Premise E Scenarios

1
Premise E Scenarios

• Information Damaging to Clients Interest
• Confidentiality Agreement
• Duty to Report Safety Violations
• Client Request for Secrecy

2
E-1 Information Damaging to Clients Interest

• Facts
• XYZ Corp. is advised by the State Pollution
  Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply
  for a permit to discharge waste into a receiving
  body of water, and is advised of the minimum
  standard to be met.
• XYZ employs consultant Engineer Doe to submit a
  detailed report that the receiving body of water
  will still meet established standards after
  receiving the wastes. Doe verbally advises XYZ,
  prior to completion of a written report, that
  standards wont be met, and that corrective
  action will be very costly.
• XYZ terminates Does contract, with full payment,
  and instructs him not to prepare a written
  report.
• XYZ presents data at a public hearing that
  standards will be met.
• Doe learns of the hearing and XYZs presentation,
  but does not report his earlier contradictory
  findings to the authority.

3
E-1 Information Damaging to Clients Interest

• Question
• Was it ethical for Doe not to report his findings
  to the authority upon learning of the hearing?

4
E-1 Information Damaging to Clients Interest

• Discussion
• The engineer will act in professional matters for
  each client or employer as a faithful agent or
  trustee, Doe did right to advise XYZ as he did.
• Termination of contract with full pay for
  services rendered is a business decision. Doe
  has reason to question why a written report was
  requested to not be rendered.
• Doe learning of the hearing is a circumstance
  where the engineer should report requests for
  unprofessional conduct to the authorities.
• Does duty to the public is paramount, as
  concerns safety, health and welfare.

5
E-1 Information Damaging to Clients Interest

• Conclusion
• It was unethical for Doe not to report his
  findings to the authority upon learning of the
  hearing.
• (Basis NSPE BER Case 76-4)

6
E-2 Confidentiality Agreement

• Facts
• Engineer A, a principal in ABC Engineering,
  submits qualifications and a proposal to a local
  municipality TWN to be considered as a consultant
  to research a former dump site that may be used
  for reclamation as a wetland. Dump was closed
  many years prior, used for decades for commercial
  waste.
• A meets with TWN officials, TWN indicates to
  A that there could be hazardous and toxic
  wastes in the dump.
• A is awarded contract, informed that he must
  sign a confidentiality clause precluding him from
  releasing any results/information without TWNs
  written permission. A signs contract and the
  clause.
• A finds dump was improperly closed, surface
  soil tests inconclusive, but high contaminant
  levels could be exposed due to erosion of cover,
  and be washed into the adjacent river.
• Given these findings, TWN will move wetlands
  reclamation and planned recreation area
  elsewhere. River is used for drinking water for
  other communities.
• TWN terminates As contract, A tells TWN to
  remediate the site, TWN refuses, citing expense,
  reminds A of the confidentiality clause and the
  legal consequences of going public. A decides
  not to inform the appropriate authorities.

7
E-2 Confidentiality Agreement

• Questions
• Was it ethical for A not to inform the
  appropriate regulatory agencies of his findings
  and the potential dangers?
• Did A behave ethically in signing the
  confidentiality clause, after he was informed by
  the city of the possibility of the site being
  hazardous/toxic?

8
E-2 Confidentiality Agreement

• Discussion
• The most fundamental ethical principal related to
  the practice of engineering is protection of the
  public health and safety.
• This view is not universally shared within and
  outside the engineering profession. Some
  dissenters claim that the highest duty is to
  their employer or client, and not to the public.
• Examples of similar precedent are BER Cases 92-6,
  89-7 (will be E-3), 90-5.
• A cannot remain party to a conspiracy of
  silence against public health and safety.
• A did not carefully think through his signing
  of the agreement.

9
E-2 Confidentiality Agreement

• Conclusions
• It was unethical for A not to inform the
  appropriate regulatory agencies of his findings
  and the potential dangers.
• A was not ethical in signing the
  confidentiality clause, after he was informed by
  the city of the possibility of the site being
  hazardous/toxic.
• (Basis NSPE BER Case 97-5)

10
E-3 Duty to Report Safety Violations

• Facts
• Engineer A is retained to investigate the
  structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied
  apartment building, which his client is planning
  to sell. Contract is to keep the structural
  report confidential, building is to be sold as
  is, no plans to repair or renovate any system
  within the building prior to sale.
• A determines building is structurally sound.
  Client confides to A that there are
  deficiencies in building electrical/mechanical
  systems, violates applicable codes and standards.
  A realizes that these deficiencies could cause
  injury to the occupants, makes brief mention of
  this in his report.
• A does not report the safety violations to any
  third party, in light of the confidentiality
  agreement.

11
E-3 Duty to Report Safety Violations

• Question
• Was it ethical for Engineer A not to report the
  safety violations to the appropriate public
  authorities?

12
E-3 Duty to Report Safety Violations

• Discussion
• If the engineer has a legal or ethical
  responsibility to disclose the information in
  question, the engineer is released from the
  obligation to maintain confidentiality. The
  threshold for such is a gray area.
• Paramount is public health and safety!
• A went along with the clients desire.

13
E-3 Duty to Report Safety Violations

• Conclusion
• It was unethical for Engineer A not to report
  the safety violations to the appropriate public
  authorities.
• .
• (Basis NSPE BER Case 89-7)

14
E-4 Client Request for Secrecy

• Facts
• Engineer A is designer of a large commercial
  building, and used new and innovative design
  concepts. After construction is complete and the
  building is occupied, A finds an omission in
  his calculations, building could collapse under
  severe, but not unusual wind conditions.
• A, the architect, client, and city engineer B
  agree upon remedial construction at night, when
  the building is unoccupied. A storm monitoring
  system and evacuation plan for the building and
  surrounding neighborhood are developed.
• Architect and client want the situation to be
  kept secret, to avoid consequences of a public
  panic, but the city engineer B has concern for
  the public and their right to know.

15
E-4 Client Request for Secrecy

• Questions
• Is it ethical for Engineer A, the structural
  engineer, to comply with the clients and
  architects desire for secrecy?
• Is it ethical for Engineer B, the city engineer,
  to maintain the secrecy?

16
E-4 Client Request for Secrecy

• Discussion
• Paramount is public health and safety!
• A is to be commended for promptly reporting his
  findings.
• Nevertheless, repairs will take months, occupants
  and large area of the city are in jeopardy, with
  an untested evacuation plan.
• A went along with the clients desire for work
  at night, maintaining the secrecy.

17
E-4 Client Request for Secrecy

• Conclusions
• It was not ethical for Engineer A, the structural
  engineer, to comply with the clients and
  architects desire for secrecy.
• It was not ethical for Engineer B, the city
  engineer, to maintain the secrecy.
• (Basis NSPE BER Case 98-9)