Borpels (board, bureaucracy,friend or foe ?)

[desert turtoise]

Although I try not to get involved with politics,and am not a political conservative, I am getting an inkling of the frustration expressed by the Tea bagger Party and their wish to get rid of or trim down big government. The following events appear to be fairly common and may happen with any survey when adjoiners are in a dispute,regardless of the surveyor's "standard of care".
A fellow LS contacted me last year about a survey he did to define a lot line in a regular city block. The adjoiners were having their disagreement,nothing unusual there. The LS surveyed the line and determined, using the best available evidence, that his client was not encroaching onto the other owner's land with his fencing and edge of walk,as claimed by the adjoiner. The LS delivered the report and drawing to his client,confidentially per the client's request. The surveyor also suggested that the client could hire his own surveyor if he did not accept the results. But the neighbor was not buying it and "did not need to hire an expensive surveyor." He declared that the LS and the neighbor were in "collusion to steal his land". He knew this, since he had measured up the very steep roadway and steep alley himself,from the same points used by the LS. He determined by his "slope measurement" the surveyor was wrong in his measurements by more than 1 foot. The irate neighbor phoned the LS,demanding loudly that the results be changed to fit his measurements,and again claimed fraud by the LS. The neighbor then filed in small claims court for damages against the surveyor's client and also filed a complaint with Borpels against the LS for "performing a survey to favor his client." Unlike the real world of law, where trivial and frivolous lawsuits are now illegal, the CA Dept. of Consumer Affairs,via the enforcement arm of Borpels does not try to "weed out" trivial or frivolous complaints. This appears to be partly due to the nature of the beast; what huge government can survive without "case load". We will address this briefly in a moment. The same happens when the unscrupulous lawyer, who suddenly realizes during a deposition hearing that his case is going south. His client's survey is starting to look without merit,compared to the more diligent surveyor he is facing across the table. The lawyer,not being familiar with the PLS Act, just having heard of it, peruses it quickly. He then files a complaint with Borpels,thinking if he throws "enough LS Act violations on the wall,something just might stick." First rule of pre-trial, use anything to show the other side in a bad light. Borpels does not weed out these complaints either.A complaint is a complaint;the result: "case load". The investigation of the LS is launched, and one more file is open for one to three years. "Case load." Please someone,tell me the world is really beautiful,fair and what I am writing just aint so. Back to the first case file of my LS associate. Regardless of the fact that a novice surveyed his own lot line and complained that the LS did something wrong, Borpels sent out their standard letter to him, asking for "any and all records, contract, notes, data,maps,",etc. This survey took place almost one year ago and the "investigation" file is still open on the LS. That's right,even months after the small claims court told the novice surveyor to hire a professional land surveyor. (He finally did,and the results matched the first survey) Let's get back to the title of this article: Borpels,Friend or Foe ? I for one am not naive about the state layoffs that have taken place over the past two or three years. According to state employees I know, who work for Caltrans,and other depts., for any state worker,this is a constant topic of conversation,and source of fear and concern among state employees. Most of the people I knew at Caltrans were being furlowed regularly two or three days a month, ( I always tell them how envious I am, wishing I had a similar month of work in the real world the rest of us try to live in) The bottom line, if a department does not have enough investigation files,it means loss of funding,and layoffs. The quality of the state employee ? They appear to be competent,and want to do a good job. But this is a reality the practicing land surveyor faces,irregardless of his/her standard of care.

[bruce hall]

But maybe it is just me. Anyway you say the following:

"Please someone,tell me the world is really beautiful,fair and what I am writing just aint so."

Near as I can tell, the world is beautiful (depending on where you are at), I know it(the world) ain't fair, and I haven't quite figured out what you are writing about.

BORPELS is a good deal, it helps regulate my license to practice and helps keep unlicensed folk from doing what I do. Hopefully it weeds out the poor surveyor and a whole bunch of other stuff. Don't know for sure. There are sharper tools who respond to this website who have better answers than I.

I know that if the Board had sent me that letter, I'd send all my stuff "toot sweet", make a phone call and talk to someone up there to find out what is going on. Might not be fair, but that's what I'd do.

As far as Cal Trans goes, I don't know what it has to do with BORPELS. But then again, maybe it's just me.


You say:
"But this is a reality the practicing land surveyor faces,irregardless of his/her standard of care."
I think that you are correct in this statement.

[land butcher]

I can sympathize with anyone dealing with the board.

I know of a case where a person ran a survey business for years unlicensed and thumbing his nose at the board. He had his own office and business cards in a totally different location than the engineer that signed his stuff. After many years the engineer retired and this individual who thumbed his nose at the board was allowed to take the test and is now a licensed surveyor.

I once attempted to report a surveyor setting 1x2's on PL prod in the alley and pks on PL prod on the c/l of the street for a new home const in a old neighborhood and not filing a map. To comply with the info the board wanted to start a investigation I would have had to misrepresent myself or find someone to do the same.

I personally have not found the board to be of much help.

[hellsangle]

Let me help you understand, Bruce.
The crux of Turtoise’s post is the BPELS conveyor belt. Complaint filed. Complaint investigated. Once on the conveyor belt your livelihood is at stake! (and pray you get a competent reviewer!) I have had an “unfoundedâ€￾ complaint filed by a want-to-be-attorney who was the adjoiner of my client. The party was upset that my opinion did not agree with her surveyor’s who missed a lead plug which confirmed the position of an unrecorded 1940s subdivision and copious occupational evidence supporting my opinion. My fees were approximately four times what the want-to-be-attorney’s surveyor charged, plus my client had attorney fees atop that. That complaint cost me thirty unpaid hours of writing a reply to the Board and copying copious records. My stomach was in knots and had sleeping difficulties for weeks. (Maybe Turtoise got off-point (a little) by including Caltrans comments, but his points are "these times" . . . and unfortunately! - the ease of filing a frivolous complaint.)
Another case I am aware of . . . the Courts should have resolved the dispute . . . but just as Turtoise pointed out . . . if something sticks . . . it sure would help the attorney on the short-side of the stick. The results were an abomination of justice and the true location of boundary! It seems as though the parties with the most Narcissist Personality Disorders - prevail.
My two cents . . . Have a good week!
Phil - Sonoma

[desert turtoise]

Thank you hellsangle. I believe you understood my intent. If a government department only accepted legitimate complaints from adjoining owners (legimate because they obtained a differing opinion of another professional land surveyor), there would be much less case load. The result, less funding to keep a department open full-time. Read some of the financial reports put out by Dept. Consumer Affairs, and Borpels. The state budget has placed them under another financial crunch just recently. This makes it difficult for everyone; the state employee who wants to do a good job and the professional practitioner who cares about his/her standard of care.

[land butcher]

Lots of issues here.
A underfunded State board is almost useless and the investigations drag on so long that if the investigator does not take the time to totally re-review everything before a decision is made the result can be disastrous for the surveyor that did his job. But when does a govt agency become over funded over staffed.
I find it interesting that the defendant surveyor had to supply all his records. I filed a complaint against a agency once, The responding letter from the agency was lawyerese and the Board then wanted me to supply all the plans/standards etc that were on file at the agency. I dropped it due to blueprinting costs.
And what do they really do. The rulings I have read, at one time there were lots of fraudulent perk tests being done in the desert areas that were resolved with a 30 day suspension. Another case of a private surveyor signing a city engrs name to get something approved (tentative map IIRC) and I believe all he got was a slap on the wrist, i know he kept his license.

[bruce hall]

good. What he said!

[desert turtoise]

The procedure of survey was not the issue. The issue is the credence a complaint from a "novice measurer" should have. Rather than launch an investigation at the public expense (and at the licensed practitioner's expense) should the board not first tell the novice that he/she must provide a report from a licensed practitioner to support the complaint and justify opening the investigation ? Is there a city agency,county,state or federal department that can survive without a steady supply of the work they are trained to perform ? Call it what you will; work load, case load. My cousin worked in Sacramento for a state department; she often used the term case load and confirmed my opinion on this. What government agency would choose to reduce it's work load,(in the specific case above,that would mean not accepting the complaint from the novice measurer,unless he could provide a report from a L.S) and thereby reduce it's funding. This has nothing to do with integrity or competence of an agency, it has to do with a policy of job perpetuation. A somewhat amusing example; often,when I walk up to a Caltrans public counter to inquire about a map, there are three and sometimes four employees responding at once to my request. It is almost like a race to the counter.While one or two of them assist me, the other two watch. The #1 rule they have is that I first sign the clipboard. The count on that clipboard can mean the difference between funding or defunding a department; being furlowed or kept full-time on the job. It is naive to believe the same does not hold throughout a bureacracy. An investigation is opened and it is kept open until limits are reached. Finally,we get into ethics and related finances. If the professional practitioner is found to have observed a proper standard of care, the state budget must support the time spent, in some cases that of the TAC committee. The state budget is crunched to the max with additional funding restrictions having just been placed on the Dept.of Consumer Affairs. If the practitioner is found lacking, the state does not pay the TAC committee expenses. We all know from the bulletins the licensed land surveyor is charged with the bill. This is not a claim of unethical behavior towards anyone. The question is; do we have a conflict of interest or a conundrum here ? Opinions,please.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The Board has to investigate the complaint in order to determine its merits. It doesn't just magically know a complaint is frivolous without an investigation.

I have known two C.E.s which had complaints filed against them. Both were eventually dropped but the C.E.s had to respond to the complaint and provide information. The second one was a land developer that didn't want to pay the invoice; the Board found no wrong doing then the C.E. sued the land developer and the Court punted him into the next county.

I think responding to complaints is just something that goes with having the privilege of a license. Don't get mad and don't take it personally; just respond calmly and respectfully.

[Surveyor826]

Surveyors are licensed to PROTECT THE PUBLIC from incompetents. (PLSA 8708;8710.1)
They are licensed through the Department of CONSUMER affairs. (8702)
The board is MANDATED to investigate complaints against licensees. (8710; 8790)

Who would you rather have investigate complaints?

You act like the board is soliciting complaints from the public to protect their jobs, and that is certainly not the case. They are REQUIRED to act on ANY complaint submitted.

The burden of proof is on the complaining party and the board, the benefit of doubt given to the surveyor.

The investigated surveyor is only required to pay for the investigation if it is found the surveyor was in violation.

If the surveyor did nothing wrong, just go with it and try and help expedite the process. (Hope he had a signed contract, current record of affiliation, filed any necessary record of the survey, etc.), otherwise hire attorneys and let them make your arguments.

Its annoying when some nutcase makes your life miserable with a frivolous complaint, but its what professionals have to put up with for the privilege of an exclusive franchise.

[E_Page]

With the workload the enforcement arm of the Board has, they are not trying or wanting to make it any fuller. It is probably, at least in part because the workload is so backlogged that the analysts do not have time to or resources to quickly screen out meritless complaints if there are any real technical issues involved.

Since the analysts are not licensed, if there are technical issues, they are not qualified to make the call as to whether there is any substance or merit to the complaint. They need to send it out to a Technical Expert, and there are probably not enough of those to catch up on backlog.

If the complaint against your friend was as simplistic as you describe - "My neighbor hired a surveyor to help him steal my land. I don't need no expensive surveyor to see he's wrong. That surveyor should have his license pulled for helping my neighbor try to steal my land." - then the analyst probably would have weeded it out. But if they put in so much as one real technical issue such as "the surveyor did not file a record of survey as required by law", then it's out of the analyst's purview and they have to give it to a technical expert.

Unfortunately, because of the backlog, if an unscrupulouos attorney, or even an unscrupulous surveyor encourages their client to file a complaint in order to hang a cloud over the other surveyor's credibility, they may be successful in neutralizing that other surveyor as an expert witness in any impending or planned legal action.

You have a few statements or questions that reflect unfortunate truths:

1. You may one day face a complaint against your license even though you did everything right. Just like anyone has a right to sue another, one has a right to file a complaint against a licensee whose work has somehow affected them. Unfortunately, unlike the court system which now has penalties for one filing a frivolous law suit, the Board has no such authority to penalize someone for filing a frivolous complaint. Nor is there a definition of what constitutes a frivolous complaint in the law.

2. Some abuse the purpose of the Board complaint system, using it as a legal weapon rather than as a tool to stop poor practice. Can't argue. I've seen it in action.

3. A complaint may linger for several years before any action, either dismissal or moving forward with disciplinary procedings happens. Hmm, maybe this little corner of government is too small to handle that workload.

4. When a complaint is said and done, the Board sometimes gets it wrong. Sometimes it seems so because we do not know all the facts. Sometimes it is because the parties (complainant or subject) withold some important facts and BPELS has no subpoena authority, so they make their decisions based upon what they are provided. Sometimes they just get it wrong because...??? Who knows. If you are aware of one or more cases which were clearly decided wrongly, do something about it. Write a letter or report to BPELS clearly articulating your opinion and clearly stating the facts you've based it on. It may or may not trigger a second review of the case using a different technical expert.

4. Life ain't fair. Well, no kidding. I learned that several years before I was a surveyor. I learned it several years before I was shaving. I'm wondering why this is a surprise to you.



You also made some really nonsensical statements:

1. The Board is deliberately padding their workload by keeping meritless complaints in the system.

Yep, they're stressed out because they can't keep up with the work they have. They know they are not getting any help anytime soon to help with their 3 +/- year backlog. So rather than attempting to justify their funding by showing how efficiently they can process complaints by decreasing their backlog in part by tossing any complaint that even remotely looks like it may lack merit, put them all in the hopper. Impress the legislature with an inability to get anything done by creating an insurmountable workload.

Don't be a knucklehead. Deliberately being as inefficient as you suppose them to be and to be deliberately exacerbating the problem is exactly the type of thing that will bring unwanted pressure on them from the politicians as complaints about the Board begin to appear with regularity in the offices of the Assembly and the Senate. The staff of BPELS are aware that a sunset of the Board can happen if enough political pressure is brought to bear. They don't want that and neither should responsible professionals licensed by them.

2. State employees everywhere are in a constant panic about the continued existence of their jobs.

Really? I've been working for the State for 3 years and have been grateful for the regular paycheck. We had 2 years of furloughs, a few months at 1 day and a few at 3. There were some who were very upset about it, but most I know of took it in stride. After the initial adjustment to a lesser paycheck, I found i liked the furloughs. Adjusting to them was quite easy for me since I had just come from private practice hit hard by the recession, and knowing many still in private practice who were fortunate to be working 3 days a week.

3. Layoffs are a constant topic of conversation among state employees.

I haven't heard anyone talking about them since Schwarzenegger issued notices of potential layoff to the least senior of employees a couple of years ago. Even then it got little more than a few mentions and some questions about what they meant. Far from constant even when the threat was imminent.

4. Reference to the "Tea-bagger" Party wanting to trim down government.

The ignorance in that statement is such that I would be embarrassed to have made a like statement. First, the Tea Party people want responsible government, not a lack of government. I know plenty of conservatives who want to see government trimmed in areas where there is internal abuse and rampant waste, in areas which government's role is questionable at best, in terms of regulations and regulators that infringe upon an individual's rights and place undue burdens upon business to the point that it is difficult or impossible to make a reasonable living or profit. I know of none who have proposed that licensing professions is not a legitimate function of government. So in thinking that you might finally have an issue in common with the Tea Party, forget it. That requires significantly more thought and analysis than you've put into this issue.

I also find your terminology in referring to conservatives as "Tea-baggers" to be incredibly ignorant and very offensive. As I understand it, that term originally referred to some sexual deviant practice that I don't want to speculate on. The values of the practitioners of that tea-bagging are probably quite distant from those of the vast majority of conservatives.

Your use of that term is the rough equivalent of someone referring to anyone left of center as being a "commie-pinko-fag". Just as offensive, just as ignorant.




Getting back to your friend's case: Why didn't he file a RS? Did the other surveyor file one?

[E_Page]

Nevermind. Not important.

[desert turtoise]

"The most recent trend that the Board is facing with it's complaints is the lack of supporting information provided with the complaint itself. Before a complaint investigation case is initiated,the Enforcement Unit staff reviews the information submitted with the complaint to determine if there is sufficient supporting documentary evidence...to constitute a violation...Without this initial information,a complaint investigation cannot be started." Elsewhere in the report is the amazing statistic where 46% of cases remain open after 1 year. Is that an example of job perpetuation by accepting frivolous complaints ? The point of my article was to get opinions on whether an unlicensed,amateur measurer should be able to submit his measurement notes of a block length that differs substantially from the measurements of the licensed practitioner. How do his novice measurements constitute supporting evidence ? If the Board considers a novice measurer capable of providing "supporting evidence", and uses such claims to open files and keep them open for 365 days or more, the land survey profession is facing a serious obstacle from our state bureaucracy.

[Stephen Johnson]

"The most recent trend that the Board is facing with it's complaints is the lack of supporting information provided with the complaint itself. Before a complaint investigation case is initiated,the Enforcement Unit staff reviews the information submitted with the complaint to determine if there is sufficient supporting documentary evidence...to constitute a violation...Without this initial information,a complaint investigation cannot be started." Elsewhere in the report is the amazing statistic where 46% of cases remain open after 1 year. Is that an example of job perpetuation by accepting frivolous complaints ? The point of my article was to get opinions on whether an unlicensed,amateur measurer should be able to submit his measurement notes of a block length that differs substantially from the measurements of the licensed practitioner. How do his novice measurements constitute supporting evidence ? If the Board considers a novice measurer capable of providing "supporting evidence", and uses such claims to open files and keep them open for 365 days or more, the land survey profession is facing a serious obstacle from our state bureaucracy."

I find your arguments in some areas to be somewhat spurious. I also find your presentation to be atrocious.

Try using paragraphs and proper spacing. The way you have written your posts I am surprised that Even even took the time to sort out what you were attempting to say.

I know I only read the first 4-5 sentences before I went into total SKIM mode.

I also find some of your arguments to concise, precise and to the point. More importantly they have logic and merit. But please take the time and expend the effort necessary to present your thoughts properly.

SJ

[JLG3RD]

Dude your an idiot!

[land butcher]

test
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

[land butcher]

Some boards if you only hit enter once at the end of a paragraph add the new paragraph to the previous one.
this board doesn't do that.

[bruce hall]

to solve that dilema LB. I hit the enter key twice.

See, one, two.

Works evertime.

[Jim Frame]

Trivia:

BORPELS = Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. Renamed in 1999 or so to

BPELS = Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. I assume the rename had something to do with acknowledging that engineers are licensed rather than merely registered. Renamed in 2011 or so to

BPELSG = Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists.

.

[desert turtoise]

I appreciated your input and encouragement. I may have seen your name on an Orange Co. committee. I live in a nearby county but am interested in attending Professional Practices Committee meetings in various counties,as well as the state level. I have been slowly but surely (see my name) compiling information on prevailing practices,standard of care, and role of the county surveyor department. The theme is an old one; "Just Whose Survey is it Anyway ?" The flip side would be the benefit of an extra pair of eyes, someone to mentor newly licensed practitioners, and provide peer review when needed.
Yes, my word processing needs help. I submitted an article to POB magazine last year; their professional writers were able to fix it up a bit and with their help the story was published and it turned out well.

[E_Page]

"The most recent trend that the Board is facing with it's complaints is the lack of supporting information provided with the complaint itself. Before a complaint investigation case is initiated,the Enforcement Unit staff reviews the information submitted with the complaint to determine if there is sufficient supporting documentary evidence...to constitute a violation...Without this initial information,a complaint investigation cannot be started."

That is one way a frivolous complaint can be eliminated in the early stages. But sometimes it may also be a matter of a consumer not knowing what needs to be provided at a minimum, not having retained or ever been provided certain documentation by the surveyor such as a contract, a report, or a drawing (maybe the surveyor was hired by a neighbor and that documentation not available to the complainant), or perhaps the complainnat may have a valid complaint but for whatever reason is unable to articulate it well enough to sustain a pursuit of the complaint.

It also happens that some subject licensees do not fully cooperate with BPLESG. They deliberately do not provide all of the pertinent records or documentation requested by BPELSG. BPELSG does not have subpoena powers, so there is not technically a legal obligation for the licensee to provide documentation which may tend to incriminate him or her.

One could read portions of the Code of Professional Conduct such that the obligation could be found under it. But unless BPELSG has somehow obtained those documents through some other source, they have no basis by which to charge the subject with deliberately witholding them. So basically, BPELSG has to proceed on the first parts of the process based upon what the parties are able or willing to provide.

If the complaint gets so far as to be prosecuted as an accusation through the Office of Administrative Law, the Administrative law Judge does have subpoena authority. If there was insufficient evidence in a case file to substantiate allegations of violation, it would never get this far though. So the wrongdoer who decides to deliberately withold incriminating evidence may, and probably has gotten away with it.

I don't suggest witholding anything from BPELSG. If you've done nothing wrong, then you are providing evidence to that effect. If you have violated portions of the laws governing the practice of surveying, fess up, beg for mercy and work hard to put it behind you. The consequences for one caught trying to get away with something through non-cooperation are likely to be far more severe than for one who admits their failure and expresses a sincere desire to make it right and refrain from whatever practice got them in trouble.

"Elsewhere in the report is the amazing statistic where 46% of cases remain open after 1 year. Is that an example of job perpetuation by accepting frivolous complaints ?"

I very much doubt it, mostly because it makes no sense. It is more likely an example of the Board being about two qualified analysts and several qualified technical experts short of having a staff complete enough to maintain a more reasonable backlog.

"The point of my article was to get opinions on whether an unlicensed,amateur measurer should be able to submit his measurement notes of a block length that differs substantially from the measurements of the licensed practitioner. How do his novice measurements constitute supporting evidence ? If the Board considers a novice measurer capable of providing "supporting evidence", and uses such claims to open files and keep them open for 365 days or more, the land survey profession is facing a serious obstacle from our state bureaucracy.

Have you seen the complaint as filed? I very much doubt it. It's possible that the sole basis of the complaint was simply disagreement with the unlicensed landowner's own measurements. On the surface it seems ridiculous for the Board to even open a file based on that, but the complaint may have been articulated with just enough technical content that BPELSG felt that the safe thing to do was to have a technical expert opine that the complaint lacks sufficient foundation to proceed. I can't imagine a competent technical expert opining otherwise if a complaint's sole basis was, as you believe, disagreement with poorly performed measurements of an (clearly biased) landowner lacking any qualification as a surveyor.

Unfortunately, if it is decided that a TE's opinion is required to cover that base, finding an available qualified TE may take several weeks or months. The case is opened and SOP is to inform the licensee against whom the complaint was made and ask for all pertinent records.

But also remember that our license doesn't give us the sole domain of measurement. Only a PLS (outside of a court) can opine upon property boundary evidence or present the meaning of measurment evidence in certain contexts. But if an LS has already opined upon the meaning of certain monuments, an unlicensed person, incompetent to opine upon the significance of the monuments being measured between, might be able to show himself competent to accurately measure between two known points. I'm not saying that happened here, but it would be a valid reason to have a TE review the case to opine whether the measurements presented were made competently or not, and if so, whether they would then be relevant evidence to the complaint.

If the survey conducted by your friend did not hit upon any of the RS triggers, it is likely that the complaint will result in a letter from BPELSG some months from now that there is insufficient evidence of any violation, and thanking him for his cooperation.

Since the neighbor's (complainant's) own surveyor came to the same boundary conclusions, it is unlikely that any finding of incompetence or negligence* will be made. But don't rule out that the neighbor may have also filed a complaint against his own surveyor because he didn't like his findings as well. I once had a client accuse me of being bought off by a neighboring landowner because I did not have sufficient evidence that an old fence, which she did not actively occupy to, represented a valid boundary line as opposed to an aliquot line defined by a monument at one end (in agreement with fence) and the midpoint between found and verified aliquot corner mons at the other end. Sometimes paranoid landowners believe that the whole profession is in collusion with their neighbors against them. Those sometimes become complaints against two or more surveyors connected with a particular project or boundary.

*A TE may opine that the conditions requiring a RS were present in the case. If so, not filing the RS is considered to be negligent. Usually, that is a relatively easy one to accept, correct, and move on with life. If your friend has any question as to whether a RS was required, he should run it by some trusted and knowledgeable colleagues or the closest PPC, and then follow their advice. Filing a RS at a late date will probably not cause a finding of violation for not filing one within the statutory period to go away, but it might make the difference between consequences of a significant fine and a suspended sentence of a suspended license and a consequence of a very nominal fine and a letter of reprimand (a "don't do that again" letter).

[desert turtoise]

The source of the disagreement was due to the novice measurer holding a tape flat on the pavement as he measured up a steep alley and steep street from the accepted control. Being an amateur measurer, he had no concept of the need to correct slope to horizontal distance. The error amounted to about 1.5 feet of disagreement with the LS. Eventually, the novice measurer was forced by the court to hire his own professional surveyor who agreed with both the control used and the measurements by my associate, the first surveyor. So no dispute between surveyors, no discrepancies, no alternate positions,no ROS,etc.

I believe the Board clearly failed to follow their own regulations for supporting evidence required to open an investigation. They did not inform the neighbor that a report from another LS is needed to substantiate his claim of fraud by the LS, before the state could consider opening an investigation on my associate. Obviously, I am biased because I respect my associate's standard of care.

[Surveyor826]

Your withholding of facts is suspicious, I wonder what else you're NOT telling us.

If your friend presented his case to the board with the same degree of obtuseness and obfuscation as you've presented it to us, it is no wonder their investigators are still trying to figure it out.

Likewise, if his communication skills are on par with yours it's small surprise the neighbor filed a lawsuit and complaint.

I take a dim view of folks who withhold information in an attempt to strengthen their position.

You say the Board "clearly failed to follow their own regulations".
WHAT regulations are you referring to?
I'd really like to know. I gave my cites above, can you give the cites to the PLSA or Board Rules that you claim they are clearly failing to follow so we can all be made aware of how the Board is ignoring the law?

You have made some serious accusations against the board. I believe they are baseless and grounded in your own ignorance, but if you can show that they have "clearly failed to follow their own regulations" then you will have no better allies than the folks on this board.

I think you're being disingenuous on one hand and don't know what you're talking about on the other, but maybe that's just me.

Cheers!

[desert turtoise]

Not sure what you mean about information not presented earlier. Look above at the quote from 2003 Sunset Report,pg.25; the Board states that a case will not be opened unless there is supporting documentation that a violation occured. The supporting documentation in the novice measurers' complaint was his own erroneous slope distance of the block length and lot width and a couple of photos. He sent that info to the neighbor who hired the L.S. and most likely to the board to support his claim. The enforcement unit then opened a case file on the L.S. I would expect that after approximately 1 year (average time to close a case in the Sunet Report tabulations) the case will be closed with no action taken. Not likely this can be made more clear.

See E Page last comments above; he seems to have a thorough understanding of the process in Sacramento.

[Peter Ehlert]

So... someone had an issue, reported it to the board, the board checked it out.
What is the problem?

You folks want consumer protection, you get it.

All this anonymous posting kind of gets old... some times I think people are logging in with various identities and having deep discussions with themselves just to toot some horns.

Namaste, Peter in Baja