Interference with the filing of a ROS

[mpallamary]

I would like to query the profession on a theoretical question. Surveyor Jones prepares and submits a ROS to the county for filing. Surveyor Smith disputes the results of Surveyor Jones, who is working next door. Surveyor Smith, who has not filed anything, contacts the county surveyor and argues that the CS should place a note on Surveyor Jones' ROS, essentially advocating Surveyor Smith's position even though he has not filed anything.

Is Surveyor Smith's conduct ethical? Moral? Should the county place a note on the Jones' survey?

Are there any codes and canons out there that address this?

Thanks, everyone.

[Warren Smith]

Board Rule 476(c)(10) speaks to not maliciously injuring the reputation of others.
PLSA section 8762(d)(2) speaks to the county surveyor providing information from a submitted record of survey to other surveyors working nearby that may be affected.
The CS note addresses only a disagreement with methods used and generally is used when the submitting surveyor requests a filing of the RS without further edits. An adjacent surveyor has the opportunity to submit an alternative solution without recourse to asking the CS to place an otherwise prejudicial note.

[mpallamary]

Thanks for the reply.

[LS_8750]

Surveyor Smith's mama probably lives next door.
Bias and unethical, probably.

Will he survive a voir dire, probably not.

[mpallamary]

tHANKS.

[PLS7393]

Surveyor Smith appears to have opened a can of worms. The County Surveyor (CS) should have inquired about his (Smith) survey and when will one be submitted for review? Why would a CS place a note on another's map based on hearsay evidence only?

In my opinion, notes should only be allowed on maps if there is a disagreement between the CS and surveyor of record. Sect. 8768 of the PLS Act outlines the process to "Force File" a map, and at that time the two can add a note, which also gets the verbiage agreed upon by both parties.

Otherwise, just because the PLS Act allows for a CS to add a note, which is suppose to be their opinion, most don't need to be added. The extra note can be perceived as a potential violation of Board Rule 476(c)(10) as mentioned above. 476(c)(10) states: "A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously injure or attempt to injure the reputation or business of others." How can ANY note placed on one's filed map (RS or CR) not be perceived as something is wrong with the map, and a note is needed to be added by the CS. If a CS is so concerned and feels they need to add a note, because they can, maybe they are in the wrong government position?

Furthermore, I have had to explain to my clients what this additional County Surveyor's Note truly means, after they ask what is this note, and why did it get added? That right there validates my position that the CS Note is an attempt to injure my reputation, be it a private surveyor or business.

Back to the original theoretical question? Smith is out of line to argue with the CS without a map. Did the CS add a note to Jones map, or not?
If a note was added, then there potentially is a good argument that there was maybe one or two potential violations against both Smith and the CS.

When in doubt, file a complaint to the Board, which is the common direction I have been instructed when concerned about a potential violation of the PLS Act or Board Rules.

Hey it's 4-20 so lets celebrate, LMAO!!!

[mpallamary]

Thank you very much. The organization needs a more substantive outline on ethics, etc.

[bryanmundia]

Surveyor Smith appears to have opened a can of worms. The County Surveyor (CS) should have inquired about his (Smith) survey and when will one be submitted for review? Why would a CS place a note on another's map based on hearsay evidence only?

In my opinion, notes should only be allowed on maps if there is a disagreement between the CS and surveyor of record. Sect. 8768 of the PLS Act outlines the process to "Force File" a map, and at that time the two can add a note, which also gets the verbiage agreed upon by both parties.

Otherwise, just because the PLS Act allows for a CS to add a note, which is suppose to be their opinion, most don't need to be added. The extra note can be perceived as a potential violation of Board Rule 476(c)(10) as mentioned above. 476(c)(10) states: "A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously injure or attempt to injure the reputation or business of others." How can ANY note placed on one's filed map (RS or CR) not be perceived as something is wrong with the map, and a note is needed to be added by the CS. If a CS is so concerned and feels they need to add a note, because they can, maybe they are in the wrong government position?

Furthermore, I have had to explain to my clients what this additional County Surveyor's Note truly means, after they ask what is this note, and why did it get added? That right there validates my position that the CS Note is an attempt to injure my reputation, be it a private surveyor or business.

Back to the original theoretical question? Smith is out of line to argue with the CS without a map. Did the CS add a note to Jones map, or not?
If a note was added, then there potentially is a good argument that there was maybe one or two potential violations against both Smith and the CS.

When in doubt, file a complaint to the Board, which is the common direction I have been instructed when concerned about a potential violation of the PLS Act or Board Rules.

Hey it's 4-20 so lets celebrate, LMAO!!!

But doesn't the framework for 8768 negate the idea of Board Rule 476(c)(10) since both the County Surveyor and the Surveyor of Record have the opportunity to review the notes of each other that explain the differences prior to filing without further changes?

Also, I don't know that I find the explanation of differing opinions to be enough to warrant or prove that the County Surveyor is maliciously injuring or attempting to injure the reputation or business of others. This is of course if the note is based upon technical expertise in reviewing the map for compliance with Section 8766 and not based in opinion of reputation.

I am sure there are County Surveyor notes out there on maps that maybe walk the line between personal opinion and professional practice, but I don't know that a note simply stating "there may be alternate positions of the boundary lines shown hereon" is in violation of 476(c)(10).

[LS_8750]

"there may be alternate positions of the boundary lines shown hereon" .............. = County Surveyor shakedown 101...

I thought that line was reserved for Bullseye country.....

[Ric7308]

"there may be alternate positions of the boundary lines shown hereon" .............. = County Surveyor shakedown 101...

I thought that line was reserved for Bullseye country.....

This is a common CS note in some SoCal counties. Not a direct reflection on Bryan who posted this because it precedes his tenure by decades. Very benign in my opinion and worthless to add. 90% of surveys, if retraced, would result in alternate positions to some degree or another anyhow.

I believe historically it is a way in which to say, "I believe you didn't follow the standard principles in determining the location of one or more lines/corners on your map." I base that belief on what I've seen reviewing some maps and my own personal experience when a former CS told me they were going to add that note. My response was "go ahead, no prudent surveyor ever really pays attention to that language and checks the survey facts themselves."

If a CS is going to add a note, they should follow the PLS Act and clearly state the explanation of differences. That way, it is somewhat helpful to those later surveyors, title companies, property owners, etc. when choosing to rely upon the information on the map.

[Scott]

Did this really happen to you Warren?
Was it Mikie or Brian you had the issue with?
ha ha