California Surveyors Forums

Landon,

Let me know if you want to chat so we can proceed in a constructive manner. I am concerned about saying something offensive, heaven forbid. I am going to return to my Jane Austen novels.

This is a topic that deserves attention. Curious, have any chapter level PPC reps reached out to Mr. Blake? Interested in those discussion topics.

I have not been a PPC rep, but I have peeked into some state and local level PPC matters, and what I've learned is this:
1. These PPC state and local level folks are volunteers. Let that sink in;
2. At least on the state level, there are more complaints on the books than they can handle;
3. Because of above Item 2, they have to prioritize their time on the most egregious, and possibly repetitive, cases;
4. Because of the volume of insanely egregious cases, these folks are near overwhelmed at times.

Back to "common professional practice shortfalls" per the original post, I don't see how the PPCs really have time for common "shortfalls". So called "shortfalls" are like zits. I think the PPCs are dealing with a systemic disease that has consumed the body of the profession. And the Board offers and does little to nothing to aid in treatment.

Your common two point tango and deed staker types are just acne. They will fester and irritate neighborhoods and courts I suppose, and continue to pop up in places and at times you would rather them not be.

Do the state and chapter level PPCs communicate?
Can the PPCs survive?

I bring this up for a reason, please bear with me...

Herbert Hoover wrote the following:

On Engineering

“It is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.

The great liability of the engineer compared to men of other professions is that his works are out in the open where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his opponents and hope the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned…

On the other hand, unlike the doctor his is not a life among the weak. Unlike the soldier, destruction is not his purpose. Unlike the lawyer, quarrels are not his daily bread. To the engineer falls the job of clothing the bare bones of science with life, comfort, and hope. No doubt as years go by the people forget which engineer did it, even if they ever knew. Or some politician puts his name on it. Or they credit it to some promoter who used other people’s money . . . But the engineer himself looks back at the unending stream of goodness which flows from his successes with satisfactions that few professions may know. And the verdict of his fellow professionals is all the accolade he wants.”

What is the Land Surveyor's great liability?
What happened to the land surveyor's quasi-judicial role?

When does a boundary dispute have sufficient zeros following dollar signs to really we worth the effort of litigating?

LS8750, for the less percipient among us such as myself, what are some examples of these systemic issues that occupy the PPCs? And their connection to our great liability and quasi-judicial role?

Peter Ehlert, I see your point about it being inappropriate for CLSA to take a position. However, where does this leave us? I share David Kendall’s feeling that if the PPC can’t weigh in on complex matters, it’s value is lessened.

I submit our profession suffers by not having supplied ourselves with a recognized body of surveyors who have achieved education and training far beyond the average, akin to the doctorate level, who could conduct research, issue opinions, etc., and serve as the ‘academic level’ of the profession to guide us in all areas of practice. It isn’t that there aren’t many surveyors of such education, it is that even their opinions are so easily dismissed with a “that’s just an opinion” or “who knows how the judge would decide anyway” by those holding different views, well-supported or not. Is every surveyor an island, free to practice however they like, right, wrong or indifferent? In light of this void, isn’t the opining on matters of practice, technical, complex, or otherwise, within the scope of a PPC? Or if not, who should we turn to? Why do our members feature so prominently in the lists of shame on the Board website relative to the PE’s and G’s?

How would it protect the public?
the only reason we can justify our licencing and exclusive control over the practice is Protecting the Public.

Peter Ehlert wrote:How would it protect the public?
the only reason we can justify our licencing and exclusive control over the practice is Protecting the Public.

Common community adopted standards for handling specific situations and conflict resolution would go a long way towards making surveyors look less like kooks and more like professionals. Two kooks bickering over the same line with a different interpretation of the same evidence turns us all into clowns in the eyes of the public. An active PPC could help mitigate that damage. Let's start with trying to keep our clients out of court instead of creating patent conflicts with our maps.

And to be clear, a kook writing "professional" on their stamp doesn't necessarily make it so

Thanks for your reply and suggestions Mike! I will ping you offline about the land court. That is something I'd like to learn more about.

Landon

Good questions Mr. French.
A couple of examples from what I've seen re PPC matters:
1. Illegal subdivisions;
2. Illegal certificates of compliance;
3. Shady planning department staff;
4. Shady practices in the County Surveyor's office - accepting garbage work product by the profession and allowing that garbage to proliferate.

There is more.

Agree with Mr. Kendall.

The Surveyor's great liability is to squabble about stupid shit and make the profession like like a bunch of clowns. Uphold the evidence and be judge and jury. Period.

I located an article from the CAL SURVEYOR, from 1987, that provides some insight into how the JPPC evolved.

Enjoy.

Here is a list of the questions posted on the Friday June 19, 2020 CLSA PPC webinar (available here - https://youtu.be/sXiL_kA_4-8)

One of them was to start a forum post to continue the discussion. Please continue.....

Should we push for continuing education before deregulation?!?



Landon/David. Please reach out to some Chapters that have active PPC's. Several broad stroke statements have been made in this presentation. It's quite brazen to say that all PPC's need an overhaul. I wholeheartedly agree the State needs a published Standard of Care. What is the plan to develop such a document?



Do you forsee using 'land use attorneys' to give our PPC more teeth against an agency reading intent into the SMA (etc) who uses city/county attorneys to justify their opinions ...the example is (consecutive lot line adjustments)



There is a lot packed in your presentation Will you please set up a forum stream to let members vet this?



I know some PPC have confidentiality of complaints - is this a concern with regard to publishing referrals and findings?



Should PPC and Continuing Education be made a requirement to continued licensure?



In light of your idea that we should demonstrate professionalism as a way of teaching it, rather than refering someone to the PPC, isn it better to engage and discuss your reasoning with another surveyor who disagrees with you first?



Sorry, I came in late, so this may have already been answered. Do you anticipate these being appointed postions? Elected? Or other?



Do you like the idea of the County Surveyor being on a PPC when an issue is within the CS's jurisdiction? Unless, of course, the CS is the issue.



How does the State License Board determine the "Standard of Care?"



Question, i was encouraged as a LSIT to come in and observe and be part of a PPC not as a member but almost as an observer to understand the issues in hand. i think this is a great ideaand maybe should be part of licensure?



How many PPC's are there, and how busy are they?



How much freedom to act does the PPC have from the chapter? Must they get approval for their actions from the chapter? Or are they "advisory" committees only?



Is the PPC required to report all violations to the Board - if I recall correctly the board rules or LS act require licensees to report all violations they become aware of.



How would you personally or your firm comply with a "standard of care" developed by a CLSA statewide committee that was more rigorous (required better results or more effort) than your current personal standards?