Standards of Care - Standards of Practice

[DWoolley]

...

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".
...

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Actually, that is not a true statement. We are licensed to protect the public from us. There is a big difference between those two statements.

Testing is for minimum competence on technical skills, basic contracting skills and business fundamentals to keep land surveyors from damaging the public. Clearly, the typical pass score of less than 55% correct indicates some of these fundamentals may have been missed.

More correctly stated, nowhere in the law does it state someone is entitled to have their property surveyed at a cost they can afford. People getting a survey usually have plans for something that will make the cost of a survey less significant compared to the overall costs. A property survey is a luxury -a luxury that not everyone can afford. Am I willing to break the law, ride dirty, and endanger my license to benefit a stranger with a survey? Nope. There is no law against doing the work for free. In fact, 8759 allows for a contract exemption if the benevolent surveyors are so inclined.

Our dark debutante will thin these ranks. I can visualize her insatiable gnashing teeth, our economic Valkyrie, welcome back. The technology will strike the lethal blow to the back of the head while the professional community says "you can't make me". My other bedtime story centers on the four horsemen and ends with "and the technology will strike the lethal blow...".

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

My other bedtime story centers on the four horsemen and ends with "and the technology will strike the lethal blow...".

Sounds like a Percy Jackson type story, I would read it :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

[Actually, that is not a true statement. We are licensed to protect the public from us. There is a big difference between those two statements.

I am curious that you phrase it that way.

I will admit that reality does not always match the theory, but it is pretty clear that the DCA and its predecessors exist to protect the public from unhealthy or fraudulent work. It exists to say "we have looked into this person and they are minimally safe", and in recognition of its review and blessing we get a number to reference. Same as a diamond certification, or a michelin star rating, it lets the public outsource the background check to someone/something that "knows better".

This lets the public check our number and then trust us to do an acceptable job, as compared to a layperson who does not have our skillset. So it is literally licensed people the public is supposed to trust, rather than us the public should be protected from.

I think this is actually a pretty profound difference in our world views that might explain some of our philosophical differences. Thank you for "biting" and engaging. I always think about what you write quite a bit.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ric7308]

Clearly, the typical pass score of less than 55% correct indicates some of these fundamentals may have been missed.

HA!, maybe when you and I (and those of our era) passed the exam Dave. But not in today's world. Fortunately, that ended a long time ago.

Just my two cents reading how this discussion is going...Dave is correct in that individuals are licensed to protect the public from the licensed individuals. And...Mikey is correct too in that the purpose is for the public to be able to check on who they might be hiring with the expectation that all licensed individuals are required to meet a minimum set of laws to obtain the license and to continue to hold that license.

Instead of focusing on how an exam determines minimum competency, probably should focus on the fact that there is nothing in the laws which requires the licensed individual to ONLY practice minimally! The public will ALWAYS expect the highest quality of service regardless of how much it costs.

[Jim Frame]

individuals are licensed to protect the public from the licensed individuals

That doesn't make sense to me. Prior to licensure, anyone could hire themselves out as a surveyor, and many boundary conflicts resulted. So the state stepped in and said, "From here on out, no one is allowed to conduct boundary surveys until they have demonstrated to the state that they are competent to do so, and those individuals will be issued a license to practice." It's clear to me that the state's intent was to protect the public from incompetent practitioners, and its licensing protocol is intended to filter out the incompetent.

However, no system designed by humans is perfect, thus we have the Enforcement Division. Protecting the public from incompetent licensees is a secondary function of the licensing system, not the primary function.

[Ric7308]

individuals are licensed to protect the public from the licensed individuals

That doesn't make sense to me. Prior to licensure, anyone could hire themselves out as a surveyor, and many boundary conflicts resulted. So the state stepped in and said, "From here on out, no one is allowed to conduct boundary surveys until they have demonstrated to the state that they are competent to do so, and those individuals will be issued a license to practice." It's clear to me that the state's intent was to protect the public from incompetent practitioners, and its licensing protocol is intended to filter out the incompetent.

However, no system designed by humans is perfect, thus we have the Enforcement Division. Protecting the public from incompetent licensees is a secondary function of the licensing system, not the primary function.

Actually Jim, it makes a lot of sense if you consider that the initial licensing process is the first level of protection. The entire purpose of the licensing process is public protection and every separate aspect involved in managing the life of the license is just another step in that protection.

[Mike Mueller]

Actually Jim, it makes a lot of sense if you consider that the initial licensing process is the first level of protection. The entire purpose of the licensing process is public protection and every separate aspect involved in managing the life of the license is just another step in that protection.

So what percent of the "lifespan of protection" is FROM unlicensed folks doing work they shouldn't vs. FROM licensed folks doing work outside the standard of care?

It reminds me of the police. The existence of the police does most of its work. There is a relatively small percentage of the total population that actually need direct intervention by the police.

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ric7308]

Actually Jim, it makes a lot of sense if you consider that the initial licensing process is the first level of protection. The entire purpose of the licensing process is public protection and every separate aspect involved in managing the life of the license is just another step in that protection.

So what percent of the "lifespan of protection" is FROM unlicensed folks doing work they shouldn't vs. FROM licensed folks doing work outside the standard of care?

It reminds me of the police. The existence of the police does most of its work. There is a relatively small percentage of the total population that actually need direct intervention by the police.

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are equating "protection of the public" to just the aspect of enforcement. That would be a short-sided perspective on the purpose of licensing. As I previously mentioned, the entire licensing process is considered protection of the public. Just because a license goes through their entire career without having a complaint filed against them or being disciplined does not mean the public wasn't being protected.

Isn't that the argument that this organization (including other organizations) are attempt to state by writing letters to the Sunset Committee and Board promoting continuing education? Because that would help to maintain the level of protection throughout the career of the licensee?

(oh this is going to be fun)

[Warren Smith]

Ric,

OK, I'll bite.

To me, mandatory continuing education is ineffective insofar as the intended target is the individuals who are treading water as far as competency goes. Those who need it the least are those who voluntarily seek out such improved methods and technology.

That is to say, forcing those who most need staying up-to-date can have a deleterious outcome due to an ingrained mindset of resistance to change in the first place.

[Mike Mueller]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are equating "protection of the public" to just the aspect of enforcement.

I think your branch just broke :)
No. My police analogy is specifically because most of their work is done by reassurance/threat rather then actual enforcement. Knowing that cops will show up stops many would be bank robbers. For surveying, when a consumer knows there are licensed folks, it automatically lets them know there is a differentiation in the market. They can still choose to use an unlicensed map maker, but they will know there is an "above the table" option. So for the DCA to issue licenses in a field, like surveying, it is having a huge effect on that market just by its presence in that market.

That would be a short-sided perspective on the purpose of licensing.

I agree. Heck, you can include all the education and test prep in that benefit, since without the bar of the LSIT, how many folks would touch geometry and trig for fun? Without the LS exam, how many would bother to crack the SMA until they had to? The entire ecosystem of our profession is impacted when there is a license involved. Which also includes having something to use as a referee between private surveyors and overzealous County reviewers.

Isn't that the argument that this organization (including other organizations) are attempt to state by writing letters to the Sunset Committee and Board promoting continuing education? Because that would help to maintain the level of protection throughout the career of the licensee?

(oh this is going to be fun)

I thought it was just a take home test on license renewal that was going to be instituted?

Now with all that said, I am still hoping you will answer what percent is protection FROM licensed folks?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS If you like geometry, you should check out Euclidia on your smart fone app store or here https://www.euclidea.xyz/.

[DWoolley]

...
Now with all that said, I am still hoping you will answer what percent is protection FROM licensed folks?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

A bit over an overstatement, but I would put the percentage at 99.9%. Historically, in my experience, the unlicensed practice was not a large number of people when compared to those working with/under a license. The unlicensed folks were usually connected to the land surveying industry i.e. a former party chief that didn't see the need for a license to have a business. Today the technology allows tradesman and professionals in other disciplines to provide "layout" and topography- they're at the gates.

In my experience, the scofflaws usually have a ticket. As detailed earlier, flim-flam operations are very much a part of the land surveyors' history and practically part of the community's DNA. Collectively, we sanction these same folks through our inaction and an unwillingness to further regulate the industry. Written standards or regulations are out of the question - we will not set monuments, tag monuments, file maps or ...you've heard it all before. Loopholes R Us. Feet don't fail me now!

The jig is up. Embrace the free market Valkyrie.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

individuals are licensed to protect the public from the licensed individuals

This opinion has a chicken/egg problem. Before there were licensed land surveyors, the public wasn't clamoring for protection from licensed land surveyors. It was the incompetent/fraudulent purveyors of land surveying services preying upon the public that resulted in the legislature's decision to introduce licensing. In the intervening decades the salutary effect of licensure has eliminated most of the unlicensed practioners, such that most problems now emanate from within the licensed community. Take away the requirement for a license and watch the situation revert to the way it was pre-licensure.

[DWoolley]

Take away the requirement for a license and watch the situation revert to the way it was pre-licensure.

A distinction without a difference? Revert? Poke around the Benson Bullseye a bit, has that much changed since 1891?

I am not convinced the passing of an 8 hour exam has made any difference that was intended. This thread details decades upon decades of unlawful "private records" after licensure. In fact, poke around the forum a little and you'll find folks pointing to a sentence or two in a newsletter 'splaining why this was acceptable - nevermind the plain language reading of the law, then or now. I could argue licensure predominantly served to create an exclusivity to keep others out and a method to hold the public hostage today. Listen to or read the protest against any attempts to create written standards or regulations (or simply having to set a tagged monument) the rejection is under the guise of professional benevolence i.e. helping the poor, widows and orphans.

I am enjoying this winding thread. Weep not for those carried away by the technology Valkyrie.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

I could argue licensure predominantly served to create an exclusivity to keep others out and a method to hold the public hostage today.

It's an old argument that pertains to all professional licensure. I still remember when my high school Econ teacher advanced it, mostly to be provocative. But the situation isn't black or white, instead it's very gray.

Most people wouldn't want to have to choose their doctor from among a crowd of self-styled medical experts because the consequences could be dire, so we license doctors. There are plenty of bad MDs out there, but far fewer than there would be absent licensure. And while boundary surveys rarely involve life-or-death situations, a bad one can be very expensive. (One of my clients spent about $150k defending a line he never should have had to defend. I regret to say that it was a licensee who brought about that calamity.)

We'll always have some bad apples among us, but I believe that licensing land surveyors is better for the public than not licensing them.

[LS_8750]

"We are licensed to protect the public from us."

".... it was a licensee who brought about that calamity."

Exactly the motivation for starting this thread......

[Mike Mueller]

We'll always have some bad apples among us, but I believe that licensing land surveyors is better for the public than not licensing them.

I think it is also worth pointing out that technical competence does not equal good communication and conflict resolution skills. It is my experience that the main driver of bad situations is the personalities of the individuals involved(both professional and client), not the technical competence/incompetence of the respective professionals in where they placed the boundary. Same as the likelihood of a malpractice complaint on a doctor is more correlated with their bedside manner than the care they provided.

Licensing solved the first problem that created the political drive for the license in the first place, IE straight up fraud and wild incompetence, and we are left with the far less impactful, but currently primary issue of poor judgement or crazy clients leading to conflicts and court cases.

So again, I would say the DCA exists primarily to protect the public from unlicensed folk. By a wide margin. Its like a goalie not getting credit for all the goals they stopped and all the focus is on the few they let through. Or the cops not getting credit for all the banks that haven't been robbed. Or the FBI not getting credit for all the kidnappings that don't happen. https://reason.com/2021/06/26/when-kidn ... -the-rage/ or https://crimereads.com/the-forgotten-ki ... a-america/ if you think Reason.com is too libertarian :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[E_Page]

The valid arguments against standards being developed by the professional society are:

1. That they would probably be developed by a "star chamber" who would create standards few could practically adhere to...

and

2. That the same or similar star chamber would appoint themselves the profession's police and use those same standards to harass others.

The method I had proposed to create standards would prevent the "star chamber" from creating standards too lofty to adhere to.

Get a team of surveyors representing all parts of the state so that both urban and rural perspectives are included. Preferably up to a couple dozen surveyors to act as authors, editors and reviewers.

Different chapters for different types of surveys. 1 to 3 authors per chapter, 1 or 2 editors, several team reviewers. Authors are chosen a) depending on who volunteers, and b) upon recognized expertise in the area of practice covered by the chapter.

As portions of the chapter gets written, it gets sent to the editor(s). Once chapter is complete in 1st draft form, it gets sent to the reviewers. Team meetings are scheduled so that full team (authors/editors/reviewers) can discuss questions and concerns. Chapter goes back to authors to address any concerns and clarifications that come out of team meetings. Once the development team is satisfied, the chapter goes to the Board of Directors and Chapters for the next level of review. Notes from the team review meetings should be sent with the chapter being reviewed to the Chapters because many of the same concerns will likely be brought up at Chapter meetings. The team review notes should help to explain or answer those concerns.

The chapter gets sent back to the team with comments from the Chapters to be addressed. After being addressed or answered, the chapter goes to the BoD for final approval and adoption.

This process has two fatal flaws, of course. The first is apathy. Few in the profession, or at least in CLSA are willing to put even a modicum of effort back in to the profession. Second is pushback from those who don't want standards by which their work might be measured. Although they would have more than ample opportunity to participate in the development of standards, there is no procedure and no set of standards they would agree to.

Those particular licensees (probably rightly so) fear that their practice couldn't withstand scrutiny against any standards.

As it is now, professional surveyors in CA are essentially practicing without consistent standards. As I pointed out in my earlier post, although CA has many well written statutes to guide practice, when the Board enforces them there is very little consistency. Having seen it from the perspective of an expert reviewing complaints for BPELSG and as an expert for respondent licensees, I have seen some "experts" misinterpret their personal method of particular points of practice as THE only valid method to adhere to a statute.

I know of one licensee that BPELSG has repeatedly attempted to cite for multiple failures to meet various subsections of 8759 (among other equally bogus charges) even though he has been using the standard CLSA contract for many, many years. (Warning to BPELSG: This nonsense will be made public, with names of everyone other than BPELSG personnel involved in these farces properly redacted to protect the privacy of licensees, complainants, landowners, et al involved if that crap doesn't stop).

What all readers should take from this is that if the "expert" who reviews a complaint against you handles extra services differently than you do, writes his or her Scope of Services differently, has different wording in his contracts for terminating the contract than you do - and if you use the CLSA contract, you are guilty of violating 8759 EVEN IF YOU ADDRESSED EACH SUBSECTION.

Getting my rant back on track...

You are operating without consistent standards now. Or more accurately, you are operating under a set of standards that are enforced inconsistently due to the poorly administrated system of enforcement in CA.

I fully agree with Ric's previous point in this thread, if CLSA would find sufficient spine and sense of professional responsibility among its membership to develop standards, it would go a long way toward developing consistency within their enforcement system by showing how a majority of the profession within CA has agreed are acceptable methods to meet statutory requirements.

And to make another point: If you are a CLSA member, don't just look to CLSA leadership and ask "Why haven't you..."

As a member, you should be part of the leadership and/or part of one or more of the several teams that work to make things happen. The proper question is "Why haven't we..."

Step up and do it! If enough are willing to push forward when the linguini spined push back, you can get something accomplished. When I was trying, there were several that said they would step up but scurried into the shadows when it came time to do something. Much of the pushback was coming from the Executive Committee at that time.

If the surveyors in CA are unable to even agree to try to develop standards, then Woolley is right, you should just admit that surveying, although it is a profession in other states, is at best a skilled trade in CA, and perhaps can be practiced by anyone able to learn the button sequences on their equipment to collect coordinates, and able to use a CAD program well enough to create some semblance of a map. If you can't agree to develop standards, you are NOT a profession!!!

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but just trying to cut to the chase regarding professional standards. My rant may continue in a few days after I have time to catch up, but for now, I need to go drink my blood pressure medicine.

"Evan the Terrible"

[Mike Mueller]

The valid arguments against standards being developed by the professional society are:

1. That they would probably be developed by a "star chamber" who would create standards few could practically adhere to...

and

2. That the same or similar star chamber would appoint themselves the profession's police and use those same standards to harass others.

This is exactly the concern I have heard from folks when this topic is discussed informally. Regardless of the validity of that fear, any effort to create a standard has to address this concern if we want widespread by in.

You are operating without consistent standards now. Or more accurately, you are operating under a set of standards that are enforced inconsistently due to the poorly administrated system of enforcement in CA.

I fully agree with Ric's previous point in this thread, if CLSA would find sufficient spine and sense of professional responsibility among its membership to develop standards, it would go a long way toward developing consistency within their enforcement system by showing how a majority of the profession within CA has agreed are acceptable methods to meet statutory requirements.

Considering the hurdles you bring up for surveyors to get together and create a set of standards, perhaps an easier step in the right direction would be working towards creating a more consistent standard for complaints to be reviewed?

I have listened to your presentation about the failings of the enforcement system, and it seems like it is something that we could work to effect specific change? I know we cannot dictate to the Board, and nor should we. However faith in the system is pretty low, so perhaps the Board might agree that it might be time to change something?

I have a feeling I am like the young mouse discussing "belling the cat" but these things are cyclical, so perhaps this is a point on the cycle where change can occur? (insert Wheel of Time reference about everything repeating with minor variations)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

Star chamber?
As is land surveyor all-star bogeyman?
Ridiculous…. Someone said that to you with a straight face?

The towers of fear and loathing that we create in our minds to resist change are remarkable.

I’m pretty sure all of the true LS all stars are working for the DOT now so they’re essentially irrelevant for our purposes

[DWoolley]

The valid arguments against standards being developed by the professional society are:

1. That they would probably be developed by a "star chamber" who would create standards few could practically adhere to...

and

2. That the same or similar star chamber would appoint themselves the profession's police and use those same standards to harass others.

This is exactly the concern I have heard from folks when this topic is discussed informally. Regardless of the validity of that fear, any effort to create a standard has to address this concern if we want widespread by in.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Who among us will spend any time trying to convince ("widespread buy in") a professional group that is to scared to save themselves? Not me. It is a preposterous suggestion. The tragedy of superstitious voodoo.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

I’m pretty sure all of the true LS all stars are working for the DOT now so they’re essentially irrelevant for our purposes

I see it differently. Caltrans has some really smart folks that are specifically tasked with writing technical standards. They have other smart folks that implement those technical standards. Those technical standards are adopted by other agencies and project specifications - this makes it relevant to every professional. Locally, I have always relied on the technical leadership of D7, D8, D11, D12 and HQ.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Who among us will spend any time trying to convince ("widespread buy in") a professional group that is to scared to save themselves? Not me. It is a preposterous suggestion. The tragedy of superstitious voodoo.

I will admit that I am a little confused. Knowing how much you have worked to help the profession, I am 50/50 that this is just sarcasm? On the chance that it is not sarcasm, you are saying its worthless to do anything because we can't do it perfect or because some percent of our fellow licensees will not get it? I am not sure I understand what you mean here?

In addressing the buy in issue, a set of standards promulgated by CLSA could be quite low, IE Do not show a deeded boundary on a work product without the following L200 label "This is a deed boundary that shouldn't be used for any construction or fixed works without a field survey first". Or some other very basic statement. Super easy to understand and quite a low bar.

Think of the standards not as the goal but as the low bar 85% of maps are already getting over. IE there is "buy in" already. It reinforces the idea that CLSA is here to help, not lecture and admonish. Then when someone's work is found to be in that lower 15% they are in a small group, and that group will prolly not eloquently defend their actions, and will just say "Its how I always have done it", or "Its what I did last time".

If the standards are aimed at the top 30% then it will be a group of "high achievers" chiding and admonishing the larger group to be better. The 40-70% will have strong and valid arguments about why the standard is silly or too high. The arguments used by the 50-70% will be parroted by the 0-15% and they will feel justified in not changing anything.

I personally would love to improve the work of the worst 15% of maps, and would consider that a great step. Progress not perfection?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
In addressing the buy in issue, a set of standards promulgated by CLSA could be quite low, IE Do not show a deeded boundary on a work product without the following L200 label "This is a deed boundary that shouldn't be used for any construction or fixed works without a field survey first". Or some other very basic statement. Super easy to understand and quite a low bar.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Before I address the other questions in the cited post, I have a few questions:

What purpose is served by showing a deeded boundary that is not properly established by land surveying methodology? What purpose is served by the note shown? What is the procedure used to place the "deed boundary" on a map? Why would a land surveyor place the deeded linework on work product?

Last question, why couldn't a technical layperson do what is described?

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

What purpose is served by showing a deeded boundary that is not properly established by land surveying methodology?

A site plan for a home remodel 100's of feet from the nearest boundary. A Lot Line Adjustment exchanging aliquot part descriptions between two large holdings. A discussion exhibit to a client explaining why their neighborhood's deeds are in conflict? A chain of title that needs some of the various portions and parts shown as a graphic for easier understanding.

What purpose is served by the note shown?

It makes it clear that there was no field work and is not a trigger for 8762. It is also a very low bar, that is still not always reached.

What is the procedure used to place the "deed boundary" on a map?

Whatever procedure the licensed person stamping the map thinks is good enough? Ideally they will cite the source of the linework, and explain why its not useful for some circumstances, like building a fence on the boundary.

Why would a land surveyor place the deeded linework on work product?

Because someone wants to pay them to do it, and they feel its worth doing. Capitalism :) Why do you show boundaries on a Record of Survey? For the exact same reasons, just to a different tolerance/accuracy/precision. Different job, different tool.

Do you stake brush clearing limits for a new road through the woods with hub and tack?
Do you use a backhoe for planting some veggie starts in your garden?
Do you use a chainsaw to cut your bread?
Do you use tweezers to pull nails?
Do you use calipers to measure a mile?
Do you use GPS to measure a millimeter?

Last question, why couldn't a technical layperson do what is described?

They do, and then its reviewed and approved by a person licensed to make sure it meets the tolerances and goals of the project, just like 90% of the work we do. Outside of 1-2 person operations, a large portion (perhaps the majority?) of the work represented in topo maps, site plans, legal descriptions, ALTA/NSPS maps, El Certs, staking reports, records of surveys, is done by a technician. Then (hopefully) reviewed and approved by someone with a license to exercise judgement and take responsibility for the work.


Mikey Mueller PLS9076
Sonoma County

[Warren Smith]

Amazing topic: over 22,000 views and 123 posts so far. Ya might think there is some substance to all this ...