The August Ethical Dilemma: Board Member Seeking Work

This is the August 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials and members of the public.

Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.

Applicable NSPE Code References:
Code II.4.d: Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.
Code II.4.e: Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.
Code III.1.e: Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.

Similar cases were considered by the BER in 92-5 and 85-2.

Case 92-5 focuses on an engineer who was instrumental on a community service corporation responsible for obtaining money to construct a courthouse and office. The service corporation successfully received federally allocated funds, but it had no influence in determining who would design or build the project. The engineer wanted to be a subconsultant to a larger design firm submitting proposals to the appropriate Federal government agency. The BER opinion found no violation of the ethical code.

In 85-2, an engineer served on a board of directors of a private health care provider that contracted with the county hospital board to operate a health care facility, where some engineering work is needed. The engineer received a contract from the private provider to perform the work, and the decision was made by the private board of which the engineer was a member, meaning that he participated in the decision. The BER concluded that the engineer could not ethically seek the work or participate in the decision of selecting himself.

In the present case, the facts indicate the city will be awarding the library contract using HUD funds. The college trustees and city fathers must have a very close relationship. Although Heidi will not be involved in the decision, she is too close to the city and could influence their decision.

BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
William A. Cox, Jr., P.E., James G. Fuller, P.E., Donald L. Hiatte, P.E., Robert L. Nichols, P.E., William E. Norris, P.E., Jimmy H. Smith, Ph.D., P.E., William W. Middleton, P.E., Chairman

Note: The Board of Ethical Review operates on an “ad hoc” educational basis, and does not engage in resolving disputes of fact between parties in actual cases. That function is left to the state society if members are involved in judging whether a member has violated the Code of Ethics. Being solely educational, the function of the Board is to take the submission of “facts” as the basis for analysis and opinion without attempting to obtain rebuttal or comment from other parties. On that basis, the reader of the opinions should always recognize that the Board of Ethical Review is not an adjudicatory body, and unless indicated otherwise, its opinions are not binding upon the National Society of Professional Engineers, any state engineering society or any individual. Instead, the opinions represent the opinions of licensed engineers as to the reasonable standards of practice within the engineering profession. Board of Ethical Review opinions are intended to provide guidance in actual cases only to the extent of the “facts”, stated in the case. Cases may be reproduced for educational purposes as long as the material reproduced provides appropriate attribution to NSPE and the Board of Ethical Review.