Case Repository
Filtering by:
Conflict of Interest
2023
Excess Stormwater Runoff
Case #23-2
Synthesized
Questions:
- Was it ethical for City Engineer J to review and approve plans prepared by Firm BWJ, given that City Engineer J formerly worked for Firm BWJ?
- What are Principal Engineer R's ethical responsibilities under the facts?
Conclusions:
- Given the facts, the Board interprets that Engineer J’s transition from the private sector to the public sector was not recent and there does not appear to be a conflict between J’s former work at BWJ and their current work for City C.
- Although flood damage and independent consultant Firm IBM’s analysis show larger flows, Principal Engineer R and Principal Engineers R’s firm should confirm whether an error exists – essentially, they should re-review Firm IBM’s analysis. If Firm BWJ determines they made a mistake, Principal Engineer R is responsible to acknowledge errors.
Post-Public Employment - City Engineer Transitioning to Consultant
Case #23-3
Synthesized
Questions:
- Is it ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with AE&R?
- Is it ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City?
Conclusions:
- Inasmuch as no “revolving door” contractual (i.e., legal) prohibition exists to private employment, it would be ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with firm AE&R. This finding is consistent with a long history of NSPE cases; engineers are free to move and work where they would like.
- As to whether it would be ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City, the answer is mixed as multiple considerations and details will affect the outcome. For example, participation in ongoing projects for which Engineer D has particular specialized knowledge may be ethical with disclosure and consent. Likewise, situations such as negotiating change orders (potential conflict of interest) might also be cured by disclosure and consent. However, for complex situations (e.g., perception of influence relative to solicitation of a contract) or prohibitive situations (e.g., divulging confidential information) a voluntary embargo by Engineer D for a specified period of time may be efficacious. In positive ways, such practices facilitate conduct which is honorable, responsible, ethical and lawful so as to enhance the honor, reputation and usefulness of the engineering profession.
2022
Professional Responsibility if Appropriate Authority Fails to Act
Case #22-5
Synthesized
Questions:
- Engineer B ethically obligated to take further action to protect public health, safety and welfare?
- If Engineer B wishes to take further action to continue to correspond with the MWC or the regulatory agency regarding the public health and safety...
Conclusions:
- Clear reporting of unresolved public health and safety risks to “appropriate authorities” satisfies Engineer B’s obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare.
- Any additional steps taken beyond the notification of appropriate authorities are not an obligation of Engineer B but rather a personal choice as a citizen, and should be taken with due consideration of the multiple stakeholders in this matter and the engineer’s many ethical obligations.