Engineer A Dual-Role Ethical Boundary Recognition Road Project

@prefix case105: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/105#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> . @prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> . @prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> . @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . case105:Engineer_A_Dual-Role_Ethical_Boundary_Recognition_Road_Project a proeth:Part-TimeMunicipalEngineerDual-RoleAdvisory-DesignEthicalPermissibilityBoundaryObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Dual-Role Ethical Boundary Recognition Road Project" ; proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case105:Dual_Role_Advisory_and_Design_Ethical_Permissibility_Boundary ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's situation differed from BER Case 01-11 (WXY Engineers as city engineer performing design on separate projects without self-review) because Engineer A would be reviewing his own advisory work on the same road project where he evaluated Engineer B." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case105:Municipal_Advisory_Role_Self-Review_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A, case105:Part-Time_Municipal_Engineer_Competitive_Disadvantage_Acknowledgment_in_Instant_Case ; proeth:discoveredincase "105" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T08:39:29.944672+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "105" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T08:39:29.944672+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Part-Time Town Engineer and Private Consultant)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Part-Time Municipal Engineer Dual-Role Advisory-Design Ethical Permissibility Boundary Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the instant case fell outside the permissible dual-role precedents established in BER Cases 63-5, 74-2, and 01-11, because the combination of prior advisory role, evaluative role over the terminated contractor, and the self-review problem on the same project created a structural conflict not curable by disclosure — distinguishing this situation from cases where advisory and design roles on separate projects or without self-review were found permissible." ; proeth:sourcetext "contrary to the situation in BER Case 01-11, the performance of such services by Engineer A potentially places him in the situation of reviewing his own work." ; proeth:temporalscope "Upon considering whether to offer or accept the road design contract from Smithtown" ; proeth:textreferences "The Board does not believe that the disclosure of any further circumstances (e.g., private work in town for a developer, reviewing its own work) would be sufficient to avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.", "contrary to the situation in BER Case 01-11, the performance of such services by Engineer A potentially places him in the situation of reviewing his own work.", "the Board also concluded that it would be ethical for Engineer A and his firm WXY to serve as city engineer for City H and perform general consulting services and design services on individual projects under circumstances where those services did not include reviewing the work of Engineer A's firm." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 105 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T08:46:32.094573"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 105 Extraction" .