How this case resolved it
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
specification
Analytical conclusion 2: The tension between Honesty in R's Public Testimony and D...
Because R testified fully and truthfully about the leak-risk concerns at the hearing, the board concluded that this discharged R's core disclosure obligations under I.1 and I.3, with any further escalation to regulators remaining a discretionary option rather than a competing mandatory duty.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 22-6:
- Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony. If R believes that there is a danger to public health, safety and welfare, R could choose to raise the concerns to a higher regulatory authority.
- Engineer H’s testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical. [However, practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.]
- Engineer R has an obligation to report H’s unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
Recorded violations:
Unlicensed Jurisdiction Practice violates Engineer H Jurisdictional Licensure Duty
Responsive Hearing Testimony violates Engineer R Testimony Objectivity Duty
Unlicensed Jurisdiction Practice violates Engineer H Licensure Compliance Duty