Engineer A Waterfront Hearing Relevance Pertinence Judgment
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/123#Engineer_A_Waterfront_Hearing_Relevance_Pertinence_Judgment
Properties
Instance of
RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
Case context
Engineer A retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project; required to present at a City X Planning Board hearing; aware of potential traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts but not specifically questioned about them.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, waterfront development case)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about which information was relevant and pertinent to the City X Planning Board hearing, and was not required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution that Engineer A's professional judgment identified as not relevant and pertinent — provided Engineer A would have answered honestly if directly questioned.
Temporal scope
During the public hearing presentation before the City X Planning Board
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Waterfront Development Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
Text references
Engineer A was aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and did not volunteer this fact. Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testified about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
TTL
@prefix case123: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/123#> .
@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#> .
case123:Engineer_A_Waterfront_Hearing_Relevance_Pertinence_Judgment a proeth:RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Waterfront Hearing Relevance Pertinence Judgment" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case123:Complete_Comparative_Design_Alternatives_Presentation_Engineer_A_Route ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case123:Waterfront_Development_Selective_Testimony_Completeness_Judgment ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case123:Complete_Comparative_Design_Alternatives_Presentation_Engineer_A_Route ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project; required to present at a City X Planning Board hearing; aware of potential traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts but not specifically questioned about them." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case123:Completeness_and_Non-Selectivity_Invoked_by_Engineer_A_Waterfront_Hearing,
case123:Relevance_and_Pertinence_Standard_Invoked_by_Engineer_A_Waterfront_Hearing ;
proeth:discoveredincase "123" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T00:05:45.073046+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "123" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T00:05:45.073046+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, waterfront development case)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about which information was relevant and pertinent to the City X Planning Board hearing, and was not required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution that Engineer A's professional judgment identified as not relevant and pertinent — provided Engineer A would have answered honestly if directly questioned." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the public hearing presentation before the City X Planning Board" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A was aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and did not volunteer this fact. Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.",
"Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testified about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.",
"The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 123 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:14:43.765658"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 123 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
123
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T00:05:45.073046+00:00
First case
123
Generated
2026-02-28T00:05:45.073046+00:00
Attributed to
Case 123 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T00:14:43.765658
Generated by
ProEthica Case 123 Extraction