Chapter Meeting (OC) State Board President Elect

[rmaher]

It is apparent that due to the pandemic many chapters, ours included, have had difficulty keeping regular meetings. I would like to offer that we're having our next meeting this coming week before Thanksgiving (Tuesday 11/24/20) during the lunch hour (Noon-1PM) and that anyone is invited to join and hear a recap of the recent state board meeting and next year's state president Mr. Robert McMillan talk about the state of CLSA and his plan/vision for 2021.

We also intend to have a final meeting for the year in early December and again invite other chapters to participate and allow members to hear and discuss ideas across the state and profession.

This meeting next week will be held on the Zoom platform and you'll need to register with the registration link below or in the event item on our website event calendar.

Event Description: http://oc-surveyors.org/events/2020/7/2 ... ting-ncjy9

Event Registration: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/registe ... TPcJyOeTRy

Rob McMillan started surveying in 1985 for the City of Escondido. In 1988 he went to work in the Engineering Department office of the City of Encinitas. Rob joined Caltrans District 11 in 1990, working initially in the field and later in the office. In 2006 he promoted to Caltrans HQ as Chief of Surveys Standards, switched to Chief of Training in 2011, Acted as Chief of Land Surveys for 5 months in 2012, running the “corporate office” and bringing mobile laser scanning to Caltrans. In 2013, Rob transferred to District 4 to shepherd a couple of major projects. He returned to HQ in 2014 as Chief of Surveys Coordination working on Program Project Management and supervising the Office of Land Surveys rank and file staff. Rob transferred back to San Diego in 2016 to help care for his dad, and that brings us up to today. During these past 35 years, he also worked for private firms in the field on weekends when their business was booming, and once he became licensed, he ran his own small business helping land surveyor friends in the private sector with their workload peaks.



Outlook Calendar: http://oc-surveyors.org/events/2020/7/2 ... ormat=ical

Google Calendar: http://www.google.com/calendar/event?ac ... 24T210000Z

[marchenko]

Hi Orange County, I hear you are inviting Surveyors to join in on your virtual meeting next Wednesday at noon ( Dec 9). to chime on your proposals to legislation. I am interested in attending if you can email me an invite. George Marchenko

georgem@wallacegroup.us

[DWoolley]

George Marchenko:

You have heard correctly. There will be an agenda and Zoom meeting information by close of business tomorrow.

The meeting will be over the lunch hour on December 9th.

Partial agenda will include, to the best of my recollection, the Orange County legislative proposals to:

1. Require land surveyors to have signs on three sides of their field vehicles and include the licensees name and license number.

2. Require land surveyors to monument established boundaries or minimally, some portion thereof.

3. Require a record of survey for easements established by field survey that have not been shown on a previous record of survey, subdivision map or official map.

4. Require land surveyors to make an accuracy statement on work product associated with field measurements. This may include a statement as to the procedures i.e. measurements shown were performed using RTN GPS.

5. Time permitting, the "No Credentials, No Work" proposal that requires an agency - if contracting with private folks - meet the agency's own minimum hiring standards for their organization or a similar organization. This means, in most instances, an agency has to demand an LSIT for contract party chiefs.

There will be various papers for reading before the meeting to prepare for the meeting. It is an Orange County chapter general meeting in which the chapter directors want to hear from our members and any other attendees. Everyone is welcome.

We are especially keen on hearing from folks that have issues or opposition with the proposals. Speaking for myself, I appreciate and welcome reasoned and articulated criticisms. I have a lower threshold for land surveyors that simply do not want to survey or surveyors that concern themselves with saving the proverbial little old lady on social security the cost of a survey (there is no law prohibiting a free survey to alleviate such concerns or in the alternative, no law requiring her to get a survey).

The Orange County Directors certainly look forward to hearing from folks. I would also recommend written questions (submitted here) or the email address that will be provided in the agenda.

Lastly, as the Orange County Membership Chairman, I will be asking folks to renew their state membership before December 31st and to renew their chapter membership. It will be a good opportunity for our members (and guests) to voice their support or opposition to the chapter's direction and provide input for 2021. Orange County non-members will be invited to join the OC chapter if they are not satisfied with their current chapter. I do not recall precisely, but I believe 15% of the Orange County members are out of the county. Orange County, a practice based chapter, appreciates and works for their members.


Thank you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Dave Woolley
Orange County Director

[rmaher]

This link includes detail, registration, and link to materials mentioned: http://oc-surveyors.org/events/2020/12/ ... er-meeting

[DWoolley]

Great meeting today! Thank you to everyone that attended - we appreciate it. Also, great questions and discussion.

Again, thank you to all of the participants.

Sincerely,

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

1. Require land surveyors to have signs on three sides of their field vehicles and include the licensees name and license number.

So one on the roof, one on the undercarriage, but where's the third one supposed to go?

===========

What bonehead came up with this idea? The last thing I want to do when I show up at a job site is announce that a surveyor is working in the area and then have to deal with a bunch of phone calls demanding to know what I'm doing in their neighborhood.

For the last year I've been working on a contract for a public agency that requires me to visit a lot of sites spread out all over the county, and most of them are rural -- some *very* rural. At the beginning I got some flak -- including getting kicked off of one property -- because the owners hadn't read the notice they received in the mail announcing the upcoming work. All they knew was that they didn't recognize me or my generic white pickup, so I must be up to no good. Having my name and license number on the side wouldn't have helped. But then the agency provided me with magnetic signs bearing their logo, and suddenly I was everybody's friend.

[ekparian]

1. Require land surveyors to have signs on three sides of their field vehicles and include the licensees name and license number.

So one on the roof, one on the undercarriage, but where's the third one supposed to go?

===========

What bonehead came up with this idea? The last thing I want to do when I show up at a job site is announce that a surveyor is working in the area and then have to deal with a bunch of phone calls demanding to know what I'm doing in their neighborhood.

Maybe put it in the bed under the rear window...?

Good point. I also do not want to advertise to the parking lot that I have expensive surveying equipment in my truck left alone while I run in for a quick errand. Especially when the police are being defunded and response times are lengthening.

If passed, how would it be enforced?

Regarding the accuracy statement, I thought this was spread across CLSA in February 2020. I know at the last chapter meeting I attended, we did not like the statement. How did it go over at yesterday's meeting?
I was not able to attend yesterday.
Thanks

[DWoolley]

Jim Frame wrote: "So one on the roof, one on the undercarriage, but where's the third one supposed to go?"

I find it curious the natural inclination is not the placement of a sign on each door and one on the back of the vehicle for a total of three. I broke the cardinal rule, know your audience i.e. land surveyors. This comment (i.e. signs on the undercarriage), unfortunately, is not a one off - apparently conventional wisdom - placing me outside the sign placement circle. The proposed sign law may not be needed, apparently some surveyors have and place the signs on the undercarriage and roof of the vehicles. An education program explaining signs do not go on the roof and undercarriage may cure the issue. I suspect graphics rather than written material may be more effective. It is not you, it is me.

EKparian "Regarding the accuracy statement, I thought this was spread across CLSA in February 2020. I know at the last chapter meeting I attended, we did not like the statement. How did it go over at yesterday's meeting?"

There were approximately 40 people in attendance. There was discussion of five legislative proposals and the OC "No credential, no work" program. At the Board of Directors meeting on November 7, the Directors were told there were folks in some chapters that opposed the idea of accuracy statements, but it was not clear to me specifically as to the basis of the opposition. Yesterday, I was hoping to hear specifics as to why folks do not support the idea of accuracy statements - this is why the Orange County chapter reached out to invite folks from all chapters to attend. There were plenty of questions, but I do not recall any specific opposition. I especially liked one comment from an Orange County member saying a map with an accuracy statement should include a brief note/narrative listing the equipment and/or procedures. The example given was a surveyor using an RTN GPS base station from 20 miles away would not produce 0.01' accuracy.

Currently, the proposals are in the CLSA Legislative Committee for review and language. The Legislative Committee will return the language to the Board of Directors for approval or disapproval. February 2021 is the deadline for language to begin the two year legislative process. CLSA members will have the better part of two years to contribute, approve or disapprove the language.

DWoolley

[William Magee]

Jim asked “What bonehead came up with this idea?”. That was my first inclination also. However, history might point elsewhere than ideas borne from thick skulls.
Hopefully this isn’t motivated by devious motivations. I wonder what real life situations drives such a need.

Perhaps:

1. It fits someone’s ideal of a business model, i.e their belief of professional accountability. Like the trucking companies that put a “how’s my driving, call 1-800-xxx-xxxx” sign on the back of their rigs. Myself, i’d prefer this to be the individual company’s decision. not a law.
or....
2. Maybe its a way for a do-gooder get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see a surveyor in the field and see their rig shows they are licensed, or conversely, when the placard is missing, it gets their hackles raised so much they jump out and righteously go interrogate and investigate those who are obviously practicing without licensure. Certainly a tool to use for the do-gooder who fancies themselves as being the survey police. Where I live we have a neighborhood watch dude who drives around in a rig with 37 CB antennas. Might be worth making him aware of this law should it come to be a law.
or....
3. Unfortunately, 3 is what concerns me and has been rearing its head too many times. I am concerned it would be a tool used by individuals who seek out means to file BORPELSG complaints against other surveyors in retaliatory efforts. My concerns regarding the extremes some might go to as means of retaliation are not unfounded.

[hellsangle]

Spot on, Mcgee & Frame!

More laws = less freedoms.

Me thinks some folks at Waffen SS have too much time on their hands?

Have a good weekend, stay safe, wash the hands and wear the damned mask.

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[ekparian]

EKparian "Regarding the accuracy statement, I thought this was spread across CLSA in February 2020. I know at the last chapter meeting I attended, we did not like the statement. How did it go over at yesterday's meeting?"

There were approximately 40 people in attendance. There was discussion of five legislative proposals and the OC "No credential, no work" program. At the Board of Directors meeting on November 7, the Directors were told there were folks in some chapters that opposed the idea of accuracy statements, but it was not clear to me specifically as to the basis of the opposition. Yesterday, I was hoping to hear specifics as to why folks do not support the idea of accuracy statements - this is why the Orange County chapter reached out to invite folks from all chapters to attend.
DWoolley

Dave,

There was alot of opposition within the santa clara/san metro chapter meeting in February.

I wish I could've attended the zoom meeting. Daytime zoom meeting is hard if your not at your desk. Hindsight I should've rearranged my schedule.

I will try to reach out to the secretary to see if I can get the minutes from that meeting and send them to you.

From recollection, it seemed to have the potential to cost more to the client. A small survey quick and dirty (I dont remember the example used in the meeting specifically, but it was a valid example) would now cost double to gather enough data to produce the accuracy statement.
It was also believed some folks would just make up a statement to get passed this requirement.
I think there were more examples of opposition but dont remember exactly.
It did seem strongly opposed and I am surprised nobody in attendance spoke out at the oc meeting.

What are the percieved benefits of the proposed statement (why was it proposed)?
Just curious.

Thanks
Drexyl

[DWoolley]

...From recollection, it seemed to have the potential to cost more to the client. A small survey quick and dirty (I dont remember the example used in the meeting specifically, but it was a valid example) would now cost double to gather enough data to produce the accuracy statement....

EKParian:

I will address your post, as to the benefits of accuracy statements, in detail sometime over the weekend.

I cannot understand the quote shown above. I have seen "quick and dirty" surveys in the counties referenced that consist of two monuments. The accuracy of the survey would be the application of the instrument specifications to the one measured line - taking less than 15 minutes to write the note the first time and less than 5 minutes to place the note on subsequent two monument tangos. At face value, this means the actual surveys are completed in less than 15 minutes if the note would double the costs of a survey, as stated.

In the event the surveyor went around the block on a survey the hand entry of the information into a StarNet adjustment would take (starting the clock now):

C 100 5000 10000 100.00 ! ! !
B 100-101 N90E !

M 103-100-101 90-00-00 500.00 90-00-00 5.00/5.00
M 100-101-102 90-00-00 500.00 90-00-00 5.00/5.00
M 101-102-103 90-00-00 500.00 90-00-00 5.00/5.00
M 102-103-100 90-00-00 500.00 90-00-00 5.00/5.00

(End time at 9:34 - I did not deduct the interruption and subsequent 2-3 minute conversation). I could have entered 2D information and cut another 1/3 of the data input.

Translated, this means I hand entered a block survey with 4 setups in less than 10 minutes. StarNet would process this data in less than 10 seconds and produce the accuracy of the survey - providing I entered in the correct instrument specifications (another one time setup of less than 15 minutes).

Calculating by hand the same traverse accuracies would take me less than 15 minutes from scratch.

Do you have any additional information as to how this requirement would double the cost of a "quick and dirty" survey i.e. a $2500 survey becomes a $5000 survey?

Next question, how are these folks currently checking/adjusting their measurements?

DWoolley

[ekparian]

Dave,

I do not know how they are checking/adjusting their work. I cannot remember the discussion from eight months ago.

I did not give the examples at said meeting.

It is sad that the specifics from that meeting/ concerns were never relayed to the board of directors.

~Drexyl

[DWoolley]

...
It is sad that the specifics from that meeting/ concerns were never relayed to the board of directors.

~Drexyl

The message was delivered to the Board of Directors that the chapter was against it. If my memory serves me, we were told "the accuracy statement would double the cost of a simple survey". There was no marked example provided. Several chapters spoke out against the idea at the same meeting. One chapter had members that worried as to how they would quantify the accuracy of a written legal description. The answer is only field measured data would have an accuracy statement.

The takeaway for Orange County, from the Director's meeting, was the need for a webinar, a written paper and outreach to better understand the opposition to the idea. Each of which have happened and it remains unclear to me the issue the community is having with placing an accuracy statement on field measured work product.

DWoolley

[ekparian]

... One chapter had members that worried as to how they would quantify the accuracy of a written legal description. The answer is only field measured data would have an accuracy statement.

DWoolley

Dave,

The above statement jarred loose an example that was brought up at our chapter meeting regarding field measured data (not thought up by me) ...

A lot of folks do not show monuments on a topographic map, so it is unclear what lines are being measured other than the property boundary. therefore it is presumed that "field measured data" also applies to topographic surveys, correct? Both horizontally and vertically?

How would one account for multiple accuracies on a single survey?

Example:
a filed survey is conducted. all of the monuments and control were double shot and angles were doubled. the concrete and other hardscape was located accurately with the tip of the rod directly on the corner and using a bipod. but then you located the center of a manhole, the center of a cleanout, the center of a water meter. you locate the house corners by offset. the corner of the house has 2x4's as trim and you try to offset to the actual corner. Or the corner/wall is obstructured by vegitation. then, there is an area that is too tight to get a total station in so you sketch and dimension. You draw in trees and fences along with dimensions on your sketch. you sketch in ret walls and account for wall heights using a tape and determine rough elevs for contours.with then, the back of the property has a forest of dozens of trees (8"-72" dia). you offset some of them with 5 foot offsets and some with 20 foot offsets. they are hundreds of feet away from the proposed site but the city wants all trees shown.

The question was raised as to how to state the accuracy of a field measured data on a survey using multiple techniques as described above. It was presumed that in order to fit an accuracy statement, a lot more time was needed to locate everything with the same accuracy. I think that's how the double cost might've come about.

Again, this is NOT my example, but is is an example to share non the less. If this is so widely opposed, it would be nice for some others to chime in...

to me it sounds like more red tape, more hoops to jump through and more liability.

...
More laws = less freedoms.

I would still like to hear the precieved benefits.

~Drexyl

[ekparian]

...

We are especially keen on hearing from folks that have issues or opposition with the proposals. Speaking for myself, I appreciate and welcome reasoned and articulated criticisms. I have a lower threshold for land surveyors that simply do not want to survey or surveyors that concern themselves with saving the proverbial little old lady on social security the cost of a survey (there is no law prohibiting a free survey to alleviate such concerns or in the alternative, no law requiring her to get a survey)...

Dave Woolley
Orange County Director

Dave,

I dont see the relevance of how the truck signage or accuracy statement will benefit the community. Being licensed and following ethics should be sufficient. Continuing education could be useful...

You can tell in general who does good work and who doesn't by being in the boundary retracing buisness and paying attention...

What I see is a lot of folks out here not filing an ros when they should. I walk down alot of old subdivision streets with tons of new houses and 50 yr old recorded maps with no monuments. There are no recent recorded surveys. Or a lot of new construction on a block created by deeds and no recorded maps. That is discouraging because when a homeowner gets 2 separate survey proposals one includes an ros and one does not. The homeowner asks the building dept if its needed (because they issue permits and sign off a project) and they dont care about any of that, just the setback letter. Therefore, I dont get the project because I propose to follow the law thus increasing cost. This does not protect the public.

I would like to see a proposal to require building inspectors to become familiar with CA boundary law, the PLSA and the SMA. It seems they are the ones that can stop this if only they cared. I emailed said bldg dept and made a fuss, ccd the board and nobody cared to respond.

I hope you find my comments well reasoned and articulated as they are ment to be. I appreciate your effort to stop unlicensed surveyors and bad practices.
~Drexyl

[Peter Ehlert]

off topic? maybe, maybe not.
What happened to the state board meeting minutes?
I had a look at the Members Only site, there is nothing current.
the 2 latest entries:
April 25, 2020 - DRAFT
February 1, 2020 - APPROVED

keeping the members informed seems to me to be highly important...

[bryanmundia]

It is surprising to me how quickly people jump to the furthest reaches of “what ifs” and how idiotic when it comes to things like this. I can’t believe that the biggest opposition to this is that we will be seen by people and we will have to talk to them. Part of our job as a professional is to gather as much evidence as possible in the field. This includes the possibility of taking oaths. Wouldn’t it be great if you were working in one of those rural areas and someone saw your sign and either came up and spoke to you or called your office to tell you about something relevant to your survey? We as a profession are here to protect the public, not hide from them. As for the thought of theft, make the signs magnetic so you can take them off when you are parked somewhere or when the vehicle is non-operational.

As for the accuracy statement, why is everyone so afraid to show/state the accuracy of your survey. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that states your survey needs to meet any sort of accuracy (unlike ALTA standards or any other national survey accuracy standard). It is simply a note on your map about the accuracy of your survey. If you are ashamed of your measurements, then maybe you need to look from within and decide if maybe you are doing the public justice. As surveyors, we have very little now that isn’t being done by other trades, you have utility companies laying out underground lines, tradesman using total stations and various other trades doing the work that was once reserved to land surveyors. One of the things we do have is measurement and the accuracy of those measurements. If I performed a “down and dirty” survey is it because I am trying to cut corners or is it because little old lady Sue couldn’t afford my services? Either of those answers doesn’t remove the ethical and moral requirement of a professional. I believe that the general public doesn’t know A from Z when it comes to surveying and if they do they understand the importance of our profession and are willing to pay justly. The analogy that comes to my mind is if I needed a heart surgery, do I go to the best doctor who can do the job and pay the premium or do I go to a third world country and take the risks associated with a country that may have less regulations which reduces the fee and take the risks associated with that? The difference is that the general public is better educated on the medical profession and understands this, the same can not be said about surveying. If a surveyor went out to a property owner and marked their boundary line the property owner takes that as gospel and runs with it. We all know that no two surveyors are created equal but ask yourself, does the general public know that?

As for red tape, if you are so against new laws and legislation, why are you even licensed? You could be out there doing those “down and dirty” surveys without a license. I mean you aren’t setting monuments or stakes or anything like that which bears a license number right? We need to advance the profession and be open to positive change that reflects the professionals that we are.

I am always open to dialogue but what shuts me down immediately is the knee jerk reaction from people to provide ridiculous statements without any merit and immediately close themselves off to any discussion. You not only need to be a professional to the public but also to your fellow professionals.

I would appreciate any response which is constructive, positive or negative, which isn’t a sarcastic jab or personal attack. One which I believe is how professionals should act.

[ekparian]

It is surprising to me how quickly people jump to the furthest reaches of “what ifs” and how idiotic when it comes to things like this...

I would appreciate any response which is constructive, positive or negative, which isn’t a sarcastic jab or personal attack. One which I believe is how professionals should act...

Bryanmundia,

Dave asked for an example of opposition. I provided one that was brought up at my local chapter meeting. I simply do not see how these statements would benefit the public on a topographic map.
Please make a valid arguments as to why this would be beneficial to our profession. Nobody here is afraid to state the accuracy, just do not see the benefit.

I posed a question on how to deal with multiple accuracies on a single survey. No positive example has been brought up ever, only opposition. I look forward to positive examples... do you think an accuracy statement will save the profession? How will this stop others from further encroaching on our work? Nobody said they were ashamed of their measurements. That is not a constructive argument! (Kinda feels like a sacastic stab in our constructive debate.)

If a dispute arose and 2 surveyors were called to the stand, will the accuracy statement help the case any more than the surveyors oppinion?

Who will review and validate the statement? What happens if it is negligently created? How will it help any more than placing a stamp on the map?

I recently retraced a record of survey (recorded last year) that had completely jumbled the centerline monument locations (showing mon on cl/cl when it was a 10 o/s, and so on).

How will accuracy statements help that???
What is the punishment if someone falsely states the accuracy?

My only problem with down and dirty surveys is they dont get recorded. I am unable to follow their work and agree/disagree.

The problem I feel the profession should be focused on is surveying without a license and not filing an ROS when it should be done. Those 2 things would help dramatically in my opinion. What good is an accuracy statement when they dont leave record of their presence in the area?

I really do also like the proposal requiring surveyors to set mons on a resolved line. I can see the benefits here too.

I can see you argument about signs being valid, good points... that is a good solution to my concern about parking while running errands.

~Drexyl

[bryanmundia]

Drexyl,

I meant no sarcasm in my posts and I apologize if it was taken that way. As for a topographic map, why not simply put a statement on the survey play stating that your topographic features meet or exceed the National Mapping Accuracy Standards for topographic surveying? I don’t believe the proposed legislation has anything in it that says you have to put a statement that you are +/- 0.1’ on every shot or something of that nature. If you want to create your own note I think that is fine but I believe the legislation also allows you to use previously adopted standards (I.e. ALTA/NSPS, NMAS, etc.). I think the important part is that you have some sort of standard to your measurements.

I believe this will also help if you ever have to testify in court. If an opposing attorney asks you “how good are your measurements?” What would be your answer? If there is a stated accuracy on the face of your survey it is a simple answer, if there isn’t one what would you say? Would your answer be sufficient or do you think that your answer would lead to further questioning about your survey.

I appreciate the response Drexyl and hopefully we can continue this dialogue and find a solution that benefits the profession.

[ekparian]

Drexyl,

I meant no sarcasm in my posts and I apologize if it was taken that way.

Bryan, thank you. i am just trying to understand the need for the proposed legislation and am looking forward to a good discussion among peers.

as far as the signage:

I can’t believe that the biggest opposition to this is that we will be seen by people and we will have to talk to them. Part of our job as a professional is to gather as much evidence as possible in the field. This includes the possibility of taking oaths. Wouldn’t it be great if you were working in one of those rural areas and someone saw your sign and either came up and spoke to you or called your office to tell you about something relevant to your survey? We as a profession are here to protect the public, not hide from them.

Bryan & Dave,
i am not opposed to the proposed signage legislation necessarily, i am just curious as to why the feel the need for this?
Why was this proposed? what are the perceived benefits?

Is it to help stop unlicensed surveyors? What good will it do and why was it proposed?
if it is to help prevent unlicensed surveyors, then i can be all for it, just trying to understand the need.

We have had signs on our trucks for idk ±20years... We have never received a call informing us of information pertinent to our survey, have you? I leave my business card on neighbor's porches if i was at their house whilst they we away... That can be helpful and has produced results... I feel that most people are at work while we are roaming the neighborhoods.

As for the accuracy statements:

As for a topographic map, why not simply put a statement on the survey play stating that your topographic features meet or exceed the National Mapping Accuracy Standards for topographic surveying? I don’t believe the proposed legislation has anything in it that says you have to put a statement that you are +/- 0.1’ on every shot or something of that nature.

What exactly is the proposed accuracy statement supposed to say? There are apparently differing views as to what the accuracy statement will need to say and concern is that it may be intended one way but perceived another. For Record of Surveys, we already state that the survey is based upon field measurements and under our direction. Then you stamp and sign. How will this proposal make your statement any better? How will multiple accuracies on a given survey be addressed?
Will the accuracy statement stop the quick and dirty surveys? Of coarse not... educating the building inspectors would...

Dave has stated he will give me some positive examples, and i look forward to them.
Again, i appreciate all you do for this profession Dave!

I believe this will also help if you ever have to testify in court. If an opposing attorney asks you “how good are your measurements?” What would be your answer? If there is a stated accuracy on the face of your survey it is a simple answer, if there isn’t one what would you say? Would your answer be sufficient or do you think that your answer would lead to further questioning about your survey.

Bryan,
if called into court, i would most likely bring in my error analysis reports stating the confidence regardless of this proposed legislation. what if both surveys had accuracy statements, what good would that do? If there is a difference of opinion among surveyors, i think there will be more questioning regardless of accuracy statements.

Bryan and Dave,
it was not my intent to be the face of the opposition to this proposal.
Thank you both for this intriguing discussion.
When are these proposals set to be voted on?
~Drexyl

[Jim Frame]

If there is a difference of opinion among surveyors, i think there will be more questioning regardless of accuracy statements.

I testified in a boundary dispute last week. Neither attorney asked me about measurement accuracy, all of their questions pertained to evidence analysis and how I arrived at my opinion.

[mpallamary]

There are experts and then there are experts. I have testified in excess of 130 times and one of the first things I learned is, as a general rule, the losing expert is the one who stands on issues of measurement, accuracy, etc. In one case I was involved in, I testified that I could locate the critical corner, drunk, blindfolded and walking backwards. The corner was defined by a very crisp and undisputed topo call. The other surveyors prorated the corner and used very modern equipment and bragged about GPS. As part of my retracement, I relied on a surveyor who used triangulation. One surveyor ridiculed me because he felt GPS was more accurate. The surveyor who used triangulation in the late 50's did a great job. I told the jury that the nation was built on a triangulation network and that is how we won the war. The other surveyor was very upset.

I asked my client's attorney (now a retired judge) to ask the other surveyor, one question: "Did you read the original field notes?"

The answer was, of course NO. He was one of those "prorating surveyors."

The jury's eyes glazed over in thirty seconds. When you go to court and start talking about accuracy, you are usually dead in the water before you start. In a boundary dispute, one of the most inefficient witnesses is the one who sticks a bunch of numbers in front of a jury. This is true in presenting forensic evidence. You have to remember that the average juror may have a twelfth grade education and he/she is who you need to convince. In the end, if the corner is an old oak tree, that is all that counts, not the way you measured the tree. Dancing on the head of a pin.

In the case above, my client was awarded $1.3M at the end of the trial. The title company took the hit.

This is not a critique of the proposal, it is merely an observation.

In my humble opinion, the biggest threat to the profession is ourselves. We are giving everything away and no one is protecting the practice.

GPS - GONE.
GIS - GONE.
MAPMAKING - GONE.
LICENSE PROTECTION - GONE.
UNITY OF DIRECTION - GONE.
UNITY OF MESSAGE - GONE.
LEADERSHIP IN THE PROFESSION - GONE.
FIELD TRAINING - GONE.
TRAINING OF MEASURING PEOPLE - GONE.
NATIONAL UNITY - GONE.
PROMOTION OF ETHICS - GONE.
BUSINESS EDUCATION - GONE.
FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO - GONE.
ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS AND PRACTICES - GONE.
PRODE IN THE PROFESSION - GONE.

[Jay Wright]

First of all, Thank you to OC. Great idea to invite everyone to discuss matters.
Unfortunately I had field work and couldn't attend.

I think the OC Chapter does more to encourage participation in the Association with their ideas than any other entity.
Doesn't mean I think all of their ideas are good as I have been stridently against some of them.
That being said, I plan on beginning a new thread on the accuracy statement. It will probably take a
few posts to include relevant information and everyone can correct me as I go along.
As this forum has been clinically proven to cause high blood pressure, we will see how
far along I get before the nice men come to take me away.

Perhaps others can start separate threads regarding the pros and cons of the other ideas if they wish.

Jay Wright
Santa Clara-San Mateo Chapter Director

[mpallamary]

I also applaud the OC Chapter!