Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 58-1 (1958) · Procurement of an Engineering Contract While Employed by a Public Agency

How this case resolved it

No resolved obligation competitions are committed for this case.

Open tensions recorded without a resolution: Agency Engineers Profession Protection Duty vs Engineers Employment Mobility Canon Consistency Duty

What the board concluded

From the Board's conclusions in Case 58-1:

The Board believes that the men in question have violated the spirit of the Canons and Rules, although the evidence does not prove them to be in violation of specific paragraph, as now worded. The Board believes that it makes little difference in the basic ethics of the problem whether a man leaves the employ of the Government to open his own consulting office or whether he goes to work on a...

Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.