California Surveyors Forums

Thanks Ric. I appreciate your comments. The poll is pretty informative and interesting. :)

Time to tread into some hot water….

First off, I have not voted in the poll, because the ‘No’ description is not why I would vote no. From a professional practices standpoint, public sector surveyors should be operating under the same rules and practices as the private sector. But, the playing field is not the same, and that would be my reason for voting no. The poll as I see it is flawed, because the ‘no’ reason obviously doesn’t fly.

Ask yourself this question –for quite some time now, public agencies have had to stamp the name of their agency on the monument in question, and not the LS number of an individual. Why is this not the same for private firms – why is the company name not stamped on the monument? I would submit that state law was not drafted the way it now stands so that individuals could hide behind their agency name. I understand that this is in fact happening in some jurisdictions, and this is wrong. But is this not a professional practice issue that should then be brought before BPELSG? If there are licensed individuals overseeing a program that is violating the law, this can still be addressed. Who is in responsible charge at said agency? Why is a complaint not being brought to the board about said licensee?

I believe the reason the law is written the way it is lies with the fact that typically a public sector employee is not financially liable for the work they do – there are protections afforded them by state law from being sued over issues relating to their work, if it was performed in good faith. It is the public agency that can typically be sued over such things. As such, stamping a monument with a license number blurs the lines between this public and private role. This is core reason I have a problem with this proposed change in stamping of public sector monuments.

This is not to say that I as a public sector licensee I am not professionally responsible for the work I do. If anything, I am on Mr. Pallamary’s side on this part, with respect to the fact that our control , street centerline and monument preservation work are often held to a higher than normal standard, as they are the backbone of much of the land survey work that is performed throughout our jurisdiction. With respect to professional practice, I can be sanctioned by the Board and lose my license just as any other professional in this state can.

Another area of difference with the public and private sectors is with the longevity of the office or agency in question. Our County Surveyor’s office has been in existence since the 1850’s. I am the 37th in a long line of County Surveyors. When we come across a problem with a survey from our office that needs to be fixed, that happened 30 years ago under a different licensee, do we just ignore it because it was not under our supervision? No, generally we endeavor to fix the problem. When I became the County Surveyor last year, I potentially inherited a lot of skeletons in the closet that have not come to light yet. These are things I will have to deal with, in my DIFFERENT role as a public sector employee in this profession.

I understand Mr. Pallamary’s frustrations with not being able to track down the origin of a monument – this is indeed a problem. However, simply tagging the monument with an LS number will not necessarily fix the issues of filing and properly indexing the required documents needed to track down said monuments. Again, these are professional practice issues that can be brought before the board now, without a change in state law. Why is this not being done? Instead, we are pushing for a level playing field, when in fact that will never truly be the case.

Good job, Tom, in discerning between professional practice issues and perpetuation of records relating to monuments. The inclusion of a public agency registrant's number to a monument, without the proper filing of documentation would not fix the problem of rogue controlling points. Long after retirement of the employee, the issue remains - if not indexed and retrievable.
The corner record, or record of survey, bears the seal and signature of the responsible party. As you point out, the local agency continues after the tenure of the surveyor in responsible charge. If party chiefs are setting County tags, and not filing records, that is a problem involving professional practice oversight.

Tom and Warren, Thank you. All I am interested in is a dialogue. This is an important topic.

In San Diego, there are thousands and thousands of "City Engineer" monuments. Several years ago I located one and returned a few years later and missed it by half a foot. This was in La Jolla where the homes start at two million dollars each. One monument can control fifty million dollars worth of real estate. It turns out a city employee had erroneously tied the monument out for a sidewalk replacement and put it in the wrong location when he reset it and of course, never filed anything. It took me six months before I could figure out what was done and who did it and when I did, the employee was petrified because they were being held responsible for their actions. In the end, I compelled him to file a record of survey as otherwise, I would have had to do that and I convinced him he had to set the record straight. Indeed, no one at the city would take any responsibility for anything at anytime and it was nothing but a string of finger pointing. Who me? They added: Even if it was me, I have government immunity; I can't be held responsible for anything I do. I work for the government.

I spent a thousand dollars and a very long time to get that one single monument fixed. If that was a private sector surveyor, they would have been identified and called immediately and it would have been taken care of overnight. Why? Because a private licensee was directly responsible for the monument and his license number was there for the world to see. One license number, one person. At the city, a monument stamped "city engineer" can have 200 possible choices. Oh, there is an error. Who is going to raise their hand? There is a very clear and very disturbing class distinction in our profession. The law does not say the rules are different when you work for a government agency.

Gentlemen, thanks for the comments. I am appreciative and hold you both in high regard.

Boy, Mike. The San Diego area sounds horribly run. Your stories about dealing with them are not good.

I do not have too much issues with the stamping up here, but recently in Redwood City I tied into City Engineers monuments along this one road and you could hear crickets chirping when I called to inquire about their origin, so I guess at least in this example you could actually retrace the origin, which is good.

Mike,

Your San Diego experience reminds me of a situation in the '80s when I was in private practice in Ventura County. I was retracing a township line up from a Rancho boundary, searching for a called for 1" iron pipe at a section corner. I encountered a shiny brass cap marked for the corner and marked "VENCO".
Looking through the County's field books, I found a retracement survey (unfiled) which straightened up the township line, setting brass caps along the way. The 1" IP was in place, some 15 feet westerly (on line with found N 1/4 section mon through the brass cap).
It took adjudication to quiet title to the adjoining strip, which provided required acreage for development of my client's property. My record of survey included all this into the narrative.
I don't think having the County Surveyor's LS number on the brass cap would have helped or hindered my work effort in this case - and the employees in question were retired at that point.
The key seems to be the level of documentation when monuments are set.

There is a bright light at the city of San Diego and I will be writing about that in The American Surveyor magazine. Greg Hopkins is now in charge and he is nothing short of brilliant and he is an exceptional manager. He is now in charge of things and he and his efforts have the potential to set a standard that everyone should aspire to. He has great instincts and is doing the right thing! I cannot begin to tell you folks how much time, money, and energy my clients have expended in dealing with the city. I am now involved in another massive lawsuit with the city where, once again a non-licensed individual offered an opinion on a subdivision map. He is not licensed and he is essentially clueless. It is very sad and costly.

BTW, Here is the official position historically promulgated by the City of San Diego. This is from the former chief of Field Surveys, Ron Dodds. I am hopeful this policy will be changed. I was trying to follow up on a City Engineer disc set by a fine gentleman named Les. He signed the Corner Record but the disc was stamped "City Engineer," who, according to the signed and stamped Corner Record was in "responsible charge."

Does this make sense to anyone or is it me?

"Mike: I believe the City’s position is stated in 3 C & D of the Board Rules attached below under “successor licensee”. The fact that Les is not working for the City and no longer in the “Deputy” designation. The assigned successor takes over signing and stamping as part of their duties. We set “San Diego City Engr.” disks not Les’ disk or mine so the responsibility requirement don’t [sic] apply for Government as they would for any practicing Surveyor. The City financially protects and legally represents those of us who perform our work duties for the City."

mpallamary wrote: I am now involved in another massive lawsuit with the city where, once again a non-licensed individual offered an opinion on a subdivision map. He is not licensed and he is essentially clueless. It is very sad and costly.

WTH!?!?

David, Imagine how something like this works when you start asking questions? I have done what I can including taking a position on the recent bill that was rejected. Time permitting, I would like to cover this in a more comprehensive article in The American Surveyor Magazine.