California Surveyors Forums

Gary Schenk,

I looked up the complaint and license you referred to and I have attached the Board documentation. I did not see anything about moonlighting. Can you clarify? It looks like this individual did not or would not file a whole bunch of surveys and he gave his license up.

Are you saying he works/worked for a government agency?

See the attached.

mpallamary wrote:
Are you saying he works/worked for a government agency?

Yes.

Thank you for clarifying. That is consistent with my hypothesis.

Still working for one?

If I am reading the complaint and resolution correctly, Mr. Gilbert was apparently moonlighting while being employed by a government agency. He performed a lot of surveys and processing of documents and he was referred to the JPPC multiple times for poor work and not filing his surveys.

The complaint was filed against his license while he was running a side business, as a moonlighter, and not as a government employee.

The Board finally went after him in his capacity running a side business (moonlighting) and as opposed to the complaint being pursued to prosecution, Mr. Gilbert gave up his license and the surveys were never filed or completed.

Meanwhile he still works for a government agency, he draws a regular paycheck and has all of his benefits. With regards to any investigations or complaints with regards to his government job, nothing happened. It is because he was running a side business that he got in trouble. He did not get in trouble due to anything he did in his government job. Is that correct? And he still has a full time job?

whether the fella was moonlighting or not, it looks like a sad state of affairs.

I agree Bruce. The point I am trying to make (or others are making for me) is that in all probability because this fellow had a regular full time job, he did not have the time to work the side job, assuming that is what this was about. It does not look pretty.

If he was working full time as a business owner, i would like to think he could have taken care of business. Any clarifications would be of value.

mpallamary wrote: Meanwhile he still works for a government agency, he draws a regular paycheck and has all of his benefits.

No, he does not.

I did some more research and I found out he was working for the State of California when he was doing this work. So my hypothesis was correct and my conclusions valid. This fellow worked for the same state agency as did the gentleman I had problems with wherein he was moonlighting and got in trouble and we went into contentious litigation.

Both of these guys were moonlighting. That is my point and that is the problem.

Thanks again.

I misunderstood when you wrote:

I have pretty much given up filing complaints against government employees as the Board does not pursue them. They are essentially protected from the licensing laws.

, as this gentleman was a government employee who was not protected by the board.

As Jim Frame states, generally speaking, the moonlighting folks - doing the work themselves over a weekend - do not have much impact on the fulltime private industry. However, there are engineering firms that provide land surveying services that avoid having to hire a fulltime professional land surveyor by getting an agency person named on their Organizational Record. I have seen these engineering firms field 1 - 3 fulltime crews, working Monday through Friday, under the "responsible charge" of a licensee that is working 40 hours a week at an agency. In fact, in two instances, the same licensee was on another engineering company's Organizational Record during the same period of time. Simply stated, the licensee was supervising 3-5 crews working for two separate firms while he was working fulltime at an agency. This is not a one off situation. I have knowledge of four such separate engineering companies doing the same thing. I also know of two more companies that have a retiree in "responsible charge". Similar to the firms that hire the moonlighters, these firms do not want to pay for a full professional land surveyor. I suspect we'll be seeing more of this in the future, not less. [For the curious, yes, I spoke to the licensee about serving on 2 Organizational Records. He didn't see a problem with it. He said that he established procedures for the crews to follow. He further stated that he reviewed their work on the weekends].

Retirees or moonlighters, it is licensees supplementing their income by "loaning" their license to firms trying to save money by not hiring a fulltime licensee and in turn, offering land surveying services for substantially less cost to the business. As long as the licensee states he is in responsible charge there is little the board staff can do with a complaint.

In 2011 I wrote proposed language to end these practices. The premise was not to interfere with the person that ran a business, as sole proprietor, on the weekend and yet, prohibited him being on the Organizational Record for any firm while employed fulltime for another firm/agency. It died somewhere in the process, I do not recall precisely. I borrowed from the NCEES Model Law §160.2, Kentucky law and Illinois (?) law. The research and proposed legislative language are attached.

I will resubmit the language to the CLSA Legislative Committee to see if there is any interest.

DWoolley

Michael,

It's ironic that the model law seeks to prevent the use of a part-timer, or consultant as the designated responsible party for multiple private firms (and that is fine), but what is happening for small municipalities throughout the state who are designating a responsible land surveyor pursuant to PLSA 8725.1 is that the same consultant is being named for multiple municipalities. That's the way it works.

Good point,

As I have mentioned several times, I see a lot of this because of the nature of my practice. The saddest part is we are doing this to ourselves.......

Those are some pretty egregious cases but a far cry from the guy who takes an occasional lot survey on the weekend. The few who I know to have done this were also working a 4x10 schedule so had a day during which they could do the research.

I see no difference between saving part of one's income to afford & purchase an adequate set of equipment whether the income is from a private sector employer or a public sector employer. Either way, it's $ saved from income earned. If the point is that public sector employees do not have the right to spend their discretionary income in the same manner as private sector employees, I'd really like to see the authoritative support for that, or the rationale that supports the idea that a public sector employee should not be allowed to buy a total station.

In recent years, most public sector employees that I know of have been limited to 40 hour workweeks, with any additional hours being few and far between. In the private sector, if you get a rush of work, you work OT to meet the deadlines you've agreed to. In most public sector positions these days, you get done what you can in 40 hours, and if work piles up, you get to it when you can and someone at a higher pay grade adjusts deadlines or gets them adjusted based upon what their staff is able to accomplish in a 40 hour workweek.

So if you are of the opinion that working an extra 8, 10 , or 12 hours over the weekend is going to wear the employee out to the point of not being able to perform at one's primary employment, may I also assume that you never work any overtime and never allow any of your employees to work overtime? Should I also assume that since that 40 hours is so tiresome, that you sit on your duff all weekend, every weekend in order to save up all your energy for your job, and that you also would disapprove of any strenuous or even mildly strenuous activities that your employees might wish to engage in during their time on the weekends?

The inherent double standard doesn't hold any credibility with me.

I "moonlighted" with the knowledge and permission of my employer when I was hired by the State. That went on for several months as I wrapped up commitments made while in practice. Those commitments are long since taken care of, but I now engage in educational activities, participation in CLSA committees and other commitments which all together have me quite a bit busier than the side work I once had going on. Since my primary income is derived from tax dollars, does that preclude me from being involved in my profession outside of work hours?

Tell ya what. If anyone who begrudges me my income because of its source or objects to my participation in work or other profession-related activities outside of work hours commits to never again working a minute over 40 hours per week, commits to never trying to gain a client who may have a working history with a local competitor, commit to using evenings and weekends for nothing other than rest & relaxation, and commit to limiting your income to that of a public sector licensee with a commensurate level of experience, knowledge and responsibility by doing nothing but pro bono work once that income has been reached in a given year, then your opinions that public sectors all work and live by these constraints may have a hint of credibility.

On the other hand, if your free time is yours do spend as you see fit, as is your income; if you have no ethical qualms about trying to gain clients who have previously hired other firms and had no complaints about the experience; if you feel that you should be permitted to earn the level of income that you are willing to work for, then accept that you cannot expect to voice opinions that limit public sector employees in any such manner with the slightest bit of intellectual integrity.


The cases presented by a few here seem pretty clear that each of the licensees in each of those cases deserved some level of discipline, up to losing their licenses. Trying to paint all public sector licensees who might ever perform a lot survey on the side as being equally irresponsible and/or unethical is insulting, misleading, and in itself unethical because of the misleading nature of such comments.

There certainly are some who cut corners, use public resources for private gain, or work dirt cheap because pocketing a couple hundred bucks is more important to them than maintaining the dignity of the profession or even being thorough in the performance of their surveys.

But there are also several who will not take a job that they cannot properly perform in the limited time available for them to do so, who have saved and bought all of their own equipment and so never use public time or resources to work on private work, who are diligent in every step of the process and care very much about meeting or exceeding the expected standard of care. There are those who are concerned about the circumstances of their full-time private sector colleagues and who give back as much as they can to the profession for its betterment.

Be careful with that broad brush that you don't paint yourself in an uncomplimentary color.

Dave,

I think that your proposals have merit. I look forward to discussing them at Leg Comm.

The first trial I testified in was when I was 19 years old. In that case the court compelled my testimony because I was the instrument operator. Our client's neighbor had his property surveyed by a staff member from the city engineer's office who was doing side work. Every lot on the underlying map was 50 feet wide except my client's. It was the end lot and it was 55 feet wide. The moonlighter set the lot at what he thought was a record distance, using 50 feet.

He lost. That was 43 years ago.

Debates welcomed.

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.c ... nlighting/

Is your point that full-time practitioners don't make those kinds of bonehead mistakes or display that level of incompetence?

No, not at all. Not in the least. We all make 'em. Just relating my first experience with the legal system.

Life is good.

From the above:

In the wake of those revelations, Will County Executive Charles Adelman plans to issue a new edict soon to control double-dipping, moonlighting and the part-time payrollers who have been a fixture in Will County government.

The controversy in the county's Land Use Department is the latest but far from the most flagrant example of Will County workers mixing their public responsibilities with private business interests.

The county's most notorious case of moonlighting involved former prosecutor Charles Bretz, whose outside law practice led to the release of two convicted killers.

Pascual Bibian and Sergio Valadez, imprisoned for killing a prostitute, were granted a new trial and eventually set free following disclosures that one of Bretz's private clients was the brother of Judge Patricia Schneider, in whose courtroom the two men were found guilty in 1993.

The controversy prompted State's Atty. James Glasgow to virtually ban private practices by his assistant state's attorneys.

But there have been other conflicts.

At one time, a township assessor sat on the county Board of Review, which hears taxpayer protests over assessments, and a Realtor chaired the County Board panel that hears zoning cases.

Adelman says his measure is intended to reveal potential conflicts and end them. "That sort of thing will no longer be tolerated" he says.

Adelman's rule, contained in an executive order to the 620 employees under his control, bars workers from holding outside jobs that might in any way influence their decisions as government workers.

"We want to prevent some of the abuses that have gone on in the past," he says. "We can't prevent (workers) from having a job that's different, but they can't be a (county) surveyor or engineer and do the same thing on the side.

- See more at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995 ... mLkY6.dpuf

The freedom and liberty of the employee is not the paramount consideration in private sector employment., why should it be the paramount consideration in public sector employment.? .