California Surveyors Forums

It has alway been my attempt in an new legal description to provide harmony with the previous deeds. I believe from everything I have read and witnessed that is "standard practice" in our industry. I concluded a couple days in court today which included an expert witness (LS) on the respondents side, which states (that it is common practice to rewrite the courses of the previous legal for the sake of the closures (even though the common lines disagree between the take and the give land. The prior maps and deeds in this area have misclosures in themselves. some, as much as 8 feet. Although, in accordance with the law, a Record of Survey is NOT required for a Lot line Adjustment Process, unless field surveys trigger the Sections of the 8762 B&P Code which would mandate it (e.g. alternate lines). Unless a Record of Survey is done concurrently with the LLA, I would not consider deviating from the prior deed (geometric issues or not). The "intent" on of these legals could have been resolved by exception and together with methods of preparing the legal (which is what ended up being the way another surveyor did it to conclude the LLA). The surveyor in question, took it upon himself to rewrite not only courses of deeds, but prior Parcel Map distances (only to suit a geometric closure).. I see this as inappropriate, and not in anything I know to be consistent with standard practice in our industry. One parcel added to a piece of land, should have the same geometry with the legal which is taken away from the other piece of land. This was not the case. On a common shared line, it was written that the two disagreed by as much as .0.8'.

Comments appreciated

These situations are usually dealt with by the use of 'qualifiers'. That is, weaving in the historic description elements with proper calls to bounds and points of termination.
Ideally, a record of survey accompanies the resultant parcel descriptions, so that the memorialization of placing monuments completes the adjustment of the underlying 'parent parcels'. This helps resolve the enigma of fitting with adjoining parcels.

It can be done if done properly. Come to the CLSA conference and I will explain how!

As a reviewer for several agencies, we check and approve lot line adjustments based on field measurements and/or established lines - as opposed to using the underlying "record" line information verbatim. Especially when the record is flawed. In fact, an established or calculated line can vary greatly from the underlying record information - why would the surveyor perpetuate a discovered error? Or ignore a monument or established senior line and forego the opportunity to reform the deeds with more accurate or correct information? Similarly, as stated, reconcile the misclosures or various basis of bearings on the uderlying record? This opportunity would harmonize the title and the boundary. The lot line adjustment can be a tool to fix title with "adjustment". The record of survey requirement is a different question.

PLS 5528, if I am reading it correctly, is it your contention the information on a newly minted lot line adjustment HAS to be written exclusively using the underlying record information? If so, do you have a citation to authority?

I hope the use of measurements, reconciling the record or establishment in writing the descriptions was a nuance to the court and not an issue or question of negligence (or you may have a problem). In my experience, the "standard of care" for a legal description is wide ranging and not easily defined. The true test is whether or not the description can be located and confined to a single place on the ground.

[after thought]

I find it disconcerting you chose the word "respondent" rather than plaintiff or defendant. I sincerely hope this precise perspective of a standard of care for a lot line adjustment was not a BPELSG enforcement issue and by "court" you were referring to a hearing.

DWoolley

Preserved for the discussion.

pls5528 wrote:It has alway been my attempt in an new legal description to provide harmony with the previous deeds. I believe from everything I have read and witnessed that is "standard practice" in our industry. I concluded a couple days in court today which included an expert witness (LS) on the respondents side, which states (that it is common practice to rewrite the courses of the previous legal for the sake of the closures (even though the common lines disagree between the take and the give land. The prior maps and deeds in this area have misclosures in themselves. some, as much as 8 feet. Although, in accordance with the law, a Record of Survey is NOT required for a Lot line Adjustment Process, unless field surveys trigger the Sections of the 8762 B&P Code which would mandate it (e.g. alternate lines). Unless a Record of Survey is done concurrently with the LLA, I would not consider deviating from the prior deed (geometric issues or not). The "intent" on this issue certainly been concluded without a Record of Survey, simply by exception and together with methods of preparing the legal (which ended up being the way another surveyor did it to conclude the LLA. The surveyor in question, took it upon himself to rewrite not only courses of deeds, but Parcel Map calls (only to suit a geometrice closure).. I see this as inappropriate, and not in anything I know to be consistent with standard practice in our industry.

Comments appreciated

These issues come about by agencies coaxing surveyors into rewriting perimeter metes and bounds descriptions on both parcels involved in a LLA. Without a fully resolved survey around both parcels it can create problems by compiling from only record and especially when closure calculations are required. Fully resolved surveys are nice but can be expensive and not needed by client, especially in cases where there are large and historic parcels. In this case it is best to write a description of only portion(s) being transferred or use a dividing line method. Had one recently where agency was pushing for this, they only backed off after my client threatened them with a law suit.

How a legal description is written, other than spelling errors, should be solely the responsibility of the LS/CE signing and sealing the document.

Today way too many unlicensed govt checkers, and lawyers, are demanding changes to submitted legals by licensed individuals and in some cases changing lot and block or sectionalized land descriptions to metes and bounds thereby creating the possibility of a gap or overlap in the future. Why are they doing this? Because they have no understanding of lot and block or sectionalized descriptions and only know to follow the boundary lines on a map, some can't even accept that NW on the map is the same as SE in the description.

The overarching issue here is a big problem in CA. There appears to be no identifiable standard which can legitimately be called the Standard of Care or Standard of Practice as more or less universally recognized. The Standard of Care/Practice ends up being whatever the is said by the expert in a particular case that the presiding authority (judge or BPELSG) chooses to declare to be more credible.

In the best of cases, one of the experts is knowledgeable, recognizes what aspects of the practice under scrutiny are truly important, is able to recognize the difference between their own personal standard and the appropriate Standard as applied by the broader profession, and is able to effectively communicate those things to the judge, jury, or other presiding authority.

In many cases, the expert who is more articulate or appears generally to be more trustworthy, whether his stated opinion is more technically and legally correct or less so, is the one who is more persuasive and therefore sets the "Standard" as applied in that particular case. Sometimes, neither expert has a very good technical or legal basis for their opinion, but one is going to prevail. Sometimes they argue about something which is relatively meaningless and which has no real effect on the underlying subject (e.g. a boundary location) as being something very important and for which some very specific process, procedure or method must be followed. More often than not, they are wading into the swamp of arguing about whose personal standard method is better to apply to the use or reporting of some specific pieces of data.

In the worst of cases, the presiding authority has a predetermined outcome in mind and chooses whichever expert's testimony that supports that outcome, regardless of the qualifications, soundness of the basis of opinions, or the expert's ability to effectively communicate their opinion.


In the case described in the OP, it sounds like the "standard" being argued is not whether the descriptions are specific enough to describe the correct boundary locations, and where they purport to describe common lines, that a proper interpretation of each description as written would identify the same boundary location, but whether the dimensions should reflect those of prior records, verbatim, or reflect new dimensions resulting from calculations made to reconcile the geometric discrepancies between the underlying record dimensions.

If I've read that correctly, the experts have each conveyed to the presiding authority that the dimensions and how they are reported is of critical importance and must adhere to one standard or the other. Again, if I've read it correctly, the experts have lost sight of what is actually important here and are arguing that something of secondary locative value, for which there is significant leeway for professional discretion in reporting is of paramount value.

If the LLA is moving the common boundary to a location which has never been depicted on a filed map, and if that location is based on data from a field survey, then a RS is required (8762(b)(4)). It would be appropriate on that map to show both measured/calculated values based on that survey and the values per previous records on the map. It would also be appropriate that the description show the recently determined values and reference the RS and/or the deeds of the individual (pre-adjusted) parcels. It would be a good idea to help future readers properly interpret the new descriptions more quickly by adding the record dimensions parenthetically, but I wouldn't testify that as being The Standard of Practice.

If the LLA is based solely on record data and some specific distance to move the common boundary or area to be encompassed between the old and new common boundary locations (and for you strictly urban folks, there are instances where this is entirely acceptable and appropriate - the legislature specifically recognized that when they said a RS is not a requirement for a LLA), it may be appropriate to use the record dimensions, or it may be appropriate to use dimensions derived by calculations made to correlate one parcel description to the other or to place both on a common coordinate datum. It depends upon the circumstances, and contrary to any assertion of a universal Standard of Practice, to the style preference of the LS writing the description.

What actually is important is as Warren pointed out, that there are adequate calls relating the descriptions to specifically and uniquely identifiable locations related to the previous records and indicating that the common boundary is a common boundary. As licensed surveyors, we know how to rotate and move one figure to correlate to another. We know how to properly adjust a described parcel from one basis of bearing to another when necessary. We know how to handle minor differences in angle or distance between different records describing the same points and lines.

As long as you have appropriate calls to existing lines, points, and features, the precise dimensions used are relatively unimportant. With proper controlling calls, you could state bearings that were written to the nearest second in the old descriptions to "northerly, southeasterly, westerly", etc. in the new descriptions and they would be perfectly valid. You could round all of the distances to the nearest foot, qualify each with "more or less", and have perfectly valid descriptions. You could use record dimensions that don't necessarily match those of the adjoining parcel, or new dimensions derived from calculations performed to assuage your or someone else's mathematical sensibilities and, either way, have perfectly valid descriptions.

The important point is not how the dimensions are reported (unless any are specifically controlling elements of the description), but whether the interpretation of each of the descriptions by a competent surveyor at some later time would consistently lead that surveyor to the intended boundary locations on the ground.

I've looked extensively at case law on this and have been unsuccessful at finding any cases that differentiate the meaning of "Standard of Practice" from "Standard of Care". That's because the law recognizes that in professions, there is legitimately significant discretion by individual professionals to use differing methodologies to accomplish the same or similar goals. Any of several methods or practices might be appropriate when getting to the answer.

BPLESG has asserted that they enforce the Standard of Practice and not necessarily the Standard of Care, but I have yet to hear anyone be able to articulate a difference that makes any sense. They are able to cite licensees for negligence, incompetence, or fraud. Negligence is defined in the Board Rules §404(dd) as "the failure of a licensee, in the practice of professional engineering or land surveying, to use the care ordinarily exercised in like cases by duly licensed professional engineers and land surveyors in good standing."

None of those infractions, negligence, incompetence, or fraud, are defined in terms of the need to adhere to a specific practice.

The danger of trying to create a difference between the Standard of Care and a Standard of Practice in professions is that it removes the ability to exercise careful professional judgment to determine what to do and how to do it and places a requirement to adhere to some very specific method for each task a licensee does, and an expectation of adherence by all licensees to those particular standards. The problem being that no universal standards for most of what we do and how we get there are published or taught anywhere.

Worse yet, because there are no published or statutorily accepted specific methodologies for most tasks we perform, the standards by which we may be judged are moving targets and inherently unknowable until some other "expert" has the opportunity to critique our work well after the fact. To make it even worser (if I can spell it and you can understand it, it is a real word!), many surveyors engaged as peer review experts confuse the use of specific methodologies with the exercise of care.

Worstest of all (if I can spell it...), BPELSG has demonstrated an atrocious record of consistency in applying similar standards to similar cases. They have declined to designate any but one enforcement outcome as a "precedent setting case", meaning that it articulates a particular standard that both licensees and they (BPELSG) are obligated to recognize in any future cases. In large part, this lack of consistency is due to their publicly stated policy of preferring experts who do not have extensive experience, and of not having (and dismissing the idea of) a reliable subjective method to measure or verify the actual expertise (by definition, advanced knowledge) of those claiming expertise in particular areas of practice. At least as often as not, these people have a particular method for doing particular tasks, have never been exposed to any alternative methods and think theirs is the only correct way to get things done. They confuse a misguided idea of strictly following particular methodologies with assessing whether the licensee being reviewed applied an appropriate level of care in performing particular tasks.

Standards of Practice as something different than the Standard of Care are appropriate for applied technologies where there exist widely accepted technical manuals prescribing specific methods and steps to address specific circumstances. Therefore, they are appropriate in limited application to surveying when the practice being reviewed is the use of a particular technology to collect or process particular types of data to meet particular specified standards of accuracy and/or precision. In such cases, the Standard of Care may dictate that a particular methodology or set of steps be followed. The key to applying this Standard of Practice as an element of the Standard of Care is that there has to be some authoritative source describing the practice that relates it to attaining a specific standard, and some authoritative source that describes why the prescribed methodology or steps satisfy the standard and/or why they must be followed to the exclusion of other methods. Most practice matters argued in negligence cases or BPELSG enforcement matters are not of this purely technical nature.

If you ever find yourself in a position of peer review or testifying as to what the appropriate Standard of Care or Practice is, keep these things in mind:

1. There is no legal difference in the professions between the Standard of Care and the Standard of Practice, except in some limited, purely technical applications.

2. There may be many valid methods to get to the same outcome. Recognize that you probably haven't learned all valid methods to perform all the tasks inherent to the area of practice you are reviewing, even if you do have advanced knowledge.

3. If your final answer does not fully match that of the other licensee, it does not necessarily mean one of you failed to meet appropriate standards. The essence of professions is that in many cases, different professionals may assess the same data yet come to different but nearly or fully equally valid conclusions. The measurements collected in surveying are purely technical and are often subject to specific standards as applied to the methods of collecting the measurements. Beyond that, there are few, if any universally standard practices or methods that can be validly applied to the exclusion of other methods, but there is an expectation of the exercise of reasonable care, which may entail using one or more of numerous methods to arrive at a conclusion.

4. Ensure that you can point to proper and widely accepted authority when asserting a particular standard.

5. Ensure that you use that authority in the context in which it is presented in the authoritative source and that you understand the concept or principle presented in that source in the context of how it was presented.

6. Have the integrity to know and admit when the issues presented are beyond or outside of the limits of your expertise. Your personal pride of being seen as the most knowledgeable expert is very minor to what the parties to the action have at stake.

7. The outcome of the proceedings your opinion will figure into will affect the property, consumer, and/or civil rights of the property owners involved. They will also affect the professional and possibly the personal reputation of the licensee whose work you are opining on, potentially affecting their and their employees ability to earn a living. These are equally important matters that can and likely will have a very big impact on the parties. You can neither unduly deny the rights of the landowners nor unduly tarnish the reputation of the licensee. The responsibility to remain impartial, truthful, and thorough are tremendous. Live up to that responsibility.

8. Remember that the opinions you provide are intended to be guidance for the judge, jury, or other presiding authority in areas where your expertise is presumed to be greater than that of the presiding authority or jury deciding the facts. This is a great responsibility that warrants that you verify your own expertise with things beyond your own personal experience. Check accepted texts, statutes, case law, technical manuals. If your opinion expressed for the purpose of peer review is based solely on your own experience and the presumed fact that "every decent surveyor I know does it this way", then, IMO, you are demonstrating gross negligence and/or incompetence. Don't take the responsibility lightly or approach it with an arrogance that you know all there is to know.

OK. Off my soap box and back to your regularly scheduled program...

Thanks Evan. Can I get a PDH for reading that one? :) Jp

Im claiming 2 CE's

I get 6 CEs, I read slow

I'll send out unofficial PDH certificates after you all pass the quiz.

I have a couple of comments to add. I was the expert representing the defendant in this case.

Please note that I can't comment on specifics of this matter, as it isn't resolved and I have duties to my client. However, I can speak about my general beliefs related to the standard of practice.

Evan wrote: "If I've read that correctly, the experts have each conveyed to the presiding authority that the dimensions and how they are reported is of critical importance and must adhere to one standard or the other. Again, if I've read it correctly, the experts have lost sight of what is actually important here and are arguing that something of secondary locative value, for which there is significant leeway for professional discretion in reporting is of paramount value."

The critical issue to me is this:

Can I locate the land descriptions prepared by the surveyor on the ground without major difficulty?

If controlling calls are properly used in the land descriptions, I believe in most cases that I can, as a retracing surveyor, locate the descriptions on the ground. I believe that measured distances frequently differ from the record distances by small amounts, and I don't believe the use of measured distances in a LLA land description represent a failure to meet the standard of practice.

However, I also don't believe it is improper to prepare land descriptions for a LLA with record measurements (if controlling calls are properly used and the description can be located on the ground by a competent retracing land surveyor.)

I hope this clears things up for people following this thread.

I would add the following:

1) I agree with the comment of Olin Edmundson. I too frequently am asked to modify my land descriptions by a county surveyor, city surveyor, or unlicensed map checker. I don't mind correcting technical errors, but I'm at the point in my career when I no longer feel it necessary to change my descriptions to meet another persons idea of the proper style and format, even if that other person is licensed. I have expressed this opinion to BPELSG in writing.

2) I agree with Evan Page that we have a major problem when it comes to how our community (and how BPELSG) define the standard of care. I'm in the process of doing some research and brainstorming on a proposal to improve this situation. I'm going to bring this proposal to CLSA and ACEC in the next few weeks. I strongly believe surveyors in our state should understand how BPELSG and its experts are defining the standard of practice in enforcement actions. We should all know how BPELSG is defining the rules of the game so we have an opportunity to follow those rules, or to have our professional associations voice our objections to the BPELSG definition of the standard of practice if we agree that definition is unreasonable.

You are welcome to reach out to me in private if you want to talk more about these issues offline.

Landon
sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com

Sunburned_Surveyor wrote:
The critical issue to me is this:

Can I locate the land descriptions prepared by the surveyor on the ground without major difficulty?

Landon
sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com

Thanks for the comments Landon! I would take exception to the statement that the primary requisite for a description be that it can be put on the ground without major difficulty. The key elements of a descriptions are sufficiency and clarity of intent. For example a description such as the Southerly 50' of Lot xx, per map xxxx, measured at right angles and parallel with the Southerly line of.... is completely sufficient and clear but could potentially be extremely difficult to put on the ground in certain cases where the Southerly line of Lot xxx was challenging to determine. It is nontheless a completely valid description.

Sunburned_Surveyor wrote:The critical issue to me is this:

Can I locate the land descriptions prepared by the surveyor on the ground without major difficulty?

That seems reasonable except that the courts have long ago set the standard, which is stated correctly if I edit your statement a little:

Can I, as a surveyor, locate the land descriptions on the ground?

The (case) law is not concerned with whether the description writer was a surveyor. Nor does it qualify anything about difficulty.

That principle is the standard for a description in an existing title document.

But for the Standard of Care for current survey practice, I agree with the statement as you wrote it. Another surveyor should be able to use a description written by another surveyor without major difficulty.

Sunburned_Surveyor wrote:If controlling calls are properly used in the land descriptions... I don't believe the use of measured distances in a LLA land description represent a failure to meet the standard of practice.

However, I also don't believe it is improper to prepare land descriptions for a LLA with record measurements (if controlling calls are properly used and the description can be located on the ground by a competent retracing land surveyor.)

I hope this clears things up for people following this thread.

It sounds like we are in agreement on this point.

Sunburned_Surveyor wrote:I would add the following:

1) I agree with the comment of Olin Edmundson. I too frequently am asked to modify my land descriptions by a county surveyor, city surveyor, or unlicensed map checker. I don't mind correcting technical errors, but I'm at the point in my career when I no longer feel it necessary to change my descriptions to meet another persons idea of the proper style and format, even if that other person is licensed. I have expressed this opinion to BPELSG in writing.

A regular part of my job is to review descriptions and maps prepared by other surveyors. Our agency has a particular format it requires for descriptions to be used in Calendar Items or for inclusion into some manner of agreement or recorded document. That has to do with titles, file numbers, capitalization of certain words or phrases, but otherwise, not style matters in how courses and calls are described. I review for form, accuracy, completeness, but not for style unless something is so unclear that I can't understand it or otherwise leaves a significant ambiguity.

IMO, if I'm going to insist on changes to style (e.g. "Why are you giving me a True POB? Did you lie to me the last time you said Beginning?" Personally, I don't care for POB followed by TPOB, but that's style. Use it if it's the style you're comfortable with), then I should be prepared to put my stamp on it, because it essentially would have been written under my direction.

When I receive comments on something I've prepared, I generally will politely thank them for the suggestion but decline to make the change. When I receive comments, I do however, consider each as to whether the change would make any substantial difference. If so, and it would improve the description by adding clarity, I'll make the change.

Sunburned_Surveyor wrote:2) I agree with Evan Page that we have a major problem when it comes to how our community (and how BPELSG) define the standard of care. I'm in the process of doing some research and brainstorming on a proposal to improve this situation. I'm going to bring this proposal to CLSA and ACEC in the next few weeks. I strongly believe surveyors in our state should understand how BPELSG and its experts are defining the standard of practice in enforcement actions. We should all know how BPELSG is defining the rules of the game so we have an opportunity to follow those rules, or to have our professional associations voice our objections to the BPELSG definition of the standard of practice if we agree that definition is unreasonable.

You are welcome to reach out to me in private if you want to talk more about these issues offline.

Landon
sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com

These efforts are already underway and your contributions would be greatly appreciated. I'll send you an email and hopefully talk to you tomorrow.

My opinions are solely based upon what I know. That being said, four years of college relative to civil and land surveying, 46 years in this industry, attending dozens of ACSM/CLSA and NGS seminars and training programs, and taught and mentored in southern California by some of the finest Land Surveyors in this profession. I, am the first to say, I am NOT a lawyer. Are there more knowledgeable surveyors in the industry, YES, and, I personally know some which humble me (some on this Forum). I do appreciate the positive comments above from my peers, whether they agree or have constructive criticism. I can assure you that my heart is, and always has been to help the public, and to benefit our profession. It is something I am very proud of, in that I carry on a legacy of professionals, being my father and my two uncles (all Civil Engineers, and pre-82 surveyors).
We are all on the same side here, and, for the most part want the same thing. I do want to say I appreciate your opinions and expecially Mr. Page's book. (I always liked a good book)

This morning it was an essay, now it's a book. Maybe I need to talk to a publisher.

There is a difference between "Standard of Care" and "Custom and Practice." Most of the State Board "experts" do not understand what any of this means. The Board has not been able to define a Standard of Care. (See Wheeler attached) If anyone is interested, I have a good presentation that has been presented across many states and I think it helps clarify this area. I have testified many times on this topic and it is grossly misunderstood.

***************************************************************************************
- A trier of fact, a judge or jury, has to determine what the standard of care is and whether an engineer has failed to achieve that level of performance. They do so by hearing expert testimony. People who are qualified as experts express opinions as to the standard of care and as to the defendant engineer’s performance relative to that standard. The trier of fact weighs the testimony from all sides and decides in each case what the standard of care was and whether the defendant met it.

"In performing professional services for a client, a (surveyor) has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable (surveyors), practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances.

"It is (the surveyor's) further duty to use the care and skill ordinarily used in like cases by reputable members of the (surveying) profession practicing in the same or similar locality under similar circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and (the surveyor's) best judgment in the exercise of professional skill and in the application of learning, in an effort to accomplish the purpose for which (the surveyor) was employed."

If any one of these conditions is not met, the engineer has failed to meet the standard of care, and is professionally negligent.

BAJI (Bench Approved Jury Instruction) 6.37,
"Duty of a Professional." California Jury

And it is usually sound practice to link Standard of Care issues with Ethics. Perhaps ethics is the most important topic of all. Sadly, it is the most neglected. Across the United States, it is the one premiere element of continuing education for virtually all professions including land surveying. It is considered paramount and in most cases mandatory.

Wouldn't it be nice if California had something like this? Many of us have been advocating a peer program for years.

http://www.ucls.org/standards--ethics

The current system is an abysmal failure.

We do have something like that Mike. We call it the PPC.

On this year's agenda:

Develop model guidelines for use at the chapters to promote consistency throughout all of CLSA. The goal is to provide a consistent standard that both protects PPC members, chapters, and the CLSA from liability, and to provide members of local PPCs the confidence to consider a wide variety of practice matters.

Begin development of a guide or manual to help surveyors, administrative agencies, and courts understand what the appropriate Standard of Care, and Standards of Practice (where appropriate) exist for land survey practice in California. My hope is that this project will be accomplished with the input and participation of at least several dozen surveyors with advanced knowledge in one or more areas of practice.

Encourage/promote/sell the advantages of and the broader potential uses of local PPCs, not only as peer review bodies, but also to take advantage of the expertise present within these groups to create educational opportunities at the local level. Having had the opportunity to work in many different states/regions over the course of my career, one thing that really stands out to me as a difference between vibrant, active local chapters and struggling chapters is the frequency with which they provide presentation of both useful training that appeals particularly to unlicensed members and the fairly recently licensed, and updates of current topics of interest or affecting the profession.

And more...


Progress will be made this year.

Thank you Evan,

As you know I was involved in developing the first JPPC in San Diego in 1980. We put the PPC together because the Board was not dealing with these type of issues and that laid the foundation for unfair business practices and boundary conflicts. Our concern then, as it is now, is developing a fair process to deal with alleged complaints against surveyors. By having a peer review process, we should get better input. Under the present Board process, a retired construction surveyor is deemed an "expert" by the Board on boundary issues and soon someone is put out of business because of these so-called "expert" opinions. This, despite the fact that this person may have never filed a Record of Survey.

In any event, please let me know how I can help. It would be nice of the profession can have a say in how these things are supposed to be done.

Thanks for the info Mike. We will consider it all as we are developing model guidelines. I may be contacting you for additional input on it at a later time.

Sounds good. Do you have anyone else in mind per your note above?

"Begin development of a guide or manual to help surveyors, administrative agencies, and courts understand what the appropriate Standard of Care, and Standards of Practice (where appropriate) exist for land survey practice in California. My hope is that this project will be accomplished with the input and participation of at least several dozen surveyors with advanced knowledge in one or more areas of practice."

I will be at least a corresponding member for the Committee's efforts.