Inequity in the Land Surveyor's Act

[PaulEhe]

MP, again I would like to thank you for your hard work doing what is best for our profession. @KevinW, I would believe what you have gone through with the Board and I would like to know if they ever gave you a chance to have a Peer to Peer meeting before they steam rolled you with the Attorneys Generals office? @ Dave W, I don't think you know my circumstances & you are failing to put yourself in the footsteps of a fellow Surveyor. There was no "failure to file" surveys in my accusation. In my situation, re-submittals of surveys were tardy, but all surveys ultimately recorded. When a survey is submitted and fees paid, its becomes public record at the County Surveyors office, it gets an index number, and is available to all even when not recorded. Many of my clients abandoned projects during subject time period. They had enough info to make decisions, had no complaints about my work and were fully aware of survey submittal status & the economy. All commitments were honored and there were no victims, only an accusation by State Board. A "failure to file" is simply not true. After over 32 years as a private business owner, I am anything but dishonest. FYI, the DAG could never name victims or damages in two years of legal action. MP and others have identified inequity in our profession, so lets communicate, and do something about it to make our profession be the best it can be. Happy 50th Anniversary CLSA, lets celebrate, and always remember our members.

Paul "Chris" Ehe
Owner, Environmental Hightech Engineering (founded 1983)

[E_Page]

Dave Woolley,

Government Code §1001 lists the primary officers of State Government.

§1190 addresses subordinate officers and defines it very broadly, allowing the interpretation to include virtually anyone who is appointed or employed by any of the primary officers to perform any of the duties assigned to that primary officer.

There is another section, I neglected to write the section # down, but it has to do with responsibility for criminal acts, and I believe that it's either in the GC or perhaps in the CCP, that more specifically defines a public officer as any public employee who exercises independent judgment in the performance of their duties.

[mpallamary]

Thanks Evan, Here is a recent AG opinion that warrants some consideration. I'd be curious on your take on it, attached hereto.

[E_Page]

I've seen this AGO before but haven't read through it all. Doesn't it focus only on the antitrust matters identified in the case against the NC Dental Board? Or, are there other matters discussed that pertain more closely to some of the issues and concerns brought up in this discussion?


On a note closer to the topic of this discussion, the CLSA Board of Directors will be hearing a presentation at the next BoD meeting related to many of the concerns and observations brought up here. I hope that they decide to take a close look and then address any issues that they find enough supporting data to verify.

If anyone has data/documented facts that clearly show what they feel is improper enforcement, I suggest that you compile it into an easy to follow format and be prepared to provide it to CLSA for examination. I suggest that for liability/confidentiality purposes, that the names and identifying information of the parties at contention in any particular case be redacted and replaced with identifiers such as "Surveyor A", "Surveyor B", "Client A", Adjoiner/Neighbor B", and so forth. This not only protects the parties involved in the action, but decreases the chance of any biases in the review of the info.

Be aware that CLSA is not interested in and will not entertain or lead a witch hunt. The goal is not and should not be to make heads roll, but to seek checks, safeguards, and improvements in the enforcement program. I have confidence that fair-minded professionals can be found within CLSA to review the data provided and make sound judgments based on what's provided. Also be aware that the process will not be as swift as some would like.

If CLSA decides to look into concerns about the enforcement process, I expect that they will be thorough. Those on the committee or committees that would be tasked with such review are all volunteers who are busy with their own jobs and personal lives and would be making time to do this on top of their current professional and personal commitments, and doing it for free. Thus, the better organized any submissions of data are, the easier it will be to review and the quicker a thorough review can occur. If the CLSA eventually decides to take some action to seek correction or improvement to the Enforcement System, I expect that action to come after several months of investigating to sort out the real issues with good supporting data from the complaints without sufficient supporting factual data. The time frame would likely be not much different than the historic average timeframe for a complaint to work through the BPELSG Enforcement System.

It is my opinion that any parallel efforts by individuals have more potential to undermine the issue before CLSA has an opportunity to thoroughly address it if those efforts are supported mostly by anecdotal data rather than well-documented and well-organized sets of facts, if those efforts appear to be personal attacks against any particular person or persons, or if the efforts are based solely or mostly on an action that occurred or is in process against your own license. Those will be seen as complaints based on personality conflict or on sour grapes, and that has the potential to establish preconceived impressions in the minds of those parties receiving such complaints should the CLSA later decide that taking any verified concerns to those same parties is an appropriate course of action.

I ask all to not let yourselves get worked into a frenzy and all individually charge toward your legislators with vague accusations of mismanagement or wrongdoing with only poorly organized supporting info to go with it. Legislative staff does not have the expertise to sort out real issues from imagined ones given the technical data of a survey project. There is such expertise within CLSA. The CLSA, after giving the various concerns and supporting data from several members thorough consideration, will have far more credibility as the primary professional society representing surveyors in the State than will one, or several individual surveyors.

It is my belief that any well-written and well documented efforts that coattail on the CLSA action, assuming some action will be taken at some future point, can be effective in adding to that effort. But again, poorly written and poorly supported complaints attempting to coattail have more potential to undermine any efforts CLSA may take.

In hearing stories of wrongful enforcement actions, and having been directly involved as an expert for BPELSG in some and for the respondent in a couple, I find that these complaints (by cited licensees) range from my having no basis in reality to having pretty clear indication that something went awry in the process.

For those of you who have seen what you believe is improper enforcement, recall back to before your first interactions with the process and recognize that most of our colleagues have very limited experience, or no experience at all with the process or anything else at BPELSG beyond paying their licensing fee every other year. Until you've seen it for yourself, it is difficult to near impossible to believe that there are more than very rare cases that might be mishandled.

I don't know if the CLSA Board of Directors will decide to assign the task of beginning to look into the validity of these issues at the upcoming BoD meeting or if they will defer that decision until the next meeting. I do feel that anyone who believes that they have a legitimate grievance regarding the BPELSG enforcement program can influence the Board of Director's recognition that concerns are significant and pervasive enough that the time is right for CLSA to look into the Enforcement Program. The way to do that is to contact the Directors of your chapter and let them know in a professional manner (and in writing) that you have documented factual data that you believe demonstrates some specific mishandling or inappropriate action on one or more enforcement matters. Emotional or heated goading will more likely be detrimental than helpful. If several directors from several chapters each have word of one or more concerns, then the potential significance and pervasiveness of at least the perception of problems becomes obvious and the need to begin addressing those concerns, compelling.

[mpallamary]

Excellent! Excellent!

[DWoolley]

Evan,

I read the sections of Government Code you have referenced. I do not see that a licensee, exercising independent judgment, is a public officer or a deputy of unless they are subordinate to a public officer.

Again, the Government Code clearly states the County Surveyor is a public officer. The sections you have referenced would make the County Surveyor's subordinates deputies to the public officer status. I don't think a licensee working for an agency is a public officer or deputy public officer under the citation you have provided. The code is quite specific in listing the public officers. It wouldn't make sense to be specific in naming public officers and then, offer a broad based catch all language making licensees public officers. Am I wrong?

DWoolley

Mr. Ehe, I will address your response to my post soon.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

It's hard, no nearly impossible, to justify 41 unfinished Records of Survey and 103 unfinished Corner Records.

The multiple check print returns indicate an issue too. I think I've only received two check prints on 1 or 2% of the R/Ss filed. Whether the problem is the LS or CS, though, is unknown to me.

[Administrator]

Hello everyone,

Reminder: we encourage lively discussion and debate but remember that disagreeing with an idea is different from attacking an individual. In that spirit, do not post messages that contain personal attacks against other individuals, including CLSA members, officers, or staff. Messages and materials that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, offensive, or illegal are strictly prohibited. Do not post anything on the CLSA Discussion Board that you would not want made public or that you would not want anyone to know came from you.

Thank you,

Jeff Burgess
Administrator

[E_Page]

"I don't think a licensee working for an agency is a public officer or deputy public officer under the citation you have provided. The code is quite specific in listing the public officers. It wouldn't make sense to be specific in naming public officers and then, offer a broad based catch all language making licensees public officers. Am I wrong?"

I think your wrong. Several sections of the GC use the term "public officer" in an obviously much broader meaning than the listing of the officers that includes the CS (that list is specific only to county officers). There are sections listing the primary State officers, the City officers, and even the officers of quasi-public divisions.

Here is the section listing State Government Officers:

1001. The civil executive officers are: a Governor; a private secretary and an executive secretary for the Governor; a Lieutenant Governor; a Secretary of State; a Deputy Secretary of State; a Keeper of Archives of State for Secretary of State; a bookkeeper for the Secretary of State; three recording clerks for the Secretary of State; a Controller; a Deputy Controller; a bookkeeper for the Controller; five clerks for the Controller; a Treasurer; a Deputy Treasurer; a bookkeeper for the Treasurer; a clerk for six months in each year for the Treasurer; an Attorney General and all assistant and deputy attorneys general; a Superintendent of Public Instruction; one clerk for the Superintendent of Public Instruction; an Insurance Commissioner; a deputy for the Insurance Commissioner; four port wardens for the Port of San Francisco; a port warden for each port of entry except San Francisco; five State Harbor Commissioners for San Francisco Harbor; six pilots for each harbor where there is no board of pilot commissioners; three members of the Board of Pilot Commissioners for Humboldt Bay and Bar; 13 members of the State Board of Agriculture; four members of the State Board of Equalization; a clerk of the Board of Equalization; three members of the State Board of Education; a librarian for the Supreme Court Library and the chief deputy clerk and the deputy clerks of the Supreme Court; five directors for the state hospital at Napa; the manager, assistant manager, chief counsel and division chiefs, State Compensation Insurance Fund; the head of each department and all chiefs of divisions, deputies and secretaries of a department; such other officers as fill offices created by or under the authority of charters or laws for the government of counties and cities or of the health, school, election, road, or revenue laws.

That last part makes the EO or director of each agency an officer (i.e. the Executive Officer of State Lands is a public officer per GC 1001)



Here are the sections addressing Deputies and Subordinate Officers:

1190. All assistants, deputies, and other subordinate officers, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for, shall be appointed by the officer or body to whom they are respectively subordinate.

1190 conveys clearly that officers are not limited to those specifically authorized under §1001, as it gives each of those officers the authority to appoint additional officers subordinate to them. It is also clearly not limited to Deputies, although in making the distinction, it implies that there may be a difference in the range of authority between Deputies and other subordinates.


1191. When not otherwise provided for, the appointment of deputies and other subordinate officers shall be made in writing and filed in the office of the appointing power or the office of its clerk.

This appointment apparently is filed as stated because the professional level series of surveyors and engineers in State service must file the same financial disclosures, complete the same ethics training, and comply with the same "compatible activities" rules (designed to avoid conflicts between duties as a public officer and other activities) as the officers specifically identified in §1001. Employees who do not exercise that level of discretion in their positions are not subject to these filings and rules.


1192. When not otherwise provided for, within 10 days after receiving notice of their appointment, deputies and other subordinate officers shall take and file an oath in the manner required of their principals.

1193. When the number of deputies or other subordinate officers is not fixed by law, it is limited only by the discretion of the appointing power.

And here's the kicker. "When... not fixed by law" clearly means that unless there is an express number or limit of deputies or subordinate officers, that there can be as many as the primary officer deems necessary and can secure funding for. In just the Boundary Unit of State Lands, we currently have 4 "public officers" by virtue of being positions requiring a LS license and the exercise of independent judgment in the performance of our duties, and most importantly, by virtue of being designated and appointed as a public officer by the head of the agency.


1194. When not otherwise provided for, each deputy possesses the powers and may perform the duties attached by law to the office of his principal.

And here's the section defining the difference in the range of authority between Deputies and other subordinate officers. The Deputy may exercise all powers and duties of the principal officer designated pursuant to §1001.

[desert turtoise]

This thread has developed into two separate themes; and this poster admits having been been guilty more than once in the past of creating tangential conversations. That being said; Evan's suggestions are commendable. This is a very sensitive subject that involves reputations, respect or perceived respect among peers, to name just a few concerns people have, not to mention defensive posturing on the part of our "public servants".

As to providing local directors with documentation for incompetence, abuse, or less than adequate performance by borpelsg, how many "victims" are willing to make public what they have been put through ? Some citations are dismissed with the status of the licensee remaining CLEAR on the borpelsg website through the entire process. This happened to me. How many people (I do not) would want to submit documentation of such a humiliating and disappointing experience at the hands of the borpelsg staff, (all the way up the ladder to the top) to local chapter directors which then becomes public knowledge locally? I know from first hand experience that human nature is what it is, confidentiality is a figment of our imaginations. Try going to a local PPC meeting for a confidential peer review and don't be surprised that many more in your county know of your situation. Not everyone is willing to take a professional walk in the nude.

[mpallamary]

I agree that this topic has spun in several different directions. Let us return to the origin of this post as I am the one who initiated it.

To everyone who is following it, please review the copy of the PLSA that I have highlighted and have attached hereto. We need a little homework. Therein I have called attention to the large number of business related provisions. Because there are so many of them, they create extraordinary exposure for the public sector surveyor; those in business. What is frustrating is many of us have been in business for a long time and we have a formal education in business and when a disgruntled client files a business complaint, we are investigated by "technical experts" with no training in business and, they tend to sympathize with the client. None of these people have any training or education in business, none have any MBAs and yet they have the power to ruin a business. Indeed they do not understand business. Put another way, how many Land Surveyors have entered into, negotiated, interpreted and litigated a contract? I have been doing this for 35 years and I have had thousands of contracts during this period. I understand contract law for in addition to preparing and entering in them, I have gone to college to fully understand them.

Under what basis and theory should a "technical expert," one who never even read a contract, be permitted to opine on interpretation and performance? If this is such an important facet of the licensing laws, why is no training being offered in this fundamental component of the PLSA particularly given the fact that the Board spends so much time pursuing business complaints against practitioners often resulting in financial ruin for the surveyor?

Over the years I have repeatedly ask the Board if there is a correlation between complaints and certain facets of business practice and, if so, wouldn't it make sense to assess this situation for the benefit of the public and the practitioner and in doing so so it doesn't happen again. Indeed would it not be more productive if the Board and CLSA could focus on educating business surveyors about these pitfalls instead of how a drone works?

Please read the attached and consider reengaging. My objective was not to exacerbate a schism of public vs. private. My goal is to get people to look at the PLSA.

[E_Page]

Tortoise,

I understand not wanting to risk the embarrassment. That's one of the primary reasons why you would redact the identifying info. It's unfortunate that your local PPC is unable to keep things confidential. That didn't seem to be a problem when I was involved in our local PPC, and I haven't heard of any breaches of confidentiality since dropping off that committee 3 or 4 years ago, so I don't think it has been a problem since.

That being said, I would recommend redacting identifying info and for purposes of keeping the players straight, replacing real names with generic labels like I described in my earlier post. What the Directors should need to know as CLSA decides whether there is even enough of an issue to take any action is that you either experienced or witnessed poor handling of one or more enforcement cases in which the licensee was improperly pursued for acts which were not violations or in which the complainant/public was denied justice because a licensee who had clearly committed violations which resulted in harm to a member of the public, another licensee, or has significant potential to cause such harm had their case dismissed with no or very little interest from BPELSG.

The info provided to show details of the case would be for the review of whichever committee is tasked with looking into the existence of such issues, not for the Director or any other members of the BoD or general membership. Assuming that the BoD authorizes a standing committee or a new ad hoc committee to look into the matter, I would presume that you would be able to get the info directly to them in a sealed envelope either by sending it to the Central Office or there may be some other means set up to get sealed packages to the chairman of that committee.

There has been grumbling to the effect of "Why isn't CLSA doing anything?" I've spoken with several individuals who have told me that they've been abused (for lack of a better term) through the enforcement system or are very aware of cases where others have been. I've seen directly, heard from others whose stories sound very much like what I've been witness to, and have heard comments directly from BPELSG staff that I am thoroughly convinced that there is a lot of room for improvement in the system in terms of transparency of issues and what is deemed to fall within or outside of the "standard of practice" by BPELSG (while still maintaining confidentiality of innocent parties - it can and should be done); in terms of assuring an expert level of competence in their "experts"; in terms of being held accountable to providing the required clarity and specificity in their allegations, in their citations and rulings, and in their dismissals of previously issued citations; and being held accountable at each step of the process to provide and ensure that due process is provided.

If the majority of the BoD gets the impression when the presentation is made at the February BoD meeting, that I and one or two others are the only ones who perceive any issues, then what reason would they have to think that it is something pervasive and significant enough to devote CLSA resources into looking into the existence of issues and thereby risk a long-standing good working relationship with BPELSG?

Again, I understand the aversion to risking embarrassment. But if everyone who has experienced what you've experienced feels the same way, then all the evidence gets buried by the victims, no one in a position to do something about it sees evidence of a widespread problem and so feels no need to pursue the matter, and those who have gone through it end up denying themselves the justice they so much want.

If this issue is going to be addressed, it's far better that the professional association do it. The association will get the attention of those in government who can take direct action. One, of a few individuals are not likely to be effective at that level. Oh sure, if their really persistent, they may stir up a little trouble that amounts to an annoyance for the agency needing to alter what they are doing, but no real change will come of it.

If you're not willing to provide details to a committee that CLSA authorizes to look into the problem, then you also lose any ability to ever again ask with any credibility "Why hasn't CLSA done anything about this?". How useful the organization is to the profession depends first and foremost on whether the professional members contribute when they are in a unique position to be especially helpful toward a particular matter. If too many wait and expect someone else to step up and take care of matters, then they shouldn't be surprised or upset when the matter they see as important doesn't get addressed.

I don't have the time or the energy to lead an effort to work toward change. And quite frankly, I no longer have the degree of objectivity that will be needed for CLSA to give this a thorough look. I will however be the one to begin bringing matters of concern to the attention of the BoD, and I will provide detailed sets of information on the few cases that I have extensive knowledge of (with the permission of the licensees at the receiving end, and redacting the identifying info of the various parties). I will help in the effort by offering any explanations and clarifications if the data creates any confusion. And if the CLSA gets to the point where they think it is appropriate to propose administrative or legislative changes to address problem areas that they identify, I will help to formulate and advance those proposals.

I hope that you decide that fixing the problem is more important than the remote possibility that you might be personally embarrassed, and decide to help. I know that this is an important issue for you. Quite frankly, I believe that there will be members of the CLSA Board with far less at stake than you who will be nevertheless afraid to take even the slightest step that might be seen as unfriendly to BPELSG. It will not be a comfortable process for anyone and it will take courage for those involved in reviewing the provided data, those formulating and presenting proposals for additional investigation or for actions to attempt to affect change from CLSA, and not least of all, those who were the subject licensees in the cases that provide that absolutely critical data that needs to be seen to positively identify the extent of any problems. Without that data, there's no proof of issues.

I hope that you are one of those in CLSA that exhibits the courage that will be needed. Some of our Directors will need to see that courage in order to find their own.

[E_Page]

Mike,

I know that you and I agree on many of the problematic areas within the PLSA. Much of the problem is in how they are interpreted and applied at BPELSG, but some are explicit in the statutes. I, and for the record other public sector surveyors who have responded to this thread agree with you and have expressed that agreement as to the provisions exempting us from having our license # on the caps set by us or under our direction, and any other areas that allow agencies to not have particular licensees identified as being in responsible charge for specific surveys.

If it is not your aim to create a schism, you really have a backwards way of trying to avoid that. You should want allies in both private and public sectors on those matters, which means that you should stop using a broad brush to create a monster to slay and alienating several surveyors who agree with you on those points. If your more interested in creating the beast and building it up so that you can then lead the charge to defeat it, good luck with that. What you will accomplish is that the public sector licensees who agree will sit on the fence, and those originally inclined to sit on the fence will be more inclined to oppose you.

[mpallamary]

Thanks Evan. I appreciate your perspective.

[Warren Smith]

Michael,

As a step in addressing the inequity in provisions of the PLSA between public and private sector land surveyors, recently adopted section 8725.1 begins with a statement of intent of the Legislature that "... the licensure requirements that are imposed upon private sector professional land surveyors and land surveying partnerships, firms, or corporations shall be imposed upon the state and any city, county, city and county, district, and special district that shall adhere to these requirements."

It goes on to require the designation of the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency of the state, city, county, city and county, district or special district.

This is a sea change in the direction you are seeking. You are right, the PLSA - as with all legislation - is reactive to perceived areas requiring statutory oversight. Historically, that has been largely in response to consumer complaints with respect to contractual interaction with private sector services. There is now movement toward equity as our elected lawmakers are being lobbied effectively. I see that as what Evan has proposed.

[mpallamary]

Thanks Warren, I agree with you.

[desert turtoise]

Evan P
your input and time to respond (not to forget MP and Warrren S) is invaluable and your suggestions will be considered.

For the benefit of others who have not yet had to go through this kind of experience, attached are two examples of complaints against borpelsg on their designated form for such. There was never any response from them regarding these. I can only assume these complaints against borpelsg are solely kept for statistical purposes. A letter was written to the Director of Dept. of Consumer Affairs which included copies of these particular complaints. Not surprisingly, the letter was intercepted and responded to in an unsatisfactory manner by a lower level DCA employee who did not appear to have the background to understand these non-technical complaints.

These cases, like most appear to be, are dismissed "without prejudice". That way they can be re-opened and possibly prosecuted in the future if borpelsg or state attorney so desire, or if someone has a personal ax to grind. (unfortunately there we are back to the fact that human nature is subject to being human nature) That is a basic problem that would need to be legislated so there is no longer the "without prejudice" stipulation. Then maybe more people would be willing to step forward.

[mpallamary]

I suspect the licensee spent thousands of dollars with an attorney before any movement occurred.

[E_Page]

Tortoise,

Thanks for those copies. It's because individual efforts like this are so easily ignored that the CLSA must be the party to move it forward if legitimate complaints on the process are to get any attention, and why they must be made aware that it is improperly and adversely affecting more than just a handful of surveyors.

[desert turtoise]

Hey we have to give them at least some credit for having the flat out honesty to look back and say months later, in retrospect about a case decision; "sometimes we make a mistake". They was actually said regarding a dismissed citation. This surveyor heard it with his own ears.
The idea is to have better job performance so this does not happen.

[mpallamary]

I believe that the last five years of complaints should be reviewed to see where we should focus education.

That is the key and the solution. It could be accomplished with Continuing Education.

[PaulEhe]

Thank you Evan for your courage and all you do for our profession. I would be impressed to see CLSA step up to the plate on behalf of its members on this matter with the Board Enforcement folks. As per your earlier post request, I have share my enforcement situation with my local CLSA Chapter representatives for the February BoD meetings. If you ever need anything from me I can be reached at ehechris@hotmail.com. Keep up the good work.

[E_Page]

Thanks Paul. Every account that Chapter Directors are made aware of now will help. Still a ways from any solutions, but we can't get there until recognition of problems occurs, and that's what we need now.


Mike,

Most of the contents of any enforcement file will fall under exceptions to the Public Records Act. I don't believe that such a demand can be accommodated, nor should it necessarily. Because of concerns that Desert Tortoise voiced that many others undoubtedly have, and similar privacy concerns that many complainants or other involved parties may have, the information would need to come from some party to the action and that party should take care to redact the identifying info of other parties and any of their own that they do not want known.

You may be aware of enough issues that you believe such an expanded investigation is warranted. I may agree with you or partially agree with you, and the CLSA may, after giving the initial info they are provided, and provided that they will agree that at least an initial look is warranted, may agree with you to some extent or other, but we are quite a ways from that point now.

Next month will be the introduction for many that there are even any issues at BPELSG that the CLSA should have some concern about. For myself, I had to see, hear, and read a lot of data before I came to the opinions I now have. I would expect that many on the CLSA BoD will have a similarly difficult time initially recognizing that there are significant causes for concern. Had someone said to me before I saw enough data to convince me that BPELSG should be investigated in nearly any capacity, much less taking a close look at every matter that has passed through an entire program for the past 5 years, I would have been more inclined to dismiss the messenger and his message unless that person brought some clear indication that such problems likely exist.

IMO, calling for such an expansive investigation now is very premature for several reasons:

1. At this point, from the perspective of the CLSA, other societies representing licensees of BPELSG, and any in government who are in any position to begin to initiate such an investigation, there is nothing more than some anecdotal accounts from a few, or even perhaps more than just a few individuals without hard (and understandable) facts provided to back up the accounts, and lacking the credibility of the backing of the professional societies who represent those licensees.

2. Until and unless one or more of the professional societies take a thorough look for themselves, and unless and until they are convinced by the data provided that problems are significant and pervasive, such calls for expansive investigation have the tone of being a personal crusade or witch hunt.

3. If the matter begins to seem like a call for a witch hunt, many who have not had an opportunity to witness matters causing concern or to properly review the data of improperly handled cases will be inclined to not listen for any, even reasonable calls with proper backup to look into the matter.


I do agree that the results of complaints, whether enforcement action resulted of not, should be published in at least general terms, describing the nature of the complaint, the facts, and the findings in sufficient detail to indicate what actions were deemed to be within and which were deemed to be in violation of statutes and/or the standard of practice. That alone would go a long way toward eliminating or minimizing the inconsistencies that many complaints of the enforcement system itself are based on.

I also agree about continuing education, along with some specific training for BPELSG expert consultants toward familiarization with statutes affecting practice (it can and often does go way beyond the PLSA), how to read law properly, and how to conduct a review and prepare a report without bias.

[goodgps]

This is a great post. Wonderful reading. And great banter.
Thank you all. (^_^)

[mpallamary]

Evan, your presentation yesterday was excellent. I would hope CLSA would invite you to speak at the conference. As you may know, I have an extensive library of documentation going back to 1985 involving the BPELSG along with a lot of correspondence I am not comfortable releasing at this time. There is clearly a problem and it is very deep.

I do wish you the best in your endeavors. I believe this is a good dialogue!