California Surveyors Forums

I remember seeing a post regarding 2 Surveyor's Statements on a Record of Survey. The Statements included one from the office for the boundary determination and one from the field regarding the character of the monuments found/set and field procedures. I have seen varying opinions regarding this issue, but is their an Official Board Opinion regarding this?
Thanks

There is no need for a Board Opinion on this. It is not uncommon for more than one surveyor to work on a record of survey. You can have one statement and multiple surveyors sign if you want. Discuss with the CS and explain why you want multiple surveyors to sign, and there should be no problems.

I think the consensus on this double stamping thing was "why?" Many companies want to limit the exposure of their licensed professionals and the liability that goes with it by avoiding having multiple people stamp documents that leave the office. I'm sure their insurance companies agree.

Okay - here is the scenario. You are tasked to perform a Record of Survey. You have contracted out the field work to another company. Based on the information provided to you by your contractor, you complete the Record of Survey. You are confident in the your office procedures for the boundary resolution. Now, another surveyor comes behind and finds some of the corners not found by the contracted company. Should the licensed professional who prepared the map be on the hook for sloppy fieldwork? Or should the licensed professional who did the field work have some the liability? Hence the reason/necessity for dual statements. Comments/suggestions??

PLS7393 wrote:There is no need for a Board Opinion on this. It is not uncommon for more than one surveyor to work on a record of survey. You can have one statement and multiple surveyors sign if you want. Discuss with the CS and explain why you want multiple surveyors to sign, and there should be no problems.

SEE ABOVE

It was pretty common in the early days of putting together control networks with GPS. The contracted surveyor who provided the gear, and adjustment calcs would sign, along with, say, a City Surveyor, who provided personnel and funds.

I'm sure PLS7393 means well, but the issue being discussed here may not be as clearly distinguishable as some may feel. If anyone wishes to contact BPELSG with details pertinent to their situation, please do so. We do have one (long ago received) inquiry on this matter which requires a response from us already. Please contact Dallas Sweeney at dallas.sweeney@dca.ca.gov with any questions.

Hello Ric,

Has anything changed with regards to the attached opinion letter?

In case anyone's interested, here's my article from 2006 on the topic. I think it's still germane. (Another version also appeared in P.O.B. that year.)

Thank you Ric for clarifying. Now that Lee has re-posted the article, I vaguely recall reading that in 2006, even if I do not see any harm to have more than one surveyor sign a jointly prepared survey.

Lee, the article is great. Do you have any thoughts on the Board opinion I posted? I am hoping Ric will weigh in.

Michael...

Indeed, I do have thoughts about that opinion. In fact I specifically addressed it in detail in a subsequent article on the topic of dual stamping that was published by Professional Surveyor in 2007: Is Responsible Charge Apportionable? Here is a key section of the article:

"The Board referred the question to counsel, who said that, while 'other sections of the Land Surveyor's Act do not specifically state that only one
licensee execute the form described … we believe the Act impliedly requires that only one licensee assume the responsibility for the conduct of the
work of the others.'

And there you have it. The Act does not prohibit multiple stamping. It was an attorney—not a surveyor—who came up with an opinion that only one
surveyor should be responsible for stamping a map (or other survey document). There was no analysis or input solicited from the survey
community. No argument was presented. It was simply stated to be the case."

I stand by my article and my arguments and regret that nothing has come from them.

Thanks! Will look closer.

Good stuff right there Lee, thanks!!!
So maybe my response isn't so out in left field, haha!

It's worth noting that other states have no problem with multiple stamping.

Oklahoma: SEC. 475.15. (State Statutes)

4. In the case where multiple registrants are involved, each sheet in a set of drawings shall contain the seal and dated signature of the registrant responsible for that portion of the work.

7. In no case shall a registrant allow his seal to be placed on any work that is not under his direct supervision or control, nor shall a registrant sign, seal or date any work not under his direct supervision or control.

Oregon Board Rules 820-010-0623
Dual Stamping Documents
No more than one registrant will seal documents unless it is clearly explained and denoted on the document by all registrants which portion of the work each registrant prepared and for which each registrant is responsible.

Texas Survey Statutes SUBCHAPTER H. PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING § 1071.351.

(f) If professional surveying is performed as a joint venture of an association of two or more firms, each firm shall use the seal of the surveyor having primary responsibility for the venture.

Idaho White Paper on Responsible Charge (June, 2005)
TITLE 54 PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, AND BUSINESSES CHAPTER 12

(c) ....Each plan or drawing sheet shall be sealed and signed by the registrant or registrants responsible for each sheet....

California, Board Rules, §411(g)(3)

When signing and sealing documents containing work done by, or under the responsible charge of, two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done under each licensee’s responsible charge.

One or both Surveyors can place notation describing the work done under their responsible charge.

The Land Surveyor who made the survey or had it performed under his or her direction signs the statement per 8764.5

E_Page wrote:California, Board Rules, §411(g)(3)

When signing and sealing documents containing work done by, or under the responsible charge of, two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done under each licensee’s responsible charge.

Good point, but unfortunately Board Rules are only Regulatory, verses the PLS Act which is Legislative. If the letter is still a valid opinion referencing Section 8764.5, once again we have a conflict and open to interpretation.

See what all this rain causes? Me spending too much time on this forum, LOL!!!

The regulatory agency derives their authority and legislative direction from statutes. In this case, we're talking about BPELSG as the agency and the PLSA as the authorizing/directing body of statute.

The regulatory agency creates their respective administrative code as their official interpretation of how the authorizing/directing statutes are to be implemented.

An opinion letter does not and cannot preempt a section of administrative code. It is merely the opinion of the author of the letter. If the regulatory agency were to enforce the statute according to a staff level opinion letter which contradicts, in whole or in part the applicable administrative code section, that interpretation would constitute what is called an "underground regulation".

Since the statute is silent as to whether more than one licensee may or should sign for a portion of the work reflected, the agency may, and in this case has created a section in its admin code to interpret what is allowed under the statute. All portions of the administrative code must be added by a specific process outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act. That process allows for the input of interested parties. It also allows for challenge of the proposed regulation as not being properly reflective of the statute (or for other reasons). I doubt this particular section got much if any pushback from interested groups or individuals as it makes perfect sense.

Sometimes a regulatory agency might employ an internal policy, which might be in writing or might not be, as to how they will handle certain types of situations or circumstances. These unpublished policies usually come about when the law (statute or case) leaves room for interpretation and there is not a regulation which clearly or directly addresses the situation or circumstances. Occasionally, "underground regulations" are created when the law leaves only a little bit of room for interpretation for agency leadership or legal staff afflicted with facta electionem selectivam and possessed of a good imagination.

Agencies typically really dislike getting caught employing "underground regulations" because 1) it puts them in the position of being the defendant as a wrongdoer, 2) if the unpublished policy is found to be an underground reg, all situations previously settled or decided based on that policy are subject to being reversed - that creates a lot of work, 3) it creates the potential for damaged credibility (appearance of trying to get away with something), and worst of all, 4) if the policy is found to be an underground reg, they will be in a position of having to admit they were wrong.

An unpublished policy is not considered to be an underground reg if it is the only tenable interpretation of existing law. In this case, since there is an existing code section that interprets that multiple stamps/signatories are appropriate where different licensees were in responsible charge of clearly identifiable portions of the work, it would be virtually impossible for BPELSG to argue that the only tenable interpretation of statute is that there can be only one licensee accepting responsibility for all parts of a project when no one licensee had control over all parts.

The association should seek a legislative counsel's opinion on this. There is a disagreement that should be corrected. It would be unfortunate if someone made a decision that will later become a problem for them.

This discussion came up some time ago:

http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... amp#p47606

As I said before:

"This is a perfect example of something CLSA should pursue!"

Forum postings are always fun and entertaining but they really should result in a formal action or resolution of an issue.

Relying on the regulation provided by Evan Page, several people have filed maps with dual surveyor's statements throughout a local five county region.

The BPELSG staff is responsible for enforcing the Professional Land Surveyors' Act - which obviously requires some level of interpretation of the statutes. However, based on experience, I am quiet leery of some of their "interpretations". The same can be said for a handful of the BPELSG technical "experts" work I have encountered. Dicey at best. Hanlon's razor adequately sums it up "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." They probably mean well. Although much less common, I have also encountered a few good technical expert reports in the BPELSG pool.

Before you accept a BPELSG opinion or anyone else's opinion, including my own, ask them how they gained the experience. As often as not, it is simply the retelling of another person's campfire story. One litmus test, simply ask the ever wise one offering an opinion - precisely, how many records of survey have you filed or reviewed for a County Surveyor's signature? This will place context to their experience or simply, the retelling of a campfire story.

Lastly, I am big fan of Lee Hixon and his work. Thank you for the reposting of your article.

DWoolley

Here's an interesting example - recorded in 12 Counties.

Wow!