Board extends compliance deadline for surveyor under disciplinary order, directs clearer portfolio feedback

The Vermont Board of Land Surveyors on Dec. 17 voted to extend the compliance deadline for a surveyor subject to a disciplinary order and asked staff to draft written feedback spelling out the portfolio components the board expects.

Board members had been reviewing a disciplinary case in which the respondent, identified in the record as Mr. Towne, was subject to an order that included a $5,000 fine, a requirement to complete two board‑approved courses (one on boundary retracement and one on surveying technology) and to submit portfolios demonstrating competent work. Enforcement staff told the board the licensee had paid the fine but had not submitted course pre‑approvals to the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR).

Members disagreed about how the board’s order used the word “portfolio.” Several members noted the board’s Part 4 portfolio definition ordinarily requires a title‑chain abstraction, deeds, a clear narrative of field work, traverse closure/calculations and a completed checklist covering about 40 items. “You can’t judge whether the survey was competently done unless he shows his work,” a board staff member said, arguing the respondent’s files contained maps and deeds but not the narrative and checklist that allow evaluation.

To avoid creating an impossible compliance situation — in which the licensee could be without a valid license while still needing to perform surveys to assemble portfolio evidence — a member moved to extend the order deadline from February 2025 to the board’s June 2025 meeting. The motion passed by voice vote.

The board directed staff to draft a letter that (1) explains where the respondent’s submissions fall short of the rule‑defined portfolio elements, (2) cites the excerpt of Part 4 that contains the checklist and sample components, and (3) states that the board will not routinely grant further extensions without a formal written request to modify conditions. Staff said they would circulate proposed language to members before the next meeting and provide the respondent with the guidance once approved.

The board also discussed enforcement procedure, noting that the respondent could file a motion to modify conditions through the formal administrative process. Enforcement staff confirmed the order and the board’s decision remain published on the OPR disciplinary page.

The extension is procedural: the board’s action does not vacate the original requirements but provides additional time for the respondent to submit portfolio materials in the clarified format and for the board to review them at a subsequent meeting.