Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 98-5 (1998) · Public Health And Safety - Code Enforcement
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
BER 88-6 City Engineer External Authority Identification After Internal Failure
prevails over
BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Inaction Complicity Avoidance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 88-6 City Engineer Superior Authority Suppression
Featured
Engineer A Non-Subordination Safety Reporting Political Bargaining
prevails over
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Justification for Safety Compromise
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Competing Public Goods Trade-Off Rationalization
BER 92-4 Engineer A Environmental Permit Issuance Refusal
prevails over
BER 92-4 Engineer A Environmental Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 92-4 Engineer A Supervisor-Directed Permit Non-Compliance Issuance
Engineer A Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination Short-Term Gain
prevails over
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Long-Term Code Integrity Non-Subordination
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Grandfathering Ordinance Safety Standard Reduction
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Public Safety Vociferousness Insistence
prevails over
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Competing Public Goods Trade-Off Non-Rationalization
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Competing Public Goods Trade-Off Rationalization
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Safety Code Grandfathering Refusal
prevails over
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Quid Pro Quo Non-Acceptance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Public Safety at Risk — Building Code Non-Compliance
BER 65-12 Engineers Product Safety Refusal Non-Acquiescence
prevails over
BER 82-5 Defense Industry Engineer Non-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 82-5 Non-Safety Public Fund Waste Reporting Discretion
- BER 82-5 Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy
Engineer A Transparent Advocacy Alternative to Grandfathering Concurrence
prevails over
Engineer A Quid Pro Quo Safety Concession Non-Acceptance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Quid Pro Quo Safety Standard Concession — Present Case
Engineer A Safety Code Grandfathering Concurrence Refusal
prevails over
Engineer A Building Inspection Program Structural Adequacy Escalation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Building Department Inspection Resource Constraint
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Quid Pro Quo Non-Acceptance vs Engineer A Building Inspection Director Structural Adequacy Escalation
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Safety Code Grandfathering Refusal vs Engineer A Building Inspection Director Transparent Advocacy Staffing Pursuit
Engineer A Building Inspection Program Structural Adequacy Escalation vs Engineer A Inspection Report Sign-Off Substantive Accuracy Certification
Engineer A Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination Short-Term Gain vs Engineer A Non-Subordination Safety Reporting Political Bargaining
What the board concluded
- It was not ethical for Engineer A to agree to concur with the chairman’s proposal under the facts.
- Additionally, it was not ethical for Engineer A to sign inadequate inspection reports.