Precedents on CLSA consulting activities?

[CBarrett]

Are there any precedents on CLSA consulting business activity of land surveying and receiving money for it. For example such as field work or map preparation contracted with one of the board members??

How was responsible charge handled, how were subconsultants handled, how was accounting handled, how are labor concerns handled? Who had the authority to negotiate and execute business contracts? Who/how volunteers or gets paid for those services?

[TTaylor]

CLSA is a 501 (c) (3) organization.

"What is a 501(c)(3) non-profit?
A 501 (c) (3) organization is a non-profit that falls within the category of religious, charity, or education. Organizations that are granted this designation are not allowed to participate in lobbying, but are exempt from paying taxes. Not all non-profit organizations are 501 (c) (3) designated and most that are not do no have tax-exempt status."

IMO, I don think CLSA should be in competition with its members or other members of the profession.

[Warren Smith]

If a board member contracts individually to provide such services, that's fine. CLSA is formed to promote the profession, and includes members from both the private and public sectors. It would not be appropriate for such a representative organization to perform any activity other than as a collective - such as recommending legislative amendments or other policy advancements.

[CBarrett]

CLSA is a 501 (c) (3) organization.

"What is a 501(c)(3) non-profit?
A 501 (c) (3) organization is a non-profit that falls within the category of religious, charity, or education. Organizations that are granted this designation are not allowed to participate in lobbying, but are exempt from paying taxes. Not all non-profit organizations are 501 (c) (3) designated and most that are not do no have tax-exempt status."

IMO, I don think CLSA should be in competition with its members or other members of the profession.

Are we sure CLSA is 501 (c) (3)? I keep hearing different stories on that from veteran members, and I am yet to see actual paperwork.
CLSA does have a lobbyist who reports at state board meetings.

[Ian Wilson]

As I recall, CLSA is a 501(c)(6) ...membership-based nonprofit is an organization that exists to promote its members' business interests, without the goal of making a profit

[CBarrett]

As I recall, CLSA is a 501(c)(6) ...membership-based nonprofit is an organization that exists to promote its members' business interests, without the goal of making a profit

I was just reading some of that .... if we are a 501 (c)(6), we can promote business interest, but can not engage in offering (consulting) services in that business. (Ie. real estate associations can no sell real-estate.)

While we are allowed to make profit, it seems to be limited to certain types of donations and fundraising activities (I didn't dig very deep into other fundraising parts yet since they are not momentarily relevant to what I am trying to understand).

Number of websites similar to this say about the same thing.
https://www.hollandnonprofitlaw.com/blo ... sociations

...Still researching... I'm sure this can be properly verified when needed.

[Ric7308]

Any "business" offering land surveying services would need to meet the criteria under Section 8729; provide an Organization Record to BPELSG naming all appropriately licensed officers; all licensees in responsible charge of proposed, offered, contracted work; and any licensees vacating positions of responsible charge would be required to file a disassociation notice with BPELSG.

[TTaylor]

CLSA providing survey support on many different levels during the aftermath of disasters and in support of charitable efforts like Habitats For Humanity is non-profit and a benefit to communities/society. These are unique situations. r

It also shows professionalism to the communities.

Offering to take work away from professionals in the biz by a non-profit organization based on advocating for the advancement of the profession is contraindicated.

[Jim Frame]

As I recall, CLSA is a 501(c)(6)

Correct, according to its 2019 IRS Form 990.

[CBarrett]

Thank you everyone, this is all very helpful info!

[DWoolley]

The remove the hypothetical aspect of the question, I will provide specific facts - even though we have not worked out every detail.

The Orange County Chapter, a practice-based chapter, is considering a proposal to have our JPPLC help out our chapter members by providing map checking services outside of the Orange County Surveyor’s (OCS) office – very specifically, records of survey (RoS). The County Surveyor has tentatively agreed to sign maps reviewed by the JPPLC with some caveats. Three of the five County’s current approved contract map checkers sit on the JPPLC. These map checkers would review the maps and prepare a letter of compliance for the County Surveyor. Also, the JPPLC would reach out to map checkers in other jurisdictions to review maps. This would help facilitate quick turnaround – quicker than the current county reviews – and help create uniformity between jurisdictions.

I have known and worked with OCS map checkers that date back to the early 70s. Record of survey checking was free of charge until the last few years. Today record of survey map checking could cost as much as $4,000 or more. One map I am familiar with (I personally checked the map before it was submitted to OCS) the surveyor was involved in litigation and sent the RoS to OCS with a check for approximately $1,500. The check print came back with an invoice for an additional $4,000 that stated the second check would not be processed until the surveyor paid up. The RoS was five or six pages.

The idea is for the JPPLC to facilitate record of survey checking for less cost and with a quicker turnaround time. OCS has been amenable to the idea.

Who’s ox is gored? I am 20% of the contracting workforce and I will gladly surrender the record of survey checking part of my business to support the surveying community working in Orange County. I believe most of the other contractors would be onboard with the RoSs. Again, quicker turnaround, less costs overall to encourage the filing of records of survey. Knowing our community, I believe some map checkers would donate some of their time to reduce the costs. However, it is not a volunteer service. The map checkers would be paid by the fees charged to review the RoS.
Additionally, approximately 50% of the fees would be retained by the chapter. These retained fees would be applied to reviews that take extra time without additional costs to the surveyor. The idea is map checkers are not constrained by artificial timelines due to budget constraints.

Another portion of the retained fees would be used for a quasi-food bank to support our retired Local 12 survey members. The last time I checked the Local 12 retiree’s pension fund is in federally determined “critical condition”. Last time I checked the dollar amount of the Local 12 pension credits has not changed since 2007 and their pension fund was about 65% funded ($2B or so in arrears). I believe 64% moves the status to “critical and declining”. These are boom times for their members, what happens to the fund during the next recession? To give readers a better understanding, their pension is $58 per credit (2007 dollars) and should be approximately $75 per credit to keep with COLA. The OC Chapter might help keep these folks off the cat food during the holidays. That is the worst of it, if the PBGC has to take over the fund retirees, in the best case scenario, would see their pension halved again – worst case is the receive less than 10% of their current allotment.

Again, who’s ox is gored? I see my personal business sacrifice as serving the greater good of the community by lowering the checking fees for records of survey, less turnaround time, jurisdictional homogenization, feeding busted retirees, encourages surveyors not to work underground and provides a member benefit. I have to give a lot of credit to OCS for working with OC CLSA on a solution.

Do the facts change anyone’s perspective? The 501 requirements should be satisfied on all accounts.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Noble endeavor, Dave . . .

But I could see "conflicts of interest" . . . and who would be responsible charge?

Crazy Phil again . . .

[DWoolley]

Phil:

More details, please. Where is the conflict if one of my employees worked for OC CLSA? We would not be checking our own maps.

The most credit is deserved by OCS for being willing to work with the local practice.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Dave, we have discussed this in our board meetings over a span of several meetings, at least three that I remember off the top of my head. Here is a quick synopsis from my personal memory of the questions that were posed:

1. The spirit of JPPLC existence is to provide facilitating professional services on volunteer basis. How do you separate who gets a free JPPLC review, and who has to pay for it? What do you do with cases that fall in the gray area, what risks are involved?

2. How is all the business administration going to be handled throughout the board members?

3. Are the chapter board members supposed to volunteer additional time and effort required to maintain the business efforts, or will they be paid? While you may be on of the company owners who likes to appear that you have money and time to burn, most of the other board members are not.

4. How do we prevent comingling of paid and non paid efforts?

5. Once you involve paid services, different level of service is required of the organization. This puts the volunteer board members in a position of conflicting interests with their primary employers, when it comes to the time demands and potential project/client conflicts.

6. The wages you suggested for mapcheckers ($20-$30 per hour are at the level of a significantly undercut wages.)
When I challenged you on this, you decided to switch to 'undisclosed wages' negotiated between you (as the chair of the JPPC) and the hiree, and hiring people who already work for your company - David Wooley and Associates 'on the side' to work over the weekend. To even consider this, ALL the efforts would have to be transparent to the board members. Right now, your proposal is anything than transparent. You would no longer be a sole proprietor, (which seems to be the type of operation you are used to) of these services, but would have a board to answer to.

7. DWA already provides identical service, using identical people, you are already checking a record of survey for us (MBI), which Kevin Hills agreed upon ONLY if it is checked under contract with DWA, and not OC CLSA JPPLC. In fact, Kevin Hills refused to run this through JPPLC. Considering that TWO MBI employees with direct knowledge of this particular map are also OC-CLSA board members, do you see the conflict of interest here? I know you don't want to see it, as you were ready to run this map through the JPPLC, not even disclosing it's nature to the OC CLSA board members whom you expected to vote on this.

8. With Kevin Hills being the incoming state president, this puts him in a potential position of conflict of interest, since he would be the deciding authority on whose mapchecking review qualifies as "direct to recorder'.

9. With DWA already providing map checking services, and then funneling the overtime parts through JPPLC and at discounted rates and wages gives the appearance potential evasion of labor laws. I don't believe it is prudent for CLSA to risk this.

10. What would be the plan on satisfying the board or registration requirements?

11. Regarding 501 (c) (6) requirements, In order to consider this, we would need recommendation from a tax law professional (as none of us, yourself including are, so "it shouldn't be a problem" is a woefully insufficient argument.).

12. Professional liability insurance? Who carries and pays for this?

13. Since you plan on undercutting map checking costs, and mapchecking services, and include comments like "mapchecking is shit work which noone wants to do in your arguments" how does this provide exemplary professionalism?

14. What happens yearly when board members change? General recommendation for professional nonprofits is also that the committee chairs change every few years to prevent overgrown sense of ownership by committee chairs. What happens when committee chairs rotate?

15. The board is requesting a meeting with Kevin Hills, because what 'you say Kevin hills said, and what someone else says 'Kevin hills said' are polar opposites. We also want to know how Kevin is vetting whose professional recommendation qualifies a map to go straight to the recorder, and whose signature does not. Kevin Hills has access to several map checking contractors (DWA is NOT one of those) who can and are likely willing to provide identical service as you wish to funnel through JPPLC. They don't seem to have the same opportunity to offer this service. Personally you ridicule them as an irrelevant minority.

As board members (which you are on of) our duty is to manage risks responsibly. Nothing in your proposal so far alleviates risk concerns. You getting personally testy and pushing that this goes to the general membership vote is not a logical argument for this to be passed to membership vote. If you want to run a business through CLSA, please provide a coherent business plan which addressed the concerns and does so above board. Right now your proposal has alluded to a number of backroom deals and conflicting information.

Also regarding risks, one scenario would be that if DWA starts offering direct to recorder map checking services, DWA's risk footprint will increase exponentially very fast. How do you suggest we protect CLSA from this risk? Being a sole proprietor you may not be quite aware of this, but large organizations are also large lawsuit targets.

You were pushing to take this to general membership vote, since you have convinced that if you ambush people with pressing them into a knee jerk vote with an emotional argument of doing good for the unprivileged, you would win the argument without having to answer all the questions that the current board has asked of you. If you wish to do good for the underprivileged, I suggest the following:

A. Your employees who are willing to work weekends for discounted rate on the same service that DWA already offers, pay them overtime and pay them fair wages so that you are not creating a whole new class of the underprivileged.

B. You don't seem to be eager to run these services through DWA, and when you do, you are threatening to use even more undercut fees in a retaliatory manner because the board is asking about relevant business details about your proposal. This doesn't show much care for the underprivileged. My recommendation would be that you run this service through DWA at fair market rates, pay competitive wages, and donate the excess. This way you avoid a lot of potential CLSA complications and it certainly frees you from having to answer the pesky board questions.

Since Dave is pushing that this idea of a JPPLC business venture goes to the general membership vote, I recommend a vote of NO, until basic business questions nd purpose of CLSA are properly addressed.

Argument part about where the money will go is irrelevant, all of CLSA money is meant to go to support common good causes and charitable considerations.

[DWoolley]

CBarrett:

It is apparent whose ox is being gored. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I do not particularly care for the mischaracterization of the discussions, but reasonable people may disagree. As I recall, most of the statements you have offered were open questions, nothing was resolved, spit balling. The first question to be answered, that remains unanswered, was OC CLSA going to pursue the endeavor by placing it on a vote of the membership? If we crossed that threshold we were going to figure out the specifics and mechanics. It really was that simple. There was no free, not free map checking that I recall. There is a whole lotta "DWA", but it was not a DWA endeavor beyond the possibility our employees may choose to work for OC CLSA on their own time. I am sure our folks appreciate your advocation on their behalf, but I have every confidence in their ability to make their own choices.

Keep in mind, there is no JPPLC plan in place, the membership would have to approve the idea and then, the reporting mechanics would have to be in place - all in due time. Therefore, most of your stated concerns are hyperbole, speculative at best, at this juncture. For example, the County Surveyor didn't "refuse to run it through the JPPLC" because that mechanism doesn't exist yet. I appreciate advocation, debates, disagreements, most anyone that knows me would attest - don't beat your own arguments by stretching out the facts, make me earn the win.

I welcome any proposal that would reduce the cost of filing a record of survey while maintaining a high standard of map checking. I believe $5,000 is unfortunate and I would welcome relief for the public and the professional community.

Please proceed - I still believe there is a greater good to be served that eclipse one map checkers personal interest.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

The forum is place to vet ideas, exchange information, agree to disagree.

I would appreciate folks thoughts and ideas on the topic. The stated goals are in my earlier posts. In the event we can generate OC CLSA income we may still ask for turkeys or canned goods for our Local 12 retirees.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

I'm not prepared to either endorse or condemn the plan, partly because I don't practice in Orange County or environs, and partly because it seems awfully complicated to me. I'm all for reducing the cost of map checking, and I don't object to any competent map checker choosing to do the work at reduced rates, but the number of moving parts in the plan has me wondering about both feasibility and sustainability. If I were trying to sell this, I think I'd put together a "Charitable Map Checking for Dummies" document to present the plan in bite-size pieces for the benefit of those of us who don't yet see the whole picture.

[DWoolley]

Jim Frame:

It isn't complicated until the membership approves the idea.

Checking maps through the association to reduce turnaround time, cut the cost for the public, help keep some survey folks off the catfood and ideally, create an opportunity to homogenized jurisdictional practices are the goals.

We have some smart folks and sufficient resources to hire the appropriate professionals to work out the mechanics.

I remain undeterred until our chapter rejects the idea.

Again, I welcome anyone's input.

DWoolley

[dedkad]

The Orange County Chapter, a practice-based chapter, is considering a proposal to have our JPPLC help out our chapter members by providing map checking services outside of the Orange County Surveyor’s (OCS) office – very specifically, records of survey (RoS). The County Surveyor has tentatively agreed to sign maps reviewed by the JPPLC with some caveats. Three of the five County’s current approved contract map checkers sit on the JPPLC. These map checkers would review the maps and prepare a letter of compliance for the County Surveyor. Also, the JPPLC would reach out to map checkers in other jurisdictions to review maps. This would help facilitate quick turnaround – quicker than the current county reviews – and help create uniformity between jurisdictions.

I guess I'm confused on why this has to become so complicated? Sounds like the County is already contracting out map checking on a time and materials basis. Once the map comments are returned, is it going through another internal check at the County? Is that why it is so expensive and time consuming? If it is, why doesn't the County just hire competent map checkers that they trust? Why are the map checkers charging the County so much to check maps if they are willing to do it for $20 to $30 an hour as a side hustle? Is the County forcing their current map checkers to work at a higher wage? Why add the extra layer of the JPPLC to do what the contract map checkers and the County could be doing in the first place?

[DWoolley]

I guess I'm confused on why this has to become so complicated? Sounds like the County is already contracting out map checking on a time and materials basis. Once the map comments are returned, is it going through another internal check at the County? Is that why it is so expensive and time consuming? If it is, why doesn't the County just hire competent map checkers that they trust? Why are the map checkers charging the County so much to check maps if they are willing to do it for $20 to $30 an hour as a side hustle? Is the County forcing their current map checkers to work at a higher wage? Why add the extra layer of the JPPLC to do what the contract map checkers and the County could be doing in the first place?

...Sounds like the County is already contracting out map checking on a time and materials basis [time and materials with a not to exceed]. Once the map comments are returned, is it going through another internal check at the County? Is that why it is so expensive and time consuming?

Answer: The map gets an immaterial cursory review by the County - I guess less than an hour - after a contract map checker checks the map. The contract surveyors, with one exception, have worked in the OCS map checking department or worked under the supervision of a former OCS map checker.

If it is, why doesn't the County just hire competent map checkers that they trust?

Answer: A couple of reasons from my perspective, generally a competent map checker cannot be hired unless they come in trained from another jurisdiction. In my experience, it takes a couple of years for a new map checker to kick off the training wheels and another couple of years before they can work unsupervised - especially if the work includes subdivision maps. The second reason is map checking fluctuates with the economy. During a recession the subdivision maps and records of survey dry up. This makes contracting a better solution during peak building booms.

Why are the map checkers charging the County so much to check maps if they are willing to do it for $20 to $30 an hour as a side hustle?

Answer: The County charges around $180/hr for map checking. The consultants charge about the same - which is a low PLS rate. The individual map checkers in OC CLSA proposal would charge far less than company rate of $180hr if it was their side hustle, beer money. Retired map checkers, most that I have known, would welcome the opportunity to check an occasional map.

From my perspective, map checking is a duty or obligation for those trained to perform the service. I know most of us on the OC contract list donate time and do not limit the amount or quality of work based on a budget. For example, I am a City Surveyor outside of OC, I recently had a map that appeared to be wrong by 0.5' but it could not be determined by the information shown on the map. I asked the surveyor if he had searched for certain monuments - he said that he searched. I sent one of our survey crews out and recovered three monuments nobody had seen since 1923 -they fit like a glove and the 0.5' error vaporized. Of course, my crew had to saw cut out a sidewalk (after verifying it was scheduled for demo, lucky for us) and dig down 20" through 2 layers of asphalt to find a pipe that allowed us to find and verify the ties from 1919. Cool point of fact, the field notes from 1923 mentioned the street was paved 12" low and they repaved it - apparently, they left the old asphalt in as base. My crew couldn't hear the monument, but experience told them it was probably in place. We wrapped up the angles, shot the curbs, drafted the linework, sent it the surveyor of record with some photos the monuments and asked him to reconsider his solution. If we invoiced the time at rates it was a little over $8k. We are not allowed to invoice any of that time to our client, but that map will be good for the next 100 years. We took a 1923 record and brought it forward to 2022. Sometimes you shouldn't put a price on a skillset and use it to do something worthwhile. Again, most map checkers have fallen on the same grenade. I believe that is the rule, not the exception.

Is the County forcing their current map checkers to work at a higher wage?

Answer: No, the OCS staff are paid a less than a competitive wage in today's market. Fully burdened with pension and health and welfare costs it is the $180/hr. As a rule of thumb, most company rates are approximately 3x the employee's hourly rate. An employee earning $60/hr is billed at $180/hr.

Why add the extra layer of the JPPLC to do what the contract map checkers and the County could be doing in the first place?

Answer: There isn't an extra layer. For the most part, the contract map checkers and the JPPLC checkers will probably be the same people, together with other trained map checkers from neighboring jurisdictions (in my vision). The difference will be removing the overhead and profit of the contracting company from the hourly, hence, $60/hr (in theory). I would welcome anyone to offer a better idea. As I see it, if an employee is billing at the company rate required i.e. $180/hr and the work is completed correctly, how do we cut the cost to the public for checking the map? That is the stated goal. My thought is we charge 60-75% of the current county fees, pay the map checker and use the residual to feed busted pensioners (or some other worthy cause as directed by the membership) and/or apply some of the residual to a particularly tough map - removing the time and budget constraints of the checker without burdening the public and/or surveyor.

Last thought, the two maps I recently posted on another thread are easily $4000-$6000 in map checking fees at $180/hr.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

I guess I'm confused on why this has to become so complicated? Sounds like the County is already contracting out map checking on a time and materials basis. Once the map comments are returned, is it going through another internal check at the County? Is that why it is so expensive and time consuming? If it is, why doesn't the County just hire competent map checkers that they trust? Why are the map checkers charging the County so much to check maps if they are willing to do it for $20 to $30 an hour as a side hustle? Is the County forcing their current map checkers to work at a higher wage? Why add the extra layer of the JPPLC to do what the contract map checkers and the County could be doing in the first place?

...Sounds like the County is already contracting out map checking on a time and materials basis [time and materials with a not to exceed]. Once the map comments are returned, is it going through another internal check at the County? Is that why it is so expensive and time consuming?

Answer: The map gets an immaterial cursory review by the County - I guess less than an hour - after a contract map checker checks the map. The contract surveyors, with one exception, have worked in the OCS map checking department or worked under the supervision of a former OCS map checker.

Actually, as far as I know County of Orange does not contract out record of survey map checking at all, it is all done in-house. Thee are contracts that the county has with outside firms for Parcel and Tract Maps, but none are being utilized this year.

The local board is extending a personal invitation the the county surveyor to speak on his own behalf on this matter, so that we don't have to make decisions based on spitball level ideas and misinformation.

Speaking of someone's ox being gored, person who is trying to solve this 'problem' is NOT one of the contract mapcheckers, and appears to wish to become one by casting aspersion on competency of everyone in the process, including the county surveyor's ability to manage his own staff, all the while claiming that map checking is hateful donkey-level work.

If it is so hateful and unfulfilling, why fight so hard to get it?
Why exclude the county Surveyor himself and members of the JPPLC Committee, and OC-CLSA board members from information which is critical to make decisions, and resort to insults and speculative untruths about their experience and qualifications? This is a bad way to start a business venture, by alienating potential supporters because they are not in love with a half baked idea.

Also, when casting speculative aspersions on people's qualifications, please be mindful of tort laws.
I suspect you think you are baiting me personally, however you ate misinforned and but there are others who have financial stake and contractual authority who could end up with their 'ox gored' because they fit your descriptions much more closely, along with being officers of the corporations that you are dragging into this. I believe also one of those is your is personal friends of yours who uses DWA as a subcontractor on projects for that same corporation.
Conflicts of interest which you did not declare or appear to have considered on your end, while asking for peoples trust.