Standards of Care - Standards of Practice

[bryanmundia]

I think the attached case is interesting to discuss with this as well. Recently the Federal Appellate Court ruled that to be an expert witness, even in the engineering profession, you do not need to be licensed. I can see this also pertaining to any other licensed professional.

To summarize, Nutt was a Chemical Engineer in North Carolina who qualified under an "industrial exception" of the licensing requirements. He worked for 46 years as a Chemical Engineer, with an expertise in hydraulics, fluid flow and piping systems. He retired from his long time job and began offering his services pro-bono to clients as an expert witness in cases. This included not only testimony but also written reports that went along with said testimony.

The appellate court has ruled that he does not need a license in order to exercise his 1st amendment rights to testify as an expert witness or prepare reports that are necessary for his testimony.

Have fun with this one. Just another dagger in the heart for the profession.

[LS_8750]

A while back I researched the whole licensure requirement to be an expert witness in California and Nevada for engineers and land surveyors. The reason was because I learned my NV PE license lapsed around the time I was required to submit and expert report.

No license required. I could dig up the breadcrumbs from my research if anybody cares.

I have not run across a land surveyor expert who was not at licensed in at least one state.

[Jim Frame]

I have not run across a land surveyor expert who was not at licensed in at least one state.

Larry Hyder wasn't licensed as a land surveyor or engineer, though he was a Registered Professional Forester. I never met him, but I heard many tales of his corner recoveries. I believe he testified as an expert in multiple cases.

[SPMPLS]

I believe there was an article about Larry, written by John Wilusz, in an issue of the Cal Surveyor publication. I will see if I can find it on the "improved" CLSA website.

[SPMPLS]

Found it. Starts on page 6.

https://www.californiasurveyors.org/Doc ... urv175.pdf

[LS_8750]

CA Evidence Code Sections 720 and 801 do not state that the expert witness needs to be licensed, only qualified.

Section 721 states:

(a) Subject to subdivision (b), a witness testifying as an expert may be cross-examined to the same extent as any other witness and, in addition, may be fully cross-examined as to (1) his or her qualifications, (2) the subject to which his or her expert testimony relates, and (3) the matter upon which his or her opinion is based and the reasons for his or her opinion.

(b) If a witness testifying as an expert testifies in the form of an opinion, he or she may not be cross-examined in regard to the content or tenor of any scientific, technical, or professional text, treatise, journal, or similar publication unless any of the following occurs:

(1) The witness referred to, considered, or relied upon such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion.

(2) The publication has been admitted in evidence.

(3) The publication has been established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice.

If admitted, relevant portions of the publication may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.


Licensed or not, Section 721(a)(3) will open the door to matters relative to Standard of Care/Standard of Practice.

The problem is, the matter has to go all the way to court.

A lot of fish wiggle off that hook.........

[DWoolley]

If an experienced tech takes the record lines figure, rotates the figure to two monuments and then, looks at the relationship of the record line work relative to the found monuments in a finish drawing, the survey procedure is starting off on the wrong foot. Invariably, record angles, distances, maps most often yields to found monuments. Typically, the procedures are established between found monuments. Generally, record angle and distance only applies to senior metes and bounds descriptions.

I think I am not understanding what you mean by "in a finish drawing". Is that only for RoS, or for anything?

I ask because I use that exact procedure to evaluate relationships of found monuments to their documents of creations, and I do that in almost every drawing I do. For a RoS I use probably 3-10 maps/deeds with a separate Xref for each and I will be moving and rotating those Xrefs around all the time to evaluate relationships and test ideas. Once I am working on the resolution its also how I hold interior angles or set up bearing bearing intersections, since you can place the xref wherever you need and rotate to whatever is best suited to use for that interior angle. Its like using a jig, so that I don't introduce the chance for finger slips.

It is also how I create/use search points. I will often have each Xrefed map/deed have a group of points that I move around as a unit in the field to come up with multiple locations to search. Then once I find stuff, I use that same idea to test them by translating the calc points to one of the found mons, then rotate to another, and then inverse found mons to calc point for the others. Gives a very quick apples to apples comparison, and helps uncover outliers or cases of mistaken identity of the found monument prompting me to redo the search.

I guess I am wondering what is so wrong about that procedure unless you meant it as a way someone does a RoS and calls every monument out, AKA two point tango?
…

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I have recently been reviewing records of survey near the Benson Bulleye. I remembered this post.

The maps are essentially GIS quality information formatted to an 18x26 sheet. The Bullseye maps have lines with bearings and distances, but there are no notes on the lines i.e. “west line of lot 1 per 90-1234568 O.R.”, there are corners and angle points in lines without establishment notes i.e. established by proration or compass rule or similar, the maps show measured distances with no monuments on the line (or between noted established locations) or the monuments on the line are called off of the line for no noted reasons. One map called off all the monuments set to represent a deed line 40-50 years ago and shown on filed map, without any explanation. These maps were created by licensees ranging from the mid-5000s to the 9700s.

To my point shown above, these “establishment” methods, completely without citations or merit, are a product of the misuse of CAD programs. A land surveyor creates a base map compiled from records. The field crew finds monuments which are then imported into the record base map – usually holding two monuments and rotating the figures to the monuments. The other monuments are then “evaluated” in relation to the record figures (this is how monuments are determine to be out of position). From this moment on - it is colloquially known as the “donk rodeo” – no correct mapping decisions are likely to be made. The land surveying decision process is cluttered by irrelevant information. Checkers know it is a Saturday night rodeo under the lights when the CAD file shows two field measured points in the file to represent one monument. How is it determined as to which measurement to hold? Rhetorical question.

The alternative is to have the measured points in a separate drawing, Xref the base map to be viewed as a geographic vicinity map, connect the consecutive referenced monuments one to another, establish the corners without monuments using land surveying methods i.e. proration, compass rule, grant boundary, intersection, etc. – annotating each line and the method of establishment at each corner. It is not as though we are splitting atoms.

In most every instance, the relationship of the monuments to the underlying CAD record information serves no purpose – even when establishing senior deeds as a single monument will alter the record angles and distances until it closes on a more senior deed.

The records of survey I reviewed do not show any lines of possession. Are we to presume there are no encroachments or the established lines are consistent with the lines of occupation – for all 15 pages of mapping? Please.

Without going into every detail, it is quite clear California Public Resource Code is an unfamiliar document.

Mikey, I hope this answers your question.

For some folks, land surveying stirs up romantic visions of note keepers, celestial observations, blazing trails throughout the rugged terrain and making detailed maps that were a great part of settling the western states. I once had the same vision. Recently, in my mind’s eye, especially in the Benson Bulleye, I see bodies rolling in the tide on Omaha Beach on June 7, ’44. The flim-flam land surveying operations are not sustainable.

"Hope will be the last to die" said some guy long ago. Somewhere in California there are cocky, entitled, stake driving 40 year old, ahem, "land surveyors", no LSITs after 10 years into it, thinking "my work life is set, employer is soooo lucky to have me, think I'll buy a boat. What could go wrong?". No crystal ball needed.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

I was thinking about this topic and recalled an experience from a few years back that may serve as another example.

I had a need for mapping assistance. I reached out to a longtime friend, Mister PLS, for help with the boundary mapping, record of survey etc. He worked and resided in the Benson Bullseye.

The property surveyed was comprised of several deeds, most of which had been previously established and monumented some thirty years prior. One deed had approximately 30 legs and our surveyors recovered about 20 of the 30 monuments set per the underlying map.

Mr. PLS called one afternoon with the question, “I am looking at the deed and the found monuments. As to the found monuments on deed line X, how far off is acceptable?” I paused and offered that I didn’t understand the question. Mr. PLS repeated the question and explained that when he rotated the record map to the (two) monuments, the further he went down the deed line the more the monuments were “off” and that he was about 0.2’ “off” and progressing. I still couldn’t comprehend the question. We had a deeded line, a monumented map, most of the monuments found per the map (each occupied or double determined from two locations ((resulting in one coordinate per monument))), a StarNet adjustment with error ellipses of 0.04’ at 95%…. feeling the ground shift beneath my feet, my mind grasping at what my ears were hearing, I asked “when you say ‘off’, off of what?”.

I came to understand his process was to calculate the underlying map and rotate the map to two monuments and the “off” meant the difference between the mapped bearing and distance and the monument location. The decision he was asking of me was at which point i.e. 0.05’, 0.10’, 0.25’, did we call the monument off from the record map. We initiated an online meeting to discuss it further. Once online he proceeded to show me the difference between the record figure and the field measured monuments. The proposal placed before me was to show everything as measured and record up to the point the monuments were out of a predetermined tolerance. Monuments that fell outside of the tolerance were to be called out of position. The idea of simply drawing a line between the consecutive monuments, as field measured, and determining a method of establishment for the missing monument locations was not presented as an option.

[Pause the story here]
The first questions I had were:

1. If any other two monuments were held the monuments proposed as being “off” would change? How can that be a solution?
2. When the measurements were tested and quantified, why wouldn’t the land surveyor simply hold the measurements between the monuments?
3. When surveyors hand calculated boundaries on a HP41 – and the previous 100 years prior – land surveyors did not inverse between the record figures corners (coordinates) and the found monuments. Why would anyone do it today?

In the statutes, case law, textbooks and written guidelines the monuments hold over measurements and maps. Thirty years of CAD did not change 150 years of California law or the related principles. The inverse between the underlying record corner and the monument is generally meaningless and a waste of time to review. There are no textbooks that prescribe this procedure, and it leads to faulty thinking.

Record angles and distances are subordinate to monuments. Intermediate corners are established between monuments or acceptable means of establishment (usually not record angle and distance).

[...more to come]

DWoolley

[Warren Smith]

Dave,

Much like the Grant Boundary Adjustment method, one approach would be to establish a line between the farthest end points, and proportion the intervening courses for comparison purposes. Selecting two random intermediate corners to control comparison isn't an effective or appropriate means of retracement.

[DWoolley]

These discussions cause me to question my knowledge and further, my understanding of the role of a land surveyor.

Warren, your mention of the grant boundary method is a sanity check, thank you.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

I have attached a few pages to a current record of survey. The map may help interested readers to visualize the mapping principles described above. The attached map follows our general mapping methods and style. I welcome any criticisms. I am not married to our work product.

The map has not been through the checking process yet. It's not a donk rodeo, but in reviewing the map I see a few things we will change:

1. Improper use of "in lieu of" on couple of monuments descriptions.
2. Scale issues on a couple of the monument sketches/diagrams.
3. Missing mapping detail on two monuments that are close together.
4. Rewording a couple of sentences or phrases.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Dave,

Much like the Grant Boundary Adjustment method, one approach would be to establish a line between the farthest end points, and proportion the intervening courses for comparison purposes. Selecting two random intermediate corners to control comparison isn't an effective or appropriate means of retracement.

The GBA method is a solution that I use extensively. Consider the example below in ascii art.
O= found monument
X = missing monument

X------------------------------------O
I
I
I
I
I
X------------------------------------O

Using the GBA method (aka align command in autocad) of the record three lines pinned to the found monuments will result in the preservation of the interior angles at the missing "X" positions while adjusting the lengths of the two lines. This can be used for any number of missing courses. I will show a tie line between the two found monuments showing measured and record. It lets a check of the proration and rotation to be done easily. It is unfortunate that it places all the rotational difference at the found monuments, as the original likely had slop at all positions, but I have rarely found a solution that works out better.

Since the GBA method is based on angles being more accurate than distances, I expect as I start retracing more modern surveys I will likely start relying on distance more, at least if I can presume the line was run as a traverse with an EDM. If it is a series of GPSed positions, I am not sure what would be the best way to get back in the same spot since each position has a random slop to it. Odds are I will stick with the GBA method based on the reported lines as it is simple and holds the found monuments. Will be fun to noodle out.

FWIW I can think of few sillier resolutions than a series of original monuments increasingly called "off" because they do not match record.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS My ascii art originally had some diagonals, but our forum's format didn't show them that way, so I went with a box :(

[David Kendall]

FWIW I can think of few sillier resolutions than a series of original monuments increasingly called "off" because they do not match record.

Holding ancient deed lines perfectly parallel to a nearby newly monumented ROW while calling off an entire block of consistent, nearly parallel occupation would be a close second....

Calling original subdivision monuments "out of position" is blasphemy or cardinal sin, aka indefensible, unless you can demonstrate they are disturbed

Designating a no-record deed pipe as original just because it is old and rusty doesn't count

[DWoolley]

...
FWIW I can think of few sillier resolutions than a series of original monuments increasingly called "off" because they do not match record.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

If you and/or David Kendall wandered down to the County Recorder's office and pulled the last 100 records of survey in the counties in which you practice, what percentage of those recorded maps would reflect textbook boundary resolutions? 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%? Textbook is basic land surveying principles that are generally reflected in licensure testing.

How many of the same maps comply with Bus.&Prof. Code 8764 (a) "...describing their kind, size, and location and giving other data relating thereto." for monuments?

How about compliance with the Public Resource Code sections relating to the use of coordinates?

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

...
FWIW I can think of few sillier resolutions than a series of original monuments increasingly called "off" because they do not match record.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

If you and/or David Kendall wandered down to the County Recorder's office and pulled the last 100 records of survey in the counties in which you practice, what percentage of those recorded maps would reflect textbook boundary resolutions? 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%? Textbook is basic land surveying principles that are generally reflected in licensure testing.

How many of the same maps comply with Bus.&Prof. Code 8764 (a) "...describing their kind, size, and location and giving other data relating thereto." for monuments?

How about compliance with the Public Resource Code sections relating to the use of coordinates?

DWoolley

Hahaha, yes, easy 50% of the mapchecks are a lesson in those things, that a "Surveyor of Record" is getting from a mapchecker.

[E_Page]

(Please read below as if your clients were all meeting in a roundtable discussion to audit your professional services)

The bad thing about the land surveying profession not having some framework of standards published and agreed to by a significant broad-based portion of the profession is having to rely upon the inconsistent and conflicting professional advice and the resulting impact on the people needing that advice.

Everyone thinks their own "standard of care" is the most widely accepted...without truly understanding how little or wide spread that "standard" is. It is my observation that no one thinks it needs to be established, written, published, and agreed to on a regular basis because they tend to focus only on the impact affecting themselves without truly considering that its not about the land surveyor. Its about the client's or public's need.

Prior to working for the Board, I was one of those "everyone" above. I truly felt what I believed to be the standard of care was consistent with most everyone else. Was that because I discussed this at length in this context with my fellow professionals? No. What did I have to support my belief? Basically nothing (and no, just citing 1-2 popular published books is not sufficient). Sure, we all shared horror stories (like many of us typically do when getting together or online) in an effort to indirectly validate or confirm what we did (or did not do) but is that the most appropriate manner in which to discuss this? Very likely not.

Since I've been at the Board and especially now in my current role, having to rely on advice from professionals in terms of standard of care (or practice - really doesn't matter) is very important to successfully achieving the Board's mission towards protecting the public. The fact that the land surveying profession cannot establish even the most basic framework of a demonstrated, broad-based standard of care is problematic to say the least.

Why can't a longstanding, respected organization, one which arguably represents a large portion of the licensed (and yet to be licensed) population of professionals, establish this and require their members to reaffirm this upon membership renewal each time? And have regular workshops on how best to adhere and implement? Wouldn't this help towards narrowing the consistency issues? Wouldn't this help to lessen the negative impact on reliance by the clients?

I recognized this same problem many years ago. When I was reviewing the work of others, I would typically back up my opinions with citations to widely accepted survey texts, statutes, etc. This was not only to demonstrate to those who would be using my reports to either sanction or defend the subject surveyor's practice, but just as or more importantly, to check myself to ensure that I was not offering an opinion based only on my experience and education. I've seen in the meantime that "experts" both for BPELSG and in other capacities often conflate their own methods of practice with more widely accepted or acceptable standards.

When I was the chair of the CLSA Professional Practices Committee, I proposed that a standards manual be produced by CLSA. The idea was to have a team of several authors with each chapter being reviewed by the whole team, then presented to and approved by the CLSA Board of Directors. The idea was to prevent the project from being a pet project of a star chamber of one or a few surveyors.

I not only had difficulty finding volunteers to be on this team, I encountered actual resistance from some who thought it would be overstepping the bounds of what the CLSA should be doing and encroaching on the authority of BPELSG. I was even called "unprofessional" for the suggestion by one CLSA past-president and told that the idea was beyond the pale.

It's my understanding that the project was taken up by a later PPC chair. I haven't kept tabs on it, but wish them success. To those who say that suggesting standards of care/standards of practice is outside of the purview of a professional society, I say that you epitomize unprofessionalism. One of the hallmarks of a profession is that it is, at least in part, self-policing.

Most if not all states have licensing boards to enforce statutory provisions. Minimal technical standards can be legislated into statute, and to some extent, written into administrative code. A standard of care and standards of practice is far too complex to legislate. To be effective, the professional society should promote a set of guidelines (not technical standards or a practice cookbook) for practitioners.

When the Board attempts to enforce "the standard of practice" (legal note: Statute only provides authority to enforce the "standard of care" - "standard of practice" is not mentioned in the B&P Code 8700 et seq), it typically relies on the review of one "expert". I have had the opportunity to review the reports of some of these "experts" and was appalled at the lack of actual expertise on the aspect of practice they were reviewing, and/or at an obvious outcome bias. One of the most common things I've seen is an expert applying, not the statute as plainly written, but the statute with the addition of what is the s.o.p. in that "expert's" office. i.e. 8759(4) A description of the procedure that the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer and the client will use to accommodate additional services. is interpreted as requiring that an "extra services" form be utilized and signed by the client or client's representative before conducting any out-of-scope work.

Of course, that is a very good method of meeting the requirement set out in 8759(4), but that method, nor any other specific method is set out in statute. It only requires that there is some method stated in the contract. The way I've seen it charged by BPELSG in some cases in recent years, anyone relying on the CLSA standard contract is in violation.

If the CLSA had the cajones and the actual professional integrity to commission the production of, and then produce and distribute a manual of suggested standards, the practice of those referred to the Board would not be essentially in the hands of one surveyor who may or may not have any actual expertise. Instead, one's practice would be compared to what ultimately dozens or hundreds of surveyors have agreed is the framework of acceptable practice.

It is the profession's responsibility (CLSA) to promote standards which suggest how to meet statutory requirements and the expectations of clients, other professionals, and the public. It is the Board's role to recognize those widely accepted standards when assessing whether a licensee adhered to the "standard of care" in one's practice.

The surveyors' societies of other states comprised of members with a greater degree of testicular fortitude have published such standards. I wonder if CLSA will ever push the cowards within it aside and get it done here. I hope so, but if I had to put money on the question, I'd bet not.

[David Kendall]

I not only had difficulty finding volunteers to be on this team, I encountered actual resistance from some who thought it would be overstepping the bounds of what the CLSA should be doing and encroaching on the authority of BPELSG. I was even called "unprofessional" for the suggestion by one CLSA past-president and told that the idea was beyond the pale.

It's my understanding that the project was taken up by a later PPC chair.

Unfortunately that understanding is incorrect. The state PPC has not done anything since you left the leadership. Not one move. They still claim the same membership panel. The people who I know that are on that panel don’t even realize they are on it. Going on 4 or 5 years…. Your successor as PPC chair was appointed by the president you mentioned and that chair remains. The same quarterly report with a new date is presented in the agenda at each board meeting. They once took a survey of chapter PPC activities. Silent placeholder. At least it’s no longer a waste of paper since they moved to electronic agendas.

The manual idea that you were developing was probably the greatest thing that a state PPC could do for it’s constituents.

The president who ran you off will live in infamy with the legacy of killing the CLSA PPC.

I’m waiting patiently to see which president is compelled to revive it. Unfortunately I don’t know what the PPC could do if they were active. The apathy regarding standards of practice is palpable throughout the California LS community.
The LS act is the standard. Compliance is care. Nothing else matters to most of us.

I have considered making motions to disband the committee but after 5 years it is becoming a novelty and I want to see how long it goes before someone else notices.

[DWoolley]

Evan Page and David Kendall:

The idea of published standards for the land surveying community, knowing the community, seems absurd to me now. Like you, I once believed published professional standards to be for the benefit of the public and the community. The professional standards would distinguish the licensed community from the unlicensed community that continues to increase their market share of work that was once exclusive to the profession.

Land surveying folks would rather see their professional demise – which is all but certain - before accepting professional accountability. They do not want; to set monuments, to tag monuments, to file maps (because they are subject to review – feet don’t fail me now!), to turn wayward brethren into a regulatory board that will wash 65% of the complaints, any continuing education requirements, to pass laws that define/distinguish the professional practice from unlicensed folks. The unlicensed folks i.e. drone aerial mappers, construction contractors, underground utility locators, site plan mappers and anyone with RTK-GPS have captured most (measured in dollars) of the traditional “land surveying” work. As an example, now that the Crownholm decision is final, what will the professional community do with it? Simple answer, nothing.

Kendall’s thought is to watch the PPC for “4 or 5 years” and “considered making motions to disband the committee but after 5 years it is becoming a novelty and I want to see how long it goes before someone else notices”. This is exemplar of the land surveyor, watching, doing nothing, but first inclination is to destroy it. For clarification, CLSA committees must be tasked by the Board of Directors with an assignment. The PPC committee could kick ideas around, but ultimately the committee cannot simply write standards without guidance from the Board of Directors. I have never been on the PPC committee, but I suspect they know the membership/Directors and realize there is nothing that can be done with professional standards.

Our dark debutante, the recession is almost here. She may be late, but she will never stand us up. Recessions drive innovation to cut costs - driving the unlicensed practice around professional community. I am grateful I do not need this thing to last for another 20 years. There is mercy in the average age of a professional land surveyor.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Kendall’s thought is to watch the PPC for “4 or 5 years” and “considered making motions to disband the committee but after 5 years it is becoming a novelty and I want to see how long it goes before someone else notices”. This is exemplar of the land surveyor, watching, doing nothing, but first inclination is to destroy it. For clarification, CLSA committees must be tasked by the Board of Directors with an assignment. The PPC committee could kick ideas around, but ultimately, the committee cannot simply write standards without guidance from the Board of Directors. I have never been on the PPC committee, but I suspect they know the membership/Directors and realize there is nothing that can be done with professional standards.

Not sure if I feel defensive about this comment or not. To be fair, I have commented several times about the eerily similar quarterly reporting and consistent inaction, the failure of the PPC chair to ever show up to a meeting, all at group level during the Board Meetings and relevant to the reading of the PPC report. No response was noted.

I suppose you are suggesting that I should make a motion for the PPC to do something. Great idea! I don't know where to start. Perhaps some small task as a test run?

In hindsight, I was hoping someone on the executive committee would take note and consider professional practices to be worthy of consideration, discussion and refinement at the state level.

Mr Woolley, you have been watching the same show that the rest of us have and apparently reached the same conclusion as me and the BOD.

Shoulder shrug

[DWoolley]

Not sure if I feel defensive about this comment or not.
...
I suppose you are suggesting that I should make a motion for the PPC to do something. Great idea! I don't know where to start. Perhaps some small task as a test run?

In hindsight, I was hoping someone on the executive committee would take note and consider professional practices to be worthy of consideration, discussion and refinement at the state level.

Mr Woolley, you have been watching the same show that the rest of us have and apparently reached the same conclusion as me and the BOD.

Shoulder shrug

I appreciate you not getting defensive.

For readers, it is not the role of the CLSA Executive Committee to drive these types of initiatives. It is the role of Board of Directors to approve a member or chapter's proposal. The process would be to get on the agenda by completing an agenda form that would consist of two sentences and submitting it to Central Office 30 days prior to a Board of Directors meeting. Inside baseball, however wrong, I have seen committees poo-poo a member or chapter idea without going to the Board of Directors. The idea perished on the whim of one or two members. Going to the BoD first would make it difficult for a committee member to trash someone's idea.

CLSA has never been stronger or better financed than it is today. I believe, organizationally, they could accomplish most anything. The problem isn't CLSA, it is the land surveying community - they are the spawn of fraud. It's the "boy out of the country" thing. We cannot outrun our Benson heritage and history.

Professional standards, continuing education, regulation, fighting unlicensed practice, all a fool's errand. Read this forum for proof positive. For those over 55, you will make it, salute, it was a good run.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

CLSA has never been stronger or better financed than it is today. I believe, organizationally, they could accomplish most anything. The problem isn't CLSA, it is the land surveying community - they are the spawn of fraud. It's the "boy out of the country" thing. We cannot outrun our Benson heritage and history.

DWoolley

I disagree with your assumptions on the reason for the apathy/lack of effort. I think pushing the idea that surveyors have some sort of original sin that condemns us to failure is not constructive. Understanding the reasons behind the opposition to what you are advocating allows you to actually engage with them and find some common ground. Calling everyone who disagrees with you an amoral fraudster doesn't move them towards your position. I would suggest looking at the entrenched support for Biden/Trump (pick your favorite the forces are the same) as proof that most folks will double down on a bad idea once their pride has been placed on the line. Rubbing someone's nose in a bad decision will generally make people embrace that bad decision more, rather then cause them to reflect and change.

I would look to the economic forces that drive us as well as the emotional forces that make people unwilling to change their views. Surveyors are people. Anthropology and Game Theory have empirically shown that people in general will not do smart things until they see them modeled by either their father/mother or a person of authority that inspires them.

As mentioned before (and often) very few people think what they are doing is wrong. So if there is opposition to the creation of a minimum professional standard we should engage and find out why, before calling them names. I have personally been opposed to many of the proposed legal changes that impose more obligations because I like to have flexibility in my budget to try and keep my services within the financial range of the poorer communities in my county. Likewise if there was a proposed standard of care prepared by the PPC that advocated monuments set at all corners I would oppose that as well. If the PPC standards were instead a set of clearer definitions of what "sufficient" or "facile" was, I would get behind that. For example a standard that said:

"facile should be evaluated in terms of what can be done by a survey crew within 1 hour of work measuring existing monuments to determine the location of any position shown on the boundary of the subject of the survey lacking a physical monument within 0.40 feet"

This allows people room to disagree, as well as a standard that will change with the time. It is certainly not black and white, nor even very high, and there will be some different interpretations since folks could argue that a tape measure from a monument 100' away is good enough, while others I am sure feel like everything ever done by a surveyor needs to be measured thrice and least squared to within 0.005 precision. But that is the point, we will never all agree on the last couple steps. There are quite a few initial steps we prolly agree on, so we should be working on taking those steps.

If the PPC came up with the official CLSA supported definitions for terms and vocab common in the PLSA and in practice, it would be a good start. It would help people get used to the idea of CLSA publishing a professional standard, and likely help people understand the laws better. This would let people see that having the PPC prepare some standards is not a nefarious plan to sneak in more laws.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
I have personally been opposed to many of the proposed legal changes that impose more obligations because I like to have flexibility in my budget to try and keep my services within the financial range of the poorer communities in my county.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Ok, I will bite. Why do you/we care if poor (er) people can/cannot afford a survey?

Clearly, a person in need of a survey owns land - evidence they are not destitute. My family, like many families, saves money, sometimes for many years, to be able to afford improvements - this would certainly be true of a survey if I was not a land surveyor.

Moreover, there is nothing preventing a benevolent land surveyor from providing services for little or no charge. I cannot be the only one to have noticed that land surveyors do not need a legal loophole to act imprudently [historical facts tell the story].

As to being the "spawn of fraud", this is much more than "name calling", that is every surveyor that has been licensed since 1891. This is our well documented California history. If not for large scale fraud, land surveyors were unlikely to be licensed 40 years before the unlicensed engineers killed some 400 migrants. It does not indict each licensee today - however, we should acknowledge the legions, including the Benson Bullseye, that move among the professional ranks, protecting their ways, is simply the facts on the ground.

If a land surveyor's livelihood is not compelling enough to have them act in their own best interest, there is nothing I could possibly say to persuade the professional community to act. I do what I do for sport and occasionally, to wile away time [pass the sweet tea].

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Ok, I will bite. Why do you/we care if poor (er) people can/cannot afford a survey?

Clearly, a person in need of a survey owns land - evidence they are not destitute. My family, like many families, saves money, sometimes for many years, to be able to afford improvements - this would certainly be true of a survey if I was not a land surveyor.
DWoolley

The areas in question are the same areas that are rife with unrecorded maps and deed created lots. People, AKA the Public, are trying to improve their homes, many built before permits were needed, and are running into silly and sad situations that a good survey 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and or 70 years ago would have prevented. We are licensed as a protection for the public. If we are not helping said public, the entire premise of our protected status as a license goes away. Nowhere in the law does it say "for the protection of the rich".

I would think I do not need to prove my pro-capitalist views considering how we have debated topics in the past (SB9 4x4 thread), so please do not leap to the conclusion that I think everyone deserves everything. Rather than making something so expensive it requires government subsidization (think farming, fishing, schools, housing, you name it) I would rather have legislated cheaper options that provides a range of services that allow people to pick what suits them. The Corner Record is the perfect example. Without that addition to the PLSA the public would be spending money on map checks for a RoS to update a pipe's character, and we would be debating what constitutes the threshold for "physical change" to trigger a RoS.

Regarding ownership of land being equal to "not destitute" I would also point out that there are many people in rural settings that have inherited their land from their family and are land rich, cash poor. As doing a subdivision to sell off a part of the land is tough and expensive, that is not really an option for them to come up with 20K for a boundary survey. They could wait and refi when the rates are good, but then they are putting off fixing a road that washed out in the storms for a few years? Or a failing septic system that poses a threat to creeks, neighbors, and themselves. They could sell their land to a member of the gentry, but if the cause of the problem is too many laws, why not use laws to help that situation a little? If we all lived in built out subdivisions that have government funded roads, water, power and sewage, then I would be singing a different tune.

If a land surveyor's livelihood is not compelling enough to have them act in their own best interest, there is nothing I could possibly say to persuade the professional community to act. I do what I do for sport and occasionally, to wile away time [pass the sweet tea].

DWoolley

I think most surveyors do not draw a line connecting the PPC creating a set of professional standards as being directly related to their livelihood.
Lets ask Greta Thunberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg) about how people don't seem to be acting in their own intelligent self interest? How many people are still investing in land in Florida? https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html Or wineries in Napa County considering how growing belts are moving north, so good grape regions are moving https://www.napagrowers.org/climate-sci ... #gsc.tab=0 ? How many have bought houses in the lahar risk areas of Mt Rainier? https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mt-ra ... hazard-map

I think many people have a hard time seeing/agreeing that a connection between a PPC created professional standard and an increase in salary in 20 years. I believe that connection exists, I think most who visit this forum would agree to a greater or lesser degree. So the question in my mind is this:

What is a good reason, that makes sense to 30-40 directors, for creating a CLSA approved standard of care?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[LS_8750]

Reducing litigation that was caused by land surveyors.

[David Kendall]

What is a good reason, that makes sense to 30-40 directors, for creating a CLSA approved standard of care?

8750 has the obvious number 1

Consistency and continuity regarding map and document review across jurisdictional boundaries could be a second prize