not that I am keeping score, every day). A keen ear will recognize these folks when they gather in dark corners to talk about how we are or I am bad for CLSA. Do not fall for their fact free shenanigans a second time.

Interesting OC CLSA meeting last night. The practice-based chapter had a land surveyor, he has a role with the Board for Technical Registration, from Arizona explain maps filed without a county surveyor review. Thank you to all of our members for attending and many online folks. We appreciate your interest and support in the practice-based focus.

DWoolley

[William Magee]

Dave,

Pointing back, please take a more careful read of what was said. It was prefaced with "The standard of care for the individual goes far beyond just the care taken for project tasks". The implication being that the ensuing discussion was focusing beyond the narrow focus of standard of care for surveying tasks. It went beyond that narrow definition to also encompass the standard of care in all aspects of conduct as a professional. The discussion being borne from the shared concern of not only how professionals conduct their mapping and boundary work, but also how they conduct themselves as professionals with each other and in the public's eye. With that said, the basis of that concern is in direct relation to the following:

A few years ago they thought I should be expelled - even though it was the OC chapter's fiduciary business - for questioning the CLSA taxes (not that I am keeping score...every day).

DWoolley

Being as you are publicly making statements of what you claim to be the basis of certain events, would it not be prudent to allow for the opening of the sealed minutes from the culminating formal proceedings of said events so as to allow the readers to understand the full and true context of the basis of those proceedings?

If the basis of the proceedings are as what you say is true, then agreeing to unseal the minutes would only bolster your claim.

On the other hand, if the basis of those proceedings were something else, something far contrary to your claim, then perhaps "they" might consider your above statement to be, well, I'll let the informed fill in the blank with the proper the legal term.

[DWoolley]

Dave,

Pointing back, please take a more careful read of what was said. It was prefaced with "The standard of care for the individual goes far beyond just the care taken for project tasks". The implication being that the ensuing discussion was focusing beyond the narrow focus of standard of care for surveying tasks. It went beyond that narrow definition to also encompass the standard of care in all aspects of conduct as a professional. The discussion being borne from the shared concern of not only how professionals conduct their mapping and boundary work, but also how they conduct themselves as professionals with each other and in the public's eye. With that said, the basis of that concern is in direct relation to the following:

A few years ago they thought I should be expelled - even though it was the OC chapter's fiduciary business - for questioning the CLSA taxes (not that I am keeping score...every day).

DWoolley

Being as you are publicly making statements of what you claim to be the basis of certain events, would it not be prudent to allow for the opening of the sealed minutes from the culminating formal proceedings of said events so as to allow the readers to understand the full and true context of the basis of those proceedings?

If the basis of the proceedings are as what you say is true, then agreeing to unseal the minutes would only bolster your claim.

On the other hand, if the basis of those proceedings were something else, something far contrary to your claim, then perhaps "they" might consider your above statement to be, well, I'll let the informed fill in the blank with the proper the legal term.

Saved your post before you thought better of it and modified or deleted it - as you have been known to do on occasion.

As to your explanation of "The standard of care for the individual goes far beyond just the care taken for project tasks". This makes no sense to me. Standard of care is a legal term related to negligence. Please try again and provide a reference for clarity.

Magee, your attempts to create intrigue have once again fallen flat. You may not have realized it, but I am not bound by any secret pacts or closed meeting protocols. Additionally, I believe you know this, I have no control over any "sealed minutes" - which had not occurred to me prior to your statements. Should any "sealed meeting minutes" exist I would imagine it should be a simple matter of having the Board of Directors "unseal" them. I encourage you to make the motion or to begin the process at the next Board meeting. I would support such a motion. There is nothing in those minutes - if they exist - that cause me any grief. The lies have been exposed and the truths have ripened. I have always walked through the front door and stated my name. However, we both know you will not do it - you prefer to hide behind a pseudonym.

Now for some real intrigue...I have something neither you or any other attendee at the closed meetings has - a complete copy of the binder presented at the meeting by Alcorn. Actually, I have two complete copies and again, I am not bound by any closed meeting secrecy. As you may recall, the flavor the day was to have me leave the room before you would talk about me. There was no pseudonym to hide behind in a live meeting.

Right about now is when you usually crawdad away.

We have hijacked this thread. Start a new thread with this conversation and I will gladly play.

DWoolley, Dave Woolley, PLS 7304 (see that Magee, match me).