2 surveyors, 1 ROS

Coy Glasscock · Post by **Coy Glasscock** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:15 am

Incidence # 1
LS# 1111 works for a large firm and sets monuments (tagged LS# 1111) then files a comer record with the city and NOT the county. The JPPC sends a letter stating that someone found the tagged monuments of â€œno recordâ€. Now I have to pull back-up from 6 years ago and then get LS# 1111 to sign them and submit to county.

(I have no problem with this; it should have been done the first time)

Incidence # 2
LS# 1111 works on a Record of Survey and sets tagged monuments in the field. LS# 1111 is partially retired and is now out of the country for 3 months. LS# 2222 takes over in mid-stream. LS# 2222 calls the County Surveyor to see if he can sign the ROS with another LSâ€™s tags in the ground. The County Surveyor says since the two LSs work for the same company it can be done but LS# 2222 will need to show on the ROS that he found LS# 1111 monuments already set and of no record.

Now my question:

If LS# 2222 files his ROS with LS# 1111 monuments found of no record, then wonâ€™t that put LS# 1111 back in the same situation as Incidence # 1.

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm

Only in Orange County.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:01 pm

To say that he found them and that they are of "no record" would imply that LS 2222 does not know the history of their placement. That would be untrue and therefore inappropriate.

The legend should say something like "Set 3/4" CIP, Marked LS 1111 (See Note #1)", and then Note #1 should explain that the survey began under the direction of LS 1111, who retired prior to completion and is unavailable to complete the project, but that LS 2222 has reviewed the records, field notes, and placement of the monuments, agrees with that placement and now accepts professional responsibility for the survey as depicted.

If LS 1111 had agreement with the company that they would see to it that the project was properly completed, and neither LS 1111 nor LS 2222 have no heartburn over LS 2222 signing the RS, there should be no blot upon LS 1111's record in regard to setting monuments without filing the proper map (potential grounds for disciplinary action), and the client should not be made to wait an extra 90 days to have the map record if there are no other issues holding it up.

Just my opinion.

Coy Glasscock · Post by **Coy Glasscock** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:15 am

Great, Thanks for the help.

PLS7393 · Post by **PLS7393** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:00 am

San Mateo County is currently finalizing a Record of Survey where two surveyors worked on the same map. They wanted to have two Surveyor's Statements on the map, and we felt that was a good idea.

PLS7393 · Post by **PLS7393** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:46 pm

surveydog wrote:I agree it is a good idea when appropriate with a caveat. If two surveyors both sign, there needs to also be a statement on the map that clarifies what each surveyor is signing for. Other wise the old adage will apply "if more than one party is responsible, no one will be at fault".

Good point, but I think since one firm contracted out the other surveyor, to use his knowledge of the area, the surveyor with his firms name on the map would be more responsible.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:31 am

Keith,

That may make a measure of sense, but where is hat spelled out in the law?

As a practical matter, if there were a lawsuit, presumably the company would have deeper pockets, but speaking strictly from a professional responsibility standpoint, I don't think that reasoning would hold up.

This angle of the discussion came up a couple of years ago when a surveyor proposed some legislation to accommodate multiple stamps on RSs. My opinion was and is that there needs to be one surveyor who takes ultimate responsibility.

IMO, it's fine if you have more than one surveyor indicate some level of responsibility or involvement in the survey, but there needs to be one that the client can go to if there is a problem, without the possibility of getting the finger-pointing run around between the two or more LSs or companies represented by the LSs.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:34 am

"That may make a measure of sense, but where is that spelled out in the law?"

I think the more interesting point here is the opposite, namely, that the PLS Act has no language specifically limiting the signing and stamping to just a single surveyor.

Sec. 8761: "All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other documents shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of a licensed land surveyor....."

Sec. 8703: "The phrase 'responsible charge of work' means the independent control and direction, by the use of initiative, skill and independent judgment, of the observations, measurements, and descriptions involved in land surveying work."

In no way do those sections prohibit multiple stamping. The number of stamps appearing on a document should accurately reflect the responsibility of the professionals who contributed to it.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:52 am

Marc,

Accountability was the word I was searching for but escaped me at 5 in the morning. I agree with your comments.

Lee,

Perhaps I was unclear. What is not spelled out (that I know of) is that the LS whose company logo appears on the map has a higher level of professional responsibility or professional accountability.

As you point out, multiple stamping is not prohibited by law.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:34 am

You may want to check out:

Board Rule 404.2(d) & (e)
Board Rule 411(g)(3)

Ric

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:45 am

404.2(c) speaks directly to the opening post of this thread. Show that to your CS, Coy, and file your map.

404.2(d) and 411(g)(3) speak to Lee's point.

404.2(e) addresses Keith's thoughts as to ultimate responsibility based upon "management control" (or whose company logo is on the drawing).

Thanks, Ric.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:57 am

Wow! Somehow I've overlooked 411.g.3 all these years. Am I correct in concluding that the Board, via this subsection, is OK with multiple stamps on, say, a Record of Survey? (Or Parcel Map, or Tract Map?)

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:03 am

"This is from the Board's Legal Office in 1971. "...we conclude that only one licensee may properly execute the certification form."

Yes, and thus we have been kowtowing to an attorney's "opinion" for all these years. As I've maintained elsewhere, this was an unfortunate, and mistaken position that the Board should never have given in to. Obviously, this attorney was not in touch with the way surveyor's actually work.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:11 am

I have read that legal opinion before and basically have the same opinion I did when I first read it

(picture me mumbling under my breath so the enforcement analysts don't pick up on my improper use of the French language...)

Which, I have always wondered...Do the French go around cussing at each other all the time?...and is it considered proper to do so?

Okay, back to the thread...

The way I understand it is that Board Rules (regulations) are superceded by the B&P PLS Act (statutes) and if there is a conflict between the two, statute overules. That being said, the Board Rules that we are discussing post-date the 1971 legal opinion that Dave provided. And frankly, I don't read anything in that opinion that is enlightening or makes a Land Surveyor slap himself upside the head and declare "Why didn't I think of that?" How difficult is it to proclaim "...everything is used in a singular form, so it must be that and only that"? Based on the information and language available at the time, this may have been a valid opinion.

Not fully knowledgable on the origin of the language for 8764.5 and the above mentioned Board Rules, it appears to me that Land Surveyors in this state are allowed to employ peer cooperation (multiple licenses) in the performance of ANY and ALL surveys, each claiming responsible charge as appropriate, but only one licensee can sign an RS Map.

Why is the RS Map specifically "singled" out (no pun intended)? Was there a specific reason for this? Or just the manner in which the final language resulted? More importantly, how does this protect the public?

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:17 am

Why is a R. of S. an exception?

I must be missing something. If 411.g.3 allows multiple stamps, and the LS Act doesn't prohibit multiple stamps, then what's the problem?

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:46 am

The way I read that is that regardless of whether more than one surveyor stamps and proclaims responsible charge of some portion of the project, only one may sign the statutorily prescribed statement, and that Surveyor retains primary responsibility, or professional accountability, for the survey reflected on the map.

I don't have a problem with that