Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Relevance_and_Pertinence_Standard_Applied_Present_Case_Traffic_Noise_Air_Pollution
Properties
Instance of
RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings
Applied to
City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's project
Noise and air pollution impacts of waterfront development
Traffic increase impact of waterfront development
Balancing with
Honesty
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
Concrete expression
Engineer A was not ethically required to voluntarily disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development at the City Planning Board hearing because, in his professional judgment, those impacts were not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter — and other engineers at the hearing independently provided that information.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
The ethical obligation to disclose information at a public hearing is calibrated to the engineer's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence; information that the engineer in good faith judges to be outside the hearing's scope need not be volunteered, though it must be disclosed if asked.
Invoked by
Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case
Tension resolution
The Board held that Engineer A's professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent was the operative ethical standard; the presence of other witnesses who did provide that information confirmed that the public hearing process as a whole supplied the decision-maker with the necessary information.
Source Evidence
Source text
In the present case, 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.'
If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
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 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:Relevance_and_Pertinence_Standard_Applied_Present_Case_Traffic_Noise_Air_Pollution a proeth:RelevanceandPertinenceStandardforVoluntaryDisclosureatPublicHearings,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Relevance and Pertinence Standard Applied Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution" ;
proeth:appliedto "City Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's project",
"Noise and air pollution impacts of waterfront development",
"Traffic increase impact of waterfront development" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honesty",
"Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation",
"Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A was not ethically required to voluntarily disclose the traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of the waterfront development at the City Planning Board hearing because, in his professional judgment, those impacts were not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter — and other engineers at the hearing independently provided that information." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The ethical obligation to disclose information at a public hearing is calibrated to the engineer's professional judgment about relevance and pertinence; information that the engineer in good faith judges to be outside the hearing's scope need not be volunteered, though it must be disclosed if asked." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case" ;
proeth:principleclass "Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In the present case, 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:tensionresolution "The Board held that Engineer A's professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent was the operative ethical standard; the presence of other witnesses who did provide that information confirmed that the public hearing process as a whole supplied the decision-maker with the necessary information." ;
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.'",
"If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.",
"The question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.766143"^^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
2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T19:13:05.766143
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction