The importance of the Land Surveyor to get involved in the Community
The role of the Land Surveyor in our communities is a key
and vital role. I have learned over the
years that the role of a land surveyor in a community can be a key component
for advising local officials in making key planning and regulation
decisions. Often times we as surveyors
tend to focus on our own niches and not look to our overall impact. Our community leadership often times make
decisions based on information but not the whole picture. The Land Surveyor can shed light on these
impacts and decision processes. We deal
in a realm of bridging the gap between land tenure and land regulations. Yet we may be good at satisfying the needs of
our clients we also tend to drop the ball in getting involved in the regulation
process. Often towns and counties enact
policies that on their face seem to answer an immediate need to regulate but
they do little in the way of looking at the big picture consequences. This is where the land surveyor can bring
information to the table and influence these processes. However as a profession we fail to get
involved and find ourselves reacting to new rules and ordinances that only
serve to make our client’s land tenure more difficult. Personally I serve and have served on
planning and zoning commissions and city governance. In these positions I have had the opportunity
to advise these governing bodies with advice and information that was
beneficial to the average land owner.
Also it is a great way to become familiar with the process and how to
best work within it. If our profession
would focus more on advising our clients on how to best utilize their land to
their benefit and not just measure what we are told to we would all be better
off.
Surveying is Local
The practice of surveying is a local practice. It takes years of working in a particular
area to become familiar with the local nuance of working there. This is easy in a small local environment and
can become difficult in the broader sense.
I have long held the belief that those who practice everywhere learn little
or nothing about this principal. These
firms often times do not know the local pitfalls and ultimately enter into
surveying contracts blind. Sometimes
there is a payoff and most times there is not.
A local land surveyor intimate with an area is more valuable to those
whom live in that area than those whom aren’t.
Especially when it comes to dealing with local officials. Regional issues and concerns play a large
part in understanding local rules and regulations.
The Good of the Profession
I have been reading up on some of the writings of Curt
Brown. It is not hard to notice that
this man was ahead of his time. Many of
the issues he wrote about in the 60’s are the same issues we face today. The future of the profession. Education of the profession. Promoting the profession. Yet our profession whose practice is steeped
in tradition is slow to embrace some of these principals. As the technology of measurement is advancing
our view of our profession moves at a much slower pace. I attribute this as an attitude of hanging on
to historical practices and habits.
However the professionals whom grasp technology and apply these habits
tend to be more successful. However old
traditions die hard. As we are seeing
today the paradigm of the survey crew and para-professional technicians is also
changing. Technology has destroyed the
hierarchy of the survey crew and apprenticeship. Where in the past a technician would learn
and work their way up the structure to become a party chief and possible a
registrant. Now we have one-man GPS
crews whose support and training come from instructions in the office. In today’s environment the apprenticeship
doctrine that many of us learned under is now failing. Many of these technicians are not being
properly trained to evaluate evidence or what and how to measure. They collect data and turn in a coordinate
file. This is not apprenticeship. This is not training. This is technical training that serves an
immediate need but does little to instill meaning full education. The idea of allowing education in boundary
surveying to start after the license is issued is a serious misstep and is
currently hurting our profession. What
every surveyor needs to understand is that not all surveying is a professional
practice. Most aspects of surveying are
merely technical practices of engineering.
Boundary surveying is the only true professional practice because it is
the only practice where the science of measurement may be in direct conflict
with the principals and doctrines of possessory rights and interests. This is where the professional decision is
made. We as a profession must embrace
the idea that not all surveying is professional. Therefore not all aspects of surveying can be
regulated by the State in a broad brush set of rules and regulations. In fact I would argue that regional bias also
makes boundary surveying hard to regulate in a broad brush approach also.
Technical Standards versus Standard of Care
Arizona is indicative of many states that pursue the
regulation of surveying through technical standards. Technical standards serve a purpose but they
do not answer the hard questions faced by those who make boundary
determinations. Those who believe the
contrary are more focused on the technical aspects while deficient in the
professional aspect of the decision making process based on evidence
evaluation. The principal of Standard of
Care addresses the regional bias and influences the decision making process by
comparing what the professional decision making process of those practicing in
a given area would do. Again surveying
is local; and the standard of care principal is why. The playing field cannot be leveled by an
encompassing technical standard because local or regional bias maybe in direct
conflict with these. The professional
should and must have the latitude to make decisions without being hamstrung by
a conflicting technical standard. Where
the technical standard must be deviated from; the professional surveyor must be
able to offer an intelligent and fact based reasoning for this deviation. Violating possessory rights or interests for
the sake of following a technical standard cannot be tolerated.
APLS should set the Standard of Care
If APLS would assume the role of defining the standard of
care then the state would not need technical standards. However we tend to want to hide from each
other instead of talking to each other.
We as an association and a profession must embrace the idea we are
colleagues and not competitors.
Colleagues can compete for contracts and engagements without creating an
adversarial posture. Surveyor on
surveyor crime is a shameful practice.
We should educate each other through communication not use the BTR to
rid ourselves of competition. The
competition will always be there. We
must embrace the idea of open and honest collaboration and not set traps for
those whom try to follow in our footsteps.
Nothing we do is a trade secret nor is it proprietary. We deal in realm of trying to serve the
public’s interests not our own. This is
where APLS needs to reach out to nonmembers and nonparticipating members. We can become better by learning from each
other. We can succeed together or wither
and die individually. I choose unity.
