Engineer A Professional Judgment Objectivity Relevance Determination City X
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Engineer_A_Professional_Judgment_Objectivity_Relevance_Determination_City_X
Properties
Instance of
Client-RetainedPublicHearingEngineerAdverseImpactConditionalDisclosureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Client-RetainedPublicHearingEngineerAdverseImpactConditionalDisclosureObligation
Case context
Engineer A presented the waterfront development at the City X Planning Board hearing; the Board's analysis turned on whether the adverse impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' under Engineer A's professional judgment, and found that Engineer A was not ethically required to disclose them if his professional judgment determined they were not relevant and pertinent.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to make his professional judgment determination about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing objectively and in good faith — not driven by Developer F's interest in suppressing adverse information — and to disclose those impacts if his honest professional judgment identified them as relevant and pertinent.
Temporal scope
Prior to and during the public hearing presentation
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer A Retained by Developer F
Source Evidence
Source text
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
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.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
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_Professional_Judgment_Objectivity_Relevance_Determination_City_X a proeth:Client-RetainedPublicHearingEngineerAdverseImpactConditionalDisclosureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Professional Judgment Objectivity Relevance Determination City X" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case94:Engineer_A_Retained_by_Developer_F ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A presented the waterfront development at the City X Planning Board hearing; the Board's analysis turned on whether the adverse impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' under Engineer A's professional judgment, and found that Engineer A was not ethically required to disclose them if his professional judgment determined they were not relevant and pertinent." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case94:Objectivity_Obligation_Engineer_A_Waterfront_Development_Presentation,
case94:Objectivity_Principle_Applied_to_Engineer_As_Client-Retained_Presentation ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Client-Retained Public Hearing Engineer Adverse Impact Conditional Disclosure Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to make his professional judgment determination about whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts were 'relevant and pertinent' to the City Planning Board hearing objectively and in good faith — not driven by Developer F's interest in suppressing adverse information — and to disclose those impacts if his honest professional judgment identified them as relevant and pertinent." ;
proeth:sourcetext "the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Prior to and during the public hearing presentation" ;
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.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.768533"^^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
2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T19:13:05.768533
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction