Limitations on Legal Description Checkers

[mpallamary]

I have had a large number of conflicts with various government agencies. As you may know I do a lot of work wherein we are challenged by governmental agencies. In many instances I have been involved with individuals who, in the course of litigation are deemed incompetent in a court of law and these decisions are handed down by the court and are a matter of record. After the decisions are handed down, we submit these to the board and I have been doing this for at least nine years.

As you may know I have had the Grand Jury agree with me. There are a large number of instances where public agency employees do not sign their survey nor do they file any maps. In once instance a government surveyor failed to file, according to other city employees, thousands of surveys. Those have all been turned in to the board but nothing is done.

I have a large number of complaints that my clients and I have filed. They never see the light of day. As a standing policy the board does not pursue complaints against public sector surveyors. That is well documented fact.

[mpallamary]

I have followed up numerous times, over and over and over and over again. Invariably I am told the board is too busy to look into these complaints, all in writing I might add. All of this is documented and I possess all these letters and complaints.

There are two classes of surveyors.

[RAM]

"It is to be remembered, by and large that private sector surveyors are motivated by profit and production while, in many cases, public sector employees are motivated by getting a paycheck and it behooves them to be unproductive and to drain every second they can in "reviewing" projects. This problem is commonly associated with unions. "

IMHO this statement is nothing more than an insult and is so far off base and the truth. Try walking a mile in our shoes before you claim to know what we do, the challenges we face, the lack of resources to do the job. I wish there was an ethnical way to share the work products that are submitted as a "professional" product. I am not here to do your job, yet that is the perception based on the incompleteness of some products that are submitted for review. Maybe there is a problem in your area, but this is a very big state and my 25+ years in private practice, found this statement to be untrue. There is good and bad on both sides, but both sides for the most part comprise of surveyors whom are trying to "Protect the Public."

Rant over

[mpallamary]

Thanks RAM. Your comments are greatly appreciated. My statement was qualified with the term "in many cases." it was not my intent to begrudge you in any way. I have been in the business for 45 years and these are my observations. They are by no means, intended to denigrate all public sector employees. In that regard, please forgive me. I dialogue was started and I weighed in. A great many people agree with me. There are a large number of unqualified surveyors in the private sector. Good rant and greatly appreciated! I have immense respect for you sharing your opinion as it is valid.

A great deal of my work involves working with and opposite public agencies when problems arise. Several of my clients are public agencies and in other instances I am hired by individuals who have been harmed by a public agency.

Not at the risk of rebuttal but I have owned and run a business for 35 years, trying to feed families, and paying insurance, assuring that everyone gets a paycheck every week. In large part, our bottom line is dictated by the competency of the agencies I and others work with. If our projects are compromised by an incompetent plan checker, the plan checker is still paid; private sector companies are not paid and sometimes, that means we have to take a mortgage out on our homes or sell something to complete our contractual obligations and to continue feeding families. When a private sector company faces challenges like this, their home can be seized and other problems can arise.

If I may, try walking in my battered sneakers.

PS, I have been contacted numerous times by public agency employees who are troubled by the things they have seen and observed. These are men and women with a conscience. They contact me to assist them. These are the good people out there and there are many.

Again, many thanks. I am going to remove my comments in 48 hours as I do not want to cause anyone any unnecessary grief. Thanks for weighing in.

[RAM]

thank you for the rebuttal, and to clarify, I have walked in your sneakers, for 25 years in a very small business. However in my area, we never had an issue with the public folks as we maintained open communication. I do fully understand the private side is $$$ driven, sometimes to the determent of being thorough and complete.

[mpallamary]

Thanks RAM. You are a good person and I am disturbed at myself for my perceived insensitivity and again, I apologize. There are a great many noble and hard working public employees and it was not my intent to generalize. I have been involved as an ongoing part of my practice where problems have arisen and I have had to testify in court about such things. In fact I just came back from a meeting this afternoon wherein this problem was discussed. I will be in a deposition Thursday involving this problem. The case has elevated to a federal lawsuit and it is a direct result of mistakes made by a couple of city employees who were negligent.

I have been involved in a lot of these and I am very busy up and down the state of California with cases involving government agencies. In numerous cases, we have had the court rule against a certain city or county or individual and because of the nature of these cases, my private sector client(s) incur incredible losses and damage. I have cases where the court has stated that one of the reasons the losses were incurred is because, in many cases, planners and other city/county employees are performing survey work or the surveyor/engineer is unqualified or unlicensed. When these things happen, complaints are ultimately filed with the state board and the board does not investigate things like this. Consequently the public is harmed.

I am in the middle of one project wherein we are working with several lawyers. This same individual, who we are dealing with, works for a certain county and the court has determined that he is practicing land surveying without a license. Anyone can see that. Still, he is still in a power of authority to continue doing what he is doing because in spite of the court rulings, no one has disciplined him as the board will not pursue such matters.

I hope this makes sense.

Again, my apologies to you. Please forgive the broad brush stroke.

[dmi]

"It is to be remembered, by and large that private sector surveyors are motivated by profit and production while, in many cases, public sector employees are motivated by getting a paycheck and it behooves them to be unproductive and to drain every second they can in "reviewing" projects. This problem is commonly associated with unions. I have seen many instances where employees scrounge other projects to see if there is any time they can harvest. This latest thing with the Coastal Commission is nothing short of obscene."

I am sorry but the fact of the matter is that the above statement is unfortunate, un called for and as a general proposition untrue.. While we are each entitled to our own beliefs facts are not subject to the whims of partisan views. While it is true that some employees are just doing time, this is not a problem that is exclusive to the public sector. We can trade anecdotes but that would not change the underlying fact that many are giving their best no matter what side of the public counter they are on.

[mpallamary]

I agree. The beauty of this country is the ability and right for folks to express their opinions and air their views. I hold you in eminent esteem for doing so. Thank you! You are a great asset to the profession!

[Warren Smith]

Dane,

So true! Here I am, struggling through another fiscal year budget, attempting to use the crystal ball for an estimate of development activity to gear up for, provide upgrades for our field equipment, updates for our server, more documents to scan and index. While not profit motivated, there is a reverse motivation to reduce "net cost to County" ...

[Warren Smith]

My impression is that the Board enforcement is limited to sanctions against licensees for specified grounds listed in PLSA section 8780:

"(a) Any fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in his or her practice of land surveying.
(b) Any negligence or incompetence in his or her practice of land surveying.
(c) Any fraud or deceit in obtaining his or her license.
(d) Any violation of any provision of this chapter or of any other law relating to or involving the practice of land surveying.
(e) Any conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a land surveyor. The record of the conviction shall be conclusive evidence thereof.
(f) Aiding or abetting any person in the violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation adopted by the board pursuant to this chapter.
(g) A breach or violation of a contract to provide land surveying services.
(h) A violation in the course of the practice of land surveying of a rule or regulation of unprofessional conduct adopted by the board."

It's good to review these statutes occasionally. This section was amended last in 2011.

Board Rule 404 contains definitions of incompetence and negligence for purposes of enforcement. Board Rule 476 is the Code of Professional Conduct.

Think about the elements to be established in order to pursue sanctions against a public official in furtherance of his or her duties. What is more common are actions filed in court based on damages claimed. See Wheeler v County of San Bernardino, 76 Cal.App.3d 841 or Nizam-Aline v City of Oakland, 47 Cal.App.4th 364, for example.