Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Retained_Engineer_Advocacy-Objectivity_Balance_—_Present_Case_Waterfront_Development
Properties
Instance of
RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple
Applied to
Engineer A's presentation of waterfront development design to City Planning Board, including environmental benefits highlighted and traffic/noise/air pollution impacts potentially omitted
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Honesty
Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
Concrete expression
Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing: permitted to emphasize favorable environmental benefits while obligated not to suppress material adverse information (traffic, noise, air pollution) that is relevant and pertinent and would not otherwise reach the decision-maker.
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Interpretation
The principle permits selective emphasis in advocacy but prohibits suppression of material adverse information; the multi-witness hearing structure partially relieves the disclosure burden by ensuring other witnesses (including independent engineers) can supply adverse information.
Invoked by
Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure
Tension resolution
Engineer A may present the project favorably and need not proactively disclose traffic/noise/air pollution impacts if professional judgment determines they are not relevant and pertinent; but if they are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory regardless of client preference.
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use.
Text references
As the previous cases demonstrated engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.
Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use.
In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'
TTL
@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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Retained_Engineer_Advocacy-Objectivity_Balance_—_Present_Case_Waterfront_Development> a proeth:RetainedEngineerPublicHearingAdvocacy-ObjectivityBalancePrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Present Case Waterfront Development" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's presentation of waterfront development design to City Planning Board, including environmental benefits highlighted and traffic/noise/air pollution impacts potentially omitted" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Honesty",
"Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism",
"Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A, retained by Developer F to present the waterfront development project, occupies a hybrid role at the City Planning Board hearing: permitted to emphasize favorable environmental benefits while obligated not to suppress material adverse information (traffic, noise, air pollution) that is relevant and pertinent and would not otherwise reach the decision-maker." ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The principle permits selective emphasis in advocacy but prohibits suppression of material adverse information; the multi-witness hearing structure partially relieves the disclosure burden by ensuring other witnesses (including independent engineers) can supply adverse information." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Present Case Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure" ;
proeth:principleclass "Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Engineer A may present the project favorably and need not proactively disclose traffic/noise/air pollution impacts if professional judgment determines they are not relevant and pertinent; but if they are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory regardless of client preference." ;
proeth:textreferences "As the previous cases demonstrated engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.",
"Engineer A highlighted the environmental benefits of the proposed development, including the conversion of an industrial waterfront to a commercial/park use.",
"In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T20:55:42.371036"^^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
2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T20:45:31.508319+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T20:55:42.371036
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction