DP4

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP4

After the MWC overrides their safety recommendation, should Engineers A and B formally advise the MWC in writing that the project will not be successful and immediately initiate formal escalation to state regulatory authorities, or should they pursue a more bounded response that preserves the client relationship while still discharging their professional notification duty?

Engineers A and B must decide how to respond after the MWC votes to override their joint recommendation to delay the water source change, given the documented lead leaching risk and the sparsely attended public meeting. The core decision involves whether to formally advise the MWC in writing that the project will not succeed, and whether to simultaneously or sequentially escalate to state regulatory authorities — without waiting for MWC consent to disclose internal deliberations.

Jointly deliver formal written notification to the MWC stating that the project will not succeed and explicitly announcing intent to escalate to state regulatory authorities, then immediately file a formal report with the state regulatory agency disclosing the MWC's override decision, financial rationale, and the documented lead leaching risk — without seeking MWC consent — while also considering proactive public communication to reach residents who were absent from the sparsely attended meeting

Deliver formal written notification to the MWC that the project will not succeed and request that the MWC itself notify state regulatory authorities or grant consent for the engineers to do so, treating the faithful agent notification as the primary discharge of professional duty and deferring external escalation unless the MWC refuses to act within a defined response period

Formalize the prior informal regulatory contact by submitting a written report to the state regulatory agency immediately upon the MWC's override, while simultaneously delivering the formal MWC notification — but limit the regulatory disclosure to technical safety findings and the corrosion control precondition, omitting the MWC's internal financial deliberations on the grounds that only safety-relevant technical information is necessary to trigger regulatory review

Engineers A and B