California Surveyors Forums

Can anybody provide some "brief and to the point" discussion, or possibly articles, to help convince an LSIT to NOT take on side jobs and perform "Surveying without a License". Thanks,

This should be fun.

How about starting with enforcement actions here:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletins.shtml

having a board investigation and/or action on his record could prevent him from ever getting his LS.
(I am assuming that is his goal because he went to the trouble of getting the LSIT)

Peter Ehlert wrote:having a board investigation and/or action on his record could prevent him from ever getting his LS.
(I am assuming that is his goal because he went to the trouble of getting the LSIT)

Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks,

New LS wrote:

Peter Ehlert wrote:having a board investigation and/or action on his record could prevent him from ever getting his LS.
(I am assuming that is his goal because he went to the trouble of getting the LSIT)

Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks,

no, just my WAG

New LS wrote:

Peter Ehlert wrote:having a board investigation and/or action on his record could prevent him from ever getting his LS.
(I am assuming that is his goal because he went to the trouble of getting the LSIT)

Can you provide a reference for this? Thanks,

Take a review of the relationship between B&P codes 8741(d)(1) and 8792(a).

This brings to mind a question I have had been asking myself:

If an LS has knowledge of unlicensed practice, or some other violation of the LS Act, can said LS be found to be aiding/abetting for not reporting?

I have been working under the presumption the answer is yes, and besides we want those people gone anyway.

Scott wrote:This brings to mind a question I have had been asking myself:

If an LS has knowledge of unlicensed practice, or some other violation of the LS Act, can said LS be found to be aiding/abetting for not reporting?

I have been working under the presumption the answer is yes, and besides we want those people gone anyway.

I agree, that is why I'm hoping for a brief, to the point, and conniving discussion, that will educate and solve the problem without involving the board.

Per California Jury Instructions - "CALCRIM" 401 -- Aiding and Abetting.

"However, the fact that a person is present at the scene of a crime or fails to prevent the crime does not, by itself, make him or her an aider or abettor."

"Someone aids and abets a crime if he or she knows of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose and he or she specifically intends to, and does in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator's commission of that crime."

For a more complete read on the above citations, refer to the following:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/docum ... dition.pdf

Aiding and abetting

8780 License Suspension or Revocation of Licenses; Vote Required; Grounds; Period of Suspension
The board may, upon its own initiative or upon the receipt of a complaint, investigate the actions of any land surveyor licensed under this chapter or any civil engineer licensed under the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) who is legally authorized to practice land surveying and make findings thereon.
By a majority vote, the board may publicly reprove, suspend for a period not to exceed two years, or revoke the license or certificate of any land surveyor licensed under this chapter or civil engineer licensed under the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700), who is legally authorized to practice land surveying on any of the following grounds:
(a) Any fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in his or her practice of land surveying.
(b) Any negligence or incompetence in his or her practice of land surveying.
(c) Any fraud or deceit in obtaining his or her license.
(d) Any violation of any provision of this chapter or of any other law relating to or involving the practice of land surveying.
(e) Any conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a land surveyor. The record of the conviction shall be conclusive evidence thereof.
(f) Aiding or abetting any person in the violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation adopted by the board pursuant to this chapter.

Scott wrote:This brings to mind a question I have had been asking myself:

If an LS has knowledge of unlicensed practice, or some other violation of the LS Act, can said LS be found to be aiding/abetting for not reporting?

I have been working under the presumption the answer is yes, and besides we want those people gone anyway.

I'm not aware that we are mandatory reporters, and unless you're actively helping him in some way, I don't think you'd be aiding/abetting. On a similar vein, should every map reviewer send to the Board every crappy map submittal that comes across their desk? They probably should if it is an ongoing issue, but when it comes to matters like this, I prefer education to enforcement. I think you're doing the right thing by letting him know it is illegal, assuming what he is doing is actually illegal, and what the consequences are.

One would assume an LSIT would already KNOW it is illegal to survey without a license, right? If he argued that he didn't know, one could make the logical leap that it if he knew it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle without a license, and you know land surveyors are licensed, it should be obvious that it is illegal to survey without a license. Turn him in. Be sure to provide the Board whatever evidence you have.
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/comp ... nsee.shtml
He is taking work away from you, your boss, and/or your colleagues at CLSA. He is denigrating and devaluing the profession.

B&P Code 8792. Acts constituting a misdemeanor
Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(a) Who, unless he or she is exempt from licensing under this chapter, practices, or offers to practice, land surveying in this state without legal authorization.

B&P Code 8741 - (1) Not have committed acts or crimes constituting grounds for denial of licensure under Section 480.

B&P Code 480 - (a) A board may deny a license regulated by this code on the grounds that the applicant has one of the following:
(1) Been convicted of a crime. A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere. Any action that a board is permitted to take following the establishment of a conviction may be taken when the time for appeal has elapsed, or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or when an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence, irrespective of a subsequent order under the provisions of Section 1203.4, 1203.4a, or 1203.41 of the Penal Code.
(2) Done any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit with the intent to substantially benefit himself or herself or another, or substantially injure another.
(3) (A) Done any act that if done by a licentiate of the business or profession in question, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of license.
(B) The board may deny a license pursuant to this subdivision only if the crime or act is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which application is made.

Board Rule 472. Citations of Unlicensed Persons.
(a) The Executive Officer or his or her designee may issue a citation for any violation of any provision of law enforced by the Board to an unlicensed person who, unless otherwise exempt, is acting in the capacity of a professional engineer or a professional land surveyor .
(b) Each citation
(1) shall be in writing;
(2) shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including specific reference to the provision or provisions of law determined to have been violated;
(3) shall contain an assessment of an administrative fine, an order of abatement fixing a reasonable period of time for abatement of the violation, or both an administrative fine and an order of abatement;
(4) shall be served on the cited person at the last known business or residence address personally or by certified mail with return receipt requested;
(5) shall inform the cited person that failure to pay the fine within 30 calendar days of the date of assessment, unless the citation is being appealed, may result in the Executive Officer applying to the appropriate superior court for a judgment in the amount of the administrative fine;
(6) shall inform the cited person that, if he or she desires an informal conference to appeal the finding of a violation, the informal conference shall be requested by written notice to the Board within 30 calendar days from date of issuance of the citation;
(7) shall inform the cited person that, if he or she desires a hearing to appeal the finding of a violation, that hearing shall be requested by written notice to the Board within 30 calendar days from date of issuance of the citation.

Board Rule 472.1. Assessment of Administrative Fine.
(a) In no event shall the administrative fine be less than $50 or exceed $5,000 for each violation.
(b) In determining the amount of an administrative fine , the Executive Officer shall consider the following factors:
(1) The nature and severity of the violation;
(2) The good or bad faith exhibited by the cited person;
(3) The history of previous violations;
(4) The extent to which the cited person has cooperated with the Board and the Board’s investigation;
(5) The extent to which the cited person has mitigated or attempted to mitigate any damage or injury caused by his or her violation;
(6) Any factors in extenuation or aggravation related to the violation;
(7) Other matters as may be appropriate.

See the Board Bulletin for a list of people caught and their fines for practicing with out a license. http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin.latest.pdf

New LS wrote:Can anybody provide some "brief and to the point" discussion, or possibly articles, to help convince an LSIT to NOT take on side jobs and perform "Surveying without a License". Thanks,

How about that if local employers get wind of it, your friend may lose his/her current job and will have a very difficult time finding another in the area.

If a licensed employee is doing side work, some employers will be OK with it if the side work is not in a market sector that directly competes with their target market sectors and the licensed employee carries their own E&O insurance for that work.

An employee doing side work creates legitimate liability concerns for the employer unless proper business practices are used by the employee to maintain a clear separation of his or her side business and the employer's business. Beyond not using company equipment or other resources, an essential element of that separation is that the employee be properly licensed to be in responsible charge of the side work. An LSIT certificate doesn't provide for that authority.

If investigated by the Board and determined to have been practicing without a license, in addition to any fines assessed, the LSIT certificate will almost certainly be revoked. I don't think it's true in CA, but in many states it is or was the case that being found guilty of practicing without a license meant a lifetime ban on ever becoming licensed. At a minimum, it would make it more difficult to requalify to retake the LSIT.

What is he doing or planning to do that would constitute surveying without a license. Is it significant? Is it real competition with a real surveyor? He certainly can't stamp anything.

I know of a case where a unlicensed surveyor had his own office and business cards and an engr, with a office blocks away, signed his maps etc. This went on for years. I was told by an ex employee of his that the State Board contacted him numerous times and he just blew them off. After ~a decade of this his engr friend retired and he applied, took and passed the LS and became a licensed surveyor.
IMO he should have never been allowed to take the test after years of ignoring the State laws on surveying without a license.

All I need to cite is Section 476 of Board Rules, as there are many possible violations here.
The individual should read the entire section, actually he/she should read the entire Board Rules, and PLS Act.
I feel it is your responsibility, and all licensed surveyors to police and bring to the individuals attention the potential violations.
After you contact the individual and they continue, then I would contact the Board and request their interpretation if there is any potential violation.

land butcher wrote:I know of a case where a unlicensed surveyor had his own office and business cards and an engr, with a office blocks away, signed his maps etc. This went on for years. I was told by an ex employee of his that the State Board contacted him numerous times and he just blew them off. After ~a decade of this his engr friend retired and he applied, took and passed the LS and became a licensed surveyor.
IMO he should have never been allowed to take the test after years of ignoring the State laws on surveying without a license.

Yes. I always wondered how he got away with that.

Check out the attached as to not having a license. This guy removed my monuments and set his own.

Based on recent Board enforcement, one of our local surveyors had their license revoked and can no longer practice. I am having staff search our database to see what tract/parcel map numbers have been issued to this individual and if he has any maps currently in map check so we can place a hold until the property owner hires another surveyor to take over the project.

I am curious what other Counties do for work in process where a licensee has their license revoked.

Thanks in advance.

Dennis,

Essentially the same as for recently deceased licensees. Generally, the local surveying community becomes aware and will work toward contacting landowners/developers for entering into a contractual relationship to shepherd the map to completion. Often, it is part of a multi-discipline firm for development, so that tends to take care of itself through the project management team - but that would not be likely for a revoked license holder.

Michael,
That guy should have instead marked some lath "2.5' to PL" and placed them next to your points.

:)

After he moved the markers, he called the city inspectors out (these guys know me) and said Pallamary set these markers. They approved his building layout and they signed off.

The homeowners are still in litigation.