Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Tension at City X Public Hearing
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Informed_Decision-Making_Enablement_Obligation_Tension_at_City_X_Public_Hearing
Properties
Instance of
InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation
Applied to
City Planning Board's decision-making on Developer F's waterfront development project
Balancing with
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
Concrete expression
The City Planning Board, as a non-engineer regulatory body, relies on Engineer A's presentation to make an informed decision about the waterfront development; Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts creates a question about whether the Board received sufficient information to exercise genuinely informed judgment.
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Interpretation
The principle is in tension with the Relevance and Pertinence Standard: while the Board ideally needs complete information, the public hearing structure — with multiple witnesses — compensates for any single engineer's selective presentation. The principle is not violated when the hearing process itself supplies the missing information through other witnesses.
Invoked by
City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
Tension resolution
The presence of other witnesses who testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts means the Board ultimately received the information needed for informed decision-making, resolving the tension in favor of the conclusion that Engineer A's non-disclosure did not deprive the Board of informed decision-making capacity.
Source Evidence
Source text
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
Text references
But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.
Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
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 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:Informed_Decision-Making_Enablement_Obligation_Tension_at_City_X_Public_Hearing a proeth:InformedDecision-MakingEnablementObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation Tension at City X Public Hearing" ;
proeth:appliedto "City Planning Board's decision-making on Developer F's waterfront development project" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits",
"Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The City Planning Board, as a non-engineer regulatory body, relies on Engineer A's presentation to make an informed decision about the waterfront development; Engineer A's selective emphasis on environmental benefits without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts creates a question about whether the Board received sufficient information to exercise genuinely informed judgment." ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The principle is in tension with the Relevance and Pertinence Standard: while the Board ideally needs complete information, the public hearing structure — with multiple witnesses — compensates for any single engineer's selective presentation. The principle is not violated when the hearing process itself supplies the missing information through other witnesses." ;
proeth:invokedby "City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority",
"Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The presence of other witnesses who testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts means the Board ultimately received the information needed for informed decision-making, resolving the tension in favor of the conclusion that Engineer A's non-disclosure did not deprive the Board of informed decision-making capacity." ;
proeth:textreferences "But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution.",
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.",
"Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.",
"Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.761587"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
94
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T18:53:14.971881+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T19:13:05.761587
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction