Standards of Care - Standards of Practice

[LS_8750]

It's been an interesting discussion.
The horse is dead.

When you look at the LS Act, the NSPS/ALTA standards, Caltrans Standards, the CA Evidence Code and CCP, and Federal Rules of Evidence we have a pretty good body of guidelines to follow.

Problem is few are aware of those guidelines.

[jamesh1467]

https://github.com/james4515/Standards-of-Practice.git

I've done enough work to share on a draft set of standards of care. Its up to 9 pages. Mainly, the PM section and the documentation section are unfinished, although I will flag there are likely conflicting statements in certain sections. My main tasks left are to implement the prudent person standard and reconcile conflicts between sections, and I figure you all are going to scrutinize it anyway, so why not share a draft.

Also, in the documentation section, I was really torn with the new monument provision. Basically, everything requires a corner record or a ROS now, and there are only a few exceptions where a boundary survey can be conducted with a state mandated document anyways. So do we even need a documentation section like all the other states have? I haven't written that section yet.

As I continue to work, it will update. Comments concerns. Its open. I will check back in at the weekend. I am pretty sure I understand why no standard has ever been defined before and what I am risking even by sharing this. Let's get on with it. What happens, happens.

I want your input if you want to give it, but real input, not purposeful derailment comments. Most of what I have done other states have done themselves, so there needs to be a valid justification for striking things down. This is going to happen one way or another. Even if I just make this and keep the finalized version on Github as my own personal opinion of the minimum standard of care. It will exist publicly forever, regardless of what anyone else does. I'm offering a legitimate chance for input into that. This is going to happen even if I am just the lone wolf with a dissenting opinion. Someone has to try to define the minimum standard of care. Even if others don't want it. Again, let's get on with it.

[khuerth]

https://github.com/james4515/Standards-of-Practice.git

I appreciate you taking the time to compile those documents and help push the profession in the right direction. I will be taking some time in the next month or so to review the standards you prepared and hopefully help this process get through all the bumps in the road that lie ahead.

[David Kendall]

Even if I just make this and keep the finalized version on Github as my own personal opinion of the minimum standard of care. It will exist publicly forever, regardless of what anyone else does.

This is about the same conclusion we came to at the chapter level. If the PPC develops and publishes this for our locality, it will be the local standard of care for future reference. Take it or leave it. Not legally binding but stated for the record. Anyone who wants to discuss further can attend the next chapter meeting and request an invitation to the next PPC hoedown. This approach seems more practical than the piss into the wind at the state level.

Finding consensus regarding local fundamental standards was more challenging than I expected. It’s a long row to hoe

Whether anyone cares is another matter….

[E_Page]

James H,

Are you vying for the title of "Forum Essayist"? I hereby relinquish it, but you might need to share it with Mikey.

Since my last post, I've noticed a few of things.

1. Talk about such things as classifications of surveys, and addressing technology in surveying.

Classifications: This was done in the 50s by ACSM or ASCE and several states codified it. As measurement technology improved such that making measurements which are both precise and accurate became readily available to all surveyors, and that technology made the relative ease of making measurements little different in urban or rural environments increasingly negligible, survey classifications have faded away.

Technology advances change the effort necessary to make measurements. With the right equipment, we can make thousands of quality measurements in the time it would have taken to make a handful of such measurements at the time some of us started our careers. Technology has changed the speed, precision and formats of how we are able to report our results and conclusions. What hasn't changed is that it takes sound judgment to utilize this equipment to ensure that the data we collect is consistently reliable and that our data and conclusion reporting is not only precise, but complete and accurate as well. What will never change is that it will take effort, knowledge and skill (the latter 2 being borne of one's own experience and what one is able to learn from the experience of predecessors) to perform data collection in a manner that one can prove the data to be reliable, and to go where the relevant data is likely to exist and then start looking for it

Effective standards cannot focus on the specific use of technology but on the level of professional effort and judgment that will always be needed regardless of the technology available to us. They must focus on the effort of looking for and collecting all relevant data and the judgment used to ensure and prove accuracy and to apply sound judgment to the data collected.

When I reference this data, I'm not just talking about measurements and points, although to the extent of ensuring sound measurement practices, it's a matter of basic measurement science rather than temporal use of current technology. The basics of measurement science apply to GPS and scanning just as much as they do to compass and chain. Data also includes the objects measured to and from, the processes of data handling that allow you to prove the data is reliable, the maps and other documents, the landowner testimony to ancient boundaries, the precedential cases from the court systems of the jurisdiction(s) you practice in.

Putting standards for other types of surveying services aside for the moment, land surveyors must realize that boundaries are legal constructs often marked and sometimes defined by physical objects. They are not geometric figures to be placed on the ground. If you are practicing as if your job is to place a geometric figure or follow some prescribed mathematical process to determine where to set your irons, you don't understand boundary surveying and need to stop engaging in it until your better educated.

Which leads me to...

2. Standards being used as a tool for education.

I agree that a published set of standards is/can be, or in CA's case would be a fantastic tool for educating practicing and aspiring surveyors. But if those who resist are more effective than those who try to promulgate standards, that tool is denied, Without standards which are agreed to by a wide cross section of surveyors and endorsed by the State society, we're left with whatever we read in books, articles are hear in conference sessions. Those are all fine if the reader/attendee actually takes in, critically assesses and applies what is written or presented, but in each case, this is largely just the author's or presenter's opinion. That opinion may or may not represent the actual state of the law or the actual standard of practice. Further, authors and presenters often disagree on various points of practice, and occasionally are entirely off base.

Most important, the various books, articles and past presentations do not represent a Standard that BPELSG can look to when assessing whether a surveyor has violated a specific code section or the entirely nebulous "standard of care" mentions in 8780. Nor does the surveyor who is the subject of a complaint have any standards to point to to justify his or her practice in a particular instance.

E.G., the complaint alleges that the surveyor did not consider the original survey by which the subject parcel was created.

Sounds like a violation, right?

But the original survey was never properly filed.

Is it still a violation? What is the standard of care with regard to unfiled records? (a complicated question deserving of its own thread)

I can provide a recent BPELSG (last 15 or so years) decision where a licensee was fined over $20,000 largely for ignoring an unfiled survey, and another case where BPELSG found a violation because the surveyor considered and gave weight to unfiled surveys. Total inconsistency because of a lack of concise standards. The courts actually provide some guidance, but it takes a lot of time to do the research.

Although most don't have the time or the inclination to do that sort of research, I know many who have, and it sounds as if James H might be among those who have.

Which brings me to...

3. The Star Chamber trope

Putting together an effective set of standards definitely requires some "stars", but it requires many others as well.

How did these surveyors become "stars" among the profession. They weren't born that way. They didn't inherit their status. Their not 50 IQ points beyond the rest of us. It's certainly not a function of their license number. They are simply the ones who had the time and inclination to study beyond what was necessary to attain their license and keep researching and studying throughout their careers.

A team of "stars" with low license numbers can put together effective standards but certainly run the risk of promulgating something that the average surveyor can't follow in most circumstances - at least not without a whole lot more training in research and time to become familiar with sources of info and time to read them.

Even if made up of just "stars", the worry of standards that can't be reasonably followed by most is not very realistic. These "stars" will be in most cases, and should be still practicing surveyors. The standards produced should be reflective of standards the authors actually follow, thereby proving that they are not unreasonable.

The team needs those with organizational skills, which may or may not be any of the "stars". They need those with excellent writing skills. The team should have some with less skill and experience to ask things like "Is that necessary for most surveys?", "How does one know when this is or is not something they should do?", "Did you know that stuff is available on most counties' online database?", or even "Do you know how to find the County's online database for that info?"

A team preparing standards with a few more recent licensees is likely to put out not only a more complete set of standards but ones which are more understandable.

4. I see creating standards as a task to those with license #s below 7000.

WHAT A LOAD OF CARP!!!! (or something else stinky, slimy and brown)

The same person who said this brought up the star chamber fear again as well. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to bring up the star chamber fear, you can't say that only the stars should be involved.

A surveyor who comes across a situation, a question of evidence or procedure and then takes the time to find the correct answer rather than guessing or maybe looking for one paragraph in one of the "Brown" books that appears to address the matter will, after 5 years of licensed practice and developing a habit of finding answers through diligent research & study, develop more solid survey knowledge than most of the 4**** to 8**** licensed surveyors who are still practicing.

My # is 7275 and I started getting really involved by joining the State PPC and the Legislative Committee almost 20 years ago. That was a little over 10 years after attaining my license. I could have been a meaningful contributor to either 5 years earlier. I learned a helluva lot during the 12 or 14 years I was involved and I like to think I was a useful contributor.

Do I really need to say anything more on this cop out excuse?

If you have an interest in seeing standards developed, endorsed by CLSA and published, contact the Professional Practices Committee Chair to see who the chair of the subcommittee is and offer to help in whatever capacity may be needed. It may be research assistance, editing, reality check, formatting and other publishing functions. If the team is or becomes active, even if you don't feel that you have sufficient survey knowledge to add to the effort, I guarantee that you will learn a couple things:

• That the "stars" are simply those who decided to learn but are otherwise just surveyors who care about doing their job correctly
  That the team, including the "stars" will appreciate your help, even if it's research or document formatting and not contributing content
  That by the time the project is completed, you will have developed the knowledge that you perceive some of the "stars" as having
  That the project never truly ends but requires periodic updating
  That you will eventually have the opportunity to pass on knowledge to the next generation of "stars"

So, get off your fat excuse and get involved. Last I knew, Roger Hamlin was the PPC Chair and Landon Blake was the Standards subcomm Chair.

5. Pessimism is a choice.

Cool. You have a back up career plan to create inspirational posters and memes.

I endured not merely resistance but a fair amount of vitriol and some back-stabbing just for floating the idea of creating standards. I also ran into a lot of apathy. Most disappointing were those who said they were on board but then became exceedingly difficult to connect with when it was time to begin.(a leadership failure on my part) That makes the choice of pessimism a little easier.

The internal politics of CLSA was quite awful at the time. Hopefully it has gotten better.

I've said it before, I'm a natural pessimist who tries to be optimistic. Sometimes I don't try as hard as other times.


Lastly, again, those who are against having standards are those who either know or fear that their work will not measure up (pun unintended but I'll take it) to what a group of knowledgeable and responsible professional surveyors state should be done.

In response, if I were provided the full project files for the 10 most recent projects of any 10 surveyors in the State of CA, I will find at least one clear violation and several potential violations in the work of each. That's no matter how much of a "star" they are. Likewise, if another knowledgeable surveyor gave a fair review of my last 10 projects, they would undoubtedly find the same thing.

That's not to say that I or those other 10 surveyors practice sloppily. Measurement and data handling is an inexact science and very little else about surveying is scientific at all but rather, judgment. No surveyor is capable of perfect practice because there is no such thing.

Our goal, individually, is to do the best job we can, exercising sound judgment in our tasks and conclusions on a consistent basis.

Our goal, professionally, should be to be able to allow all competent surveyors to be as consistent in their results and conclusions as reasonably possible. Without standards, the profession is continually performing a self-inflicted wound.

It is one of several self-inflicted wounds this profession continues to give itself, but this guest essay is long enough, so those are for other threads.

If we keep inflicting the wounds rather than trying to heal them, we will see surveying as a profession fall victim to deregulation state by state before many of us have an opportunity to retire from it.

[E_Page]

Forgot one...

2.a. Standards being just a rehash of the "Brown" books

Those books were/are written for a national audience. There are many nuances to state-specific practice in the area of boundary surveying that are difficult to adequately cover in a book for a nationwide audience. They are of great benefit to our profession, but limited in their application on some points in virtually every state, and, IMO, just plain wrong on some points in later editions.

Additionally, standards are not meant to be, nor should they be a thorough, in-depth discussion of every aspect of practice and the basis behind it, but rather a concise explanation of what is advisable to do under most circumstances that would be commonly encountered.

One of my go to reference books is Clark on Surveying & Boundaries. The most recent edition on my shelf is over 1500 pages including the supplement. My most used edition of Evidence & Procedures for Boundary Location is 450 pages.

The Idaho Standards document is 64 pages and the Utah standards are only 8 pages. So even a very concise and very general set is better than none at all. Idaho's provide more background info, which brings the length approaching that which will discourage licensees with self induced illiteracy, but it is hardly a rehash of what's in EPBL or BCLP. In fact, there are principles in it solidly based on Idaho legal precedent that very much disagree with some of the content produced in those books.

It is also important to understand that standards endorsed by a state society do not have the authority of statute but a merely advisory. It is advisable that individual surveyors follow the standards, at least in most circumstances, but not necessarily legally mandatory. The Board or a court might recognize such standards as indicative or even defining of the standard of care in certain circumstances, but they are not bound to do so.

[CBarrett]

Evan, the idea is to actually have set of standards published in a legal code somewhere beyond the hodgepodge that the california is right now, so they can be used by some of the non surveyors only (public agencies issuing permits, for example). The idea is not to restrict and make anyone do things, but to define more clearly how, what we do is documented. This is for protection of the public, to make it easier to understand what kind of survey they may need and how to judge what they are getting. Public being, homeowners, other consultants, public officials, builders etc... any non-surveyor who doesn't understand the intricacies of what we do.

They are not going to read Brown's boundary book, they need to know that to get a permit for "C", they need survey classified as "b.2".