California Surveyors Forums

Yes Scott, I can think of several of my maps I would like to see on record.

Scott wrote:Would anybody have filed more Record of Surveys throughout their career if the recording fee was the only fee to do so (no checking fee)?

I know I would have...

Removing the financial disincentive would seem to be a good thing.

By sheer coincidence just yesterday I had to explain to a potential client why he would have to pay the county surveyor a significant dollar amount to review my work.

I've had to explain the county review cost to clients more than a few times. It isn't easy to convey to them that it is a just and warranted expense. Especially considering that the vast majority of county survey reviews I've witnessed have not provided a return value even close to being commensurate with the expense. Surely it is not a big deal for those who primarily perform work for higher cost clients and projects. But for some who cater to the individual homeowner, it is often a big percentage of the bill and almost always comes without any added value.

Here is someone who doesn't agree with "free" filings. Or at least he didn't when he posted this a couple of years ago.

I thought some of the people in this discussion might find this interesting.

This is the thread:

http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... f=6&t=5861

LS_8750 wrote:I agree with every statement said so far.

When I show a boundary line on a map, and that is 99.7% of the time, I will defend that boundary line location with the evidence recovered during my survey. I make no disclosures such as the example given. I may however leave the door open at times to suggest that my opinion may change given the presentation of, or the opportunity to discover for myself, additional evidence that may warrant further evaluation. I may not want to chainsaw a one foot deep gap into a redwood tree to tie out a spike, which as a result may compromise the tree's integrity and cause it to fall into somebody's living room and kill a family.

Phil, I've seen a couple of scenarios like your example up here in the North Bay. Ghastly! Never seen it anywhere else.

In land surveying, there are always exceptions to every rule. As for the 8762 stuff, a professional knows when to file a map. Back off Orange County with your stupid free filing. You don't want to clutter the public record with garbage. You want to leave a little for the next guy/gal to figure out. The essence of the Record of Survey.

Imagine how much garbage we would have to sift through if everybody filed R/S and Corner Records for everything done in this state. I for one don't want to sift through the crap. I for one believe that quiescence is the goal, especially when curious neighbors are looking over my shoulder.

I, for one, believe that there are enough quality land surveyors in this state to maintain at least some informal police power over the quacks. Each one of us knows the hierarchy of the land surveyors practicing in our communities, who is good, who is questionable, who is honest and honorable, who is a quack, and who is a criminal. Let us all admit that this is true.

8762 is no land surveyor's friend when you look at if for what it is. It takes the professional's judgement aspect out of the equation. It strips the surveyor of his professional integrity.

Anybody who researches a chain of title abhors clutter. Imagine, if 8762 was actually realized, how much garbage would exist in the archives. How many records of survey does it take to change a lightbulb?

Give the power back to the surveyors. Most of what I see in modern maps is nonsense anyway, only inciting litigious impulses.

When we cannot figure out how to do our job as a professional whole, then for God's sake don't make us advertize our work product to the public at large.

Also, there are a few other threads on this form regarding RS checking (pro- and con- ) and checking fees. For example, here is one:

http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... nge#p38643

(going back to lurking now. Squid - who is now immortalized on Page 39 of Cal Surveyor 185! )

Two years ago.
Yeah I said it.
Wanna hear it again?

From later in that same thread:

"Available records diminish = demand for land surveyors increases. -- Think back a hundred years or so, when perhaps the courthouses burned down leaving no records. Land surveyors were in high demand.

But on the other hand, when available records increase = demand for land surveyors diminishes. -- Nearly every single modern Record of Survey map or Subdivision Map calls a predecessor's monument out of place somewhere on that map. What exactly does that mean, when only one legal corner is contemplated in law?

It means that with more and more recorded maps containing the ever-more presence of discrepancies between recorded maps, or surveyor's "professional opinions" as related to the location of legal boundary line on the ground, the law and the public look at surveyors with disdain. The result is, and has been, that the law and the public look at surveyors with distrust. The profession of land surveying is dying, or dead, as a consequence.

8762 in this climate only invites a flood of information, conflicting of course, that leaves legal and title professionals, not to mention surveyors, with more questions than answers.

It appears to me that 8762 was written at a time when land surveyors "followed in the footsteps of their predecessors." Back before calling each other off was en vogue.

What exactly happened to cause this trend, or this cancer, of calling monuments out of place, to overtake the profession of land surveying?"

"Paging Mr. Wooley! Mr. Wooley, please pick up a white phone."

David Kendall:

I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion, thank you. You presented a well written prospective on your August 8th post. Based on the number of views of this thread it appears as though there is a broader than usual interest in the topic.

Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologist ("BPELSG") - as promised.

I am not sure I have the gumption or stamina to write all that could or should be written on the BPELSG staff, good and/or bad. However, I will start and see where it goes from here. In the context of the current thread, I believe we are discussing the aspects of enforcement.

The Basics

Folks often refer to "The Board" when they discuss the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, [yes, they use an Oxford comma here] and Geologist ("BPELSG"). However, in the simplest form, there are two separate bodies with separate functions.

The first body being the appointed board, comprised of 15 people, 7 licensees and 8 members of the public. Most of the board members are selected by the Governor and I believe, one by the Speaker. When we refer to the appointed body we should use "The Board". In the simplest terms, the responsibility of The Board is oversight and governance of The Board Staff. Former land surveyor members of The Board include Pat Tami, George Shambeck, David Slausen and is currently, Steve Wilson.

The second body is the board staff. The board staff are state employees, many of which we readily recognized i.e. Ric Moore, Executive Officer, Nancy Eissler - Assistant Executive Officer, Tiffany Criswell - Enforcement Program Manager, Dallas Sweeny - Senior Registrar (a position formerly held by Ray Mathe, Ric Moore, Howard Brunner). Additionally, there are other Senior Registrars, Analyst, legal counsel and administrative staff. I provide their names because many folks recognize them in our community. When we refer to the state employees we should use "The Board Staff". In the simplest terms, the responsibility of The Board Staff is the management and performance of the daily operations of a state agency.

The primary sources of law for creation, the granting of authority and governance are; the Business and Professions Code ("Bus. & Prof."), Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and the Bagley-Keene Act aka Open Meetings Act.

When we write about BPELSG, especially when discussing the problems and solutions, we should distinguish which body is responsible for which aspect. The generic "Board" is not accurate for discussing the roles and responsibilities of enforcement.

Now that we have clarified the roles of the respective bodies we can discuss issues.

The Enforcement Process

The enforcement process, as it pertains to investigations and citations, is a function of The Board Staff. If you have a problem with the enforcement program your problem rest with The Board Staff.

Nonsense Clause

Before anyone gets balled up, we are professionals and we do not need to be told to act professionally - a personal annoyance for me. Experience dictates that regardless of what you say or how you say it the one thing that remains certain is some ne'er-do-well will accuse the penman of being unprofessional. Hogwash, I say.

DWoolley

Having been involved in many expert witness cases involving legal cases against other surveyors and engineers, I think that the system in place is a good thing, in that it somewhat protects the public I am not talking about misspelled words or a standard reference to a map (jurisdictional preferences), but, negligence or even incompetence. The fees are, in my opinion, too high for the County fees, and when added on top of the Land Survey fees, are intolerable to most of the public. I like what Orange County has adopted, in that it is simply the recorder's fee. I would like to see that adopted throughout California.

So many of this professions' issues are tied together and, IMO, can't be adequately discussed without discussion of how the issue at question affects and/or is affected by other matters.

Do I think that some counties charge too much for map review? Yes. Especially when the number of maps demonstrative of inadequately or improperly performed surveys found among filed records is considered.

Do I believe that learned members of a profession should be able to adequately police themselves without the oversight by a government official that map review represents? Yes. But I go back to the number of filed maps that reflect poor surveying.

Do I believe that some level of review is either necessary, or at least a positive thing? Yes. First, going back to the amount of poor surveying that occurs. Second, I feel that it is a valuable service not only for the public, but often for the diligent and well trained surveyor. Some organizations have several experienced and knowledgeable surveyors on staff who can consult with each other and review each others work as standard QA/QC procedures. Many don't have QA/QC procedures for in-house review, many others don't have the in-house talent or other resources to institute in-house peer review as a standard procedure. No matter how good the LS is who is preparing or in responsible charge of the map, when only one set of eyes reviews a document, that set of eyes can and often does become blind to (usually) minor errors or omissions.

In the county where I had my (sadly, short-lived) private practice, once we got it cleared up that I wouldn't pay much attention to comments that were about style, but that I was responsive to and appreciated substantive comments, the reviews of my maps were refreshingly free of BS commentary, useful in spotting the occasional typo or drafting error, and sometimes quite valuable in suggesting additional explanation to items that seemed clear to me, but once I stepped back and further considered a reader who did not perform the survey, or who may not be a surveyor, additional explanation made sense. There were also times when the map reviewer would inform me of additional info I may not have been aware of that turned out to be important to consider in my survey.

That County charged a very reasonable $135, which covered an hour to an hour and a half of the map reviewer's time, and none of the CS's time. Yet, I never had a problem getting the CS to discuss matters with me. The process was very helpful to me to create better maps (and occasionally, better surveys), was always worth the fee and sometimes worth far more.

However, after 2 or 3 years, I found that the level of review was not consistent in that office from one surveyor's maps to another surveyor's maps. I happened across a map of a survey by a local guy who the CS is well aware is practicing without a license, and all other local LSs are aware of the same, but the unlicensed guy's father is licensed (ret. and living several hundred miles away, but apparently it's still an unenforceable situation) and the old man signs all the maps. Anyway, I run across this map of a parcel very near one that I had surveyed. Some serious survey conflicts and title company created title gaps in the section. The unlicensed guy addresses one such gap because his client knew of that one and specifically asked for it to be addressed in the survey, but the unlicensed surveyor showed absolutely no indication of an identical situation, created by the same conflicting surveys and title actions, which lay along another line of the property.

When I asked why they let the map record without prompting the "surveyor" to address that situation, and remarking that had I missed something only fractionally as obvious, they would have commented on it on my check print, I was told "Yeah, but you pay attention to the comments. We're lucky if we can get some of these guys to fix their typos."

When I asked how it is that the unlicensed guy can keep on surveying, I was told that the CS had turned him in several times but was told by the (then) BPELS Enforcement Manager that since a valid licensee is signing the maps, there is nothing they can do until a client files a complaint for negligence. The fact that the father, having retired his 2 engineering licenses (CE and SE or maybe ME) but keeping his LS active, lives several hundred miles away, is not directly involved in any of the projects, and can't possibly be in actual responsible charge of the work, wasn't enough for Board staff to open an investigation.

So we have several issues that all have some effect on each other and all play in to how I answer the poll questions: 1) Map review (sub categories a- fees, and b- level of review that should occur), 2) Professional competence (both of the surveyor submitting the map and of the CS & staff), 3) Individual professional accountability, and 4) BPELSG Enforcement.

1) Map Review: Fees

First and foremost, I feel that the fees should appropriately reflect the value of the review and it's relative value to the survey process. If the cost of the review is 50% or more of the cost to perform the survey, unless the survey were performed at an intentional charitable discount, then there is something very wrong happening. Either the survey was performed at an inappropriate discount rate by which the surveyor would be very tempted to cut corners to avoid losing money, or the cost of the review is exorbitantly high, providing far less added value than what the review is worth.

If the surveyor has performed the survey diligently, has drawn the map reasonably well, and has provided all info necessary to perform a reasonable review and provided that info in a neat and organized manner, few maps should require more than a half day effort to review. If the review costs of such a survey and submittal package results in fees going much higher than that, then perhaps the CS should also be carrying a portion of the liability that goes with being in responsible charge.

Some CSs might argue that they do have such liability per Wheeler v. County of San Bernardino. Not so. In that case, Wheeler asserted that the CS owes a duty to ensure that the survey reflected on a filed map is correct, and the Court affirmed that the CS does have a duty. But the Court did not go so far as to clarify what that duty is. It referred to the statutes in the PLSA, but did not go into detailed interpretation and did not specifically affirm that the duty was as Wheeler had asserted. They basically looked at the statute and said "Yup, the law clearly provides that the CS has a duty to review the map", and left it at that. The case could have been targeted to almost any mid-level bureaucrat with statutorily described duties, and is most useful in application for determining whether a bureaucrat falls within that window of responsibility level where the Court said they can be personally or professionally liable (lacking the normal protections for negligent acts afforded most govt employees) for a failure to properly fulfill their duties.

It still leaves us to interpret just what the minimal level of statutory duty is for the CS in map review. Many view the minimal requirements to be the bare technical requirements: right sheet material, size and border, presence of N arrow and statutory statements, acceptable mathematical closure, and view any deeper review of the actual substance of the survey or info beyond dimensions needed for closure as a permissive level of review. Others see the review of the additional info and of methods as being required. Most seem to be loathe to exercise their right to add a note of disagreement, no matter whether clearly warranted or not.

My interpretation of the law as written, and I know some will disagree, is that the mandatory review aspects only go a bit beyond the purely technical matters of sheet size, etc. and can be done in most cases by someone with an LSIT level of knowledge and a checklist. Beyond the sheet size and other check listy type requirements, if someone with a paraprofessional level of knowledge can understand what the map is showing can locate lines and points from the depicted info, and can readily identify what various objects are. A review like that is worth perhaps $100 to $250.

My opinion of what a CS should do in review includes the basic review and a professional level review to ensure that a properly trained professional can understand what evidence was used, what was looked for, and the reasoning used to arrive at conclusions. That would include a comparison to past and contemporaneous records. The key to that level of review having value is that the CS must be properly trained have adequate experience, and be knowledgeable in boundary principles. Just as importantly, the reviewing CS needs to be able to differentiate between an actual deviation from the boundary principles defined by the courts in this state (which often differ significantly from those interpreted from some commonly referenced text books) and a valid difference of professional opinion. If proper boundary principles have been violated, then a note of disagreement or perhaps even a referral to BPELSG may be warranted (is warranted if difference can't be resolved). If a valid difference of opinion as to the significance of certain evidence over other evidence of roughly equal value, some discussion may be warranted to ensure that both the surveyor of record and the CS understand the perspective of the other, but generally, no note is warranted, nor is delay in approval or more than marginal difference in review fee.

Should all professionals be trusted to file maps when appropriate and to properly include all of the information to make it properly informative? I would hope so. But I also hope to win the Powerball this week. Experience shows that while each of those hopes are highly desirable, they both have a roughly equal chance of occurring.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult, if not impossible to test a person's character to determine what they would do in a particular situation and differentiate that from their answers of what they should do in that situation. For many, depending upon character, circumstances, or both, what a person would actually do may differ from what they should do, but the test answer will almost always be what should be done, regardless. The only accurate test is when a thing should be done, to see if it is actually done, and done properly.

I'm sure we all know "professionals" who intentionally cut corners in the performance of their surveys as well as in following the filing requirement and/or the amount or quality of the information provided on their maps. Education within the profession will help for a portion of that. Market forces might help in some areas of practice, but would make things worse in others. In construction staking, poor work is likely to be discovered in very short order. Market forces might tend to weed out the poorest practitioners. In boundary surveying, poor work can and very often does go undiscovered for many years or decades. By the time it's discovered, the affected landowners don't remember the surveyor who performed poorly and end up placing the blame for any problems on the surveyor recently hired who discovered the issue. Clients, knowing nothing about the complexities of boundary retracement or the propensity of poor work to lie dormant and surface as significant problems years later will gravitate toward those who offer the service at the "most reasonable" rates. The boundary market would end up being much like it is in many parts of the SE or Midwest where surveys are performed at a small fraction of what they are here, and $20/hr is considered really good pay for a party chief or new LS.

I could delve into competency at great length, but will try to keep it brief. The CS generally enjoys a presumption of being more knowledgeable than the average surveyor when it comes to boundary matters. In some cases, that's warranted. In many cases, the opposite is true. There isn't really any way to tell until a CS has been around long enough to earn some repute in the community. There is no advanced license for County Surveyor. They have the same license as you or I. The hiring criteria will vary from county to county. In some, they may screen extensively for a high level of professional and technical knowledge. In others, the ability to handle the administrative aspects of the position are a higher priority for the hiring authorities. In a few, a warm body holding a license and willing to settle for a low salary compared to other agencies is an acceptable candidate. There may be political and/or social considerations or any of several other considerations that rank higher than professional & technical knowledge. Only one county still elects their CS.

The licensing exams seem to have been seriously dumbed down over the years, either in what is asked of the examinee, or in the lowering of cut scores, or a combination of both. Many states now require a 4-yr degree. Even in states that don't require one to be licensed, many employers, including agencies require the degree. Many of these degree programs produce graduates who are highly educated in the math & science aspects of surveying but woefully misinformed and underdeveloped when it comes to the investigative, analytical, and communication aspects. Our universities and our licensing exam are producing new licensees that place principles stated in the latest versions of Boundary Control & Legal Principles and in Evidence & Procedures for Boundary Location in higher authority than the actual principles found in case law applicable to this state when those principles conflict. If a comparison could be drawn, I expect that it would find that todays "minimally competent" new licensee is likely more competent in the use of technological tools, perhaps about as competent in the math & science employed for data usage, but significantly less competent when it comes to the identification of relevant evidence, the analysis of facts, application of legal principles, and the communication of conclusions than the "minimally competent" new licensee of 20 or 30 years ago.

Our licensing boards, or at least BPELSG seems to be leading the profession away from a license that signifies true professional standing and toward a system and level of competence that looks more like the technical registration of a skilled trade. Which brings me to enforcement.

I believe that a licensing board should have a well run and effective enforcement component. There are a lot of sub-parts to that which all need to work well for the program to work well. IMO, the basic structure for a good enforcement program is in place, but at present, it is neither effective nor well run. When I served as an expert for BPELSG on several enforcement cases, I took the role very seriously to ensure that my review was accurate, well-reasoned, and balanced the reasonableness of what the licensee did with what the client should have reasonably expected. Having since seen the results of many other BPELSG investigative reviews, I found that not all experts retained by BPELSG viewed the role in the same way I did, and just as bad, many of the "experts" demonstrated a far less than expert understanding of the practice they were tasked with reviewing. I've seen complaints pertaining to incredibly sloppy work and extremely unethical behavior dismissed on the weight of an equally poorly considered "expert's" report, and have seen highly ethical and competent surveyors have to spend a great deal of time and money to defend their practice due partially to the review by an "expert" who didn't recognize that the case was beyond his limit of competence, and in at least one case, because the Board, or Board staff management wanted to make an example of a licensee, regardless of whether the law and facts uncovered anything warranting such treatment.

The present system, from the statutory map requirements through the various components of survey, map preparation, review, and possible enforcement has several flaws that result in inconsistencies between local jurisdictions, excessive inconsistencies in local standards of care/practice, inadequate licensing standards, and inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate enforcement decisions.

I support the mandatory filing under certain conditions of the survey. I support a level of review that adds value to the filed map and the cost for which is commensurate with the value added. I think that the basic process contemplated in CA law provides a good framework for a valuable and effective step of map filing. I believe that there are improvements that can be made at the State level, and some which necessarily would need to occur in several local jurisdictions to bring the process closer to the ideal. I hope to see some of those occur while I'm still around to appreciate them.

Well said, Mr. Page. Thank you...

You covered a lot of relevant ground there, Evan.

I can relate to the various factors at play in the selection of County Surveyor. Although an at-will appointed statutory position (with one notable exception by election), it is placed before the Board of Supervisors at the culmination of the usual civil service/HR protocol. It is, necessarily, a function of local County administrative practice.

Some of us have been City Surveyors, and have been "on the other side of the counter" preparing subdivision maps, records of survey, descriptions, etc. for review and approval. Key to becoming and continuing to stay competent is participation in the local chapter of CLSA, various public surveyor associations, and - wait for it - forums such as this one.

It is, I suppose, an acquired taste and, like our private sector development-related counterparts, the end result must be a constant improvement in the filed results. The maps of today ought to be no less clear than those being retraced and subdivided. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the surveyor signing the statement. Those of us who are long in the tooth occasionally impart a nugget toward that end.

The hiring criteria will vary from county to county.

Worse yet, some counties -- including my own -- don't have a CS on staff; rather, they engage a consulting firm that designates one of its own staff members to perform the role. In the case of my county, the consulting CS doesn't live in the county, doesn't work in an office in the county, and has never (to my knowledge) practiced in the county. I have no reason to believe that he's anything less than a conscientious surveyor, but he has shown no familiarity with historical practices in the county and doesn't have access to county records, so his map reviews are necessarily limited to the information presented to him. And since he's not a county employee, he has no sense of direct loyalty to the CS position, since it really isn't his position, it's just an assignment. The last staff CS was born and raised in the county, practiced there for many years prior to becoming CS, and held the CS position for 15 years or so before being forced into retirement. I expect turnover under the current system to be considerably greater, to the detriment of the local practitioners.

Thank you Evan and all others that posted. This post is very informational. Thanks, Jp

It is really interesting to see the various perspectives on this topic.

I will say that for a few of us in Humboldt County, the County Surveyor checking process was invaluable in getting a pre-82 civil engineer before the Board of Registration and eventually getting his license revoked for negligence and fraud. The County Surveyor was actually one of the additional complaintants in a supplemental action after the initial complaint was filed. I think the County Surveyor does play a valuable role as a gate keeper, at least in our County, and has aided in maintaining a high standard for the surveys that do get recorded. I am certainly happy that some of the surveys that I see in for checking did not get recorded in the initial form in which they were submitted.

The Role of the County Surveyor

The answer to the question as to the role and responsibilities of the County Surveyor is ultimately hinged on whether the review is a discretionary duty or an ministerial duty. Evan Page’s assessment of the Wheeler case is accurate. However, the Wheeler case has been cited in many subsequent cases – I believe I have 68 Shepardized cases - in which they reference the discretionary duty of public employees. In broad terms, the discretionary duty is a higher level of review which includes independent judgment. This is an important distinction to the public employee immunity from personal tort lawsuits. This immunity isn’t afforded for the ministerial duties – a low (er) level of review. The Wheeler case was about discretionary duty and has been cited as such. In reading Wheeler, in and of itself, you wouldn't get that from the case.

First, in my mind, it simply doesn’t make sense we would have a legislated officer serve as a ministerial spell checker. As stated previously, such simple task would easily be accommodated by the County Recorder/County Clerk – which was established in 1850 with the serious charges of maintaining the records system – including detailed land records and their review. The duty of spell checker and margin measurer was squarely in their capacity and remains so today.

Second, why would a County Surveyor, a legislated officer/County Recorder, apply the signature and seal on a ministerial review? Moreover, why would a County Surveyor have the authority to add a note of disagreement on a record of survey before filing? Because the signature and seal represents discretionary duty and independent judgment. I cannot imagine two surveyors writing competing notes entered into the public record -see my caveat below - over ministerial duties i.e. spelling errors, north arrows or margins. This review does not allow the County Surveyor to require the surveyor to change his methods or procedures, but he certainly is required to review it in the context of his independent judgment and experience. Says who? The County Surveyors themselves in their published Guide for the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records. In the same guide there is a checklist on page 11 which includes signing off on the “Survey Procedures” – said checklist includes the following partial list;

“Survey based on sufficient control..Sectional breakdown correct…Deed interpretation correct…Relationship to adjacent lines or points when pertinent…Methods of establishment of lines or points shown where necessary.” (oops, sectional breakdown correct? The CS that signed the RoS which established interior section lines in two townships from two monuments without adding a note on the map, negligent).

These are their written standards, approved by committee, adopted and published.

As it turns out, my professional twists and turns have involved plenty of engagements involving testifying on professional negligence. Hands down, the easiest way to prove negligence? Provide a peer written/published standard and demonstrate it wasn’t followed. In the case of a County Surveyor, imagine the County Surveyor that didn’t follow the County Surveyors’ adopted written standard - negligence, all day, every day. Ah, you weren’t a CS when it was written? Doesn’t matter. What standard did you follow? You disagreed with their assessment? Doesn’t matter. What standard did you follow? No budget? All negligence, all day. Remember these standards have been revised and adopted several times by their peers over the last 30 years.

Private surveyors have their duties outlined in the same guide. For example, item 6 on page 9 states:

“6. Lines of occupation or features near corners shall be shown if they assist in determining the location of boundary lines and must be shown if they indicate possible alternate locations.”

How many surveyors note occupation agrees or disagrees with the lines established? If not, you’re fighting uphill on a negligence allegation.

For any wiseacres, yes, I know that technically speaking a record of survey isn’t a public record and shouldn’t be referred to as such – if anyone is inclined to use any of this material outside of a land surveyor’s forum I recommend you correct that statement so as not to look ignorant to anyone that may know better.

Reporting Negligent County Surveyors

I believe it is our professional obligation to report negligent land surveyors – which would naturally include County Surveyors. I believe most are likely to practice in accordance with the law and published standards. There are fewer than 58 in total, it wouldn’t be much effort to pick off the wayward. Their work product is filed in the County Recorder’s office. Compare their signed work with the published standard. One incident is negligence, 10 is incompetence and a threat to the public. Again, the CS is not a training position. The days of turning a blind eye, live and let live, and allowing negligence and incompetence to continue unabated must end - the alternative is deregulation.

In my experience, contract “County Surveyors” are not a good thing for the reasons Jim Frame stated – it is just another assignment. The casual surveyor, unfamiliar with the role and responsibilities of a CS, should not be working as the CS map checker.

Recently, I have been reviewing some contract County Surveyor map checking work and it is disappointing – it must result in BPELSG complaints. For instance, one reviewer wrote, in barely legible redline scrawl, “every boundary has a thousand solutions. Pick one [for the map]”. The accompanying map check letter was equally horrible as both a writing sample and the content. Good grief. The comment was related to a deed establishment which when ran the direction of the deed created a large encroachment. However, if established "backwards", in reverse order as written, the improvements fit. The surveyor was noting this fact.

DWoolley

The Motivation

I have found the motivation to write more on the issues with the BPELSG enforcement program. The motivation comes from sitting through a deposition in which the licensed surveyor – admitting under oath he has at least five citations – has placed his clients into drawn out and expensive litigation. The cost is sure to be several hundred thousand dollars. At present, there is no end in sight. I was well aware of two of the citations. One citation included more than 50 unfiled surveys, 111 monuments, which was a sampling of the public record over an approximately 10 year period of a 40 year career. The surveyor was fined $4000, which he proudly stated he had paid. For those doing the math at home, would you forego drafting, fees and the associated cost of filing 50 records of survey for $4000? A record of survey, in the simplest form, will cost a minimum of $1500 in labor, minimum. It does not take a business degree to realize the deal in paying $4000 to get out of $75,000 in labor cost? Everyone knows the cost isn’t the $75, 000 – which presumably the surveyor had been paid. No, the real cost is when a land surveyor has been paid, especially the hand to mouth low ballers, and is required to complete the past work on a timeline which does not allow him to work on the current billable work. At rates, this is another $75,000 in billable time.

The Death of Honest Business

If you operate a law abiding business and you are struggling to get a project for mere wages – the reason for the struggle is due to the lack of a real enforcement program. I used to regularly hear from honest business people - when there was a message of hope - desperate to find answers or meaning as to why their business models are failing. Each are commonly told by prospective clients their proposed cost are 50-70% higher than the next 2 or 3 proposals - which never include the cost of a record of survey. Most often, these folks are proposing projects for wages, including the filing of a record of survey and losing out. Restating the obvious, their competitors are not filing when required. An honest business is not operating on a level playing field, not by a long shot. When the benevolent and protective order of BPELSG staff allows a scofflaw surveyor a pass, for instance, a $4000 pass, there is a chain reaction of events which includes allowing this dishonest business to continue to ruin honest business. Honest business, providing honest services in according to the law, cannot hang on to their standards forever. The day may have already come for most to compromise the law to be competitive in the market or simply, to close their doors. I will be the latter and simply, walk away.

Complaints Filers are Gutted and Where Complaints Go to Die

Several land surveyors that have filed complaints outside of Orange County (and some inside Orange County) have been demoralized by the actions of the BPELSG staff. I have a stack of BPELSG staff letters, from all over the state, in which they are stating they have achieved compliance, case closed or the would-be respondent has been advised of the law or in the "interest of justice", case closed. In fact, the OC JPPLC was presented with 3 new letters, stating the same, this weekend. Protecting the public the primary mission? Maybe, if the wayward land surveyor is is the exclusive public. Now picture a member of the BPELSG staff, at conference or local professional meeting, “encouraging” a room full of land surveyors to file complaints. It appears to be some sort of twisted game. Further imagine, a BPELSG staff member, a non-technical analyst, chastising a JPPLC co-chair for submitting a complaint? Specifically, questioning who he obtained the work product from and what were the violations when there was a stated failure to file and differences between measured and the established line equaling 0.5' in 8' with no monuments or boundary establishment notes? If the co-chair wasn’t part of a supportive collective this would have put an end to his dedicated hours of research and writing complaints.

Up is Down, Black is White, Left is Right

I am sure there is at least one reader that is yelling at the monitor, in reference to the fellow that wasn’t required to go back and file his records of survey, “the board rules state the land surveyor shall be required to file the records as a matter of discipline!” Yes, that is correct. However, apparently the term “shall”, unlike any other laws, is up to the discretion of the Executive Officer. I know there is a second surveyor yelling at the monitor “I’ve seen the BPELSG issue citations in which the surveyor had to take classes, get another signature for review of his work, go back and file numerous records!” Yes, true that. However, do you think the BPELSG staff has a follow up program to ensure these disciplinary orders are followed? For the most part, in my experience, there is little or no follow up. In fact, I know one person ordered to submit his record of survey to the BPELSG staff within 30 days of the citation and a filed copy within 30 days of filing. It has been 3 years since the citation, the complaint was filed approximately 2 years prior to that, and the record of survey has not been filed to date. Honest business and competent surveyors have nearly five years invested in that hope.

It is what it is for the time being. You have had a glimpse behind the curtain, pay the carnival barker, now move along. I can assure every reader that it gets much worse. There is a flip side to this coin, the adage is "better to have 10 guilty men walk free than to have 1 innocent man locked up". I subscribe. I have seen citations against legally unsophisticated land surveyors for being in compliance with the law. The citation does not address the law, but it does cite "standard of practice" as the cause for citation. Restated, this means the "standard of practice" was in opposition to the written law, hence, the violation. What?! You are squarely in the rabbit hole.

The Core Issues

Now that I am newly motivated, I will answer your questions Lee Hixon - it will take some time. Evan Page was correct, in his previous post, when he stated the enforcement mechanics are in place. That isn’t at issue. The issue is a little more complicated. It is made worse by the fact the BPELSG does not have a law enforcement background outside of their internal process. In my opinion, there is an apparent need or desire by the Executive Officer to be play Caesar – essentially, picking winners and losers based on a shifting criteria (remember the “it depends” clause often cited by BPELSG staff and the audible snickering that followed? It certainly appears to depend on who you are, who you know and/or where you're from geographically and/or some other unstated inconsistent criteria). In some cases, it appears as though there may be no method to the madness. Note, to the would-be Ric Moore defenders, knock it off before you start. Over the years, I have had my fill of impassioned uninformed nonsense - particularly, from a handful of past presidents. I find Ric Moore to be personable and likable enough. Let's simply agree on that and move on to discussing the enforcement and his role in it. Figuratively, don't waste the ink on paper telling me what a great guy Ric Moore is and/or what a bad guy you may think I am, we have all heard this tired type of nonsense before, nobody cares. Let's talk enforcement and leave the ridiculous good guy measuring stick at home. Insider's tip, some of the upstanding leadership types, the "good guy" pals, are some of the worst violators of the law.

I have a boxes of BPELSG information which paint one side of a compelling picture. I know that BPESLG staff has on occasion demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the Administrative Procedures Act to compliment their lack of law enforcement experience. I know that cases which are referred to hearing take more than 4 years to calendar, especially in Oakland, and the accusation and the accompanying notices are likely to be completely sideways - even after having four years to draft. And yes, there is more than a Ronco warehouse, much more.

I spent many years offering words of hope to the honest, competent surveyors. I no longer have a message of hope for you. The Orange County JPPLC is working hard, statewide, to deliver the complaints. The BPELSG staff washing machine is working extra hours to turn out achieved compliance or advised of the law or the classic "in the interest of justice" letters, either way, case closed, thanks for playing, good luck with your honest business, competent surveying practices and the public be damned. The BPELSG staff message is clear, please submit complaints, we may get to a revocation in 5-7 years, we hope you can hang on that long - actually, they appear to be indifferent, oh yeah,. and don't forget to file your records of survey. Meanwhile, we will be working on unconstitutional legislation which allows us to revoke a license absent due process - we will continue to purse the legislation even after our noses have been rubbed in the illegal nature of the proposed law. The response from the Board members to the enforcement work? Give that guy a raise! Let's discuss raising his salary cap at the next meeting.

The land surveyor catch and release program doesn’t work for honest business the same way it works for the salmon under the Game and Fish folks.

I eagerly welcome a written defense of the BPELSG staff enforcement program. Also, the Orange County JPPLC is open for business and file a complaint for work completed anywhere in the state. They remain undeterred by the failures outlined.

DWoolley

E_Page wrote:
Our licensing boards, or at least BPELSG seems to be leading the profession away from a license that signifies true professional standing and toward a system and level of competence that looks more like the technical registration of a skilled trade. Which brings me to enforcement.

I believe that a licensing board should have a well run and effective enforcement component. There are a lot of sub-parts to that which all need to work well for the program to work well. IMO, the basic structure for a good enforcement program is in place, but at present, it is neither effective nor well run. When I served as an expert for BPELSG on several enforcement cases, I took the role very seriously to ensure that my review was accurate, well-reasoned, and balanced the reasonableness of what the licensee did with what the client should have reasonably expected. Having since seen the results of many other BPELSG investigative reviews, I found that not all experts retained by BPELSG viewed the role in the same way I did, and just as bad, many of the "experts" demonstrated a far less than expert understanding of the practice they were tasked with reviewing. I've seen complaints pertaining to incredibly sloppy work and extremely unethical behavior dismissed on the weight of an equally poorly considered "expert's" report, and have seen highly ethical and competent surveyors have to spend a great deal of time and money to defend their practice due partially to the review by an "expert" who didn't recognize that the case was beyond his limit of competence, and in at least one case, because the Board, or Board staff management wanted to make an example of a licensee, regardless of whether the law and facts uncovered anything warranting such treatment.

The present system, from the statutory map requirements through the various components of survey, map preparation, review, and possible enforcement has several flaws that result in inconsistencies between local jurisdictions, excessive inconsistencies in local standards of care/practice, inadequate licensing standards, and inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate enforcement decisions.

Evan Page unpacked a lot of material in the quoted paragraphs. Obviously, he has been to the mountain,

DWoolley

I think Private Surveyors should not be allowed to vote on this.

Although I am mostly perfect or nearly so, even someone as perfectly humble as me has benefited from County Surveyor reviews.

And I don't make my living checking maps; we don't even have to file but we do as a public service. Maps made by public agencies with tax dollars should be filed.

Dave,

Government Code 6103 - you are exempt from map check fees

Government Code 27383 - you are exempt from Recorder's fees

Dave:

I have been on the San Diego CLSA JPPC for thirty five years. Over that period of time I have been responsible for crafting most of the complaint letters to the State Board. In the early years I received similar responses to the ones that you cited. I learned that the State Board did not have the budget or staff to actually investigate most of the complaints that I was filing. Once I started submitting a complete package of evidence along with a detailed explanation of which laws I believed were being violated and why they were being violated, I received positive action from the State Board. The respondents were required to reimburse the State Board for investigation costs, had their license suspended and placed on probation. In two cases, the State Board revoked the respondents land surveyor’s licenses.

It is also very important to choose our battles carefully. The San Diego JPPC focuses primarily on “no record” monument complaints. These complaints are pretty simple for the State Board to deal with. Either the respondent filed a public record or the respondent did not file a public record.

Complaints regarding ALTA surveys are a little more complicated. Again it requires evidence; IE a copy of the ALTA survey and a detailed explanation of which state law was violated and why it was violated in order to provide the State Board with the tools that they need in order to pursue the complaint.

Complaints to the State Board regarding survey procedures shown on recorded maps are much more complicated. You have an individual or a group of individuals (JPPC) alleging negligence/incompetence in regard to the survey procedure shown on a recorded survey. The map had been reviewed by city/county staff prior to being recorded. The complaint to the State Board implies that the city/county staff was negligent/incompetent for allowing the map to record. In these cases, it is especially important to provide the State Board with all pertinent evidence and a very detailed explanation of which state law was broken and why.

My experience with the State Board is that they will do a good job if they have the tools that that they need. We, especially the JPPC’s, need to insure that we are giving the State Board the tools that they need. This insight comes from dealing with the State Board for thirty five years. As my computer friends say “garbage in; garbage out”.

Dan

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote: we don't even have to file but we do as a public service. Maps made by public agencies with tax dollars should be filed.

Please elaborate on how CalFire employees are exempt form filing Records of Surveys. I missed that rule, maybe that's why I rarely see any CalTrans surveys on the record as well?

Also, you completely miss the point. No one asked if there is benefit to CS review. Any review has benefit, my 7 year old could make a valid suggestion on ways to improve a map so you win the argument, congratulations.

The question is whether the value exceeds the cost. Since you do not pay map review fees, your opinion on this matter may have little value.

I agree with the second part of your quote above. The first part is garbage. You do have to file your surveys under the same conditions which I do and while it may be a public service it is also the law of the land as well as your duty as a professional.

Thanks for playing!

Mr. Kendall,

I know that you are newly licensed, so even more reason why you should be intimately familiar with the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, but apparently you are not. Although public agencies must "file", the maps are indexed, not recorded. So Mr. Karoly's agency does not have to file their surveys under the same conditions that you do.They are to be commended for taking that extra step realizing the added value to the public and profession.

8765. Record of survey - exemptions
A record of survey is not required of any survey:
(a) When it has been made by a public officer in his or her official capacity and a
reproducible copy thereof, showing all data required by Section 8764, except the recorder’s
statement, has been filed with the county surveyor of the county in which the land is located.
Any map so filed shall be indexed and kept available for public inspection.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle I am a "Cal Fire Official," at least that is how they captioned a news photo of me (and Dan). Wow that puffed my chest all up, HEY YOU STOP THAT! I AM A CAL FIRE OFFICIAL!

I'm working on a unique survey right now. The County owns an inholding in our State Forest so the County Surveyor is not just checking the map, he is representing the other owner too. There are some questions so we have been discussing them.

Darn it, I forgot about the Ad nauseum prior discussions on what the legal definition of "public officer" is in this context. But hey, a "Cal Fire Official" has to qualify!!!

SPMPLS wrote:Although public agencies must "file", the maps are indexed, not recorded. So Mr. Karoly's agency does not have to file their surveys under the same conditions that you do.They are to be commended for taking that extra step realizing the added value to the public and profession.

8765. Record of survey - exemptions
A record of survey is not required of any survey:
(a) When it has been made by a public officer in his or her official capacity and a
reproducible copy thereof, showing all data required by Section 8764, except the recorder’s
statement, has been filed with the county surveyor of the county in which the land is located.
Any map so filed shall be indexed and kept available for public inspection.

Semantics. While I honestly appreciate the correction I don't really see any great significance to that disctinction. Maybe I'm naively missing your point.

The Recorder's statement adds almost as much value to the survey as the County Surveyor's statement does these days (which I argue here is minimal). At least the Recorder statement contains some valuable information and it costs much less!

What I find problematic (and personally offensive though I hope not to sound indignant in public) is the attitude of public officers that they are above or immune to the law. This is damaging the public and profession.

It's a survey map, it's a matter of record and it is held to a set of published standards. The difference in my mind is the $300-700 cost associated with the process of making it available to the community. That 'public service' part which you speak of is debatable as well sometimes we do the opposite if we are not careful.

The most convincing argument I have heard in this entire thread of the value of CS review is that it serves to perpetuate this industry. Believe me my bank account appreciates this very much as do my children but from a philosophical standpoint it is occasionally hard to connect that aspect to public service.

Karoly the more I thought about that post last night I was hoping you were being sarcastic with the whole thing and not just the first part. Maybe it's tme for an ad nauseum discussion of what it means to be perfectly humble....

David Kendall wrote:I don't really see any great significance to that disctinction

Except for the fact that it made your already disrespectful response of calling Mr. Karoly's statement "garbage" totally incorrect. Yes, you missed the exemption in the law. Now you choose to disrespect him again by referring to him solely by his last name. I have followed this forum for a long time and read many of your posts prior to you obtaining your license. I have noted an extreme change of tone in your writings since you got that number that deemed you "minimally competent" to practice land surveying only a few short months ago. For me, over 30 years ago, the issuance of that number signified the start of my true learning as a professional, which continues to this day. Apparently it meant something completely different to you? To each his own.

Carry on.