It would not be ethical for Engineer Intern D to accede to Engineer W’s veiled directive to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project. It would not be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on a design altered so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project. Engineer W would not be acting as a faithful agent of the DOT. 1. It would not be ethical for Engineer Intern D to accede to Engineer W’s veiled directive to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project. 2. It would not be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on a design altered so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project. Engineer W would not be acting as a faithful agent of the DOT.

Engineer Intern D’s adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness. Engineer W’s willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer’s obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one’s employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Of course, situations like this have happened before. In BER Case 98-5 , Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city where, as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, he became concerned that his staff would be unable to perform adequate and timely building inspections. Engineer Charlie met with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns. The chairman indicated that he would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department. However, the chairman sought Engineer Charlie’s concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be “grandfathered” under the older existing enforcement requirements and not the newer, more rigid requirements now in effect. Engineer Charlie agreed. The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving “trade-offs” in which one must weigh one “public good” (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent ”public good” (a consistent code enforcement process). In such a situation, the engineer could arguably rationalize a decision to compromise, something frequently done in the political arena. However, the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5 , concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that “righting a wrong with another wrong,” increases risk of grave damage to the publ...

A consultant recently determined the existing water main in Shadyvale is generally in good condition but extremely old. Further, the water main is no longer large enough for all the properties served. The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000. The State DOT is planning a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale. Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam. State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality. Engineer Intern D initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale DOT project to avoid conflicts with the existing utilities, including separation of a new closed drainage system from the old water main. During design development review, Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted. In that case, the cost to Shadyvale would be only the difference in price between the existing size of the water main and the proposed larger size, rather than the entire water main replacement cost. As a result, Shadyvale would pay an affordable $50,000 for the water main upgrade, an amount they can afford. Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, “I’ll sign off on it.”

Would it be ethical for Engineer Intern D to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project? Would it be unethical for Engineer W to sign off on the design where the old water main is impacted by the DOT project? 1. Would it be ethical for Engineer Intern D to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project? 2. Would it be unethical for Engineer W to sign off on the design where the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?

I.3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees I.5. Avoid deceptive acts. Subject Reference Advertising I.6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. I.3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism I.3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism I.3. I.3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism Public Statements and Criticism I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees I.4. I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees I.5. Avoid deceptive acts. Subject Reference Advertising I.5. Avoid deceptive acts. Subject Reference Advertising I.5. I.5. Avoid deceptive acts. Subject Reference Advertising Avoid deceptive acts. Avoid deceptive acts. Subject Reference Advertising Subject Ref...