Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Professional Judgment Exercise
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Engineer_A_Present_Case_Relevance_Pertinence_Professional_Judgment_Exercise
Properties
Instance of
RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings
Case context
Engineer A faced the ethical question of whether to volunteer known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts at the City Planning Board hearing, requiring a professional judgment determination about relevance and pertinence.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to exercise objective professional judgment to determine whether the anticipated traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to volunteer only that information which that professional judgment identified as relevant and pertinent — without being required to volunteer all information possessed about the project, provided all direct questions were answered completely and honestly.
Temporal scope
In preparation for and during the City Planning Board public hearing
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer A Client Relationship with Developer F, Engineer A Commercial Development Disclosure Threshold
derivedFromPrinciple
Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
Source Evidence
Source text
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
Text references
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
TTL
@prefix case94: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#> .
@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#> .
case94:Engineer_A_Present_Case_Relevance_Pertinence_Professional_Judgment_Exercise a proeth:RelevanceandPertinenceJudgmentObligationatPublicHearings,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Present Case Relevance Pertinence Professional Judgment Exercise" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case94:Engineer_A_Present_Case_Multi-Witness_Hearing_Institutional_Reliance_Non-Volunteering ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case94:Engineer_A_Client_Relationship_with_Developer_F,
case94:Engineer_A_Commercial_Development_Disclosure_Threshold ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A faced the ethical question of whether to volunteer known adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts at the City Planning Board hearing, requiring a professional judgment determination about relevance and pertinence." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case94:Relevance_and_Pertinence_Standard_Applied_Present_Case_Traffic_Noise_Air_Pollution ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (retained by Developer F, present case)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to exercise objective professional judgment to determine whether the anticipated traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing, and to volunteer only that information which that professional judgment identified as relevant and pertinent — without being required to volunteer all information possessed about the project, provided all direct questions were answered completely and honestly." ;
proeth:sourcetext "the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "In preparation for and during the City Planning Board public hearing" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'",
"the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T20:55:42.372673"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
94
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T20:55:42.372673
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction