California Surveyors Forums

As many of you know, I am rather vocal about the problems and burdens imposed on private sector surveyors by the State Board. I have attached a highlighted copy of the PLSA. Take a moment to look at those highlights. The act is heavily slanted against the private practitioner. In fact it is a veritable landmine of potential violations. How many public sector surveyors deal with contracts?

In addition, public agency surveyors do not have to stamp their disks and, in many cases, sign their work product.

My rant is not directed at public agencies. My rant is about a boat load of unfair regulations that impose extraordinary burdens on the private practitioner while similarly minimizing any regulations involving public agencies and public sector surveyors. It is for this reason that conflicts arise.

If a complaint is filed against me because of a contract dispute, I can lose my license and my business. If a complaint is filed against a public sector surveyor, it goes nowhere for, in addition to other things they have taxpayer paid immunity.

The intense burden that has been placed on private sector surveyors is onerous and often ends up costing private sector surveyors tens of thousands of dollars to defend something as absurd as a $250.00 contract dispute. All you need is for a disgruntled client to file a complaint against you and that immediately translates into 19 months of turmoil and thousands of dollars in legal fees just to respond.

That is the problem. Who is willing to fix it?

Don't worry about those supposed 19 month investigations MP, they only last an average of about 16 months per Borpelsg stats.

And if you ever receive a citation, they try to be reasonable and fair at the hearings. So the "Shoot first & ask questions later" practice and the "guilty until proven innocent citation process" policy practiced in many cases by Borpelsg often can result in the citation getting wiped clean. One of the Borpelsg people said to a surveyor upon being stopped in the hallway after a workshop presentation a while after he/she had the citation hearing: "Your license still shows CLEAR online, right? It showed as CLEAR through the whole process, right? Just think of it as a traffic ticket that got dismissed".

Nothin to it MP.

The last time a complaint was filed against me was about a year ago. That was a few weeks after I expressed concern with how things were being run at the board. Not coincidentally, the complaint had to do with some specious allegation of a violation of some obscure and contrived interpretation of a violation of the rules of business. Needless to say, it was eventually dropped after it was proven to lack substance. These complaints are periodically filed whenever anyone comments or criticizes something that occurs with the board and, as is well know, they are filed only against private practitioners.

Again, that is the problem. Democracy has a price, often the blood of men.

Much of what I've been a part of and witnessed over the years is that the public surveyor is typically motivated by ensuring the task at hand is done correctly vs the private surveyor who balances the motivation of profitability vs liability risk management.
During my tenure in federal, state and local government, I am aware of the rigorous field procedures held by most agencies. In particular at the federal and state level.
I recall an instance, repeated more than once, where as a party chief I got a new hire on my crew who came from the private side and had enough experience to hit the ground running as an I-man. I recall performing a traverse and during the traverse we stubbed a shot down into a ravine to tie in a boundary control point. As I directed the crew to then clear line and shoot the stubbed in control from the next traverse point, the new I-man started arguing with me that he felt the effort to close the loop to the stubbed out shot was a waste of time.
That was how he was taught in the private side. Speed first, the heck with reduncancy in measurement. This scene was repeated several times in my public career as previously private surveyors would come over to the public side and insist that the speed of radial data collection and stake-out need'nt be hampered by such a thing as closed loops and triangles.

Reminds me of the time way back when private surveyors were contracted out to perform government survey functions with little to no oversight. Anybody ever hear of that story? If not, then google "Benson Syndicate".

On the flipside, and my only real gripe about government surveyors, is I have been disappointed in the right of way acquisition survey process I've seen repeated all too often by state and local government survey offices. I have witnessed where a design route centerline is located, a few local monuments are tied here and there to get a rough idea of the neighborhood configuration. And then take descriptions are prepared without sufficient effort to actually do full and complete boundary determinations of the parcels being sliced. The environment there is that after 5 years the inaccuracies of the methodology will be overcome by prescription. I have witnessed times where construction crews show up on a project and the owner of the lands has come out and stopped the show because his lands had not been encumbered. Embarassing for the agency, but infrequent enough to where agencies who do this practice on a regular basis still insist that full and complete boundary surveys as part of the acquisition process are not performed due to the cost benefit ratio and risk assessment.

mpallamary wrote:...Democracy has a price, often the blood of men.

We're talking about the LS Act here right?

Edward, it is about the right of a person to engage in free enterprise without fear of reprisal. it is about the basis tenets of freedom and democracy.

It is about the time I was involved in a boundary dispute case and, after being deposed, the attorney on the other side removed a document from my file and cut it in half, removing the side that was stamped, a partial document and then sending it to the board, as the basis for a fraudulent complaint and then having the board tell me I should have stamped it. During this two year investigation, I was told it was illegal to use a fax machine because you couldn't apply a wet stamp.

It is about the time the board told me that very single piece of paper in my file - EVERY single piece of paper in my file had to be stamped because, if my file ended up in the trash and someone found a copy of some calculations that I did, I could be held responsible for them because the public should be able to rely on my work and that a child could find my survey notes in the trash and he/she could bring this home to their parents and I would be in trouble for that because the parent could rely on my work product and build a fence and the fence could be on the wrong property and I would be responsible. Please note, this is NOT made up, it is all a matter of record.

It is about the time I got in a dispute with a client who, because the city did not approve his project and he refused to pay me. He told me that if I did not waive his bill, he was going to file a complaint with the board. During the resultant legal proceedings, this client was informed that what he proposed to do was illegal. Nonetheless, he did it. When we went to settlement mediation, where he he lost and was ordered to pay me, on the advice of his attorney and the mediator, he withdrew his blackmail complaint and he advised the state board accordingly. The board refused to drop the complaint arguing, quote "If there's smoke there must be fire," they conducted an 18 month investigation into my business. In the course of their investigation, I produced my file and in my file, they found an internal plat map and I was told that it was a violation of the PLSA to have created such a document because it did not have a stamp on it.

It is about the time I testified in a boundary dispute and the neighbor threatened to kill me and in response to the verdict, he filed a complaint against me, a complaint which included falsified documents, altered after being removed from my files and sent to the board, resulting in an 18 month investigation against my business, a business based complaint.

In all of these instances, I had to retain a lawyer, and, at the end of the day, all complaints were found to be without merit.

Yes, we are talking about the LS Act. We are also talking about the lives and careers of hard working men and women, and the threat of loss of their homes and businesses. it is about a small business owner spending ten of thousand of dollars, sometimes in excess of $100,000 because a disgruntled client files a complaint because they feel the surveyor should have set three stakes instead of two.

Please take a moment to look at the marked up version of the PLSA I included in my original post.

20 years ago a Civil Engineer I worked for sued a client that fired him then refused to pay the amount due to date. In retaliation for the lawsuit the client complained to the board which eventually dismissed the complaint. The Judge in the Civil trial sanctioned the former client for the complaint and ordered full payment plus interest.

Dave, here is how it works. Because the PLSA is so heavily biased against the private land surveyor in business, all a disgruntled client has to do is to file a complaint, regardless if its merits. The Board will exhaustively investigates these complaints like a criminal investigation, spending endless amounts of money while the business owner has to hire an attorney. There are at least three surveyors I know who have spent in excess of $100,000 to defend themselves while the Board investigates them.

Because public sector surveyors are not in business, no business complaints are ever filed. Even when a complaint is filed, from extensive experience, they are thrown in the trash. With the latest laws adopted by the board, it appears as if the surveyor who the business complaint has been filed against doesn't turn over his or her records, could end up in the gulag or they could be sentenced to twenty years hard time while losing their home, business, and family. This is not a supposition; it is happening.

Meanwhile the public surveyor runs around and doesn't have to even stamp his/her monuments nor file any records required by law.

Mike-

I agree, a certain department in downtown Sac (not Caltrans) still refuses to file R/Ss but there is active dissent within their ranks pushing for filing. The two I have worked for, first Parks and now Fire has filed since the beginning. We feel the work we do belongs to the public and should be filed so they don't have to track us down through the faceless bureaucracy. Besides the Statute prohibits the CS from charging us map check fees so there little excuse for not filing.

We also put our LS numbers on monuments although Caltrans doesn't, at least their current practice is close to universal filing though.

-Dave

There is a large agency in Sacramento that never issues final work products. Instead, everything is "preliminary." I have some preliminary surveys that are 40 years old. I ask them if they will they ever issue anything final. We'll get back to you they say.

I am still waiting. Indeed, they rarely, if ever place seals or names on their work product. When one asks, they say, "You don't understand, we're the state. We are not subject to the PLSA."

I have another situation where we were trying to get some to accept responsibility for some survey work done by a local city. In writing, they said "We don't have to follow the land surveyor's act. We're the City of XXXXXXXX."

After filing a complaint with the state board, two years later, after many calls and emails, the board told us "We'll talk to them so it doesn't happen again." Of course, nothing was done to the individual in charge of the work, heaven forbid!

If that was a private sector surveyor they would have lost their business, their home, they would have spent $100,000 and in the end they would have lost their license and gotten divorced.

There are two very, very different worlds out there.

mpallamary wrote:........... With the latest laws adopted by the board, it appears as if the surveyor who the business complaint has been filed against doesn't turn over his or her records, could end up in the gulag or they could be sentenced to twenty years hard time while losing their home, business, and family. This is not a supposition; it is happening.......

20 years in jail? Are you sure about that? The law you appear to be quoting has only been on the books for a couple of weeks and I am of a different understanding as to enforcement remedies.

mpallamary wrote:........These complaints are periodically filed whenever anyone comments or criticizes something that occurs with the board and, as is well know, they are filed only against private practitioners...........

Can you provide backup to this very serious accusation?

mpallamary wrote:.....There is a large agency in Sacramento that never issues final work products. Instead, everything is "preliminary."....

Can you provide backup as to who, when and where? Again, this is a serious allegation, not only that an agency has that as a policy, but also that BORPELSG won't address it.

Personally my experiences with various public agencies, BORPELSG and understanding of the law are considerable opposite of yours. These are all very serious allegations you are making. I'm simply going to have to take your statements with a very large grain of salt until and unless backup is provided which can be vetted.

I can, of course back all of this up. The reference to the gulag and twenty years are, of course an exaggeration. (When is the last time anyone went to a gulag?)

Everything else is a matter of record. I have it all in writing and documented and filed - ten years' worth.

As to the back up, it has all been filed with the board. Grain of salt or otherwise, these are the facts, well documented facts.

William, what is your background? Where do you work?

Here is one example. These are not baseless complaints, I can assure you.

William, as to your request that I provide this information so that it "can be vetted," can you let me know what your interest is in this topic? I will gladly share it with you and I would be glad to discuss it with you in more detail if you would like. Can you let me know how to contact you? Are you licensed as a surveyor? Do you live in Sacramento?

Thanks.

Michael,

That is a good example of the use of a Grand Jury investigation - as part of the checks and balances between branches of government. And best done locally.

William, I have some letters, requests, and complaints I have sent to the board that are nearly ten years old and I am still waiting on responses, replies, or even acknowledgment of receipt.

I have several instances where I have sent the board complaints involving people who are not authorized to practice. When the response came in, one or two years later, I am informed - in writing - that the statute of limitations has expired and that they will not do anything.

I have attached a few of these unanswered communications. I have more. Recognize that each of these was followed up with an email or another letter or a phone call Regardless of your position on the contents, would you not agree I am entitled to a reply? Compare these unanswered letters to one the former Executive Director sent to the board back in 2008. It was answered the following month.

Should not all licensees be treated equally?

William Magee, out of curiosity, are you a licensed surveyor? I checked with the board and there does not appear to be any licensed surveyors named William Magee. I see from previous posts that you do a lot of surveying. Are you a civil engineer perhaps?

Do you work for a private firm or a public firm?

Do you work in Santa Rosa?

If you can respond, it will be helpful in placing your comments in context as I would love to share more information with you as long as I know who you are.

Thanks!

Being as the 2 very public, very serious allegations were made here on a public forum, it would seem prudent that your response to them would be posted to all here also in this same forum and in the "context" as would be appropriate to provide all the complete backgound.
Thanks.

Many licensees have little reason to know the disciplinary process. I am providing an abridged version of the disciplinary process hoping to further the conversation on this thread.

BPELSG and BPELSG Staff

The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologist ("BPELSG") staff ("Staff") - different from the BPELSG board of Governor's appointees ("Board") - have a processes for dealing with complaints and complaint adjudication. The staff ie Executive Officer handles cases through to a citation - usually for negligence. The citation can consist of fines no less than $50 and cannot exceed $5000 per violation. The Executive Officer can also chose not to issue a citation. For more information on the citation process see California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5, §473 ("Board Rules"). The licensee can ask for an informal conference to contest the violation and if unresolved, continue on to contest the violation at a hearing.

The revocation of a license, typically for incompetence, is referred to the Attorney General's office for prosecution before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). There may be attempts to settle the case, between the licensee and the Attorney General's office, before the hearing. The licenses shown as being surrendered are oftentimes the results of a settlement. After the hearing the ALJ writes a "proposed decision". It is a "proposed" decision. The Board is not bound by the ALJ's decision and can determine their own decision. This process is the "Formal Disciplinary Action".

If cases are dismissed it is most likely at the Staff level, not the Board. When a complaint is filed and a violation has occurred the Staff has the option of "obtain compliance, mediate complaint, or warn subject: close complaint investigation case." according to the BPELSG published "General Overview of the Complaint Investigation Process". The question is whether a citation is issued or a "obtain compliance" is determined by a process or an individual. There is criteria for determining the amount of the fines (maybe it is applied to the determination of a citation?) - see Board Rule § 472.1.

I offered this explanation of roles to eliminate the over broad use of "the Board". There are separate functions and responsibilities for the Staff and the Board. When commenting it would be more productive to attribute the actions to the respective body.

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Public Agency's Staff

Overall, there are very few complaints filed when compared to the number of licensees. This is proven by the numbers of complaints reported by Staff to the Board - for the current numbers look at the Board's current "Meeting Materials" on their website - beginning at page 87. Of the complaints filed, I would bet hardly any are filed against agency staff. Locally, land surveyors are reticent to adverse check letters on their own work product - they go along to get along. The filing of a complaint, even when warranted, is a personal commitment of time and potentially, exposure that many professionals are not willing to offer.

The disciplinary actions for licensees isn't reported by their practice, private or public.

Exemption from Filing Records of Survey

The only people exempt from filing records of survey are public officers (Bus. & Prof. §8765 (a)). The only public officer authorized to perform land surveying is a County Surveyor. I am not aware of any other land surveying agency head being a public officer. If memory serves me, there are 26 public officers i.e. County Recorder, County Surveyor etc. For any remaining doubters, see Board Rule 465 which explicitly restates the same obligation to file records of survey.

I have attended numerous hearings. I have firsthand knowledge of several investigations which resulted in citations, some revocations and others have washed out of the system. In my experience, with an exposure to a limited number of cases, there is a randomness to the disciplinary system which makes me uneasy.

DWoolley

William Magee. Are you a real person or are you like Stan Myron? As to your belief that these are "serious" allegations, under what basis do you make that statement? Who are are you and why, may I ask, are you afraid to reveal your true identity?

I am not afraid to state my positions with full disclosure. Can you come forward?

William Magee, out of curiosity, are you legally allowed to survey? It would be helpful to understand the basis for your concerns and comments. Are you from Santa Rosa?

Are you related to this Magee?

http://www.cagenweb.com/shasta/bios/mageewilliam.html

Mr. Pallamary,
Posting on this board is not restricted to licensed surveyors. You can call the union halls to get partial lists of the thousands of unlicensed "surveyors" working in this state. Let's not have another flame war.

I agree and please accept my apology. That is not my intent. Mr. Magee has asked some probing questions and all I want to know who he is. It speaks to a persons's character when he/she operates behind a veil of anonymity. It is a measure of a man if he is unwilling to identify himself when challenging another. He has had some critical comments and I simply want to know who he/she is.

That is all.

“A mask tells us more than a face.”
― Oscar Wilde

" Are you a real person or are you like Stan Myron? "
Trolls abound.
this site, like many others, permits the use of BS names, with zero contact info.... hence very little credibility and a poor public image.
John Q. Public comes and reads this and thinks that credible real people and Surveyors are posting... Wrong!
the ratio between honest and frank posts and the sniping BS has increased dramatically over the last decade, it is sad.

Don't feed the trolls!
my personal goal is to not respond to those that are hiding their true identity, some times I error.

---
(edit: context is everything)

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-gaul ... 36927.html

******************************************************************************************************************
I'm not the only one who feels this way, either. According to an (albeit unscientific) online reader poll by The Washington Post, 40 percent of respondents think that commenters should be required to identify themselves.

Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington agrees that people often exploit anonymity to say hateful things, but noted that "the Internet is growing up [and] the trend is away from anonymity."

She's right. But most people won't choose to post under their own names unless it's required -- after all, why bother exposing yourself to personal attacks from cowards with keyboards?

So newspapers need to lead the way: they should hold their online content to the same standard of quality as their print editions. Commenters should be forced to attach their names to their opinions.

To be clear: I don't think the Internet should be policed or that your browsing history is anybody's business. And I can think of at least two occasions when anonymity is good: if you live in a country where free speech isn't a right, and if you're trying to diagnose an embarrassing rash.

But if you're worried that a Google search will reveal that you're sort of vile, or that your rants will hurt your job prospects, then keep your opinions to yourself. Most websites dump old comments, anyway.

And don't hide behind the First Amendment, either. Being allowed to say something and being guaranteed a platform to anonymously spew venom are two different things entirely.

This isn't about coddling the egos of opinionated journalists -- least of all mine. In fact, I get a kick out of being called "faggot" by anonymous detractors because, as Hitchens himself said, "I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." Plus, as 50 Cent said, "I need you to hate so I can use you for your energy."

I mean, it's hard to take seriously the petty whines of spineless swamp people who feel compelled to say "edgy" things to compensate for their own dullness, and take refuge in anonymity because, truth be told, they aren't too sure who they are, anyway.

No, what this is about is protecting the everyday people who don't want to be featured in news stories if it means being slandered online; it's about all of the thoughtful people who choose not to participate in the discussion because they don't want to be personally attacked; and it's about a culture where fact plays second fiddle to visceral and a lot of young people don't differentiate between logical refutation and petty name-calling.

A lesson from the life of Christopher Hitchens: From the safety of anonymity, there is nothing impressive about calling Bill Clinton a sociopath, Mother Teresa a fraud, Henry Kissinger a war criminal and God a celestial Kim Jong-Il. Saying the same things under a byline is, as the kids online say, epic.

This generation has Hitchens hubris. What we need is Hitchens honor.

***************************************************************************************************************