Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 67-1 (1967) · Conflict of Interest Public Employment
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Engineer Doe Planning Board Member Self-Designed Plan Voting Recusal
prevails over
Abstention-Conditioned Commission Member Private Services Permissibility John Doe Planning Board
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Doe Board Member Private Plan Submission Conflict
Featured
Engineer Doe Public Service Disclosure Non-Cure Structural Conflict Absolute Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer Doe Axiomatic Professional Loyalty Non-Division
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Doe Dual Public-Private Employment Structural Conflict
Engineer Doe Public Service Disclosure Non-Cure Structural Conflict Absolute Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer Doe Public-Private Dual Role Structural Conflict Non-Engagement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Doe Disclosure-Insufficient Absolute Public Service Conflict
Engineer Doe Single-Public-Role County Engineer Recommendation Sufficiency Conflict Prohibition Activation
prevails over
Engineer Doe Triple-Role Self-Approval Structural Conflict Non-Acceptance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Doe County Engineer Submission Authority Over Own Private Plans
- Doe Triple-Role Self-Approval Conflict
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
County Engineer Self-Designed Plan Approval Recommendation Non-Issuance John Doe County Engineer vs Engineer Doe County Engineer Self-Designed Plan Approval Recommendation Non-Issuance
What the board concluded
- Engineer Doe's activities, as described, are in conflict with the Code of Ethics, and are therefore unethical.