Tom:
Great topic!
I don’t think this needs to be addressed y the LS Act. It is a practice issue relative to the way the LS conducts business.
I’ve worked for a number of placed during my career. Some places keep records forever. The files are a veritable treasure-trove of information not found anywhere else. Other places purge records every so often. Seven years appears to be a common time frame. There is a mistaken belief that if the data is not there, the lawsuit can’t be completed. As in, "I’m sorry yer Honor! We don’t seem to be able to find the files. I believe they were destroyed a few years ago." Didn’t work for the accounting giant Arthur Anderson. Won’t work for the California LS, either.
Who owns the data?
Well, since we move around a lot more these days than we ever used to, I’d suggest having a discussion and a written agreement between the business owner and the LS on staff in responsible charge. Why not create dual copies of all data? The files could be stored electronically and as PDFs, scans, etc. That way, the data would always be available to the company and to the LS after they’ve parted ways.
It’s YOUR license. Protect it!
Who really owns the data?
-
Ian Wilson
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
- Location: Bay Area
-
steffan
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:44 pm
- Location: N CA
Tom,
there was a very similar discussion in an earlier thread which I think was entitled "When you can't file a record of survey". It didn't necessarily answer the question you posed, but did have some good discussion on a simiar issue.
One thing I've noticed is that the LS Act requirement for written contract requires the licensee name and #, but it only appears to imply that it is the licensee information for the principle or officer in charge of the business. Perhaps this section of the LS Act should be amended to address those situations where the responsible charge is not the licensee listed in the contract. Maybe as simple as requiring both licenses be listed, one for the licensee (or officer in charge) of the business, and one for the person committing to being in responsible charge. Maybe that would help prompt companies to better address this relationship internally. Perhaps also to be considered is a requirement that the contract include a definition of the rights and long term responsibilities between the company and responsible charge. That way all three parties (client, company and responsible charge) would then have a binding understanding as to who would be ultimately responsible for project completion, record retention and payment
there was a very similar discussion in an earlier thread which I think was entitled "When you can't file a record of survey". It didn't necessarily answer the question you posed, but did have some good discussion on a simiar issue.
One thing I've noticed is that the LS Act requirement for written contract requires the licensee name and #, but it only appears to imply that it is the licensee information for the principle or officer in charge of the business. Perhaps this section of the LS Act should be amended to address those situations where the responsible charge is not the licensee listed in the contract. Maybe as simple as requiring both licenses be listed, one for the licensee (or officer in charge) of the business, and one for the person committing to being in responsible charge. Maybe that would help prompt companies to better address this relationship internally. Perhaps also to be considered is a requirement that the contract include a definition of the rights and long term responsibilities between the company and responsible charge. That way all three parties (client, company and responsible charge) would then have a binding understanding as to who would be ultimately responsible for project completion, record retention and payment
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Most companies have as a standard contract clause, that they retain ownership of the data and original copies of any reports, drawings, etc. that are issued. So the question between company owned vs client owned data is normally dispensed with.
It's not necessary, and IMO, not a good idea to have the Principal AND the employee PLS assigned responsible charge listed in the contract.
The purpose of listing the company's primary license holder in the contract is to protect the client, that the consultant is duly licensed. In most cases, the company is considered to be the consultant. That's why it is required that the principle be licensed. Therefore, listing an employee PLS is redundant to the reason for the rule.
This would also create other contractual problems for the company and the employee PLS. Larger companies would have to make work assignments based upon proposed jobs rather than on actual workload.
An employee PLS might be prevented from reasonably being able to switch to other employment due to contractual obligations at his current place of employment.
This can create problems for the employee in creating a situation similar to indentured servitude. It can also create problems for an employer who might wish to let a licensed employee go, but is obstructed from doing so either until the contracts with that employee listed are concluded or are properly amended.
Many PLSs work for others, in the private and public sectors, because they do not want to deal with, or want to minimize their involvement in the administrative and contractual aspects of the business.
Companies with staff that includes multiple licensed individuals need to have the flexibility to assign work among them and to sometimes make changes in work assignments.
Whether the data is owned by the PLS or the employer company should probably be dealt with in an employment contract between them.
Many companies, as has been pointed out, are very adamant that the data is proprietary, fearing that if they let the data go with a departing licensee, the company might lose any competetive advantage they would have with particular clients, nearby or related projects. Some of these same companies are ones who periodically purge records.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise to put within an employment contract is an agreement for responsibility for project completion upon separation. If the company does not wish to accept the responsibility, they agree to provide the licensee with copies of all data. Another good provision might be to offer the licensee files before they are destroyed in a file purge.
It's not necessary, and IMO, not a good idea to have the Principal AND the employee PLS assigned responsible charge listed in the contract.
The purpose of listing the company's primary license holder in the contract is to protect the client, that the consultant is duly licensed. In most cases, the company is considered to be the consultant. That's why it is required that the principle be licensed. Therefore, listing an employee PLS is redundant to the reason for the rule.
This would also create other contractual problems for the company and the employee PLS. Larger companies would have to make work assignments based upon proposed jobs rather than on actual workload.
An employee PLS might be prevented from reasonably being able to switch to other employment due to contractual obligations at his current place of employment.
This can create problems for the employee in creating a situation similar to indentured servitude. It can also create problems for an employer who might wish to let a licensed employee go, but is obstructed from doing so either until the contracts with that employee listed are concluded or are properly amended.
Many PLSs work for others, in the private and public sectors, because they do not want to deal with, or want to minimize their involvement in the administrative and contractual aspects of the business.
Companies with staff that includes multiple licensed individuals need to have the flexibility to assign work among them and to sometimes make changes in work assignments.
Whether the data is owned by the PLS or the employer company should probably be dealt with in an employment contract between them.
Many companies, as has been pointed out, are very adamant that the data is proprietary, fearing that if they let the data go with a departing licensee, the company might lose any competetive advantage they would have with particular clients, nearby or related projects. Some of these same companies are ones who periodically purge records.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise to put within an employment contract is an agreement for responsibility for project completion upon separation. If the company does not wish to accept the responsibility, they agree to provide the licensee with copies of all data. Another good provision might be to offer the licensee files before they are destroyed in a file purge.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Who owns the data- not the right ??
I do not believe the correct question is who owns the data, but rather what is the basis for a private firm to interfere with a licensed professional who is attempting to comply with a State Law manadate that is a required for the licensee. My view is that the firm ought to put someone in place who can become responsible charge to meet the compliance requirements.Additionally the firm should inform the board that you and they have agreed to this and who the new surveyor is that will be completing the record of survey. If they firm is unwilling to do that then they ought to provide you with ALL of the data that was collected for the purpose of the record of survey. As it stands now, the firm can refuse to do either of these things and this puts the professional in the position of having to start over and complete the survey from scratch.
On a very large survey this could be a nightmare. No professional surveyor ought to be placed in this situation again.I have nothing good to say about any firm that will not FULLY support its professional staff in meeting STATE LAW MANDATES. I believe the issue ought to be taken up by the legislative committee. But in the meantime, a professional joining a new firm ought to make sure they are covered with contract language that states specifically what will happen with respect to the professional surveyor's requirements to comply with state mandates in the event of termination of the agreement. This is something I suggested in another thread and has be echoed by Ian and Evan.
Perhaps Ric Moore can help you with a method to compel the firm to either file the record of survey on their own or give you the data.
On a very large survey this could be a nightmare. No professional surveyor ought to be placed in this situation again.I have nothing good to say about any firm that will not FULLY support its professional staff in meeting STATE LAW MANDATES. I believe the issue ought to be taken up by the legislative committee. But in the meantime, a professional joining a new firm ought to make sure they are covered with contract language that states specifically what will happen with respect to the professional surveyor's requirements to comply with state mandates in the event of termination of the agreement. This is something I suggested in another thread and has be echoed by Ian and Evan.
Perhaps Ric Moore can help you with a method to compel the firm to either file the record of survey on their own or give you the data.