It is ethical for a partner of Engineer A to request the local chapter to endorse a project in which he is directly involved. It is ethical for members of the local chapter to take a public position on a controversial question in which a member of the chapter is involved.

For the purposes of this case we assume that both Engineer A and Engineer B relied on the use of facts, even if intermingled with opinion, in commenting upon the alternative routes and the preference for route Y, as required under Section 5(a). We also assume that there is no question concerning compliance with Section 4(a) regarding disclosure of the party on whose behalf Engineers A and B are stating a position on a matter of public policy. And we further assume for our purposes that the group of local citizens is covered by the reference to "private interests" and is paying the firm for its study and opinion. Having thus disposed of those preliminary facets of the Code related to the facts, we turn to the application of Section 1(g) as it may be tempered by or related to the principle espoused in Section 2(b). Certainly it was entirely proper for Engineers A and B to be retained by the local citizens for the stated purpose and to offer their professional judgment and opinion as to the merits of the alternative routes. Participation in engineering considerations of such public issues is to be encouraged as a direct means of fulfilling the objective of providing "constructive service in civic affairs. . . ." We do not interpret that aspect of professional responsibility as being confined to free community services. The ultimate question as to Engineers A and B is whether they are attempting to use their professional affiliation with the local chapter to secure personal advantage. Presumably there would not be any personal advantage in securing chapter endorsement of their position in terms of money under our assumption that the firm is being paid by the local citizens group regardless of the outcome of the controversy. However, it may be construed that there could be a personal advantage in having the unbiased support of an independent group of some influence in the community for the views of the engineers in question through enhancement of their standing and prest...

A state highway department proposes routing a new state highway through a city via route X. A group of local citizens who believe they will be adversely affected by the proposed routing employ Engineer A to study the proposed route. Engineer A concludes that route Y would be a superior route. Engineer B, a partner in the same firm as Engineer A, appears before the local chapter of the state society of which he is a member, explains the circumstances of the project, answers all questions asked of him and asks the chapter to publicly endorse route Y.

Is it ethical for a partner of Engineer A to request the local chapter to endorse a project in which he is directly involved? Is it ethical for members of the local chapter to take a public position on a controversial question in which a member of the chapter is involved?