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. (See Code Section II.1.b.).

The duty to hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare is among the most basic and fundamental obligations to which an engineer is required to adhere. While in many instances, the obligation is often clear and obvious, in other instances, there could be an obligation on the part of the engineer to balance competing or concurrent obligations or responsibilities to protect the public health and safety. The facts of this case are in many ways a classic ethical dilemma faced by many engineers in their professional lives. Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (See Code Section I.1.). Moreover, the Code provides guidance to engineers who are confronted with circumstances where their professional reputations are at stake. Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents about which they may have reservations or concerns (See Code Section II.1.b.). The Board has addressed public health and safety issues in the code and approval process on numerous occasions. In BER Case 92-4, Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, was ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility. He was told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and "avoid any hang-ups" with respect to technical issues. Engineer A believed the plans as drafted were inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions were necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act. His superior believed that the plans, which involved limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process that would remove 90% of the sulfur dioxide, will meet the regulatory requirements. Engineer A contacted the state engineering...

Engineer A serves as a director of a building department in a major city. Engineer A has been concerned that as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections. Each code official member of Engineer A’s staff is often required to make as many as 60 code inspections per day. Engineer A believes that there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day, particularly under the newer, more rigid code requirements for the city. These new code requirements greatly enhance and protect the public’s health and safety. The code officials are caught between the responsibility to be thorough in their inspections and the city’s desire to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees. Engineer A is required to sign off on all final inspection reports.Engineer A meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns. The chairman indicates that he is quite sympathetic to Engineer A’s concerns and would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department. At the same time, the chairman notes that the city is seeking to encourage more businesses to relocate into the city in order to provide more jobs and a strengthened tax base. In this connection, the chairman seeks Engineer A’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 A agrees to concur with the chairman’s proposal, and the chairman issues the order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department, which Engineer A believes the city desperately needs.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to agree to concur with the chairman’s proposal under the facts?