Judge blows up board standard of care, combination thread

[DWoolley]

I did not know whether to write on the “Judge blows up…” or the “Standards of Care...” threads. There are a lot of crossovers. I have opted to start a new conversation.

As I write this post, I am looking at a recent map/exhibit that details encroachments i.e. fences, walls, v-ditches, etc. from the residential lots onto the common slope area/open space shown on a subdivision map filed in Orange County.

The map has a note:

“Survey Objective

Objective of this survey is to locate existing slope in relation to all properties (sic) lines located within or along the top of slope and identify location of existing fences.”

There are 18+ separate properties/lots abutting the open space.

The map shows three monuments, two street monuments and one angle point on one of the back lines of the subdivision. The two street monuments are not found on the streets adjacent to the properties shown – they may have been set on an adjacent subdivision. This is a classic two monument tango with one pipe in the back that is not called out of position. The two street monuments are not "tied" to the established lines by bearing and distance.

What level or grade of survey would we call this? Level D? Grade C? I believe the flavor of argument, according to the other threads referenced, is "the survey served the purpose intended without costing the client to much money". The encroachments documented range from 2’ to 19’ based on the "record boundary" shown.

The map is well organized, proper scale, legend, margins, vicinity map, and is aesthetically appealing. The monument descriptions are lacking i.e “spike monument”, but many land surveyors simply use “spk” and do not cite the type of spike, depth, whether a tag exists and/or similarly, do not provide a reference. This mapper cared enough to spell out “spike monument”.

Does it matter that the map was signed and sealed by a PE in the low 50,000s (licensed in 1994)? If so, why? Are the land surveyors the only people allowed to perform two monument tangos? If so, why? Is this map an example for which the land surveying community will allow a lesser standard to better serve the public?

Years ago, I would have been on the phone with the engineer and filed a complaint with BPELSG, post haste. Nevermore, nevermore.

DWoolley

2024 Encroachment Map Post 82.pdf

[Ric7308]

Complaint should be filed. Any other opinion shouldn't matter since it violates the PLS Act. It is that simple.

[E_Page]

I agree with Ric. Although you and I have seen cases result in citations which did not warrant them and have seen cases washed where the licensee clearly should have had their license suspended or revoked, we still need to hope that the system will do the right think in most cases. And in spite of those cases where personal feelings of BPELSG staff get in the way or where an unqualified technical "expert" reviews the case and gets it wrong, I think the enforcement system probably has a slightly better than .500 average in getting it right.

[Old man yells at cloud again] IF THE CLSA WERE TO PRODUCE STANDARDS, BPELSG COULD UP IT TO .995!!!

Turn this PE surveying without a license and falling well short of the standard of care in. Keep an eye on the FODs posted by the Board over the next year or so. If it doesn't turn up, let us know and we'll give Ric a full ration of s#!t.

[DWoolley]

Clearly, I understand the map created by the PE is technically a violation of the law. There was a day the sight of that map would have made my head explode.

One reason land surveyors are licensed is because they are expected to understand that rotating the record map/deed line work to two field measured monuments is not acceptable for the establishment/reestablishment of boundaries. As detailed in other posts, I am seeing GIS quality maps formatted to 18x26 and submitted without monuments, no boundary establishment notes, monuments called out of position without explanation, no understanding of the PRC, no reference to improvements when there are no monuments or when encroachments exist, I could go on, but there is no point, it has all been written before.

Although anecdotal, besides reviewing the work product of the firms referenced above, reading this forum shows a segment of the land surveying community believes creating “record boundaries” is an acceptable practice. There are those that believe we should create a graduating standard to accommodate record boundaries. The point is not to relitigate the conversation from other threads but rather accept the circumstances/situation.

As for the BPELSG complaints, there is no getting out from under the years and years of a 65% wash rate under “compliance achieved”. I have seen surveyors’ practices emboldened by the fact BPELSG did not issue a citation - the would-be-respondents pass this information along like baseball cards among school kids. After 10, 20, 30 years of flimflam surveying they are unlikely to change, and the damage to the public and public record has already been done. The BPELSG staff did not/does not specifically sanction their practice by not issuing a citation, but the land surveyors often see it that way.

In fact, the BPELSG staff took an “education” path that had plenty of merit, but in the end it simply did not work in changing the direction of the profession. In my opinion, BPELSG did a very good job in public outreach. As professionals, dealing with “professionals”, it was not immediately foreseeable the scofflaws’ recidivism rate.

Still skeptical? Look no further than the thread “JUDGE BLOWS UP WHAT THE BOARD THINKS NEGLIGENCE IS”. In that case, BPELSG went the distance – rightfully, based on the facts given – lost in a fluke decision, which happens, and the surveyor runs through the streets (and on this forum) boasting about not searching for and finding an original monument (when documenting encroachments). There is little difference from the survey described in the thread, the records of survey I have reviewed and the proponents of “record boundaries”, when compared to the post ’82 survey I posted herein. It seems to me that it is the height of hypocrisy to report a post ’82 engineer for replicating the illicit work of a licensed land surveyors because the PE does not have a land surveyors license. Restated, if the PE was licensed as a land surveyor it would statistically end up in a “compliance achieved” column. It is land surveying madness as to how I was mentored into the profession.

My record, equally BPELSG's record, together with many others trying to change the course of the profession is well documented. Good folks, with good intentions, do not always prevail. I am now at acceptance.

No cap, yesterday I had a scheduled call with folks in a land surveying adjacent industry. They wanted to talk to me about teaching classes on measurement and mapping. I took the time to go through the PLS and PE Acts, the various union descriptions of work that perform “land surveying” (by our definition and the existing laws) and the practices of other land surveying adjacent industries -that generally ignore the PLS Act. The audience was slowly reaching the conclusion that land surveyors' laws were not conducive to their vision of the future. Collectively, they are legions compared to the practicing land surveyors’ numbers and they are well financed with some sophisticated stakeholders - I was staring directly into the abyss on a Wednesday that seems like any other when I got to work. In a 1.5 hour conversation they realized the lay of the land was quite different than teaching their folks measurement and mapping. They asked that we schedule a regular weekly meeting to further educate them – they do not know it, they did not say it, but they will eventually arrive at the deregulation of the land surveying profession is the path forward. I will not dissuade them. I suspected that call would come one day, that day was yesterday.

In life, sometimes it is the subtle things that provide affirmation. At Saturday’s CLSA Board of Director’s meeting we had a Director emphatically offer his protest to proposed legislation that would have prohibited interagency record of survey fees. It did not occur to him to ask for the objective of the legislation, no sir, it was “I want the record to reflect my opposition and our chapter’s opposition to this proposal!” he bellowed repeatedly. In re-reading the language, we could see how it may have been misunderstood – rather than ask questions, go berserk first and ask questions later (or not in the instant example). Imagine trying to get something of consequence through that group.

I will accept any offer of proof I have erred in my understanding.

DWoolley

PS Today is my 18th anniversary on this forum.

[David Kendall]

rather than ask questions, go berserk first and ask questions later (or not in the instant example).

PS Today is my 18th anniversary on this forum.

That’s how my Uncle Chuck Benson LS 2314 and Grandpa Bobby Benson LS 1635 taught me to do it.

Happy birthday, maybe they will drop soon

[David Kendall]

It did not occur to him to ask for the objective of the legislation,

Please enlighten us with the objective of this legislation and explain how said objective relates to the changes in 8765. Here is the forum thread where I asked for the objective, back on June 3, which I mentioned in the meeting in the midst of going beserk.

https://forums.californiasurveyors.org/ ... 243#p58243

While your answering that (which I doubt that you have the stones to do it), please explain how a director going beserk in a meeting is a subtle thing. I am confused by your description although we all understand how you love to whine about the injustice of it all.

I doubt that you will make a good Wal-mart greeter with that pissy attitude

[David Kendall]

go berserk first and ask questions later

That’s how my Uncle Chuck Benson LS 2314 and Grandpa Bobby Benson LS 1635 taught me to do it.

Of course, my cousin Harley Benson was the best beserker in town by far. He was also the best land surveyor despite being unlicensed. No one cared about that though because we live in the Benson Bullseye of course!

[David Kendall]

At Saturday’s CLSA Board of Director’s meeting we had a Director emphatically offer his protest to proposed legislation that would have prohibited interagency record of survey fees.

That's funny, I was at the same meeting and I all I heard was this loudmouth jackass doom and gloom OC director on Zoom ranting about how the sky is falling and how we are all destined to be working at Costco after he resigns and washes his hands of our entire lot. I won't say his name publicly but his nickname rhymes with thicken whittle. I believe that he is a street corner prophet in the bibilical sense

Clearly this is an indication that The End is Nigh

The rest of the meeting was pleasant and productive!

[DWoolley]

It did not occur to him to ask for the objective of the legislation,

Please enlighten us with the objective of this legislation and explain how said objective relates to the changes in 8765. Here is the forum thread where I asked for the objective, back on June 3, which I mentioned in the meeting in the midst of going beserk.
…

Referring to the link provided to another thread, I believe folks replied to your questions quite thoroughly.

To get interested readers up to speed, the existing law is shown below with the proposed changes in bold.

Business and Professions Code 8765:

A record of survey is not required of any survey:

(a) When it has been made by a public officer in his or her official capacity, or a licensed land surveyor employed by a public agency, and a reproducible copy thereof, showing all data required by Section 8764, except the recorder's statement, has been filed with the county surveyor of the county in which the land is located. Any map so filed shall be indexed and kept available for public inspection.

The existing law, sans the bold words, has been on the books for more than 80 years. Essentially, you are "vehemently opposed" and shaking your fist at an old law. The proposed changes simply add the “employees” of the public agency – presumably to include those agency folks not under the direction of the County Surveyor. This modification of an 80-year-old law will not foreseeably change the current practice i.e. the County Surveyors’ offices either currently file these maps under an existing index system and are made readily available to the public or not.

If the CS doesn't currently file the maps the other public agency cannot compel the CS to file these maps in a nonexistent system.

Locally, our flavor of these County Surveyor maps were called “LS Maps” and filed as the same. They were discontinued more than 45-50 years ago. The letter of the law states they are a record of survey without a County Recorder’s Certificate, and they are kept on file at the CS office like a Corner Record.

At Saturday’s CLSA Board of Director’s meeting we had a Director emphatically offer his protest to proposed legislation that would have prohibited interagency record of survey fees.

That's funny, I was at the same meeting and I all I heard was this loudmouth jackass doom and gloom OC director on Zoom ranting about how the sky is falling and how we are all destined to be working at Costco after he resigns and washes his hands of our entire lot.
...

Mr. Kendall, as for the berserker bonafides, you have made my point better than I could have made it myself. The BoD meeting was 9 days ago, and you have continued to carry on this argument with yourself for the last five days. As Bill Murray said in Stripes “Lighten up Francis”.

One correction, I will serve the OC chapter until they determine I should no longer serve. The same is true with the Board of Directors selecting me as the Director at Large. You have never heard, nor will you ever hear, the word “resign” in connection with my service to CLSA. I do not believe my participation or lack of participation in CLSA will effect the ultimate destiny of the land surveying profession.

As for the Benson heritage, it is a theory that I have explained ad nauseam. Look through your local filed maps, ponder the private unfiled maps-o-plenty, and compare those filed maps to the maps filed in and south of Ventura County or Humboldt County (the maps I am familiar with) and tell me why the maps are so different under the same laws and the same case laws since 1850. I will accept another well-reasoned theory. Again, it is sweet tea and porch talk to apply a rationalization to an geographical irrational practice and practice history.

We all have our burdens and limitations. It is kindness when I suggest that you have someone read this post to you and possibly, discuss the contents before you vent your frustrations on a public forum. If you do not have that person, I will gladly accept your call. Be well.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Back to the original post.

Does anyone else see it as hypocrisy to file a complaint on the post '82 PE when we have licensed surveyors doing (and advocating here) the same two monument "record boundary" establishment?

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

The existing law, sans the bold words, has been on the books for more than 80 years. Essentially, you are "vehemently opposed" and shaking your fist at an old law. The proposed changes simply add the “employees” of the public agency – presumably to include those agency folks not under the direction of the County Surveyor. This modification of an 80-year-old law will not foreseeably change the current practice i.e. the County Surveyors’ offices either currently file these maps under an existing index system and are made readily available to the public or not.

If the CS doesn't currently file the maps the other public agency cannot compel the CS to file these maps in a nonexistent system.

Locally, our flavor of these County Surveyor maps were called “LS Maps” and filed as the same. They were discontinued more than 45-50 years ago. The letter of the law states they are a record of survey without a County Recorder’s Certificate, and they are kept on file at the CS office like a Corner Record.

Ok good then. Let us now return to civil dialogue and I will do my best to restrain my beserk tendencies. I have a big friend here holding me back….

Movie quotes, sweet tea and porch talk. Sounds good. I prefer my tea unadulterated, but when in Rome. I’m starting out by quoting rodney from caddyshack: “So what? So let’s dance!”

I’m just a simple redneck hick from the benson bullseye so I am not completely understanding your train above. But if I have it right, you are just innocently polishing up an old law that has been on the books since Benson was breathing and it’s of no consequence to expand this filing exemption to all public employees?

For all of the fine points you make on this forum, I would expect you to see that this could be interpreted as a very broad stroke. All public employees? Are exempt from filing surveys?

To be fair, I don’t know that you personally participated in hammering out this dogshit but since you are so passionate about it I expect that you must have an iron in the fire. Could it be that as a city surveyor you are an employee of a public agency? Hmm

Now when I’m porch sitting, me in my rocking chair, you in your chain swing, I will poke a brother in the arm with a side eye and a sly grin when I hear a tale like that. Coming from a long line of grifters and carnies, well game recognizes game. “That’s a fact Jack” (Stripes back to you)

Or perhaps you are just the self appointed white knight of the underserved public employee community? “Yeah that’s the ticket!” (John Lovitz SNL-1986) Dave offers no quarter, doesn’t have any empathy for the old lady building a fence but he is called to save the poor, oppressed, goldbricking public agency employees from the injustice of negotiating survey filing red tape. I’m getting it now. There must be legions of county employees down south that just cannot figure out what to do with all of their survey plats. So they came to CLSA to request legislative relief? This is certainly a public catastrophe that demands a solution! Even though they are exempt from review fees?

So you say it is about fees then. Once again, I reiterate, 8765 makes no mention of fees. Connect the dots for me, my rage is clearly making me blind.

Please clarify, how is the filing of LS Maps by employees of public agencies in a system that was discontinued 45-50 years ago going to help protect the general public? Why should CLSA support this bill?

To be clear, in the meeting, in the midst of my foaming rant, I made a formal motion for the language to be reconsidered by the legislative committee. Seven other directors voted for this motion, including at least a couple of public employees. I know you weren’t there so I am rehashing the events. The chairman said he was going to revise the language. I got where I was trying to go. Why bring this up after the meeting is over at all Sweet Tea?

Is this motion really such a primely subtle example of the downfall of the profession that you were compelled to disparage my behavior publicly? Porch talk me pal, break it down, what am I missing here?

Where are you trying to go with this? I couldn’t care less about the old law but something stinks in the vicinity of this proposed change and your attempt at explanation is looking more and more like a heaping pile of something.

“Make it plain” (Coconut Sid from Do the Right Thing)

Does anyone see it as hypocrisy for a public agency employee to advocate for a filing exemption for public agency employees?

The 8765 changes thread made the problems with the proposed language crystal clear. Are you in denial about the proposed language or intentionally trying to mislead?

[LS9200]

Back to the original post.

Does anyone else see it as hypocrisy to file a complaint on the post '82 PE when we have licensed surveyors doing (and advocating here) the same two monument "record boundary" establishment?

DWoolley

Nope no hypocrisy here, if the speed limit is changed to 25 in a school zone when it used to be 35 for safety of the public I follow the law and go 25. Sure No one got hurt when I was driving at 35 before, but clearly others did - that is why it was changed. Should we just allow others to break the law because it is convenient for them and no-one got hurt when they did it? Your selection of bad actors in the profession is your own personal bias. Personally, in my experience when I come across bad actors (hint not all are surveyors) and submit a complaint to the board I have found the results to be within reason.

[DWoolley]

Back to the original post.

Does anyone else see it as hypocrisy to file a complaint on the post '82 PE when we have licensed surveyors doing (and advocating here) the same two monument "record boundary" establishment?

DWoolley

Nope no hypocrisy here, if the speed limit is changed to 25 in a school zone when it used to be 35 for safety of the public I follow the law and go 25. Sure No one got hurt when I was driving at 35 before, but clearly others did - that is why it was changed. Should we just allow others to break the law because it is convenient for them and no-one got hurt when they did it? Your selection of bad actors in the profession is your own personal bias. Personally, in my experience when I come across bad actors (hint not all are surveyors) and submit a complaint to the board I have found the results to be within reason.

LS9200:

Using your analogy, if the speed limit is 25 but 65%+ (compliance achieved) of the folks still do 35, with 10% doing 65+ getting ticketed (referred for disciplinary action), who are we (folks that do 25) to say people in blue cars (PEs), very specifically, cannot do 35 and must be ticketed because they drive a blue car?

Drop the analogy, a sizable group of land surveyors do not practice land surveying according to the fundamentals i.e. establish lines according to junior/senior rights, document material discrepancies, document improvements that do not fit title lines, find all monuments representing boundaries, files maps when required etc. This sizeable group of land surveyors mentor and train their staff to serve a business model that places profitability over training, ethical practice, land surveying fundamentals and simply, following the laws i.e. PLSA, SMA and PRC that govern the practice. In fact, a subset of this sizeable group advocates for creating a pathway to casting aside these practice fundamentals i.e. sanctioning two monument field surveys. The same subset wants to use their land surveying licenses to create exclusivity for their illicit practice that would bar post '82 PEs or the Site Plan guys from doing the same thing they are doing. Over a long enough timeline, the honest, law abiding, practitioner has no place in the market and cannot compete with the sizeable group or their subset unless or until they decide to ride dirty.

In my opinion, land surveyors cannot use their licenses to hold the public captive and/or to create exclusivity. I do not know, may it is a Pollyanna perspective. Does it seem right or acceptable to you?

Nate, drop some knowledge to me that shows my perception is inaccurate or skewed, I welcome it. Before doing so, look at some local maps from "reputable" companies in the jurisdictions within your prevue and tell us if the land surveyors are following the legal fundamentals of the practice.

There were folks that worked hard individually and collectively, to define the profession or to change the direction of the profession. These people that did not necessarily have the same perspective as to the solutions but they worked together - for the most part - cooperatively. I do not place blame on any individual or organization for the state of affairs.

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

"We interrupt this program for a special announcement:

Since this thread started, there have been 6 complaints filed with BPELSG, 4 of which involve the practice of land surveying, and none of which is related to this thread."

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming"

[DWoolley]

"We interrupt this program for a special announcement:

Since this thread started, there have been 6 complaints filed with BPELSG, 4 of which involve the practice of land surveying, and none of which is related to this thread."

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming"

I appreciate the newsflash, thank you. Somethings never change, land surveyors make up 67% of the current complaints.

DWoolley

[LS9200]

Dave, your personal bias about the profession by the way you describe it on this forum is so negative it is almost tangible. I don't think there is any changing of your opinion. From my experience, many professionals in our field adhere strictly to the ethical practices and legal standards. Generalizing the actions of the entire profession to your bias's is not productive. Maybe instead of broad generalizations, focus on specific instances.

[LS9200]

"We interrupt this program for a special announcement:

Since this thread started, there have been 6 complaints filed with BPELSG, 4 of which involve the practice of land surveying, and none of which is related to this thread."

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming"

I appreciate the newsflash, thank you. Somethings never change, land surveyors make up 67% of the current complaints.

DWoolley

I read involve the practice of land surveying - not land surveyors. Wouldn't this instance in theory be a complaint involving the practice of land surveying (that didn't involve a land surveyor)

[DWoolley]

Dave, your personal bias about the profession by the way you describe it on this forum is so negative it is almost tangible. I don't think there is any changing of your opinion. From my experience, many professionals in our field adhere strictly to the ethical practices and legal standards. Generalizing the actions of the entire profession to your bias's is not productive. Maybe instead of broad generalizations, focus on specific instances.

I would gladly change my opinion. I have no vested interest in being correct on this topic.

Read this forum, the good work by Jamessh1467 demonstrates land surveyor make up 7% of the licensee population and 50%+ of the complaints (or similar, I didn't look it up again). Fluke? Nope. "Personal bias"? Nope. Like you, I can read the statistics. What makes you think those numbers are incorrect?

If 7% of the licensed population made up 3% of the complaints you'd have a point. Alas, that statistic simply does not exist. "Personal bias"? Nope.

These statistical numbers, like crime viewed more broadly, do not reflect the true numbers - which are typically much greater than reported. I know land surveyors that would never turn in another surveyor. Those very real numbers are the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Flip it, let's say every bad actor is wrapped into those complaint numbers, it is still staggering.

Let's examine your statement "From my experience, many professionals in our field adhere strictly to the ethical practices and legal standards", how many land surveyors - of the 2500-ish in-state licensees - do you make contact with in which you could truly judge their ethical practices and legal standards? I would guess that number is less than 10- which is about 8 more than the average.

We all espouse the highest of ethical standards and legal compliance. The statistics prove they cannot all be telling the truth.

I appreciate you offering a perspective and not simply being a lurker.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

The sky's falling . . . (again).

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[jamesh1467]

Ok again. The data points to a long-term problem. Emotions once you realize that….it is hard to contain them because its kind of heartbreaking. Especially once you first discover it. Sometimes, I dealt with it rationally; other times, I did not. The same goes for others here. Again, this is the next 30 to 40 years of my career here that I am advocating for. I have one of the biggest vested interests here to see the profession alive in 2050 and beyond.

Falling population rates, internal legal battles, a serious deregulatory challenge? Was this all planned? I’m waiting for the explanation of how this all ties together in your master plan for those who don’t recognize this. These were all constant in the 2000’s and the 90’s? So we are at the same levels of unlicensed practice as has happened throughout history? We are just seeing it more because technology allows us to track it more.... I’m trying to come up with a logical explanation here for why you all take this position. I would appreciate it if you could give me one beyond something like “surveying has been around for centuries,” as though I don’t know that or something, and I am not coming to these conclusions I keep spouting off about through hard-learned career-altering lessons combined with data-driven analytics. I am the outlier, right? I should just leave the profession because I don’t know what I am talking about? I’m too stupid to know what's good for me, and those of you who (with all due respect) will not be practicing in 2050 know how I should practice then and think you can adequately dictate what my world will look like when I practice in those years?

You guys are all still debating which is good. And to be honest, seeing someone more people discussing this is really hopeful. Even if you all just think we are crazy. But you keep dancing around the issues. The bottom is falling out from under you. Why is unlicensed practice on the rise? Isn't unlicensed practice the same as licensed practice below an acceptable level of standard of care? Like there’s no difference there to me. One has a license, the other doesn’t. Either way the work should never have been done. Its going to get considerably worse on both fronts.

This is just basic supply and demand. Its a very basic business or economic theory. When prices rise, people seek alternatives. Our demand is written into law, so yes, of course, people would have to offer unlicensed services to try and get their ADU approved or whatever without paying our prices. That's the only alternative unless surveyors do it on the cheap and break the rules. Its not that hard to comprehend or rationalize illegal behavior when some drafter says they can approve your ADU for $50 using GIS, and a legitimate surveyor won't do it for less than $3000 or something and you literally have no idea what a surveyor does for you. It just seems like money going to waste to the public at large. Plus, its not like the board really has great powers to stop the behavior of non-practicing professionals that are not under their purview and i'm guessing half the time most people don't even know its illegal practice.

Those who practice at a low standard of care are at least serving the needs of those lower levels. Should they continue to do it and downgrade the license? IDK I guess that is the real debate here. I don't think they should. I don't think they should ever be allowed to degrade the license for the long-term viability of the profession. I think they should have to compete with the other bottom feeders outside the license and see how they like it if they want to do that stuff. But either way, its pretty clear the bottom is falling out from under the profession, both within the license and with unlicensed practice. Standards are a way to set that bottom floor. Even if its the wrong way to bring the bottom of the floor back, at least pretty much every other state has done it, and its something. You have to do something.

Those of you with good clients and who have spent your lives building an empire aren’t going to have problems right away. Your clients will pay rather than risk something illegal when its not much more money, (especially government clients who cannot do things that are illegal) and that’s probably why you don’t notice these issues and think we are crazy for talking like this. But you will get dragged down eventually by the bottom feeder firms. You would be wise to keep talking to try to make something work. If something like Crownholm went the wrong direction, all bets are going to be off for what happens. No one will know what happens and no one will know who it will really affect until it happens. Its an unstable and unpredictable market.

There are weak agencies and there are powerful agencies. Compare the DOD to the HHS, for example. DOD can do pretty much whatever it wants....you know...guns, tanks. HHS? Not so much. Our Board? To me at least, it generally seems like a pretty weak agency unless its directly about their professionals. Why? Because the professions should stand on their own. The professions themselves bring their own value to the table for the public at large. Why would legislators allow a government-sanctioned monopoly without the public agreeing that it was benefiting the public? So when the public starts to show signs that the monopoly really just is a monopoly and the public benefit of surveyors is diminishing, this is exactly what is supposed to happen. I mean these are literally the signs that our profession is failing to provide the population of California a public good. The public is telling us they cannot use our services anymore at the prices we can provide them at and are trying to do the work themselves with the large amounts of unlicensed practice. Do you just want to try to force them to keep using your services indefinitely when they are constantly telling us they don't want to use us? Like do you think they will not just naturally fight back one day? You can chalk it up to bad actors for so long, but at a certain point, you have to look inward at the system and ask if it is the problem that is causing the bad actors. It seems more and more like that point is either here or coming very soon.

I recently found out that one of the most unethical people I have met just got licensed to save his business. After seeing how he operated his business for 2 months, I left him. (I saw I got fooled in the interview, realized it within the first week, and spent the next month or so confirming because it’s a big deal to leave somewhere you just started. It’s better to commit and try and change it than leave. Leaving is a last resort) Once I realized there was no hope, I ran from him as fast as possible….. he didn't even know the 8762 rules existed 9 months ago. I can also verify that 9 months ago, he didn’t have at least 2 of the recommendations he needed and I heard from someone else that at least one of the other recommendations had already deemed him unqualified. So he likely only had one legit recommendation 9 months ago? Although I get the feeling that guy did eventually sign for him after I left out of guilt or something. He forwarded an email to me talking to people at the board once he found out I knew people on the board? (I’m guessing I don’t anymore, but what the hell…again vested to see this happen in 30 years for better or worse) and was like hoping I would grease the skids?? IDK what the deal was with it, and I definitely never talked to the board on his behalf. But apparently, he got fast-tracked with the board to get his exams taken twice as fast as it was possible for me. (i never failed an exam so no that was not the issue) He even forgot to take his national until after he passed the state exam? He was approved to take the state before the national? Didn’t think that was possible with the new application system. Wish I could of done that. I had to wait a full year after my national for what? Following the board's guidelines? I don’t know what to do but laugh about that situation. I really don’t. Either I am unqualified to be a surveyor, or he is. Or maybe he magically learned enough to become qualified in the last 9 months because after I quit on the spot he did it all himself and got someone to sign it? Or maybe, hopefully whoever was signing for him taught him? But he still would have had to get approval to take the exams within 3 months after I left, so he qualified in that short time period?…..yeah I don’t know what to do but laugh. Its just a joke. All of this is just a joke. If you heard some of the shit he said to me about surveying as a civil…….

Joining surveying right now is an incredibly risky long-term gamble. Maybe not medium or short term and in fact, it probably looks pretty attractive right now from outsiders because wages will go up. But long term the outlook is very uncertain. That means risk. People will always sign up for risk when there is the appearance of a reward. But its not the stable professional people it has always been. Not the stable, ethical people you all know. It will be the unethical gamblers and you all will give them recommendations because we need surveyors, and we all know we need surveyors. So you will take a risk on them. Some of those gambles will pay off, but others won't. It just is what it is.

If you all want to “self-deregulate,” as I have seen implied in some of these discussions by lowering the standard of care, just with the jump of allowing lay people into the lower end of the market to ease the market pressures, make sure to get something in return. Never give anything without getting something in return. But this isn’t the worst idea. You just need to make sure you position the survey license as an “expert” and get all of those lay people to run their work through a surveyor or set up systems that allow them to do work “safely”. The FEMA model is actually a pretty good system for that. Advanced hydro engineers made the flood maps, and only other engineers can change those maps. But other people can use the maps inside certain thresholds like LOMAs and LOMR-Fs at much lower costs than it takes for LOMR’s and hiring an engineer to check every floodplain encroachment with a hydraulic analysis. Etc. It doesn’t fit perfectly to our situation and would need tweaks, but its along the lines of what I would consider a solution to be. A new system gets developed that locks in our rights for decades if not another century at the high ends of the market while we allow people into the low ends of the market us our work to do things where it really does not matter if the boundary is “perfect”. You need to find a way to reduce prices at the bottom of the market to match the falling supply to keep from any crazy changes while keeping the integrity of the license intact. This would do it. Plus, it would give valid justification for keeping higher prices at the high end of the market to continue to support the profession. But a system like that would not happen overnight. So you cannot wait until its too late to implement it. You need to start talking about it.

You cannot just license more PLSs without funneling them in through the LSIT….like there is no easy solution here long term. Even if you lower the cut scores, its just a short-term solution. We can only take PLS’s from LSITs or one other group. If they are above the age of 40 in that other group, you should never let them join. You should hear what they tell me about you guys because I am “one of them”. It wasn't just one civil or one firm. Its almost all civil owners at all small firms who never became duals when they were younger. (I have been in many across the country) Seriously. Don’t do it for anyone over 40. It won’t be worth it and will drag the profession even more. Anyone worth a crap over 40 has moved on to other things. They are just desperate because they don't want to actually pay a surveyor or they cannot get one to work for them. Even if they are smart enough to study up and pass the exams. (again, I know from experience) There are exceptions to every situation, but that exception would be something like dedicating all their time to the surveying department or something directly under an LS.

The unions are another option. Half the chiefs I know would pass the tests. The other half wouldn’t. But none of them I know have even tried and most of them will be 10 times better than that other group ethically who are trying to save their business. You could mandate them to try to become licensed within a few years of journeying out. Like, say, 2 attempts at the exam within 5 years of journeying out? That's the point of the apprentice program, right? To make them surveyors?

Keep talking. Again there's a solution somewhere in here that gets us back on the right track. Just make sure you find it before its too late. We aren’t Wyoming, unfortunately. It’s a lot easier to get 100 surveyors to agree than a few thousand. But the harder the challenge, the more impressive the accomplishment, though. Just remember that.

I’ve had enough of these blow up in my face about surveying already for trying to do the right thing that I cannot continue this. Other than spouting off more here or pissing off the board that will seriously bite me later instead of only kind of biting me later as it probably will now, there's not much more I can do without making a long-term commitment. Which, with all due respect, goes against every direct experience I have had in surveying as a smart thing to do. From my view, I already made that commitment and got screwed over for backing the wrong profession. Not once, but twice. Its just kind of dumb to keep doing it at this point. There's just about every document you need in that GitHub to make standards if you want to do it. So if you don't want to do it, that's on you, not me.


Also, professionals treat each other with respect. Trades attack individuals. If any of you feel individually attacked by me, that wasn’t my intention. If any of you are attacking each other over this. You should stop.

[David Kendall]

If any of you are attacking each other over this. You should stop.

Thank you James. Sweet Tea and I are attacking each other just for sport, near as I can tell. I certainly don't see any connection with the issue he and I are discussing to standard of care and I cannot explain why I got dragged into this thread (he apparently cannot either) but here we are. Sorry if it interrupts your earnest conversation. I appreciate your concern for the profession and your dedication to productive solutions

[DWoolley]

This thread jumped off topic a couple times - which is fine by me.

Folks, I would welcome the outcome that resulted in my best Chicken Little "the sky is falling". Phil is probably right, he just doesn't want to show off his counter facts and make me look bad. I appreciate it, Phil.

I am compelled to test my own theories. For example, I am subject to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on a particular project. The PLA requires that I become "signatory" to a union and make use of union labor as part of the workforce. To test my theory, our company became "signatory" to the carpenter's union and the laborer's union because each have "land surveying" - by a different name - in their Master Service Agreements (MSA). I went one step further and called a C-Suite guy for a large commercial builder ($4.2 billion gross in 2023) that no longer hires land surveyors for their staking and asked how they recruit their carpenters i.e. "surveyors". Again, they do not call themselves surveyors - they are either Journeyman Carpenters or Laborer Group IV. They do not call the work "surveying" but their contracts reference the use of total stations, Trimble equipment, mapping, lay out work. Something forum readers would call "land surveying" they actually call it "Trimbling".

The Operating Engineers, my preferred union resource in the past, squawked about me using carpenters and laborers for, er, land surveying. They said it was "against state law to use the Carpenters for land surveying". When I asked "which state law?" they replied "the engineer's act". Noted. I reminded OE that I was a licensed land surveyor. In the end, one warm body without an LSIT is little different from another warm body without an LSIT.

Theory proven - licensed land surveyors accept uncredentialed folks to stand around a truck for 5, 10, 15 years and they are easily replaced with people that have a much better attitude. The $4.3B builder told me they recruit engineering graduates or construction management graduates that have good GPAs and ideally, have won awards in engineering skills tests, essentially, the best and brightest (that doesn't sound surveyor-ish, right?). He further stated they put these folks through a management training program before they release them into the field. Lastly, he stated that their program has been one of their best initiatives and is a crown jewel of their recent innovations. These folks are targeted and groomed to become future leaders for the company from their first day on the job. I do not think the same can be said for the OE folks that cannot be bothered with an LSIT or PLS. Besides, the carpenters and laborers use computers and prefer to use Teams and email as opposed to OE use of a fax machine and carbon copies on typewriters (not kidding).

Pro tip: there are a few legal nuances to executing the plan. Pay the Carpenter's the party chief and chainman prevailing wage rates rather than having to defend a false claim of working someone out of classification.

(I am sure my proclamations "the sky is falling" are way overblown and the profession will be ok for the next 20 years, nothing to see here, move along.)

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

The Operating Engineers, my preferred union resource in the past, squawked about me using carpenters and laborers for, er, land surveying. They said it was "against state law to use the Carpenters for land surveying". When I asked "which state law?" they replied "the engineer's act". Noted. I reminded OE that I was a licensed land surveyor. In the end, one warm body without an LSIT is little different from another warm body without an LSIT.

hahaha

[DWoolley]

This morning I received a construction plan, signed 8/08/24, that has the following statement signed and sealed by a 89,000 series PE [licensed in 2018]:

"As civil engineer/land surveyor of this project, I have identified the location of all easements which are depicted on these plans. I have reviewed the proposed easement documents and verified the proposed construction does not conflict or interfere with the intended easement use."

Is this signed and sealed statement by a post '82 a problem?

Suppose a licensed land surveyor provided the engineer a drawing with the easements plotted, is it suitable for the engineer to sign the statement on the construction plans?

I also received a street vacation for another project that was signed and sealed by a post '82. Due to my professional responsibilities, I had to reject that document. Technically, the document appeared to be reasonably correct.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

The civil engineer's statement indicates the practice of land surveying and law, which are beyond the engineer's area of expertise per Section 6701 of the PE Act.