California Surveyors Forums

Does anyone know if this additional statement is a common requirement among counties in CA ?

Who on this forum includes or has seen this language when verifying location of forms for side yard setback ?

Apparently my county wants this language included; I had not seen such a requirement in the past. I am also waiting for instructions from my provider
of E & O insurance.

Thanks for any input.

I really do not see anything wrong with it, all it is saying is that you are telling the truth and not lying.

However, you could also add Section 8770.6 to the end of, or within the wording. I would not quote the entire section itself, but just incorporate the
section number. It's your right to do so, and if the agency does not like it, let them remove their demands as a trade that you remove the section quote.

8770.6. The use of the word "certify" or "certification" by a
licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer in the practice
of professional engineering or land surveying or the preparation of
maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other surveying documents only
constitutes an expression of professional opinion regarding those
facts or findings which are the subject of the certification, and
does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, either expressed or
implied.


To answer your question, I have never seen or used that phrase for a setback certification.

I agree with Paul. I have no problem with it.

I've never been asked for that particular phrasing.
But I would use it if requested,

Apparently the powers that be are having trouble with the long-accepted statement surveyors have used in the past: "based on an actual field survey, the locations were found to be...."
or " to be best of my knowledge..."

I find it funny that anyone could be charged with perjury over a professional opinion.

BTW.. those long accepted statements are nothing but dodges. I would never accept wording like that.

The statement causes lots of problems precisely because of the PLS section that Paul quoted. We have well defined limits and we ought to practice within those limits. We would you want to take on more liability because you choose to practice to a standard that does not meet the minimum standard. Board rules already require truthful disclosures, so a statement under penalty of perjury is unnecessary. Is the statement being required define by local ordinance?

I would fight it on several grounds. The first being all I am certifying to is a professional opinion. That opinion does not fit under perjury laws.
Then there is the flat INSULT to my professional ethics and then there is the conflict in the law to do so.

I would fight it. What is wrong with long accepted statements? Why the added verbiage and is the verbiage legal?
Hopefully your E&O company tells them it's not legal or required.

I agree with the last few. It's not an appropriate standard to be certifying to. Not because the professional should need or want room to lie, but because it's like describing flavors with numbers. It just isn't applicable.

As far as the possibility of a surveyor providing false info or improperly basing an opinion on inadequate info, the laws that regulate our practice already deal with that (PLSA §8780, Board rule §476). In addition to that, the surveyor who provides false factual info or negligent opinion is subject to civil liability, and if intentionally providing false info or a fraudulaent opinion, may be subject to criminal liability.

I would provide the language of your practice laws as background and craft the certification according to those.

Thank you all for such good input.

I think EP hit the nail on the head; our professional practice laws sect.8780 & board rule 476 prohibit false statements and negligence.

Guess another example of our local governments once again trying to extend their arm of influence, this time by taking a law used in the court system and using it as a regulation in their own system.

Instances like this, I really am glad to be on the doorstep of retirement. Hopefully the new PLS generation can legislate some changes with the
bureacrats.

The addition of a perjury clause seems redundant. As Evan said, we're already required to refrain from providing false information and are subject to civil and/or criminal liability, not to mention action against our licenses.

I wonder what they hope to gain, as it doesn't have anything to do with if our opinion of the boundary is "correct" or not; it has only to do with whether or not we believed it to be correct at the time of making the certification. The burden of proof for prosecuting the perjury charge would be on the government agency to show that we willingly and knowingly submitted a false statement.

DT: Did your county every state why they wanted said language included?

It probably stems from some lawyer that has no clue as to what the LS act covers.
In researching city codes I found that most are adopted from one source, a national company naturally, and if it comes from them you can pretty much guarantee they have no clue about State specific rules such as the LS Act and B&P code. Like text book authors and software cos they make their money by constantly selling "updates", meaningless drivel to create revenue.

It sounds like there is an opportunity for education here. Perhaps we can have someone from CLSA or ACEC contact the public agency to discuss the requirement for this statement. If there asking one land surveyor...they will ask others.

It would be great to have our professional organizations nip this thing in the bud.

I can bring this suggestion up at the next Board of Director's meeting if I can get some more information.

Or maybe your local chapter could do some outreach to the County in question?

Landon

Found references to this "certification under penalty of perjury" related to a building department cert form. Has to do with a coded "regulatory ordinance" regarding presence of hazardous materials on site and it's effect on the public", "protection of the public",etc.

The above is not meant to represent a complete study of the origin of this reg.

Looks like long arm of the law has extrapolated protecting the public from hazardous materials to our to our profession as well.

Think we all agree health and welfare of the public should be protected.

Seems like there is a lot of legislation done under the cover of "protecting the public".

“I certify under penalty of perjuryâ€￾

I agree that the statement requirement seems far-reaching. What is the penalty? Who decides the punishment? I would want to know the authority that stems from them to ask for the statement and not just “it came from county counselâ€￾.

It seems to me that the person or entity would need to have the authority to compel one to swear to the statement. Does a building department have legal authority to administer an oath here? And let’s face it; a signed statement by anyone for the benefit of another under penalty of perjury is a type of oath, requiring the asking party to have a legal authority to administer said oath. That would be a county ordinance or state law. I can see how any statement by an unlicensed person would need this phrase, but come on, only Land Surveyors can certify to the location of a building to a property line. (Unless the property line is moumented, then I guess a non-licensed person, such as a building inspector could be asked to sign the form under “penalty of perjuryâ€￾ for the file records but I think they would probably refuse.)

When a Land Surveyors makes a statement alongside his seal as to his work as a Land Surveyor we are bound by the laws that authorize (and control) our work. If there is no requirement (control) under the Board Rules or the B&P code that hold us to use the phrase “penalty of perjuryâ€￾ statement, (my non-exhaustive search indicates to me that “penalty of perjuryâ€￾ is mostly related to criminal law) why should we allow someone else to exercise quasi-legal control over our practice just because they don’t know the laws we are regulated by?

It is akin to someone demanding/asking a Land Surveyor to have a notary statement and seal FOR their signature and seal by a Land Surveyor on a document, is it not? (Believe me I have seen this more then once!)

This is another example of our standing as Land Surveyors being eroded by those that don’t have a clue about what it means to be one. It may be a small item, but we must challenge each and every attack when they occur. Of course to challenge this statement here and now by the individual places the client’s project in jeopardy. In this case pending input from one’s E&O I would sign. But we must fight this together, not alone.

Now I might not have a problem signing a statement with “under penalty of perjuryâ€￾ if and only if the statement is in support of submitting documents for a legal proceeding, but even then I would be pushing back because one would be sworn under oath to tell the truth under penalty of perjury AT THE TIME of your testimony or deposition. I am not in any means a courtroom expert even though I have been accepted as one in several courts, but my signature and seal and my verbal testimony (under penalty of perjury) is all that I have ever needed in my 35 years of land surveying, both working for other Land Surveyors and my 26 years with a license (PLS 5777).

Unrelated but on the same subject I once prepared a statement pursuant to §8760(c) that I had my party chief sign that was an “I certifyâ€￾ that he performed the field survey and that the field notes were a correct and true representation of said field survey conducted under my direction or something close to that. This was in preparation of a court case and I wanted something in the file so that when my records were subpoenaed there was something for the attorney to see in the hope that the party chief would not need to be deposed. At my deposition, the attorney made a statement out loud for the benefit of the court recorder miss stating that the document was signed under “penalty of perjuryâ€￾. I corrected him in that it was NOT under penalty of perjury, only a certification of statement per 8760(c). The point here is that attorney’s live in their own world and exercise influence beyond their authority. It sounds like the government employee that crafted the phrase on the form the subject of this post, either thinks they have the legal authority or consulted with an attorney who only knows his own little world that it was OK to add the phrase. More then once when I have pushed back at attorney’s unreasonable request they admit, “Well the is no harm in trying, but I would never sign that!â€￾

“Just my Buck-$2.98’s worthâ€￾. (Quote from the late Donald J. Foley, PLS 3771)

Seems like there is a lot of legislation done under the cover of "protecting the public".

No "seems" about it. Since the 9-11 destruction of the WTC and the unprecedented writing and approval of the Patriot Act in less than 90 days, and its subsequent renewal we, in my opinion, are one small step away from a police State.
FWIW my wife and her sister, aged 6 and 7, walked from Czeck... to Vienna in 1939 to join their mother who had gone ahead. She is not happy about what she sees happening here in this century, reminds her of her childhood.

Kill this. At all costs. Or "Caution Hot" will be required on all of our maps.

And... Make it mandatory that every law school student, as condition for graduation, attend a six week meditation course, where that statement, "I certify under penalty of purgery" is hymnotically repeated as a condition for breath for, including nights, the duration of the course.

I believe that our professional organization ought to investigate this matter. The single surveyor is in an unfair match when faced with unwarranted local agency requirements that are out of line. In some cases, the single surveyor refusing to sign documents that are certifications "under penalty of perjury" could become viewed as a trouble maker and suffer retaliation. My experience is that most surveyors take the path of least resistance. In this situation, our professional organization can step in for the benefit of surveyors statewide. I hope someone will.

Not a bad idea Dane. If Tortoise were to send a letter to the CLSA Exec Committee detailing the circumstances and providing the published requirements that include this as a required statement, they could decide whether it's something for the CLSA to look at from the State level or to forward it to the local chapter for them to try to resolve as a local matter. If they decide it's appropriate to deal with as a State matter, they'll forward it to the appropriate committee(s) to work toward educating the local agency.

I am pretty certain though that it won't get straightened out through a surveyors' forum thread. Great place to make us aware of an issue and for discussion. Not so much for resolution of the issue.

I also agree Dane. If enough members get together and push, CLSA should be goaded into action on this ignominy(or some other appropriate insult word).

I would add my name, but while I have been licensed in California for 23 years, I haven't practiced there in 22 years and am not a member of CLSA.