Dear Members of the Professional Land Surveying Community,
The time has come to amend Section 8772 of the Business and Professions Code.
Under the Professional Land Surveyors Act (PLSA), all licensed Land Surveyors are to be treated equally. Indeed, the rules are the same for everyone, regardless of where you work or who you work for. According to Section 8726 of the Business and Professions Code:
"A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following. . . The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying."
In spite of this unambiguous provision, all Land Surveyors are not treated equally in California. Private Land Surveyors are held to a much different standard than are public sector Land Surveyors as evidenced by Section 8772 of the PLSA, captioned “Marking of Monuments.â€
"Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may be or, if the monument is set by a public agency, it shall be marked with the name of the agency and the political subdivision it serves."
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument."
This provision is antiquated and outdated and inconsistent with the modern function of the PLSA. Years ago, prior to the comprehensive filing of records and enforcement of the PLSA, the City Engineer, County Surveyor and others were responsible for establishing much of the primary control throughout California. State law was revised in 1982 prohibiting Civil Engineers from practicing land surveying and today, there are a limited number of grandfathered engineers still surveying. By and large, modern day City Engineers and County Engineers cannot practice land surveying.
Municipal survey records, many of which were parochial in nature, were stored and accessible at these sundry offices. Today, whenever a boundary line, right of way, or other line as defined in the PLSA is established, all licensed Land Surveyors must file a record, regardless of their employer or capacity. This is the law and the PLSA treats all Professional Land Surveyors equally and there are no distinctions between a private sector Land Surveyor or a public sector Land Surveyor. Everyone has to file. Unfortunately, because of the peculiar provisions of Section 8772, this class distinction has created many problems and has led to many misconceptions.
In the private sector, as soon as a survey monument is placed in the ground, the Land Surveyor is instantly identified and he/she is immediately responsible for that monument and that surveyor is undisputedly in “Responsible Charge†of that work. As such, he/she is obligated to follow his/her duties under Section 404.2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) which provides as follows:
"(a) The term “responsible charge†directly relates to the extent of control a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer legally authorized to practice land surveying (hereinafter referred to as “legally authorized civil engineerâ€) is required to maintain while exercising independent control and direction of land surveying work or services, and the land surveying decisions which can be made only by a licensed land surveyor or legally authorized civil engineer. . ."
"(b) Responsible Charge Criteria. In order to evaluate whether a person authorized to practice land surveying is in responsible charge, the following must be considered: The land surveyor or legally authorized civil engineer who signs surveying documents must be capable of answering questions asked by licensees of the Board who are fully competent and proficient by education and experience in the field or fields of professional land surveying relevant to the project. These questions would be relevant to the decisions made during the individual’s participation in the project, and in sufficient detail to leave little question as to the land surveyor’s or legally authorized civil engineer’s technical knowledge of the work performed. It is not necessary to defend decisions as in an adversarial situation, but only to demonstrate that the individual in responsible charge made, or reviewed and approved, them and possessed sufficient knowledge of the project to make, or review and approve, them. . ."
"(c) Successor Licensee. In situations when the professional land surveyor or legally authorized civil engineer in responsible charge of a land surveying project is unavailable to complete the project, a professional land surveyor or legally authorized civil engineer (hereinafter referred to as the “successor licenseeâ€) may assume responsible charge of the project as long as the successor licensee exercises the extent of control and assumes responsibility for the surveying decisions as required by subdivision (a) and meets the criteria described in subdivision (b), as well as meeting the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act and Sections 411 and 415. Except as provided in Section 8761.2 of the Code, the original licensee is not relieved of any responsibility arising from the land surveying services of which he or she was in responsible charge."
CONTINUED
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LS ACT - 1 of 2
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LS ACT - 2 of 2
As soon as the private surveyor leaves the job site, another surveyor can immediately inspect the monument and ascertain who placed it and who is in responsible charge of that monument. If a question arises, an inquirer knows who to call as the surveyor’s license is clearly stamped on the monument. This is not the case with a municipal agency. Because an agency monument only need bear the name of that agency, such as “City Engineer,†it is near impossible to ascertain who is in responsible charge of that work. If a question arises, it can take weeks or months to learn about that monument and in many instances, no one wants to take responsibility for the work. In many instances, no records are filed and the monument remains a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Moreover, many agencies are regrettably, far too cavalier about identifying the surveyor in charge of the work and over the course of any given project, a number of surveyors can be in charge of that project. To be sure, there is a certain cloak of anonymity associated with placing a monument stamped “City Engineer†as opposed to Land Surveyor No. XXXX. If nothing else, it encourages a lack of responsibility. According to the State Board website:
"The following numerical lists may be used by anyone who locates a monument with a license number to find the name of the surveyor or civil engineer who set the monument. Further information about the person may be available by searching through license lookup, but records are not online for persons licensed prior to 1989 who were not current then and have not become current since then. You may call the Board at (916) 263-2222 to request more information about a licensee not on the lookup site, or send an e-mail request to BPELS.License.Verifications@dca.ca.gov."
As is evident, if there is no license number, it is impossible to look anything up. Additional problems arise when agency surveyors operate under the mistaken belief that if they are no longer working for the agency, they are not responsible for the work they supervised and made the decisions about. As noted above and under CCR 404.2 (c), "Except as provided in Section 8761.2 of the Code, the original licensee is not relieved of any responsibility arising from the land surveying services of which he or she was in responsible charge."
If the Land Surveyor employed by an agency is in “Responsible Charge†under state law, at a minimum, he/she should be required to include his/her license number on any monuments he/she sets or is responsible for. The inclusion of the agency name should be optional. As to adding the agency name, it makes as much sense as a private sector Land Surveyor including the name of his/her company on the monument. It might be helpful, but not mandatory. Under any circumstances, why should Professional Land Surveyors be treated differently? If the work is being done by a Professional Land Surveyor, he/she should have no qualms about placing their license number on their monuments.
There is another significant disparity between public sector Land Surveyors and private sector Land Surveyors. Private sector Land Surveyors have to file organizational records with the State Board so that the Board can track down licensees. Public sector Land Surveyors are not required to file the same form. This creates another layer of protection for public sector Land Surveyors from inquiries and other matters. A County could have thirty surveyors working for them and there is no way for the public to know who these people are and if they are even licensed. The primary intent of the organizational record is to assist consumers and other land surveyors who find a stamped monument for when they do, they can contact the Board and find out where the licensee works. Why should access to this information be different for public sector Land Surveyors? After all, are we not licensed under the same laws and regulations? Combined with the absence of a requirement to place the license number on monuments sets while in the employ of a municipality, it is clear the playing field is not level. Private sector Land Surveyors have considerably more exposure than do public sector Land Surveyors who are obligated to stamp their monuments and disclose where they work and are always held accountable for everything they do.
It is for these reasons that I would like to ask the California Land Surveyors Association to support a modification to Section 8772 of the Business and Professions Code to assure that all Land Surveyors operate under the same rules as intended under the PLSA. I therefore propose the following revision:
"Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may be." (REMOVE THE LAST SENTENCE).
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument."
This last provision is in the existing law. This would continue to permit the inclusion of any additional information such as the name of the agency or the name of the company the Land Surveyor works for, if so desired.
If Land Surveyors want to be viewed as professionals, it is time we stood up as a profession and be viewed and treated as equals in every regard. It is time to amend Section 8772 of the Business and Professions Code so that all Land Surveyors are treated equally and act in accordance with the same rules and laws.
As my old friend, the late Curtis M. Brown said:
"We, in California, have overcome much of this by certain practices that ought to be a part of all registration acts. Specifically these are:
1. Filing public records of surveys showing all evidence found and all points set.
2. Placing the surveyor’s license number on every monument set.
The surveyor is given exclusive privilege to monument property lines, and in exchange for this exclusive privilege he ought to and does have obligations to the public. Original monument evidence should never be the exclusive property of one; it should be the knowledge of all."
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to your support.
Michael J. Pallamary, PLS
"The following numerical lists may be used by anyone who locates a monument with a license number to find the name of the surveyor or civil engineer who set the monument. Further information about the person may be available by searching through license lookup, but records are not online for persons licensed prior to 1989 who were not current then and have not become current since then. You may call the Board at (916) 263-2222 to request more information about a licensee not on the lookup site, or send an e-mail request to BPELS.License.Verifications@dca.ca.gov."
As is evident, if there is no license number, it is impossible to look anything up. Additional problems arise when agency surveyors operate under the mistaken belief that if they are no longer working for the agency, they are not responsible for the work they supervised and made the decisions about. As noted above and under CCR 404.2 (c), "Except as provided in Section 8761.2 of the Code, the original licensee is not relieved of any responsibility arising from the land surveying services of which he or she was in responsible charge."
If the Land Surveyor employed by an agency is in “Responsible Charge†under state law, at a minimum, he/she should be required to include his/her license number on any monuments he/she sets or is responsible for. The inclusion of the agency name should be optional. As to adding the agency name, it makes as much sense as a private sector Land Surveyor including the name of his/her company on the monument. It might be helpful, but not mandatory. Under any circumstances, why should Professional Land Surveyors be treated differently? If the work is being done by a Professional Land Surveyor, he/she should have no qualms about placing their license number on their monuments.
There is another significant disparity between public sector Land Surveyors and private sector Land Surveyors. Private sector Land Surveyors have to file organizational records with the State Board so that the Board can track down licensees. Public sector Land Surveyors are not required to file the same form. This creates another layer of protection for public sector Land Surveyors from inquiries and other matters. A County could have thirty surveyors working for them and there is no way for the public to know who these people are and if they are even licensed. The primary intent of the organizational record is to assist consumers and other land surveyors who find a stamped monument for when they do, they can contact the Board and find out where the licensee works. Why should access to this information be different for public sector Land Surveyors? After all, are we not licensed under the same laws and regulations? Combined with the absence of a requirement to place the license number on monuments sets while in the employ of a municipality, it is clear the playing field is not level. Private sector Land Surveyors have considerably more exposure than do public sector Land Surveyors who are obligated to stamp their monuments and disclose where they work and are always held accountable for everything they do.
It is for these reasons that I would like to ask the California Land Surveyors Association to support a modification to Section 8772 of the Business and Professions Code to assure that all Land Surveyors operate under the same rules as intended under the PLSA. I therefore propose the following revision:
"Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters “L.S.†or “R.C.E.,†respectively, as the case may be." (REMOVE THE LAST SENTENCE).
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument."
This last provision is in the existing law. This would continue to permit the inclusion of any additional information such as the name of the agency or the name of the company the Land Surveyor works for, if so desired.
If Land Surveyors want to be viewed as professionals, it is time we stood up as a profession and be viewed and treated as equals in every regard. It is time to amend Section 8772 of the Business and Professions Code so that all Land Surveyors are treated equally and act in accordance with the same rules and laws.
As my old friend, the late Curtis M. Brown said:
"We, in California, have overcome much of this by certain practices that ought to be a part of all registration acts. Specifically these are:
1. Filing public records of surveys showing all evidence found and all points set.
2. Placing the surveyor’s license number on every monument set.
The surveyor is given exclusive privilege to monument property lines, and in exchange for this exclusive privilege he ought to and does have obligations to the public. Original monument evidence should never be the exclusive property of one; it should be the knowledge of all."
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to your support.
Michael J. Pallamary, PLS
-
TTaylor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm
My take,
All engineering plans and professional engineering products are signed and sealed by the person in responsible charge. This is also true of other licensed professionals.
One of our surveying professional products is the monument placed on the planet. IMO it should also clearly be identified as to the PLS who has set it.
I have found it interesting in my travels that many public PLSs have argured ardently against requiring their signing and sealing the work that they have worked on. My question in those circumstances has been, WHY NOT? Is there some problem with what you have produced? Why is it that you would NOT stand behind the work and clearly sign and seal your work so that other professionals know on whom they are relying their work?
I agree with Mike on the intent but have not spent time on this subject reviewing the laws that Mike addresses, as well as others, that should be considered for revision to assure that professionals are accountable for their work whether public or private.
I will say that I always appreciate it when someone identifies a problem and then provides a suggested solution.
TT, PLS
All engineering plans and professional engineering products are signed and sealed by the person in responsible charge. This is also true of other licensed professionals.
One of our surveying professional products is the monument placed on the planet. IMO it should also clearly be identified as to the PLS who has set it.
I have found it interesting in my travels that many public PLSs have argured ardently against requiring their signing and sealing the work that they have worked on. My question in those circumstances has been, WHY NOT? Is there some problem with what you have produced? Why is it that you would NOT stand behind the work and clearly sign and seal your work so that other professionals know on whom they are relying their work?
I agree with Mike on the intent but have not spent time on this subject reviewing the laws that Mike addresses, as well as others, that should be considered for revision to assure that professionals are accountable for their work whether public or private.
I will say that I always appreciate it when someone identifies a problem and then provides a suggested solution.
TT, PLS
Tom Taylor
7512
7512
-
TTaylor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm
Keeping in line with the general theme of clearly marking and or signing and sealing your work; I have a pet peeve with 8761 (among many pet peeves). See the text below.
My interpretation of this section is that subsection (b) deals with all the listed products, while subsection (c) deals with interim, and subsection (d) deals with final products. I am fine with the way those distinctions are made. I.e. all products have the name and number while final products also have the seal and signature.
My problem is with subsection (d) and the word “issuedâ€. I think it should be removed and replaced with “produced by or under the direction of a ….â€. Why wait until the product is issued to sign and seal? For example, suppose surveyor Jones produces a fine final surveying product and puts it in the file cabinet without issueing it for whatever reason. Then some time later the product is to be issued for its intended purpose but surveyor Jones is unavailable for whatever reason to sign and seal. Why not just sign and seal it in the first place.
8761. Use of signature and seal
(a) Any licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying may practice land surveying and prepare maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other documentary evidence in connection with that practice.
(b) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying and shall include his or her name and license number.
(c) Interim maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents shall include a notation as to the intended purpose of the map, plat, report, description, or other document, such as "preliminary" or "for examination only."
(d) All final maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents issued by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. If the land surveying document has multiple pages or sheets, the signature, seal or stamp, and date of signing and sealing or stamping shall appear, at a minimum, on the title sheet, cover sheet or page, or signature sheet, unless otherwise required by law.
Woodcutter: I agree with your statements. See subsection of 8762 below. I think that the crux of your stated problem doesn’t just lie with public entities versus private surveyors, but also lies with any easement. IMO, where the clarity needs to made is with what constitutes a boundary or a property line. I.e. is any conveyance of real property rights (easements – not fee) establishing a boundary or property line? Or is it just the conveyance of fee title that does so. Once that question is answered then the law can be clarified effectively if need be.
If the answer is that the law only refers to the exterior boundary and not any other property rights within a parcel, then the fun begins. I would opine that if you stake an easement that has a specific known relationship to an exterior boundary that you have, in effect, staked the boundary and should file an ROS.
If the answer is that the law refers to any property rights (easements) then you could end up with a backyard full of monuments for all of the various easements (water, gas, electric, sewer, cable, etc). You might not even need to put in a patio.
8762. Records of survey
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer may file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made, a record of the survey.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following:
My interpretation of this section is that subsection (b) deals with all the listed products, while subsection (c) deals with interim, and subsection (d) deals with final products. I am fine with the way those distinctions are made. I.e. all products have the name and number while final products also have the seal and signature.
My problem is with subsection (d) and the word “issuedâ€. I think it should be removed and replaced with “produced by or under the direction of a ….â€. Why wait until the product is issued to sign and seal? For example, suppose surveyor Jones produces a fine final surveying product and puts it in the file cabinet without issueing it for whatever reason. Then some time later the product is to be issued for its intended purpose but surveyor Jones is unavailable for whatever reason to sign and seal. Why not just sign and seal it in the first place.
8761. Use of signature and seal
(a) Any licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying may practice land surveying and prepare maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other documentary evidence in connection with that practice.
(b) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying and shall include his or her name and license number.
(c) Interim maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents shall include a notation as to the intended purpose of the map, plat, report, description, or other document, such as "preliminary" or "for examination only."
(d) All final maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other land surveying documents issued by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping. If the land surveying document has multiple pages or sheets, the signature, seal or stamp, and date of signing and sealing or stamping shall appear, at a minimum, on the title sheet, cover sheet or page, or signature sheet, unless otherwise required by law.
Woodcutter: I agree with your statements. See subsection of 8762 below. I think that the crux of your stated problem doesn’t just lie with public entities versus private surveyors, but also lies with any easement. IMO, where the clarity needs to made is with what constitutes a boundary or a property line. I.e. is any conveyance of real property rights (easements – not fee) establishing a boundary or property line? Or is it just the conveyance of fee title that does so. Once that question is answered then the law can be clarified effectively if need be.
If the answer is that the law only refers to the exterior boundary and not any other property rights within a parcel, then the fun begins. I would opine that if you stake an easement that has a specific known relationship to an exterior boundary that you have, in effect, staked the boundary and should file an ROS.
If the answer is that the law refers to any property rights (easements) then you could end up with a backyard full of monuments for all of the various easements (water, gas, electric, sewer, cable, etc). You might not even need to put in a patio.
8762. Records of survey
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer may file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made, a record of the survey.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following:
Tom Taylor
7512
7512
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
More to consider
Gentlemen, Thank you for your support. The one thing that I would like to clarify is the concept of public versus private. What I am advocating is equality. We are all licensed by the same process and we should all operate in accordance with the same laws. Imagine what kind of world this would be if doctors were treated differently when they worked for a county versus a private company? What of lawyers, accountants, and other professionals? One works for the public and the other private and they are subject to different rules? That is patently absurd and counterproductive. Not that this is an "us" versus "them" mentality but I have seen repeatedly in enforcement matters that the odds are significantly higher that a private sector Land Surveyor will be penalized for a minor infraction of the LS Act as opposed to a public sector Land Surveyor. This is not an opinion, it is factual. Worse, far too many public sector Land Surveyors hide themselves behind the cloak of government. Many are of the opinion that they operate under different rules, sort of like exceeding the speed limit. You can't issue them a ticket while a private person would get ticketed, they would lose their car, and get thrown in jail.
All that I am proposing is equity and as Tom aptly noted, why would a licensed Land Surveyour be unwilling to stamp his/her work? It is that simple.
Thank you for indulging me.
All that I am proposing is equity and as Tom aptly noted, why would a licensed Land Surveyour be unwilling to stamp his/her work? It is that simple.
Thank you for indulging me.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
LS 4722
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:42 am
Mike
I read your article in American Surveyor and definitely support you. The mentality of many public servants is that they are 'above the law' and it may take some time before they realize that the State Attorney General has a much different view of their status than they do.
Unfortunately, since an incorporated city like San Diego has a lot of political clout, the forces in Sacramento will move much slower and cautiously than if they were after a simple private practitioner.
When David Hobbs was with us he got very involved in getting two cities very close to where I live to come around and see the light about monument preservation. David got the media involved, just like you did and the end result was that David won his fight.
As an aside, the losers of that fight are now doing the preservation of monuments grudgingly and in my opinion not doing a professional job like they should be doing.
Good luck in the war..don't let them get you down.
Unfortunately, since an incorporated city like San Diego has a lot of political clout, the forces in Sacramento will move much slower and cautiously than if they were after a simple private practitioner.
When David Hobbs was with us he got very involved in getting two cities very close to where I live to come around and see the light about monument preservation. David got the media involved, just like you did and the end result was that David won his fight.
As an aside, the losers of that fight are now doing the preservation of monuments grudgingly and in my opinion not doing a professional job like they should be doing.
Good luck in the war..don't let them get you down.
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
Govt employees are harder to hold responsible for their work than the executives of Inc's. This should not be. Govt employees should be held to as high or higher standard then their private counterparts.
We all pass the same tests and hold the same licenses so we should all be held to the same level of accountability.
Defund Govt. If they are not going to do their job why pay them.
Keep up the good work Mike.
We all pass the same tests and hold the same licenses so we should all be held to the same level of accountability.
Defund Govt. If they are not going to do their job why pay them.
Keep up the good work Mike.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
Tom Herrin
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Highland, CA
- Contact:
For the sake of discussion, I have a couple of questions on this one. What problem are we trying to solve here, that is not already able to be accomplished through current state law? Work performed by a government agency must still be accomplished under the direction of a licensed land surveyor (or pre 82 C.E.) in responsible charge of the work. And the accountability to meet the standard of care for that work performed by the government employee is no less than what is expected of anyone else in the profession, is it not?
Can someone give a real world situation where the law in its current form has allowed an agency or its employee(s) to 'get away with' something that the private sector would otherwise be held accounatable for? Is this a perceived injustice, or is there a real world problem out there?
With the local PPC I am involved with, we spend about equal measures of time on local government agencies as we do with private sector surveyors. I do not believe that BPELSG would hold either group to a different standard than the other.
Speaking for myself as a newly minted County Surveyor, I definitely do not feel like my personal liability is any less in my new position - if anything, it is just the opposite. I do not feel I have much 'protection', as it were, hiding behind the walls of my government office.
In addition to the above, I would be interested in hearing from anyone that could comment on the reasons why the law was written in its current form. Is there a back story to this one that anyone is aware of?
I have not researched anything on this one yet, and I am neither for or against this at present, just looking to further my knowledge on the subject. Thanks for bringing up the discussion, Mike.
Can someone give a real world situation where the law in its current form has allowed an agency or its employee(s) to 'get away with' something that the private sector would otherwise be held accounatable for? Is this a perceived injustice, or is there a real world problem out there?
With the local PPC I am involved with, we spend about equal measures of time on local government agencies as we do with private sector surveyors. I do not believe that BPELSG would hold either group to a different standard than the other.
Speaking for myself as a newly minted County Surveyor, I definitely do not feel like my personal liability is any less in my new position - if anything, it is just the opposite. I do not feel I have much 'protection', as it were, hiding behind the walls of my government office.
In addition to the above, I would be interested in hearing from anyone that could comment on the reasons why the law was written in its current form. Is there a back story to this one that anyone is aware of?
I have not researched anything on this one yet, and I am neither for or against this at present, just looking to further my knowledge on the subject. Thanks for bringing up the discussion, Mike.
Tom Herrin
County Surveyor
County of San Bernardino
County Surveyor
County of San Bernardino
-
Tom Herrin
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Highland, CA
- Contact:
Dave,
Thanks for the clarification - I thought about this after writing it. While I may be insulated from personal financial liability for a given project, I am not insulated from being responsible for the professional conduct of my staff, this is more where I was coming from.
8772 changed somewhere between 1977 and 1983 in wording. The earlier wording for 8772 was "...if the monument was set by a public officer, it shall be marked with his official title". This was replaced by the current verbiage Mike is proposing to remove, somewhere between 1977 and 1983 (I don't have copies of the PLS act for these intervening years). This change may have been no more than a clarification of the existing wording (which seems awkward for its purpose), but I am curious if there was a substantive reason for the change.
Thanks for the clarification - I thought about this after writing it. While I may be insulated from personal financial liability for a given project, I am not insulated from being responsible for the professional conduct of my staff, this is more where I was coming from.
8772 changed somewhere between 1977 and 1983 in wording. The earlier wording for 8772 was "...if the monument was set by a public officer, it shall be marked with his official title". This was replaced by the current verbiage Mike is proposing to remove, somewhere between 1977 and 1983 (I don't have copies of the PLS act for these intervening years). This change may have been no more than a clarification of the existing wording (which seems awkward for its purpose), but I am curious if there was a substantive reason for the change.
Tom Herrin
County Surveyor
County of San Bernardino
County Surveyor
County of San Bernardino
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Hi Tom,
I hope all is well with you. I can cite numerous instances where this has occurred. In one instance where I found several errors with some city work, I tried to contact the individual who filed the erroneous Corner Record. I conveyed my concerns to the City of San Diego field department and according to the City of San Diego's Chief Field Surveyor, Ron Dodds, recently retired, and never refuted, here is the exchange:
From: Mike Pallamary [mailto:mpallamary@pipeline.com]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Dodds, Ron
Subject: RE: Request for Correction to City Corner Records
. . . How does the city handle issues of Responsible Charge in situations like this? It is my understanding that [your predecessor] remains in responsible charge of this work even though he is no longer working for the City. I ran into this problem when I joined [a private company] or a short while back in 2000. I had to get the state Board involved and they made it real clear that I was in charge of the work even though I was no longer employed by [the former company]. This got very complicated and it ended up involving a lot of lawyers as I was obligated to resolve some problems created at [the former company] that I had no control over. In the end because I signed the surveys, I was responsible for them both professionally and financially.
From: Dodds, Ron [mailto:RDodds@sandiego.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:12 PM
To: Mike Pallamary
Cc: Zoumaras, Dave; McCormick, Rick; Hoppe, Anne
Subject: RE: Request for Correction to City Corner Records
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 [my predecessor] 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[his] disk or mine so the responsibility requirement don’t 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.
**************************************
In the case I was involved in, the company I was working with did some work under my license without my permission. I spent a lot of time with lawyers over that one and in the end, because I was in responsible charge of the work, I had to file and correct the work the company did without my consent or permission at my own expense as it was my license on the line. Regrettably, most municipalities operate under the same mistaken belief as Dodds.
I sent numerous emails to the City Attorney to respond to Dodds' position and they never refuted it.
I hope all is well with you. I can cite numerous instances where this has occurred. In one instance where I found several errors with some city work, I tried to contact the individual who filed the erroneous Corner Record. I conveyed my concerns to the City of San Diego field department and according to the City of San Diego's Chief Field Surveyor, Ron Dodds, recently retired, and never refuted, here is the exchange:
From: Mike Pallamary [mailto:mpallamary@pipeline.com]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Dodds, Ron
Subject: RE: Request for Correction to City Corner Records
. . . How does the city handle issues of Responsible Charge in situations like this? It is my understanding that [your predecessor] remains in responsible charge of this work even though he is no longer working for the City. I ran into this problem when I joined [a private company] or a short while back in 2000. I had to get the state Board involved and they made it real clear that I was in charge of the work even though I was no longer employed by [the former company]. This got very complicated and it ended up involving a lot of lawyers as I was obligated to resolve some problems created at [the former company] that I had no control over. In the end because I signed the surveys, I was responsible for them both professionally and financially.
From: Dodds, Ron [mailto:RDodds@sandiego.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:12 PM
To: Mike Pallamary
Cc: Zoumaras, Dave; McCormick, Rick; Hoppe, Anne
Subject: RE: Request for Correction to City Corner Records
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 [my predecessor] 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[his] disk or mine so the responsibility requirement don’t 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.
**************************************
In the case I was involved in, the company I was working with did some work under my license without my permission. I spent a lot of time with lawyers over that one and in the end, because I was in responsible charge of the work, I had to file and correct the work the company did without my consent or permission at my own expense as it was my license on the line. Regrettably, most municipalities operate under the same mistaken belief as Dodds.
I sent numerous emails to the City Attorney to respond to Dodds' position and they never refuted it.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
In Counties outside of Orange I have sent letters to various City engineers stating monuments about to be destroyed, missing well mon lids, etc and never received a response.
One county was destroying BMs during a widening project, this was before BMs were added to the monumentation preservation list, and was told "Just use the TC off a set of improvement plans and reference the BM on that plan, that's what we do." Isn't that fraud, stating you used a BM that was destroyed before you did the survey?
One county was destroying BMs during a widening project, this was before BMs were added to the monumentation preservation list, and was told "Just use the TC off a set of improvement plans and reference the BM on that plan, that's what we do." Isn't that fraud, stating you used a BM that was destroyed before you did the survey?
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
Mike, from their standpoint it seems like that is technically correct, since their (and every agency, from what I have seen) disks simply state the agency name, and no license #. Therefore, the person signing off has inherently less risk on those monuments that are not set correctly.mpallamary wrote:What I mean is they never refuted his arguments.
I did an ROS in a problem area that involved County nails and brass washers that were accepted as centerline of a certain street and it caused a good deal of confusion among private surveyors as seen from later ROS maps. I had to eat the costs on that one too, and asking the County to help defray the ROS fee did not even work either. If there was a license # requirement when those were set I would suspect they would either never have been set in the first place, or would have been set in a much different location. I had notes that showed how they were set, and it was clearly not from assessing the area. It was a record calculation from one other street, and it simply did not work.
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
At State Lands, at least since I've been working here, we put the license # of the LS in responsible charge on the caps.
I've seen many examples of state & local agency monuments set with agency name but no license #, with no corresponding record to show how they were established, and no one at the agency who can answer any questions about their establishment.
I can't think of a good reason why to not place the LS's # on the monuments, and several reasons why it's a good idea.
I've seen many examples of state & local agency monuments set with agency name but no license #, with no corresponding record to show how they were established, and no one at the agency who can answer any questions about their establishment.
I can't think of a good reason why to not place the LS's # on the monuments, and several reasons why it's a good idea.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
-
Dhanrion
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:28 pm
- Location: Richfield, Utah
I apologize up front for my "simpleton" thinking .... :)
I know there is much to be said (or justified?) regarding this issue, but it's against my nature to seek "excuses" for NOT doing my best work.
I am currently an agent of the USDA Forest Service, being the lead surveyor for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (NV & CA). Nearly all boundary surveying is conducted under our State licenses, with the rare occasions where we receive Special Instructions from BLM for Federal Surveys. For those surveys conducted under State licenses: there is no grey area in my mind regarding whether we should place our PLS number on our monuments. Regarding CA stamping requirements, I take the higher ground and we stamp them...period. As long as I am running this little neck of the desert, that's the way it will be. And I have the full support of my supervisor(s) up the chain.
It is sad statement on our profession when those who should be exemplary chose to be less.
I'm sure I'll catch hell for that statement. ;)
I know there is much to be said (or justified?) regarding this issue, but it's against my nature to seek "excuses" for NOT doing my best work.
I am currently an agent of the USDA Forest Service, being the lead surveyor for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (NV & CA). Nearly all boundary surveying is conducted under our State licenses, with the rare occasions where we receive Special Instructions from BLM for Federal Surveys. For those surveys conducted under State licenses: there is no grey area in my mind regarding whether we should place our PLS number on our monuments. Regarding CA stamping requirements, I take the higher ground and we stamp them...period. As long as I am running this little neck of the desert, that's the way it will be. And I have the full support of my supervisor(s) up the chain.
It is sad statement on our profession when those who should be exemplary chose to be less.
I'm sure I'll catch hell for that statement. ;)
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Dear Dhanrion,
There is no "simpleton" aspect to your comments. To the contrary - they are astute and impressive. You are a fine model for the profession to emulate and you are to be admired for your efforts and the pride you take in your work. It is unlikely you are going to catch any hell from anyone in the profession. A professional land surveyor could not argue with you ; the professional land surveying community supports you. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in.
There is no "simpleton" aspect to your comments. To the contrary - they are astute and impressive. You are a fine model for the profession to emulate and you are to be admired for your efforts and the pride you take in your work. It is unlikely you are going to catch any hell from anyone in the profession. A professional land surveyor could not argue with you ; the professional land surveying community supports you. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in.
-
BoundaryMan
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:44 pm
Support
Mr. Pallamary,
Thank you for you posting.
You jus got my vote for support.
Thank you for you posting.
You jus got my vote for support.