Our Licenses Visualized

[CBarrett]

...
Mr. Wooley,
Currently, as the law stands and has been recently adjudicated. The only person legally able to do this in the state of California is a person authorized to practice land surveying...

The law that is not recognized or enforced by 400+ city planning departments and probably 55 of 58 counties?

Good luck building a land surveying business on that. The point being, the law that is not recognized or followed has little value and is only meaningful to a handful of practitioners and practically zero regulators.

DWoolley

SO where do we start identifying product types, after we create accuracy standards.
Have the board put it in board regulations, or place it in the PRC?

I am somewhat inclined to have the definitions of accuracy standards and product types defined in the PRC, then deal with other (board opinions) and additional laws citing which are minimum for what purpose.

Starting with "Class A" 1st order geodetic work with accuracy relatable to the california coordinate system, ... .... (more specs needed here)

"Class C" Urban boundaries Based on a field survey with relative precision error ellipses no more than +/- 0.05

"Class E" Rural boundaries Based on a field survey with relative precision error ellipses no more than +/- 0.25

"Class I" Boundary (planing) encumbrance exhibit map compiled based on available public records and title search.

"Class J" Boundary (planing) encumbrance exhibit map compiled based on available public records and title search.

"Class J" Boundary (planing) encumbrance exhibit map compiled based on available public records without title search, not suitable for permitting.

For example "ClassQ" defined as GIS Data compilation may be sufficient for automobile navigation (AKA old Thomas Brothers maps or current google maps
down to...

For example "Class XXX" defined as accuracy of data used for compilation is unknown, and suitability can not be determined...

Have these classes and uses stamped on every survey product we create, so the public and other disciplines are aware.

[DWoolley]

....
Have these classes and uses stamped on every survey product we create, so the public and other disciplines are aware.

Business and Professions Code 8761 requires land surveyors to sign and stamp all work product. It is a tall order to get legal compliance within the land surveying community. I recently received cut sheets from a land surveyor staking a city project. I sent a professional courtesy request to the land surveyor asking for the cover page signed and stamped for our records. After the first request was ignored, I sent a second request. I was told in writing he had to check with his client, blah, blah, blah, no surprise. Keep in mind, I already had the cut sheets. My third request went to BPELSG in the form of a compliant. To BPELSG credit, they snapped him off quickly and threw in a non-compliance with 8759 for good measure. It would have taken the land surveyor less than a minute to follow the law, but his choice was to spend 15 minutes writing me nonsense. This type of noncompliance is the rule, not the exception.

CBarrett, I agree that accuracy statements make sense and bake land surveyors into the professional work product cake. The land surveying community will have none of it. There are several threads showing the same. Start here: https://forums.californiasurveyors.org/ ... ent#p53543

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

....
Have these classes and uses stamped on every survey product we create, so the public and other disciplines are aware.

Business and Professions Code 8761 requires land surveyors to sign and stamp all work product. It is a tall order to get legal compliance within the land surveying community. I recently received cut sheets from a land surveyor staking a city project. I sent a professional courtesy request to the land surveyor asking for the cover page signed and stamped for our records. After the first request was ignored, I sent a second request. I was told in writing he had to check with his client, blah, blah, blah, no surprise. Keep in mind, I already had the cut sheets. My third request went to BPELSG in the form of a compliant. To BPELSG credit, they snapped him off quickly and threw in a non-compliance with 8759 for good measure. It would have taken the land surveyor less than a minute to follow the law, but his choice was to spend 15 minutes writing me nonsense. This type of noncompliance is the rule, not the exception.

CBarrett, I agree that accuracy statements make sense and bake land surveyors into the professional work product cake. The land surveying community will have none of it. There are several threads showing the same. Start here: https://forums.californiasurveyors.org/ ... ent#p53543

DWoolley

Agreed!!!

Sounds like stamping all work has ended up being too vague, so nowadays it contributes to the diffusion of responsibility - as in surveyors are really good at coming up with reasons about why it doesn't need to be stamped. For example, one of the more recent examples to skirt this is "Draft" and "Partial product".
End users don't differentiate that much between DRAFT and a final product, especially not with such vaguely explained distinction.

With so little available in a way of educational efforts (kudos to those who participate, it is amazing and admirable work going against the tide), but there is so much more that is needed.

One of these days when I find time, I will write up a draft of accuracy standards and make an official submission for legislative consideration. I could use couple of co-authors or advisors on this effort. As usual, same 6 people do all the work, and there is another 60 sitting on the sidelines complaining....

[CBarrett]

PS Thanks again jamesh1467 for this analysis. Good data begets good action :) Any chance you are willing to share your name? I would love to know who did this work.

James Hanley. Hi Mikey. LS 9717 RCE 89324…you’re going to find them anyways. Just don’t stereotype me the way most LS’s do because I am a civil.

Look there’s a term in business called “pivoting”. ...

Music to my ears. I'd love to have you on the Leadership academy Committee, teaching surveyors some of these business concepts, so that we can pivot as a profession.
We need more people like you.

[jamesh1467]

There is so much I want to say. But very little of it productive. I'm just going to keep adding data because I had done more work. I knew better than to start commenting on the data.

This is Civils.

[jamesh1467]

Civils_all_time_count.png

Civils_lost_count.png

Civils_added_licences_per_year.png

Civils_lost_licences_per_year.png

[jamesh1467]

Here are Duals with the updated data.

Again the Github is getting updated with this so the code is available. Also theres more results I didnt publish here.

This is what I am calling "Date of Dual" which means whenever they got their second license. Doesnt matter which one it is. There are actually quite a few PLS's who got their PE second. Especially around 82. Not so much lately though.

[jamesh1467]

Removed.

It was getting way too many views and let’s not pretend keeping that up here for much longer and sharing all that it wasn’t career suicide in itself. To be clear it was all true. But no sense in keeping dirty laundry permanently in writing. DWoolley trying ChatGPT on a legal description for the first time is about as far as a win as I am going to push for in making my point. Please keep using that stuff. Our future is about being open minded to new tech.

I also really don’t think you guys fully comprehended who you were fighting against Crownholm. It wasn’t Crownholm. He was a puppet. It was all about deregulation from that non-profit from DC that took up Crownholm’s case. We were clearly specifically targeted by that non-profit.

They tried it in Mississippi in 2018 with their survey board https://ij.org/case/mississippi-mapping/

Have a whole section about their efforts for occupational licensing across all domains. https://ij.org/pillar/occupational-licensing/

Read the arguments in that case again. They were trying to get 1st amendment claims up to the appellate or possibly even the supreme court to blow the rights of states have to have make occupational licensing wide open. They even conceded that the board was enforcing 8726 correctly in oral arguments. They were trying to say the State of California didn’t even have the right to make a regulation like 8726. That was the majority of their appellate push. They were trying to win not just by winning the case, but by getting 8726 ruled as unconstitutional and building on their Mississippi case in the 5th circuit. First couple minutes here. I am pretty sure those attorneys were after something much bigger than I think you guys think they were after. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqSu8i1KQNA&t=669s

I’m pretty sure this was about either actually winning and getting 8726 struck down or getting a circuit split between their case in the 5th to get the supreme court to take up the case for occupational licensing on these first amendment grounds. They seem like they are trying to get a massive precedent set where they twist the first amendment into a new doctrine where it disallows occupational licensing. They can most likely do it with this current bench they just need to find the right argument that SCOTUS can use. SCOTUS is on an a breaking up of the administrative state bender lately and will probably do it for them if they give SCOTUS the right arguments to justify it. That’s what I am pretty sure they are trying to do with this case.

Anyways. Huge win by not having a huge win. The “not precedent” part of the 9th’s opinion is a huge win in itself because it should keep from seeming like there’s a circuit split and SCOTUS should hopefully avoid it if these guys try to file cert. I am pretty sure that firm either wanted to win the case or to lose spectacularly and publicly so that they could do something with the loss. The mellowness of the win is the most powerful thing here.

How does the door open to the next challenge? Its when Judge Koh says at 4:45 in oral arguments, “what are you saying has changed, the prosecutorial discretion, the judgement calls the government is making, what” that’s the door that allows deregulation in. Its them being able to prove the government isn’t effectively administering this and that 8726 is just completely outdated. For everything I am criticizing the board for and as what do I want CBarrett, its about closing that door for the next attack. Because I know its there and I am pretty sure I know how the other side would make arguments for it if they knew about the stuff that is happening and being discussed on this forum. If they had known about the San Diego Case and made these same arguments from inside the license itself and not from an external actor like Crownholm, I think this would have been a whole different story.

This is the activist hippie doo gooder attorney stuff. The rich attorneys who either were born with a silver spoon, or worked in big law and now they don’t need money anymore but they want to feel like they are making a difference (I know more than a few) This is the easy stuff. I’m trying to prep you all for the real stuff that I know is coming in the next few years. The stuff where the money actually talks and the attorneys aren’t just doing this to keep busy. They are doing it because legitimate and overwhelming business interests are paying them to deregulate us.

You need standards, you need to standardize enforcement actions. Minimum accuracy’s, minimum research requirements, when is a boundary survey a boundary survey etc. It cannot appear like the board is all over the place with enforcement actions. I cannot see the actually enforcement actions to know, but that’s how it looks right now from the outside. For the time being that’s what I want. I honestly don't care all that much what is in the standards. I just know we need them.

I also want you guys to go from a mentality of skepticism of new technologies and methods that I know is in the surveying industry to embracing them. It’s the only way we are going to survive what’s coming in the next 5 to 10 years. We are not the only industry that will be affected. But still. We are hugely vulnerable to the tech that is coming out right now. The idea that DWoolley actually tried to use ChatGPT when I know how skeptical he is of RTK from his videos is a big deal. That kind of stuff is our future. We need to embrace it. They can't make arguments that our regulations are outdated if our industry is on the cutting edge.

Again, though. Huge win by not having a huge win. A thank you to the Board and the AG is well deserved.

Also my family says I need to get off this forum and that I have been way to into it over the past few months. So I am going to be off for awhile.

[hellsangle]

Sounds like it's time for James to strike out on his own . . .

I'm sure you will do well.

Respectfully,

Phil - Sonoma

[LS_8750]

Was that on company time?
Sorry, can't hear you through the pipe organs and angels singing......

[Mike Mueller]

Hopefully some of you probably want to hear this.

Yes, I think your openness about your viewpoint is wonderful.

I actually feel like I have information that others do not and it feels wrong not to share it because from my perspective and from my experiences, the outlook does not look good. Its not devastating that we can't change it yet, but its not like a "hopeful" horizon. It is mostly just frustrating to know about this stuff and watch it happen.

I am guessing that this is related to the coming AI takeover of many aspects of our profession's current business models, however from your post I am not sure if you consider the looming doom on the horizon to be: The unwillingness of good ol boys to report folks to the board? The boards goal of compliance over punishment? Legal inertia of our profession preventing the establishment of standards?

I also never want to hear about "political capital" on this again.

Not listening to inconvenient realities is silly.

The largest body of surveyors in California needs "political capital" to make changes within its own community?

Yes

Seriously?

Yes, because we interface with other groups. The PRC code changes did not need a large political effort because it didn't impact other industries in any easy to understand manner. The change that was attempted to tighten up the rules on construction staking gained the attention of other groups with lobbyists. Those other groups had 10,000's of members, representing 100,000's of people in our economy. If that bill hadn't been yanked, we would have codified our loss of most construction staking. Big picture? those other folks representing 100,000's of people mean more to our government than we do. AKA they have more political capital.

If an organization that directly represents at least 25% of the community population cannot easily get things done (especially if 25% of the community votes on it) when it comes to cleaning up the guidelines of its own population without pulling strings, there is seriously something wrong with our system, even worse than it is right now.

I disagree. Our system ( by which I mean the entirety of our State Govenerment) is not fast, or good, or smart, or efficient. It is a slow moving system that generally achieves an average good for the average number of folks. Roads are nice. So are schools. Neither are run efficiently or fast. Both are everyday aspects of most peoples lives. Surveying is understood by few, and non surveyors only care about it when it goes wrong. Changing laws related to it is an act of faith by any lawmaker since they will have no idea what those changes will result in. This is good and bad.

It shouldn’t take one cent of political expenditure for a community to self-regulate itself.

I think you are forgetting that most people think they are knowledgeable, correct and "doing good". My expressed disagreements over how to change monumentation rules is not because I think the other side is actually right and I am running a scheme to enrich myself, but rather because I have a different set of priorities and experiences that guide me to a different way to do the most good. Agreeing on the basic rules that should govern our profession is basically asking us to all agree on what is most important: Protection of public individuals? Protection of the public at large? Protection of the profession from deregulation? Long term health of profession? Long term health of our state? Liberty? Room for judgement to prevent flowchart solutions? Protection of large company business models? Protection of one person shop approaches?

This forum is a good place for the interplay of those different viewpoints to help bring about proposed changes that will be less controversial within our profession, which will likely result in better laws and actions since more of us can pull together. That process can be frustrating though. If you have not read Bastiat's "The Law" I would heartily recommend it. If you have, I would suggest we are seeing the consequences of laws distributing the spoils...


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
PS Written on my own time! Reviewed and posted later :)

[LS_8750]

Interesting you bring up Frederic Bastiat.
Bastiat's "The Law" was published in 1850, about two years after Marx published his Communist Manifesto, and nearly 60 years after the mobs chopped off the heads of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
Interesting times.

Talk about plunder of property.

The Law is the common force that causes justice to reign over us all, the natural right for us to defend our person, liberty and property.

All else is plunder.

As a professional land surveyor, are you on the side of The Law or on the side of plunder?

Our Licenses visualized.

Deregulation of the land surveying profession is plunder, inconsequential if you are on the side of plunder.
There are no boundaries when plunder is exercised to the extreme.
Look at the 20th Century.
Read Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" to see just how far plunder will go.

So yes, deregulation is a threat to The Law, a threat to justice. Deregulation is plunder.

How serious is the issue of deregulation?
My fellow land surveyors, the answer depends on whether you are on the side of The Law or of plunder.

What is really behind deregulation?
Is it just a bunch of dingalings wanting to play with toy helicopters and such?

Our Licenses visualized.

Which side are you on?

A little Jeff Lucas article that recently came out: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E22 ... UiKh3cshFc

[CBarrett]

...... snipped for brevity.....

So James, what would you like to see happen? Can you summarize it?

[DWoolley]

I was re-reading a book "Public Lands Retracement in the 21st Century" by Dennis Mouland. A good friend, knowing my interest in John Benson, pointed out section 13.5, Pages 353-355:

“Beginning about 1875, a Deputy Surveyor in California named John A. Benson began to conduct fictious surveys. They soon turned into totally fraudulent surveys. The term fraudulent is used by the GLO/BLM to mean the deputy never set foot in the township. It was entirely made up. Benson enlisted several others to expand this fraud, including other deputies, his relatives, and few totally made up names.

…the GLO had different per mile rates depending on the terrain. With the Benson surveys you would always see “I claim maximum rates” on the lines supposedly run, even if it was not mountainous terrain, another fraud.

Sadly, the Syndicate included some high-ranking officers of the GLO, including the Surveyor General of California [I knew it!]…Even some Congressmen were indicted in the scheme. Major banks were in on it as well, providing deposits and bonds for ghost deputies and then getting a cut of the “profit”. They even had GLO field investigators reviewing their own work and on the Syndicate payroll. The U.S. Surveyor General and the GLO Commissioner turned a blind eye to the many reports of fraudulent work, and were therefor complicit in the schemes.

The survey frauds came screeching to a halt in 1887 as the federal government indicted 41 persons for these crimes. Incredibly, the trials did not start until 1892, and all were found innocent due to technicalities. The banks involved actually paid for the defense of these criminals.”
[..to be continued another day]

Every land surveyor should have a copy of “Public Lands Retracement in the 21st Century” (ISBN 979-8676637507). Dennis references another book “Looters of the Public Domain” that was co-written by one of the perpetrators and a San Francisco reporter. I ordered a copy on Amazon.

I recently reviewed a large, measured in pages, record of survey in the Benson bullseye. Staggering. The map is more similar to an annotated GIS map on an 18x26 sheet. Most of the lines shown are not described or referenced to a title document, no/few boundary establishment notes, monuments called out of position for no readily apparent reason, bearings and distances that differ from record but are not tied to monuments (no indication as to how the bearings and distances were determined) …aesthetically, a mess. I cannot explain it.

On the positive side, this weekend there were more than 70 students in a lab at Santiago Canyon College with seven licensed surveyors on campus. There were students working for more than five hours leveling, GPSing, and data collecting. I happened to be on campus, not teaching, and had the opportunity to meet with several of the students and instructors. Something I had never seen before, a father and son in the same surveying class. It was inspiring to see the interest and to know they were getting a formal education on the technicalities and equally, professional ethics.

Another positive note, I received a copy of proposed House Resolution supporting the licensure of professionals. Among the list of professionals recommended to keep their licensure? Land surveyors. Maybe the profession will not be deregulated? Dear Lord, let's hope they do not take a peek under the hood - especially in the Benson bullseye [breath being held here].

DWoolley