Step 4 Review - Case 8

Step 4: Synthesis Review

Case 8: Balancing Client Directives and Public Welfare: Stormwater Management Dilemma

Back to Step 4

14

Total Entities

Passes 1-3

7

Code Provisions

NSPE References

4

Questions

Ethical Dilemmas

4

Conclusions

Board Findings

Synthesis Reasoning Flow

Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain (LangGraph-style)

Show Labels

Node Types & Relationships

Nodes:

■ NSPE Provisions (rectangles) ◆ Questions (diamonds) ▬ Conclusions (rounded) ● Entities (circles)

Edge Colors:

→ Provision informs Question
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity

Note: For individual entity visualization, see OntServe's full ontology view

NSPE Code Provisions Referenced

NSPE_I_1_ I.1.

Full Text:

Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"he public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in [Section] 2 and [Section] 2(a) of the [C]ode.” Within this environmental framework, the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer’s obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer’s obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee."
Confidence: 95.0%

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Withhold Preliminary Risk Concerns', 'reasoning': 'This provision prohibits withholding risk information when public safety is at stake from potential stormwater contamination'} {'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Notify Client of Risks', 'reasoning': 'This provision requires notifying about risks to uphold the paramount duty to public health and welfare'}

NSPE_I_4_ I.4.

Full Text:

Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"his environmental framework, the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer’s obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer’s obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee."
Confidence: 95.0%

From discussion:
"Beyond the fact limitation, under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client’s faithful agent or trustee."
Confidence: 90.0%

From discussion:
"Although it does not appear Engineer L has completed a professional report per se, Engineer L’s identification of runoff risk is now “fact.” Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk. Client X’s insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for E"
Confidence: 85.0%

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Withhold Preliminary Risk Concerns', 'reasoning': 'This provision could be misinterpreted as supporting withholding information to serve client interests, creating ethical tension'} {'entity_type': 'event', 'entity_label': 'Client Financial Issues', 'reasoning': "This provision relates to acting faithfully during the client's financial difficulties"}

NSPE_II_1_a_ II.1.a.

Full Text:

If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Notify Client of Risks', 'reasoning': 'This provision requires notification when judgment about stormwater risks is overruled'} {'entity_type': 'event', 'entity_label': 'Client Refusal Decision', 'reasoning': "This provision directly addresses the situation where client refuses to accept engineer's risk assessment"}

NSPE_II_3_a_ II.3.a.

Full Text:

Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"The BER noted that Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. The key point of BER Case 07-6 is that information a"
Confidence: 95.0%

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Withhold Preliminary Risk Concerns', 'reasoning': 'This provision prohibits omitting material facts about stormwater risks from professional communications'}

NSPE_II_3_b_ II.3.b.

Full Text:

Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"Thus, Engineer L’s “concern” does not rise to the technical or moral level of “fact,” and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts ."
Confidence: 95.0%

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'event', 'entity_label': 'Risk Quantification Complete', 'reasoning': 'This provision allows public expression of technical opinions once facts are established through completed risk studies'}

NSPE_III_1_b_ III.1.b.

Full Text:

Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"Code section III.1.b requires that engineers advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful."
Confidence: 100.0%

From discussion:
"Therefore, Engineer A did act in accordance with Code section III.1.b.” The problematic behavior in BER Case 84-5 was that, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A “abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.” The B"
Confidence: 80.0%

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Notify Client of Risks', 'reasoning': 'This provision requires advising client when stormwater management project may not successfully protect public water sources'} {'entity_type': 'event', 'entity_label': 'Historic Heavy Rainfall', 'reasoning': 'This provision relates to advising about project success given new information about extreme weather patterns'}

NSPE_III_3_a_ III.3.a.

Full Text:

Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"ugh it does not appear Engineer L has completed a professional report per se, Engineer L’s identification of runoff risk is now “fact.” Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk. Client X’s insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for Engineer L."
Confidence: 85.0%

Applies To:

{'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Withhold Preliminary Risk Concerns', 'reasoning': 'This provision prohibits omitting material facts about preliminary risk assessments'} {'entity_type': 'action', 'entity_label': 'Conduct Additional Risk Studies', 'reasoning': 'This provision supports conducting studies to avoid statements based on incomplete information'}

Ethical Questions

Question_1

Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?

Mentioned Entities:
roles states resources principles obligations constraints capabilities actions events

Question_2

Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X's project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L?

Mentioned Entities:
roles states resources principles obligations constraints capabilities actions events

Question_2

Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X's project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L?

Mentioned Entities:
roles states resources principles obligations constraints capabilities actions events

Question_1

Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?

Mentioned Entities:
roles states resources principles obligations constraints capabilities actions events

Board Conclusions

Conclusion_1

It was not unethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about unquantified increased risk. Later, Engineer L did comply with Code provisions that require engineers to notify their employers or clients if a project will not be successful.

Answers:
1

Cited Provisions:
III.1.b

Conclusion_2

It would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X's project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L. Continuing to work on the project after concerns about runoff were quantified would in effect mean Engineer L was placing the clients' financial interest above the engineer's paramount obligation to the public health, safety, and welfare. This, the engineer cannot ethically do.

Answers:
2

Cited Provisions:
I.1

Conclusion_1

Answers:
1

Cited Provisions:
III.1.b

Conclusion_2

Answers:
2

Cited Provisions:
I.1