Whats the latest on tagging untagged monuments?

[mbstanton]

I read a recent Board Decision that quoted a Board Letter dated August 2, 1990, that stated that a surveyor was NOT required to tag a monument that the surveyor had not set, even if it was not tagged by the person who set it......

The footnote said that the letter was confirmed to be in effect until at least April of 2005, but it also stated that the letter was not in effect in 2010. So what has happened between 2005 and 2010? Is there another Board letter that has superseded the 1990 letter?

If anyone knows what the latest Board policy is on this issue, I'd be interested.

Thanks
Mike Stanton, PLS5702

[pls7809]

While I generally do tag monuments that I find untagged and accept, I don't believe it is required. I also don't know if there was a position change on this.

[mbstanton]

I found the August 2, 1990 letter which addressed this subject (it is attached). It is the Board's opinion that a land surveyor is not legally obligated to tag an undocumented and untagged monument which he or she has used in his or her survey.

Section 8772 provides as follows:

"Any monument SET by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to make or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and viisibly marked or tagged with the certifiate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it......."

[dmi]

Ask the Board. My guess is that nothing happened really except that the board has been advised not to make law and it seems that opinion letters might be misconsrued as making law

[E_Page]

The letters of 1990 and 2005 clearly only interpreted existing statute and can't be read to have added to or subtracted from it in any way. I don't think the reason is that someone will try to elevate one of the letters to be equal with law. There really is only one tenable interpretation of that law and the letters reflected it.

I think that it has more to do with BPELSG wanting the flexibility to cite one licensee for not tagging a found mon while opining that another followed the standard of practice - coloring both as standard of practice issues, responding with "you don't have all the facts", when someone questions the difference in application, refusing to provide any facts under the guise of "confidentiality".

One more example of inconsistent enforcement which is allowed to happen due to the lack of accountability afforded by "you don't have the facts" together with "we can't give you the facts because complaints are confidential".