AE&R Assigns Engineer D to City Contracts
Contribution to the perception that the engineering profession exploits revolving door relationships
Exposure of AE&R to ethical and reputational risk if the conflict is publicly scrutinized
Potential disqualification from city contracts if the City identifies the conflict
Ethical obligations of firms as well as individual engineers
Maximize the return on hiring Engineer D by deploying their expertise and city relationships on active and prospective city contracts, leveraging insider knowledge for competitive advantage
Conflict-of-interest identification at the firm level
Internal compliance and ethics management
Project assignment decisions that account for ethical constraints
Post-hire, upon Engineer D joining AE&R as associate
Duty to protect the integrity of public procurement processes
NSPE Code obligation to act in a manner that upholds the honor and dignity of the profession
Obligation not to solicit or accept engagements that create conflicts of interest
Obligation to avoid exploiting conflicts of interest for competitive advantage
AE&R principals face the implied decision of whether to place Engineer D in responsible charge of active city contracts, a decision that would directly exploit Engineer D's insider knowledge and prior supervisory relationships in violation of conflict-of-interest principles.
AE&R Assigns Engineer D to City Contracts (Action 7) → City Project Involvement Risk Created (Event 6)
When AE&R assigns Engineer D to city contracts, a direct ethical violation risk state is created: Engineer D would be working in responsible charge of projects for which they previously held oversight authority as City Engineer, the precise scenario the cooling-off period obligation was designed to prevent
AE&R Assigns Engineer D to City Contracts (Action 7)
If AE&R had assigned Engineer D exclusively to non-city projects, or if Engineer D had invoked voluntary recusal, the direct ethical violation risk would not have materialized; if the cooling-off period had been adopted (Action 6), assignment to city contracts would have been deferred
City Project Involvement Risk Created (Event 6)
AE&R's decision to place Engineer D in responsible charge of active city contracts
Engineer D's failure to invoke voluntary recusal (Action 5 not taken)
The existence of active city contracts at AE&R that overlap with Engineer D's prior oversight jurisdiction
The prior establishment of the conflict-of-interest state (Event 4)
AE&R principals (primary decision-makers on assignment); Engineer D (shared, obligation to refuse improper assignment)
Assignment to responsible charge of city contracts + active conflict-of-interest state + absence of recusal = sufficient to create direct ethical violation
Even without formal assignment, Engineer D's presence at AE&R during active city contracts creates appearance-of-impropriety risk
The employment relationship becomes publicly known; prior awards to AE&R during Engineer D's tenure are now subject to retroactive scrutiny; Engineer D's dual identity as former regulator and current AE&R employee is established
Shortly after Engineer D's resignation announcement
Firm AE&R publicly announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate shortly after Engineer D's resignation announcement, creating a publicly visible record of the employment relationship and its timing relative to Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer. This announcement makes the prior professional relationship between AE&R and Engineer D a matter of public record.
AE&R projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
City Engineer, transitioning to AE&R Associate
Creation of direct conflict of interest between former public duties and new private role
Potential exploitation, actual or perceived, of insider knowledge and city relationships
Reputational risk to both Engineer D and AE&R if transition is not managed transparently
Triggering of revolving door ethical scrutiny and potential cooling-off obligations
Legitimate exercise of the right to seek and accept private employment (affirmed in Case 58-1)
Pursuit of professional advancement within one's area of competence
Confidentiality of information obtained in professional capacity
Ethical spirit of revolving door provisions even absent legal mandate
Protection of public trust in engineering profession
Advance private-sector career by joining an established AE firm with which Engineer D had a substantial working relationship, leveraging professional reputation and experience
Duty to protect confidential information obtained in public role from exploitation in private role
Ability to identify which city matters require recusal or disclosure
Knowledge of post-employment ethical obligations
Self-assessment of conflict-of-interest exposure
Prior to or concurrent with resignation announcement; formalized shortly after announcement when AE&R publicly announced the hire
Obligation to avoid circumstances where private interest conflicts with public duties (NSPE Code Section III.2)
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest that compromise integrity or the public interest (NSPE Code Section II.4)
Obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the transition from public to private employment
Engineer D made the volitional decision to accept a position as associate at Firm AE&R, a firm that had completed many projects under Engineer D's direct oversight as City Engineer. This decision represents the core revolving-door action that crystallizes all subsequent conflict-of-interest obligations.
Accepting Employment with AE&R (Action 3) → Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated (Event 5)
Engineer D made the volitional decision to accept a position as associate at Firm AE&R, a firm that had an existing contractual relationship with the city, which, based on historical precedents established in BER cases from 1958 through 2015, activated a cooling-off period obligation
Accepting Employment with AE&R (Action 3)
If Engineer D had accepted employment at a firm with no prior city contract relationship, the cooling-off obligation specific to city projects would not have been activated; if no BER precedent existed, the obligation might not have been formally recognized
Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated (Event 5)
AE&R's status as a firm with active or recent city contracts overseen by Engineer D
Engineer D's acceptance of employment at AE&R specifically (not just any firm)
Engineer D's prior exercise of contract award or supervisory authority over AE&R
Existence of BER precedent establishing cooling-off norms for such transitions
Engineer D (primary); AE&R principals (contributing)
Employment acceptance at a firm with prior city contract relationship + Engineer D's prior oversight authority = sufficient to activate cooling-off obligation under established BER precedent
Delayed contribution to AE&R's city-related business development for approximately one year
Establishes a clear, defensible ethical boundary that protects Engineer D from future allegations of impropriety
Potential competitive disadvantage for AE&R relative to firms not subject to such constraints
Consistency with BER precedent (Case 15-8) on cooling-off obligations
Duty to protect the public interest in fair procurement
Obligation to avoid exploitation of insider contacts and influence gained in public service
Obligation to uphold the ethical spirit of revolving door provisions
Consistency with established BER ethical precedent
Ethical obligations exceed minimum legal requirements
deliberate (implied ethical obligation informed by BER precedent)
Prevent the exploitation of insider relationships and procurement influence for a sufficient period to allow the City's procurement processes to operate without the distorting effect of Engineer D's recent public authority, thereby protecting both the public interest and the profession's integrity
Ability to identify which activities constitute 'procurement matters' subject to the cooling-off
Communication with AE&R management to establish and enforce the cooling-off boundary
Self-discipline to observe voluntary ethical constraints
Post-hire, decision point at commencement of employment at AE&R
If cooling-off is not adopted: violation of the ethical spirit of revolving door principles, even if no legal violation occurs
Risk of violating NSPE Code conflict-of-interest provisions through participation in city procurement matters
Post-hire, Engineer D faces the implied decision of whether to voluntarily adopt an approximately one-year cooling-off period before participating in any procurement matters before the City, mirroring the ethical spirit of statutory cooling-off provisions even in the absence of a legal mandate.
More recently, BER Case 11-12 considered the situation of Engineer A, who served as the part-time town engineer for Smithtown
Engineer A was not eligible to provide engineering services to Smithtown for the local road project
In determining it would not be ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the work for Smithtown
This conclusion is based upon the language of Code Section II.4.e and is irrespective of whether the town's procurement laws were scrupulously followed
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing conflict of interest in dual employment situations
Precedent establishing that a part-time town engineer who participates in selecting and then terminating a consultant cannot ethically offer their own firm to perform the same work, due to conflict of interest under NSPE Code Section II.4.e regardless of procurement law compliance
BER Case 14-8 for example – which is in many ways the converse of the situation Engineer D faces in the present case
Engineer A could not have disclosed, participated in or represented the State's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtained the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and also the client
Engineer A should be assigned other duties by the State, remain isolated from the State's water rights case
Engineer D can follow the recommendations in Case 14-8 and remain isolated from former projects until those contracts lapse
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as direct guidance on Engineer D's obligations regarding isolation from former projects
Precedent directly analogous (as converse) to Engineer D's situation, establishing that an engineer who transitions from private practice to a government agency must remain isolated from matters involving their former employer and client, and that disclosure and consent from former employer and client are required before any involvement
BER Case 15-8 offers direct guidance on the ethics of transitional employment
The Board of Ethical Review believes that Engineer P's actions were unethical
as was done in Case 15-8, an embargo or 'cooling off' period, often one-year duration, can ameliorate such concerns
the agreement for a one-year hiatus after leaving government service before accepting related employment is not supported by disguising the employment as 'independent contracting'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as direct guidance on revolving door ethics and cooling-off periods applicable to Engineer D
Precedent establishing that a top state highway official cannot circumvent a one-year revolving door waiting period by joining an AE firm as an 'independent contractor' rather than an employee, and that disclosure alone is insufficient to cure conflicts of interest in transitional employment; also introduces the cooling-off period concept
We start the discussion by reviewing the first case the Board of Ethical Review published, BER Case 58-1
Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise', of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession'
The crucial question is, therefore, 'Were these advantages used unfairly?'
The… [engineers] in question have violated the spirit of the Canons and Rules
there can be no question of the basic right of an American citizen to resign from one position and accept another or initiate a business of his own
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the first and foundational revolving door case
Foundational precedent establishing that engineers have a basic right to change employment but must not unfairly exploit insider knowledge, contacts, or advantages gained during public service; introduces the 'purity of the enterprise' standard and the spirit-versus-letter distinction in ethics code application
In BER Case 63-5, a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client
the engineer was acting in a dual capacity but not a divided one
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing transitional and dual employment ethics
Precedent addressing dual employment of a part-time city engineer who also performs design work for the same municipality, establishing the standard of scrupulous care to avoid divided loyalties and the distinction between dual and divided capacity
In BER Case 74-2, the Board considered a case involving a state law that required that every municipality have a municipal engineer
the Board determined that the public interest was best served by providing the small municipalities with the most competent engineering services which they can acquire
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing dual employment and public interest considerations
Precedent establishing that a consulting firm principal serving as municipal engineer and providing engineering services to the same municipality can be ethical when it best serves the public interest by providing competent engineering services to small communities that cannot afford full-time engineers
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Public Officials Transitioning to Private Engineering Practice
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award
Ethical reviewers and Engineer D in assessing professional obligations
BER precedents addressing analogous situations where engineers in public roles (city engineers, government officials) transition to private firms with whom they had prior procurement relationships, providing analogical reasoning patterns for assessing Engineer D's obligations
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'US Government Agency', 'transition_type': 'Public to private on same project', 'violation_finding': 'Violated spirit of Canons and Rules though not specific paragraphs'}
Engineers employed by a US government agency who prepared preliminary plans for a hydroelectric project, then while still employed negotiated with AE firms, formed a private corporation, and secured a contract to continue design work on the same project before resigning from government service.
{'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Foreign Government Agency'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'US Government Agency'}
{'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Joint Venture Corporation'}
Government Engineer Transitioning to Private Sector
engineers negotiated with at least two AE firms with the intent of taking part in the design and supervision of the work
The engineers formed a corporation to be part of a joint venture to design the hydroelectric project
the engineers resigned from their US government positions and entered into a contract with the foreign government
CausalLink_AE&R Assigns Engineer D to Cit
CausalLink_Accepting Employment with AE&R
CausalLink_Adopting One-Year Cooling-Off
CausalLink_Disclosure and City Acceptance
CausalLink_Participation in Contract Nego
CausalLink_Resignation and Partial Disclo
CausalLink_Voluntary Recusal from City Pr
City Employment Contract Provisions (or Absence Thereof) Regarding Post-Employment Restrictions
The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
Engineer D; City administration; ethical reviewers
The explicit absence of revolving door provisions in the City's senior-level employment contracts is a material fact establishing the legal and contractual baseline against which Engineer D's ethical obligations must be assessed — the lack of formal restriction does not eliminate professional ethical duties
Engineer D is placed in a position of active ethical jeopardy; the assignment creates an immediate obligation to recuse and disclose; failure to act promptly constitutes a continuing violation
Upon AE&R assigning Engineer D to city contracts
When AE&R assigns Engineer D to city contracts, a direct ethical violation risk state is created: Engineer D is placed in a position where participation in active or procurement-related city projects would breach multiple professional obligations simultaneously. This risk state exists as an outcome of the assignment action.
Beyond the Board's mixed conclusion on immediate project involvement, a critical temporal dimension was left unaddressed: Engineer D's ethical obligations did not begin at the moment of departure from the City but arose earlier — at the point when employment negotiations with AE&R commenced while Engineer D still held active contracting authority over AE&R's City projects. The NSPE Code's requirement to disclose known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence professional judgment means that Engineer D was obligated to disclose the employment negotiation to the City the moment it began, not merely upon departure. Failure to do so during any period in which Engineer D continued to participate in contract awards, senior-level project reviews, or fee negotiations involving AE&R constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from and prior to the revolving-door question the Board addressed. This pre-departure disclosure obligation is the ethical linchpin the Board's analysis underweights, and its absence from the Board's explicit conclusions leaves a significant gap in the ethical accountability framework applied to Engineer D's conduct.
The Board's mixed answer on immediate project involvement implicitly relies on a disclosure-and-consent mechanism as the primary ethical safeguard, but this reliance is structurally insufficient when the consenting party — the City — is the same entity whose procurement integrity is at risk. Consent obtained from a municipal client that lacks revolving-door protections, may have incomplete information about what confidential knowledge Engineer D possesses, and faces ongoing dependence on AE&R's technical services cannot be treated as fully informed, arms-length consent capable of neutralizing the underlying ethical concern. The Board's case-by-case approach, while appropriately sensitive to factual nuance, risks producing a framework in which disclosure and consent become procedural formalities that legitimize structurally compromised arrangements rather than genuine ethical remedies. A more robust analytical extension of the Board's conclusion would require that consent be accompanied by independent verification — such as review by the City's legal counsel or an ethics officer — that Engineer D has identified and quarantined all categories of confidential information acquired during tenure, including non-public budget data, internal scoring criteria, and proprietary bid evaluations, before any direct involvement in City projects is permitted.
The Board's analysis focuses primarily on Engineer D's individual ethical obligations but leaves largely unexamined the independent ethical culpability of Firm AE&R as a recruiting actor. AE&R's decision to hire Engineer D — a public official who had direct contracting authority over AE&R's City projects throughout their tenure — and then to immediately assign Engineer D to City-facing work is not merely a passive consequence of Engineer D's transition; it is an affirmative strategic choice by AE&R that exploits the revolving-door dynamic for competitive advantage. The NSPE Code's prohibition on soliciting or accepting contracts from governmental bodies through improper means, combined with the broader obligation to conduct oneself honorably so as to enhance the reputation of the profession, applies to firms as well as individual engineers. AE&R's recruitment strategy — particularly the immediacy of the public announcement and the plan for continued City project involvement — creates a structural incumbent advantage over competing firms that never had access to a former City Engineer with insider relationships and knowledge. The Board's conclusion that the ethics of immediate involvement is 'mixed' should be extended to include an affirmative finding that AE&R bears independent ethical responsibility for designing an employment arrangement that, without voluntary restraint, foreseeably compromises competitive procurement fairness, regardless of whether Engineer D individually complies with disclosure obligations.
The Board's permissive ruling on employment acceptance — grounded substantially in the absence of a formal revolving-door contractual provision — produces a troubling systemic incentive structure when examined from a consequentialist perspective. By treating the absence of a contractual prohibition as a significant factor weighing in favor of ethical permissibility, the Board's reasoning implicitly rewards municipalities that fail to adopt revolving-door protections and creates no affirmative pressure on either engineers or firms to self-impose voluntary cooling-off periods in the absence of such provisions. Compared to the precedent in BER Case 15-8, where an engineer circumvented an explicit one-year cooling-off period by joining as an independent contractor, the present case involves no cooling-off provision at all — yet the Board's analysis does not treat this as an aggravating factor requiring heightened voluntary restraint. A more complete analytical extension would hold that the absence of a formal revolving-door provision in the City's employment contracts creates a heightened — not diminished — ethical obligation on Engineer D and AE&R to self-impose voluntary restraints, because the regulatory gap that would otherwise protect public procurement integrity must be filled by professional ethical judgment when institutional safeguards are absent. The engineering profession's commitment to public welfare as paramount demands that engineers not treat the absence of external constraints as permission to act in ways that undermine public trust in procurement integrity.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the Board's mixed conclusion on immediate project involvement, while analytically defensible, fails to articulate the standard of honorable professional character that the NSPE Code demands of senior public engineers transitioning to private practice. Engineer D occupied a position of significant public trust — serving as the City's primary point of contact for contract negotiation, award, and senior-level project review — and the virtue ethics tradition holds that persons of genuine integrity do not merely ask what is minimally permissible but what conduct best honors the trust placed in them. A virtuous engineer in Engineer D's position would have proactively disclosed employment negotiations to the City the moment they began, recused from all AE&R-related decisions during the negotiation period, and voluntarily proposed a cooling-off period from City-related work at AE&R regardless of whether one was contractually required. Similarly, a firm of honorable professional character would not immediately deploy a former City Engineer on the very projects that engineer had overseen, even if disclosure and consent were technically obtained. The Board's conclusion that the ethics of immediate involvement is 'mixed' is accurate as a legal-ethical minimum but should be extended with the recognition that the virtue ethics standard — which the NSPE Code's call for honorable conduct invokes — demands considerably more than the minimum, and that Engineer D's and AE&R's conduct as described falls short of that higher standard even if it clears the minimum threshold under certain factual configurations.
As to whether it would be ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City, the answer is mixed as multiple considerations and details will affect the outcome.
In response to Q101: Engineer D bore an affirmative obligation to disclose employment negotiations with AE&R to the City at the moment those negotiations became substantive — that is, as soon as there was a realistic prospect of an offer being extended or accepted. The period during which Engineer D was simultaneously negotiating with AE&R and exercising authority over contract awards, senior-level project reviews, and consultant evaluations involving AE&R represents the most acute ethical exposure in this case. NSPE Code Section II.4.a requires disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence professional judgment. An engineer negotiating private employment with a firm they are concurrently evaluating, contracting with, or overseeing on behalf of a public client presents precisely the kind of conflict that provision was designed to capture. The failure to disclose — or to recuse from AE&R-related decisions during the negotiation period — would constitute a breach of the faithful agent obligation under Canon I.4, independent of whether the ultimate employment acceptance is itself ethical. The Board's conclusion on Q1 does not appear to have addressed this temporal dimension explicitly, leaving a significant analytical gap: the ethics of accepting the position cannot be fully separated from the ethics of the conduct that preceded and accompanied the acceptance.
In response to Q102: AE&R bears independent and non-trivial ethical responsibility for its recruitment strategy. The firm's decision to hire Engineer D was not made in ignorance of Engineer D's prior role — AE&R had completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure and was fully aware that Engineer D had served as the City's primary point of contact for contract negotiation, award, and senior-level project review. Recruiting a former public official whose oversight authority directly encompassed the recruiting firm's own contracts is not a neutral act. NSPE Code Canon I.6 and Section III.6 together establish that engineers and firms shall conduct themselves honorably and shall not attempt to obtain professional engagements through improper means. While hiring a qualified engineer is not per se improper, deliberately recruiting an engineer whose primary value to the firm derives from insider relationships, non-public institutional knowledge, and the residual influence of prior public authority crosses into the territory of seeking an improper competitive advantage. The Board's framing of the case focuses heavily on Engineer D's obligations, but a complete ethical analysis must recognize that AE&R's recruitment strategy — if designed to exploit Engineer D's insider position rather than simply to acquire engineering competence — itself implicates the Incumbent Advantage Prohibition and the firm's obligation under honorable professional conduct standards.
In response to Q103: The absence of a formal revolving-door provision in the City's employment contracts does not neutralize the underlying ethical concern, and neither Engineer D nor AE&R may treat that absence as ethical permission to proceed without voluntary self-restraint. The NSPE Code of Ethics establishes obligations that operate independently of and in addition to legal or contractual requirements. Canon I.6 requires engineers to conduct themselves honorably and responsibly, and the Board's own precedent in BER Case 15-8 — where Engineer P's circumvention of a formal cooling-off period was found unethical — implies that the spirit of such protections carries ethical weight even when the letter is absent. The contractual gap created by the City's failure to include revolving-door provisions is precisely the kind of regulatory vacuum that professional ethical codes are designed to fill. Engineer D and AE&R are therefore obligated to supply through voluntary self-restraint what the City's contracts failed to require. To conclude otherwise would mean that engineers' ethical obligations shrink to match the lowest level of institutional protection a public employer happens to have adopted — a result fundamentally inconsistent with the profession's self-regulatory aspirations and with the public welfare mandate of Canon I.1.
In response to Q104: The categories of confidential information that Engineer D must identify and quarantine upon joining AE&R include at minimum: (1) non-public budget allocations and capital planning priorities that would reveal the City's financial capacity or willingness to fund specific project types; (2) internal scoring criteria, weighting methodologies, and evaluation rubrics used in qualifications-based selection processes that have not been publicly disclosed; (3) proprietary bid or proposal content submitted by competing firms during procurements Engineer D oversaw; (4) internal assessments of AE&R's own past performance, including any concerns, deficiencies, or informal evaluations not reflected in public records; and (5) negotiating positions, fee benchmarks, or contract terms the City considers acceptable or unacceptable in consultant agreements. NSPE Code Section III.4 prohibits disclosure of confidential information without consent, and Section III.4.a extends this to arrangements for new employment that exploit such information. Engineer D's practical obligation upon joining AE&R is to proactively identify these categories, disclose their existence (though not their content) to AE&R's leadership, and establish an internal embargo preventing their use in any City-related proposal, negotiation, or project work. The burden of identification falls on Engineer D, not on AE&R or the City, because Engineer D is the party with knowledge of what was acquired and what remains non-public.
In response to Q201: The tension between Revolving Door Integrity and Fairness in Professional Competition is real but resolvable without treating the two principles as equally weighted in this context. Fairness in Professional Competition legitimately permits engineers to leverage their expertise, professional reputation, and general knowledge of a field when seeking new employment. It does not, however, extend to leveraging the specific institutional authority, non-public information, and insider relationships acquired in a position of public trust. The distinction is between general professional competence — which Engineer D is fully entitled to market — and positional advantage derived from the public role itself, which belongs to the City and the public, not to Engineer D personally. Revolving Door Integrity therefore does not conflict with Fairness in Professional Competition in any fundamental sense; rather, it defines the boundary of what Engineer D may legitimately bring to the private market. AE&R is entitled to hire Engineer D for their engineering expertise and professional judgment. AE&R is not entitled to hire Engineer D as a conduit for the City's confidential information or as a relationship asset whose value derives from Engineer D's prior authority over AE&R's own contracts.
In response to Q202: The tension between the Loyalty Principle as applied to AE&R and the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle as applied to the City is not symmetrical, and the resolution depends on the nature of the specific City project to which Engineer D is assigned. Where AE&R assigns Engineer D to a project that Engineer D directly oversaw, evaluated, or made consequential decisions about during their City tenure, the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle must take precedence. In those circumstances, Engineer D's duty to AE&R as a faithful agent cannot extend to performing work that exploits prior public authority, because accepting such an assignment would itself be an ethical violation that AE&R cannot legitimately demand. NSPE Code Section I.4 requires faithful agency, but faithful agency does not require compliance with instructions that would place the engineer in ethical violation. Where, however, AE&R assigns Engineer D to City projects that are genuinely new — not connected to prior decisions, not dependent on confidential information, and not involving relationships Engineer D cultivated through public authority — the Loyalty Principle may be satisfied without violating Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance, provided full disclosure to and consent from the City is obtained. This is the most plausible basis for the Board's 'mixed' conclusion on Q2: the answer depends on the specific project's relationship to Engineer D's prior authority.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer D's duty of loyalty and faithful agency to the City — as the employer and public client Engineer D served — required at minimum that Engineer D disclose the employment negotiations with AE&R to the City before or during the period when Engineer D retained authority over AE&R-related decisions. The Kantian formulation is instructive: if every senior public engineer were to negotiate private employment with firms they currently oversee without disclosure, the institution of public procurement oversight would be systematically undermined, because the oversight function depends on the overseer's undivided loyalty during the period of authority. Engineer D's failure to disclose — if it occurred — is not merely a procedural lapse but a categorical breach of the duty of non-deception owed to the City. The deontological analysis of Q1 (whether accepting employment was ethical) is therefore inseparable from the question of how the negotiation was conducted. An acceptance that followed proper disclosure and recusal during the negotiation period is categorically different from one that did not, and the Board's permissive answer on Q1 should be understood as conditional on the negotiation having been conducted without concealment.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's permissive ruling on Engineer D's employment acceptance — grounded substantially in the absence of a contractual revolving-door prohibition — produces a problematic incentive structure at the municipal level. If the ethical permissibility of a revolving-door transition is treated as contingent on whether the municipality happened to include a cooling-off provision in its employment contracts, municipalities that fail to adopt such provisions effectively create an environment in which senior engineers face fewer ethical constraints on post-employment conduct. This outcome is perverse: the municipalities with the weakest institutional protections become the environments with the most permissive ethical standards, precisely because the Board's analysis treats the absence of a contractual constraint as ethically relevant. The net consequence across many municipalities and many transitions would be a gradual normalization of revolving-door arrangements, reduced public confidence in procurement integrity, and a competitive disadvantage for firms that do not recruit former public officials. A consequentialist analysis therefore supports a more robust baseline ethical standard — approximating a voluntary cooling-off period — that applies regardless of whether the municipality has formalized such a requirement, because the aggregate public welfare effects of a consistent standard exceed those of a case-by-case, contract-dependent approach.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer D's conduct falls short of the standard of honorable professional character expected of a senior public official, not because accepting employment with AE&R is categorically impermissible, but because the manner of the transition — accepting a position at a firm they had directly and repeatedly overseen, without proactively establishing a voluntary cooling-off period or embargo from City-related work — reflects an insufficiently scrupulous regard for the appearance of integrity. Virtue ethics asks not merely whether an action is technically permissible but whether it reflects the character of a person of practical wisdom and professional honor. A virtuous senior public engineer in Engineer D's position would have recognized that the structural features of the transition — the direct oversight relationship, the multiple contract awards, the senior-level project reviews — created conditions under which even a technically permissible transition would damage public trust and the profession's reputation. The virtuous response would have been to proactively propose a cooling-off period to AE&R as a condition of employment, or to voluntarily recuse from all City-related work for a defined period, regardless of whether the City or AE&R required it. The absence of such proactive self-restraint is not a categorical ethical violation but it is a meaningful failure of professional virtue.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer D's immediate, direct involvement in AE&R's projects with the City presents a strong case for categorical prohibition — at least with respect to projects that fall within the scope of Engineer D's prior oversight authority — independent of whether disclosure and consent are obtained from the City. The deontological concern is not merely about outcomes but about the nature of the act itself: using confidential information and insider relationships acquired in a position of public trust to benefit a private employer is a form of betrayal of the public role that cannot be fully remediated by subsequent disclosure. Consent from the City, while ethically relevant and practically important, does not retroactively transform the structural advantage AE&R gains from Engineer D's insider knowledge into a competitively neutral arrangement. Other firms competing for City contracts do not have access to a former City Engineer with direct knowledge of the City's internal evaluation criteria, budget constraints, and negotiating positions. The deontological duty to avoid exploiting confidential information and insider relationships — grounded in NSPE Code Sections III.4 and II.4.a — operates as a near-categorical constraint on involvement in projects directly connected to Engineer D's prior authority, with disclosure and consent serving as necessary but not always sufficient conditions for ethical participation.
In response to Q305: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's nuanced, case-by-case approach to Engineer D's immediate involvement in City projects — relying on disclosure, consent, and voluntary embargoes — is likely to produce worse aggregate outcomes for procurement fairness and public confidence than a bright-line cooling-off prohibition would, for three reasons. First, the case-by-case approach places the burden of identifying and managing conflicts on the parties most incentivized to minimize them — Engineer D and AE&R — rather than establishing a clear, externally verifiable standard. Second, the disclosure-and-consent mechanism depends on the City's willingness and capacity to evaluate the conflict and withhold consent, which is structurally compromised when the City's current engineers may have professional relationships with or deference toward their predecessor. Third, the appearance of impropriety — which itself damages public trust in procurement integrity — is not remediated by disclosure and consent, because the public cannot verify that the consent was genuinely informed and free from institutional pressure. A defined cooling-off period, by contrast, produces a clear, observable, and verifiable standard that signals to the public, to competing firms, and to future public engineers that the profession takes revolving-door integrity seriously as a categorical commitment rather than a case-by-case judgment.
In response to Q306: From a virtue ethics perspective, AE&R's decision to immediately assign Engineer D to City projects reflects a failure of honorable professional character at the firm level. A firm of genuine professional integrity — aware that it had just hired a former City Engineer who had directly overseen its own contracts — would recognize that immediately deploying that engineer on City-facing work, regardless of technical permissibility, signals to the market, to competing firms, and to the public that the firm values the competitive advantage of insider access over the integrity of the procurement process. Virtue ethics applied to organizations asks whether the firm's conduct reflects the character of an honorable professional actor. AE&R's conduct, as described, does not. The honorable course would have been for AE&R to voluntarily assign Engineer D exclusively to non-City projects for a defined period — not because the law or the Code explicitly required it, but because a firm of genuine professional character would recognize that the appearance of exploiting a former public official's insider position is itself damaging to the profession and to public trust, independent of whether any specific rule was violated. The Board's 'mixed' conclusion on Q2 implicitly acknowledges this concern, but a virtue ethics analysis makes it explicit: AE&R's immediate assignment of Engineer D to City projects is ethically problematic as a matter of professional character, not merely as a matter of rule compliance.
In response to Q401: The Board's ethical assessment of Engineer D's employment acceptance would almost certainly have been more favorable — and more clearly permissible — if Engineer D had disclosed the employment negotiations to the City while still serving as City Engineer and had recused from AE&R-related decisions during the negotiation period. Disclosure during the negotiation period would have served three critical functions: it would have allowed the City to assess whether Engineer D's continued participation in AE&R-related decisions was appropriate; it would have created a documented record of transparency that would support the legitimacy of the subsequent employment; and it would have demonstrated the kind of honorable professional conduct that Canon I.6 requires. Conversely, if Engineer D failed to disclose negotiations while continuing to exercise authority over AE&R contracts, the Board's permissive answer on Q1 would be ethically undermined, because the acceptance of employment would then be the culmination of a period of undisclosed conflict rather than a clean transition following proper disclosure. The counterfactual therefore reveals that the Board's answer on Q1 is implicitly conditional on the negotiation having been conducted with appropriate transparency — a condition the Board did not make explicit but that the Code clearly requires.
In response to Q402: If the City had included a formal revolving-door provision — such as a one-year cooling-off period — in Engineer D's employment contract, the Board's conclusion on Q1 would likely have been more restrictive, treating the contractual prohibition as a binding constraint that Engineer D was obligated to honor. However, BER Case 15-8 demonstrates that a formal cooling-off period is not self-executing: Engineer P's circumvention of a one-year waiting period by joining the AE firm as an independent contractor was found unethical, establishing that the spirit of revolving-door protections cannot be evaded through technical compliance. This precedent implies that a formal provision would have been necessary but not sufficient — Engineer D would have been obligated to honor both the letter and the spirit of the restriction. More importantly, the counterfactual reveals a structural inadequacy in the current ethical framework: the ethical obligations that would apply if a formal provision existed should not be substantially different from those that apply in its absence, because the underlying ethical concerns — exploitation of insider knowledge, competitive unfairness, and damage to public trust — are identical in both scenarios. The absence of a formal provision does not diminish the ethical concern; it merely removes one enforcement mechanism, leaving the professional ethical code as the primary operative constraint.
In response to Q403: The Board's answer on Q2 would almost certainly have been clearer and more clearly permissible if AE&R had voluntarily assigned Engineer D exclusively to projects unrelated to the City for a defined period. The 'mixed' character of the Board's conclusion on Q2 derives precisely from the fact that AE&R immediately deployed Engineer D on City-facing work, creating a situation in which multiple variables — the nature of the specific project, the degree of overlap with Engineer D's prior authority, the presence or absence of confidential information, and the availability of City consent — must all be evaluated case by case. A voluntary embargo from City-related work for a defined period would have collapsed this complexity into a single, clear, and ethically unambiguous arrangement: Engineer D contributes engineering expertise to AE&R on non-City matters while the residual conflicts from the prior public role dissipate over time. The counterfactual therefore suggests that AE&R's decision to immediately assign Engineer D to City projects was not merely ethically questionable in itself but was also the proximate cause of the analytical complexity that produced the Board's 'mixed' conclusion — a complexity that a more prudent firm would have avoided through voluntary self-restraint.
In response to Q404: If Engineer D possessed and disclosed specific confidential information about the City's budget constraints, internal evaluation criteria, or negotiating positions that would directly benefit AE&R in an active or upcoming procurement, the Board's conditional approval of immediate project involvement — subject to disclosure and consent — would not hold. This scenario would constitute a categorical ethical prohibition regardless of consent, for two reasons. First, NSPE Code Section III.4 prohibits disclosure of confidential information without consent of all interested parties — and the interested parties in a competitive procurement include not only the City but also the competing firms whose proposals would be disadvantaged by AE&R's access to non-public evaluation criteria. The City alone cannot consent on behalf of those third parties. Second, the competitive harm from disclosure of such information is not remediated by the City's consent, because the harm falls on the integrity of the procurement process itself and on the competing firms, not solely on the City. A consent mechanism that involves only the City and AE&R therefore cannot neutralize the ethical violation. This analysis suggests that the Board's conditional approval framework for Q2 has an implicit ceiling: it applies only where the confidential information at issue is general institutional knowledge rather than specific, actionable procurement intelligence that would directly distort a competitive selection process.
In response to Q405: The Board's ethical analysis would have been materially more restrictive if AE&R had been actively engaged in a competitive proposal submission to the City at the precise moment Engineer D was hired. In that scenario, the perception of improper influence would not be speculative but concrete: a firm submitting a proposal to a municipality simultaneously hires the former City Engineer who oversaw that municipality's procurement process. The structural advantage this creates — in terms of insider knowledge of evaluation criteria, relationships with current City staff, and awareness of competing firms' strengths and weaknesses — would be both immediate and directly operative in the ongoing procurement. NSPE Code Section II.4.e, which prohibits soliciting or accepting contracts from governmental bodies on which a principal or officer of the firm serves, reflects the broader principle that firms must not exploit insider positions to gain procurement advantages. While Engineer D is no longer a City official at the time of hiring, the functional equivalent of that concern is present when the hiring occurs simultaneously with an active competitive submission. This counterfactual therefore identifies a specific factual threshold at which the Board's 'mixed' conclusion on Q2 would likely harden into a clear prohibition: active, concurrent competitive procurement by AE&R at the moment of Engineer D's hire would make immediate project involvement categorically impermissible rather than conditionally permissible.
The tension between Revolving Door Integrity and Fairness in Professional Competition was resolved in this case not by declaring one principle categorically superior, but by treating the ethical permissibility of employment acceptance as a threshold question and the ethical permissibility of immediate project involvement as a separate, context-dependent question. The Board's structure implicitly acknowledges that an engineer's right to leverage professional expertise and reputation in seeking new employment — a core element of Fairness in Professional Competition — is not extinguished merely because that expertise was developed in public service. However, Revolving Door Integrity imposes a residual constraint that survives the employment decision itself: even where accepting the position is permissible, the manner in which insider knowledge, relationships, and prior authority are subsequently deployed remains subject to independent ethical scrutiny. This case therefore teaches that these two principles operate on different temporal planes rather than in direct collision — competition fairness governs the hiring decision, while revolving door integrity governs post-hire conduct — and that conflating the two planes produces either an overly restrictive rule that chills legitimate career mobility or an overly permissive rule that treats employment acceptance as a blanket ethical clearance for all subsequent conduct.
The tension between the Loyalty Principle — requiring Engineer D to act as a faithful agent to AE&R — and Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance — requiring Engineer D to protect the City's interests even after departure — is not fully resolved by the Board's mixed conclusion on immediate project involvement; rather, the Board's answer exposes an irreducible structural conflict that disclosure and consent can mitigate but cannot eliminate. When AE&R assigns Engineer D to City projects, Engineer D is simultaneously obligated to serve AE&R's commercial interests in securing and performing those contracts and to refrain from exploiting confidential information, insider relationships, and prior oversight authority that were acquired in a position of public trust. These obligations are not merely in tension — they are structurally antagonistic in any scenario where Engineer D's insider knowledge would materially benefit AE&R in a competitive procurement context. The Board's reliance on disclosure and City consent as the primary resolution mechanism is therefore ethically incomplete unless the consent process itself is robust enough to ensure the City is making an informed, unconflicted decision rather than simply ratifying an arrangement that Engineer D and AE&R have already implemented. This case teaches that the Loyalty Principle cannot be invoked to justify conduct that would independently violate Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance, and that the faithful agent obligation to a new private employer is bounded — not expanded — by the engineer's prior public responsibilities.
The interaction among Public Welfare Paramount, Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering, and Professional Accountability reveals that the Board's case-by-case, consent-based framework — while ethically defensible as applied to Engineer D individually — creates a systemic accountability gap when applied to Firm AE&R's conduct. Public Welfare Paramount demands that the public's interest in unbiased municipal procurement be protected not merely through individual engineer disclosures but through structural safeguards that prevent any single firm from acquiring a durable competitive advantage through the strategic recruitment of former public officials. Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering reinforces this by requiring that the competitive selection process remain substantively fair, not merely procedurally compliant. When these two principles are applied to AE&R's recruitment strategy rather than solely to Engineer D's personal conduct, Professional Accountability requires that the firm bear independent ethical responsibility for knowingly recruiting an engineer whose prior oversight authority over AE&R's City contracts creates a structural advantage that no competitor firm can replicate. The absence of a formal revolving-door provision in the City's employment contracts — identified in the case facts as a significant gap — does not neutralize this ethical obligation; rather, it heightens the firm's independent duty of voluntary restraint under the principle of Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement. This case therefore teaches that principle synthesis must account for the firm as an independent ethical actor, not merely as the passive recipient of an engineer's disclosed transition, and that Public Welfare Paramount operates as a constraint on firm recruitment strategy that exists independently of whatever disclosure Engineer D provides.
Engineer D's professional status shifts from 'former public official' to 'conflicted private engineer'; a set of automatic restrictions attaches to Engineer D's professional conduct regardless of explicit acknowledgment
Upon commencement of Engineer D's employment at AE&R
Upon Engineer D joining AE&R, a formal conflict-of-interest state is established by operation of professional ethics codes and potentially municipal law, automatically restricting Engineer D's permissible activities regarding city projects. This state exists independent of any conscious decision by Engineer D or AE&R.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER Case 15-8 and state law precedent)
One-Year Cooling-Off Period for Transitional Employment
an embargo or 'cooling off' period, often one-year duration, can ameliorate such concerns
Engineer D could voluntarily abstain from participation in procurement matters before the City, or before any other agency for which the City is or was the approving authority, for an agreed period of say, one year after she leaves the public job
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as a recommended practice for Engineer D in marginal or prohibitive conflict situations
A voluntary or mandated one-year embargo period during which Engineer D abstains from participation in procurement matters before the City or agencies for which the City was the approving authority, used to ameliorate conflicts of interest where disclosure alone is insufficient
Derived from BER Case 15-8 and professional practice norms
A time-bounded restriction window opens; Engineer D's permissible professional activities are circumscribed for approximately one year post-departure from city role
Upon commencement of Engineer D's employment at AE&R, with reference to historical BER precedents
Based on the historical precedents established in BER cases from 1958 through 2015, a cooling-off period obligation is triggered by the combination of Engineer D's prior procurement authority and subsequent private-sector employment with a regulated firm. This obligation restricts Engineer D's involvement in city-related work for a defined period regardless of explicit policy mandates.
Should Engineer D accept employment at AE&R, and if so, under what conditions — including disclosure to the City, a voluntary cooling-off period, and conflict mitigation measures — given D's prior contracting authority over AE&R's City projects?
Engineer D's decision to accept employment at AE&R — a firm that benefited extensively from contracts awarded or supervised during D's tenure as City Engineer — without a formal revolving-door provision in place and without establishing adequate conflict mitigation measures prior to or upon acceptance.
Disclose employment negotiations to the City immediately upon their initiation, recuse from all AE&R-related contracting decisions during the negotiation period, seek the City's informed acceptance before finalizing employment, and voluntarily propose a cooling-off period from City-related work at AE&R regardless of contractual requirement
Accept employment at AE&R without disclosing negotiations to the City during the period of active contracting authority, and proceed to City-related work without establishing a voluntary cooling-off period or conflict mitigation measures
Did Engineer D fulfill the obligation to disclose employment negotiations with AE&R to the City before or during the period when AE&R contracts were being reviewed, awarded, or administered under D's authority, and to recuse from AE&R-related decisions during that period?
Engineer D's obligation to disclose employment negotiations with AE&R to the City at the moment those negotiations became substantive — while D still held active contracting authority over AE&R's City projects — and to recuse from all AE&R-related decisions during that negotiation period, independent of the ultimate question of whether accepting the position was ethical.
Disclose employment negotiations to the City immediately upon their initiation, recuse from all AE&R-related contract awards, senior-level project reviews, and fee negotiations during the negotiation period, and document the recusal to create a transparent record supporting the legitimacy of the subsequent employment
Continue exercising contracting authority over AE&R projects during the employment negotiation period without disclosing the negotiations to the City, and announce the transition only upon resignation
Should Firm AE&R refrain from exploiting the incumbent advantage created by recruiting Engineer D — including refraining from immediately assigning D to City projects, disclosing the potential conflict to the City, and voluntarily imposing an internal embargo on D's City-related work — given the firm's independent ethical responsibility for its recruitment strategy?
Firm AE&R's independent ethical responsibility for its recruitment strategy and its decision to immediately assign Engineer D to City-facing projects, given the firm's full knowledge of Engineer D's prior oversight authority over AE&R's City contracts and the structural incumbent advantage this arrangement creates over competing firms.
Voluntarily assign Engineer D exclusively to projects unrelated to the City for a defined cooling-off period, disclose the potential conflict created by D's prior oversight authority to the City, establish internal protocols preventing D from contributing insider knowledge to City proposal preparation, and refrain from publicly leveraging D's prior City role as a competitive asset in City procurement
Immediately assign Engineer D to City-facing projects upon hire, publicly announce the hire in a manner that signals competitive advantage derived from D's prior City role, and proceed with City proposal submissions without establishing internal recusal protocols or disclosing the conflict to the City
Should Engineer D disclose employment negotiations with AE&R to the City and recuse from AE&R-related decisions during the period when those negotiations are ongoing and Engineer D still holds active contracting authority?
Engineer D City Engineer: Pre-Departure Disclosure and Conflict Avoidance During Employment Negotiations with AE&R
Disclose employment negotiations to the City immediately upon their becoming substantive and recuse from all AE&R-related contract awards, reviews, and fee negotiations during the negotiation period
Continue exercising contracting authority over AE&R projects without disclosing ongoing employment negotiations to the City
Should Engineer D refrain from immediate, direct involvement in AE&R's projects with the City following departure from the City Engineer role, given the absence of a formal revolving-door provision and the residual conflicts created by prior oversight authority?
Engineer D Post-Public-Service Recusal and Competitive Procurement Fairness: Immediate Involvement in AE&R's City Projects
Voluntarily recuse from all City-related project assignments at AE&R for a defined cooling-off period and disclose to the City the categories of confidential information acquired during tenure before accepting any City-facing work
Accept immediate assignment to AE&R's City projects relying on disclosure to and consent from the City as the sole ethical safeguard, without imposing a voluntary cooling-off period
Should Firm AE&R bear independent ethical responsibility for its recruitment strategy and refrain from immediately assigning Engineer D to City projects, given AE&R's full knowledge of Engineer D's prior oversight authority over AE&R's City contracts?
Firm AE&R Independent Ethical Responsibility: Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation and Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement
Voluntarily assign Engineer D exclusively to non-City projects for a defined period and impose internal recusal protocols preventing Engineer D from contributing to any City-facing proposal, negotiation, or project work during that period
Immediately assign Engineer D to AE&R's active City projects and rely solely on Engineer D's individual disclosure to the City as the operative ethical safeguard without imposing firm-level restraints
City may decline to accept the conflict, restricting Engineer D's role at AE&R more severely than anticipated
Disclosure may trigger formal procurement restrictions or legal review
Failure to seek disclosure leaves Engineer D in ongoing ethical violation if participating in city matters
Duty of transparency to former public employer
NSPE Code Section II.4(a), obligation to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to employer and clients
Obligation to protect public interest by enabling informed oversight
Full and timely disclosure as a foundational conflict-management tool
Cure or mitigate the conflict of interest by obtaining informed consent from the City, thereby enabling Engineer D to potentially contribute to city-related work at AE&R without ongoing ethical violation
Knowledge of city procurement matters and Engineer D's prior involvement
Post-hire, immediately upon formal transition to AE&R
If disclosure is not sought: ongoing violation of conflict-of-interest obligations
If disclosure is sought but incomplete: partial fulfillment insufficient to cure conflict
Post-hire, Engineer D faces the implied decision of whether to proactively seek full disclosure of the conflict to the City and obtain the City's acceptance of Engineer D's participation in city-related matters at AE&R. This is a forward-looking volitional choice with significant ethical weight.
Post-hire, Engineer D faces the implied decision of whether to proactively seek full disclosure of the conflict and city acceptance, the failure to do so allows the conflict-of-interest state and cooling-off obligation to persist without institutional acknowledgment or structured remediation
Disclosure and City Acceptance Seeking (Action 4, omission or commission)
If Engineer D had proactively sought full disclosure and city acceptance, the conflict state would still exist but would be managed transparently; the cooling-off obligation might have been formally acknowledged and honored, preventing the escalation to active violation
Conflict of Interest State Established / Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated (Events 4 & 5)
Engineer D's awareness of the conflict-of-interest state upon joining AE&R
Engineer D's choice not to proactively disclose (the omission)
The absence of automatic institutional detection or enforcement triggering disclosure
The availability of a disclosure mechanism (city ethics board, professional body, or direct city communication)
Failure to disclose + active assignment to city contracts = sufficient to convert a manageable conflict into an active ethical violation
Proactive disclosure alone would not eliminate the conflict but would satisfy transparency obligations and potentially enable structured resolution
Disclosure and City Acceptance Seeking (Action 4 — omission or commission) → Conflict of Interest State Established / Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated (Events 4 & 5)
Engineer A BER 11-12 Dual Role Advisory and Design with Termination
From Engineer A's review of Engineer B's work through offer to perform design work for Smithtown
Engineer A, in his role as town engineer, reviewed Engineer B's preliminary work and became convinced Engineer B's performance on the contract did not meet the standards
Engineer A serving as part-time town engineer who reviewed and terminated Engineer B then offered own firm for design work
BER determination that the arrangement was unethical
Following the termination of Engineer B under the terms and conditions of his contract with the town, Engineer A offered, and Smithtown agreed, that Engineer A's firm should perform the design work
Engineer A used advisory role to evaluate and terminate Engineer B, then positioned own firm to receive the design contract
Engineer A BER 14-8 Cross-Side Employment Transition
From Engineer A's resignation from private firm through State employment while water rights case was active
Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State – the State being an objector to the analysis Engineer A prepared
Engineer A who prepared water rights analysis for private client then joined the State as objector to that analysis
Isolation from the case and assignment to other duties, or conclusion of the proceeding
Engineer A resigned from private firm and accepted State employment while their prior analysis was under legal review with the State as objector
Engineer A Part-Time Town Engineer BER 11-12
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employment_type': 'Part-time town engineer plus private consulting', 'dual_role': 'Town engineer and principal of competing consulting firm', 'ethical_finding': 'Unethical to offer and agree to perform work following competitor termination under II.4.e'}
Part-time town engineer with concurrent consulting practice who advised on selection of Engineer B for a road project, then reviewed and recommended termination of Engineer B, and subsequently offered his own firm to perform the terminated work—found unethical under NSPE Code Section II.4.e.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Smithtown'}
{'type': 'firm_principal', 'target': 'Engineer A Consulting Firm'}
{'type': 'reviewer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 11-12'}
Engineer A, who served as the part-time town engineer for Smithtown and also had a consulting engineering practice
Engineer A offered, and Smithtown agreed, that Engineer A's firm should perform the design work for the local road project for Smithtown
Engineer A Private-to-State Transition BER 14-8
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_role': 'Private firm engineer', 'new_role': 'State agency engineer', 'conflict_type': 'Former private work under review by new public employer', 'ethical_finding': 'Must obtain consent of former employer and client; should be isolated from related State proceedings'}
Engineer who stamped a water rights analysis for a private client while at a private firm, then resigned and joined the State agency that was an objector to that same analysis, creating ongoing confidentiality and loyalty obligations to former employer and client requiring isolation from the State's water rights proceedings.
{'type': 'adversarial_party', 'target': 'State Agency BER 14-8'}
{'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Water Rights Analysis Client BER 14-8'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Private Engineering Firm BER 14-8'}
{'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'State Agency BER 14-8'}
Private-to-Public Transitioning Engineer
Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client
Engineer A should be assigned other duties by the State, remain isolated from the State's water rights case involving Engineer A's former employer and its client
Engineer A stamping water rights analysis (Case 14-8) before legal review of the analysis (Case 14-8)
Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client, and that analysis was working its way through the court system.
Engineer A stamping water rights analysis (Case 14-8)
legal review of the analysis (Case 14-8)
Engineer A's employment at private firm (Case 14-8) before Engineer A's employment at the State (Case 14-8)
Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State, the State being an objector to the analysis Engineer A prepared.
Engineer A's employment at private firm (Case 14-8)
Engineer A's employment at the State (Case 14-8)
Engineer A's resignation from private firm (Case 14-8) during legal review of the water rights analysis (Case 14-8)
During the legal review, Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State
Engineer A's resignation from private firm (Case 14-8)
legal review of the water rights analysis (Case 14-8)
Engineer A's review of Engineer B's preliminary work (Case 11-12) during Engineer B's preliminary design services (Case 11-12)
after Engineer B began to perform preliminary design services, Engineer A, in his role as town engineer, reviewed Engineer B's preliminary work
Engineer A's review of Engineer B's preliminary work (Case 11-12)
Engineer B's preliminary design services (Case 11-12)
Engineer B BER 63-5 Dual Role Advisory and Design
Duration of Engineer B's part-time city engineer retainer and concurrent design engagement
Engineer B was engaged in full-time private practice and treated his part-time service to the community as a public service. In addition to general advisory services to the city, Engineer B was selected by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
Engineer B serving as part-time city engineer while also performing design services for the same city
Completion of design project or termination of dual role
the engineer must be scrupulously careful that his advice is not influenced by his secondary interest as the engineer likely to be retained for the design of the project
City council selected Engineer B for plan preparation in addition to advisory retainer role
Engineer B Part-Time City Engineer BER 63-5
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employment_type': 'Part-time retainer plus fee', 'dual_role': 'City engineer and private design engineer for same municipality', 'ethical_finding': 'Ethical if scrupulously careful that advice not influenced by secondary design interest'}
Professional engineer retained part-time as city engineer while maintaining full-time private practice, who was also selected by the city council to prepare plans and specifications for city projects on a fee basis above the monthly retainer.
{'type': 'advisor', 'target': 'City Council BER 63-5'}
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Small Community Municipality BER 63-5'}
a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
Engineer B was engaged in full-time private practice and treated his part-time service to the community as a public service
Engineer B was selected by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
Engineer B's selection for road project design (Case 11-12) before Engineer B beginning preliminary design services (Case 11-12)
With Engineer A's advice and concurrence, Smithtown selected Engineer B to provide design services for a local road project. Following the selection and after Engineer B began to perform preliminary design services...
Engineer B's selection for road project design (Case 11-12)
Engineer B beginning preliminary design services (Case 11-12)
Engineer B's termination (Case 11-12) before Engineer A's firm offering to perform design work (Case 11-12)
Engineer A's firm offering to perform design work (Case 11-12)
Engineer D Client Relationship Established with City
Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, up to the point of departure
Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, works as the City Engineer
Engineer D's prior professional relationship with the City as City Engineer, including senior-level oversight of AE firms and contractors
Engineer D's announced resignation from the City Engineer position
Engineer D's role as City Engineer with contract negotiation and award authority over AE firms including AE&R
Engineer D Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
Engineer D required the capability to evaluate whether the pattern of contract awards to AE&R during their tenure as City Engineer provided fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms, and to ensure that their contracting decisions were not influenced by any personal employment relationship or negotiation with AE&R
Engineer D held primary contracting authority and AE&R completed many projects for the City during D's tenure
The case raises the question of whether Engineer D's contracting decisions regarding AE&R were made on a fair competitive basis throughout their tenure
Engineer D Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint Instance
Engineer D held primary contracting authority over AE firms including AE&R, and AE&R completed many projects during D's tenure before D accepted employment at AE&R.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
Engineer D was constrained, during their tenure as City Engineer, from exercising contracting authority in a manner that provided AE&R with preferential treatment or competitive advantage — including through the award of contracts, the structuring of procurement processes, or the sharing of non-public procurement information — that was not available to other competing AE firms.
NSPE Code Section II.4.a; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I.6
Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and retrospectively relevant to the post-employment transition
Engineer D Concurrent Conflict Disclosure Timing
Concurrent Conflict Disclosure Timing Capability
Engineer D required the capability to recognize that employment negotiations with AE&R triggered an immediate disclosure obligation to the City while D still held contracting authority, and to act on that obligation at the moment negotiations commenced rather than at the point of employment acceptance
Engineer D announced plans to step down and indicated acceptance of a position at an unnamed firm, with AE&R subsequently announcing D as a new associate — suggesting disclosure occurred late in the process
The case suggests Engineer D disclosed departure plans only upon announcing acceptance of a position, rather than disclosing negotiations at their initiation, raising questions about the timeliness of disclosure
Engineer D announces plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicates that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City
Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
Engineer D Concurrent Employment Negotiation Disclosure Constraint Instance
The timing of Engineer D's announcement — accepting a position before announcing departure — raises the inference that employment negotiations occurred while D still held contracting authority over AE&R, creating an undisclosed concurrent conflict.
Concurrent Employment Negotiation Disclosure Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from negotiating employment with AE&R while still serving as City Engineer with contracting authority over AE&R without immediately disclosing those negotiations to the City and recusing from all procurement decisions involving AE&R upon initiation of negotiations.
NSPE Code Section II.4.a; NSPE Code Section II.4.c; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I.6
From the initiation of employment negotiations with AE&R through the date of formal departure from City Engineer role
Engineer D Confidential Client Information Constraint Instance
Engineer D held senior-level access to confidential City procurement and project information during their tenure, all of which remains subject to confidentiality obligations after employment termination.
Confidential Client Information Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from disclosing or exploiting confidential City information — including non-public project details, procurement strategies, budget information, and internal assessments of AE firm performance — acquired during their tenure as City Engineer, both during and after the transition to AE&R.
NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.4.a
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award (consultant and construction) and senior-level review of major project issues that arise from time to time
Indefinitely following departure from City Engineer role
Engineer D Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Instance
Engineer D held senior contracting authority over AE&R as City Engineer, creating a direct conflict of interest upon accepting employment at the same firm that plans to continue City work.
Engineer D was constrained from accepting employment at AE&R without first disclosing the conflict of interest arising from their prior contracting authority over AE&R to both the City and to AE&R, and was further constrained from participating in any AE&R procurement activities involving the City without full disclosure and consent from all affected parties.
NSPE Code Section II.4.a; NSPE Code Section II.4.e
From the initiation of employment negotiations with AE&R through the duration of AE&R's ongoing City procurement activities
AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
Engineer D Faithful Agent Obligation Capability
Trustee-Agent Role Distinction Capability
Engineer D required the capability to correctly identify their role as a trustee and faithful agent of the City throughout their tenure as City Engineer — including recognizing that this trustee role prohibited actions that would benefit a prospective private employer at the City's expense — and to maintain that role integrity even during the transition period
Engineer D served as City Engineer with fiduciary-like obligations to the City while simultaneously negotiating private employment at a firm that benefited from D's contracting decisions
The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer D to have maintained undivided loyalty to the City's interests in all contracting decisions, which required clear role distinction capability
Engineer D No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint Instance
The City's employment contracts for senior-level employees do not include revolving door provisions, creating a formal legal gap that Engineer D might interpret as permissive, but which does not extinguish independent professional ethical obligations.
No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from treating the City's absence of formal revolving door provisions in senior employment contracts as implicit ethical permission to exploit prior contracting authority for private gain at AE&R, as independent NSPE Code ethical obligations persist regardless of the absence of contractual restrictions.
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.6; NSPE Code Sections II.4.a, II.4.c, III.6; BER Case 58-1
Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
From the date of employment acceptance at AE&R through a reasonable cooling-off period
Engineer D Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint Instance
Engineer D held senior-level insider knowledge of City procurement processes, project priorities, and AE firm relationships, all of which could provide AE&R with unfair competitive advantage in future City procurements.
Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from exploiting confidential information, insider knowledge of City procurement processes, privileged contacts, and non-public intelligence about City infrastructure priorities acquired during their tenure as City Engineer to benefit Firm AE&R in its ongoing and future City procurement activities.
NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.4.a; BER Case 58-1
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award (consultant and construction) and senior-level review of major project issues
Indefinitely following departure from City Engineer role, for all information acquired during public tenure
Engineer D Post-Public-Service Recusal Judgment
Post-Public-Service Recusal Judgment Capability
Engineer D required the capability to determine the scope of recusal obligations arising from their transition from City Engineer to AE&R associate, including identifying which City contracts and proposals required recusal even in the absence of formal cooling-off provisions
Engineer D transitioned to AE&R, which planned to continue submitting proposals to the City, in the absence of any formal revolving door provisions
The case raises the question of whether Engineer D correctly identified and implemented appropriate recusal boundaries given AE&R's stated intention to continue pursuing City work
the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
Engineer D Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Revolving Door
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Engineer D required the capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — including BER 58-1 (government engineers negotiating private employment while still employed), BER 63-5 (dual-role part-time city engineer), and BER 15-8 (highway department official joining AE firm) — to analyze the ethical dimensions of their own revolving door situation
Multiple BER precedents address analogous revolving door and dual-role situations that are directly applicable to Engineer D's circumstances
Application of precedent-based reasoning would have enabled Engineer D to correctly identify disclosure, recusal, and employment acceptance integrity obligations
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area
Engineer D Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance
Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance Capability
Engineer D required the capability to maintain the integrity of their contracting authority throughout their tenure as City Engineer — including ensuring that contract awards to AE&R were based solely on qualifications and merit, and that no preferential treatment was extended to AE&R during any period when employment negotiations may have been underway
Engineer D held primary contracting authority over AE&R while AE&R completed many projects for the City, and subsequently accepted employment at AE&R
The case raises the question of whether Engineer D's contracting decisions regarding AE&R remained free from actual or apparent conflicts during the period leading up to D's departure
Engineer D Revolving Door Conflict Recognition
Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer D required the capability to recognize that their transition from City Engineer — with primary contracting authority over AE&R — to an associate position at AE&R constituted a revolving door conflict of interest requiring disclosure and recusal obligations
Engineer D served as City Engineer with primary contracting authority over AE&R, then accepted employment at AE&R which planned to continue pursuing City contracts
The case presents a situation where Engineer D either failed to exercise or inadequately exercised this capability, as the announcement of employment at AE&R occurred without apparent prior disclosure of the conflict
Engineer D Revolving Door Ethics Constraint Instance
Engineer D served as City Engineer with primary contracting authority over AE&R, then accepted employment at AE&R, which plans to continue submitting proposals to the City. The City's employment contracts lack formal revolving door provisions.
Engineer D was constrained from immediately joining Firm AE&R and participating in that firm's procurement activities with the City, given that Engineer D held primary contracting authority over AE&R during their tenure as City Engineer, even in the absence of a formal contractual revolving door restriction.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4.a, II.4.c, III.6, Fundamental Canon I.6; BER Case 58-1; BER Case 15-8
From the date of employment acceptance at AE&R through a reasonable cooling-off period following departure from City Engineer role
Engineer D Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation
Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation Capability
Engineer D required the capability to recognize that the City's absence of revolving door provisions did not eliminate professional ethics obligations, and to apply NSPE Code provisions and general principles of honorable conduct to self-impose appropriate conflict-of-interest restrictions
The City did not include revolving door provisions in employment contracts for senior employees, creating a regulatory gap that professional ethics codes must fill
The case explicitly notes the absence of revolving door provisions, raising the question of whether Engineer D correctly understood that professional ethics obligations filled this regulatory gap
Engineer D transitions from stable public official to departing employee; conflict-of-interest scrutiny window opens; city must manage procurement continuity without compromised decision-maker
At the point of resignation announcement
Engineer D publicly announces resignation from the City Engineer position, triggering an immediate transition period with unresolved conflict-of-interest implications. This announcement creates a liminal state where Engineer D still holds official authority while pursuing private-sector interests.
Engineer D's isolation from former projects during remaining active duration of former City contracts
Engineer D can follow the recommendations in Case 14-8 and remain isolated from former projects until those contracts lapse.
Engineer D's isolation from former projects
remaining active duration of former City contracts
Engineer D's resignation announcement before Engineer D accepting position at unnamed firm
Engineer D announces plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicates that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City.
Engineer D accepting position at unnamed firm
Engineer D's resignation announcement before Firm AE&R's announcement of Engineer D as newly hired associate
Engineer D announces plans to step down as the City Engineer...Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
Firm AE&R's announcement of Engineer D as newly hired associate
Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer before Engineer D's employment at Firm AE&R
Engineer P BER 15-8 Cooling-Off Period Circumvention
From Engineer P's departure from State X highway department through engagement with AE firm as independent contractor
Engineer P left the State X highway department and joined the AE firm not as an 'employee' but as an 'independent contractor'
Engineer P joining AE firm as independent contractor to circumvent one-year waiting period
The fact that Engineer P proceeded to join the architecture/engineering firm as an 'independent contractor' instead of as an 'executive employee' was an apparent way of circumventing state law. The Board of Ethical Review believes that Engineer P's actions were unethical
State X highway department refused permission; Engineer P restructured engagement as independent contractor to avoid the restriction
Engineer P Highway Department to AE Firm BER 15-8
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_role': 'Top State Highway Department Official', 'new_role': 'Independent Contractor at AE Firm', 'cooling_off_requirement': 'One year statutory hiatus', 'circumvention_method': 'Independent contractor classification', 'ethical_finding': 'Unethical; circumvention of state law through employment classification subterfuge'}
Top official in State X highway department who sought to join an AE firm doing business with the department, was denied permission due to a one-year cooling-off law, and circumvented the requirement by joining as 'independent contractor' rather than employee—found unethical by the BER.
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'State X Highway Department'}
{'type': 'new_contractor', 'target': 'AE Firm BER 15-8'}
Engineer P is a 'top' official in State X highway department who would like to leave and become an executive in an architecture/engineering (AE) firm
Engineer P's request for permission to leave (Case 15-8) before State X highway department's refusal of permission (Case 15-8)
Engineer P requested permission from the State X highway department to accept the new position; however, the State X highway department refused to grant permission
Engineer P's request for permission to leave (Case 15-8)
State X highway department's refusal of permission (Case 15-8)
Engineers BER 58-1 Insider Knowledge Advantage
From engineers' work on preliminary design through negotiation of private contract and resignation from government
The personal and intimate knowledge of the project which the employees gained from their work on the preliminary design of the project and the acquaintance they made with the representatives of the owner of the project gave them many distinct advantages over any other firms
US Government engineers who prepared preliminary plans for hydroelectric project
it tends to bring dishonor to the profession of engineering if the [engineer] devotes his energies, while still employed, to promote his future practice or employment on the basis of having inside information
Engineers acquired intimate project knowledge and owner contacts through government employment, then negotiated private contracts to continue the work
Engineers BER 58-1 Revolving Door Employment
From formation of private corporation through resignation from government and contract execution with foreign government
US Government engineers transitioning to private corporation for hydroelectric project
At about the time the various contract negotiations were wrapping up, the engineers resigned from their US government positions and entered into a contract with the foreign government
Engineers organized private company and negotiated contract while still employed by US Government
Firm AE&R Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Assessment
Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Assessment Capability
Firm AE&R required the capability to assess whether recruiting Engineer D — the City's former primary contracting authority — created an unfair incumbent advantage in future City procurement competitions, and to implement appropriate restrictions on D's involvement in City-related work
AE&R had completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure and planned to continue pursuing City work after hiring D as an associate
AE&R's announcement of Engineer D as a new associate without apparent disclosure of conflict-of-interest management measures raises questions about whether this assessment was conducted
Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
Firm AE&R Private Firm Improper Recruitment Prohibition Constraint Instance
AE&R recruited Engineer D — the City's primary contracting authority — immediately upon D's departure, and plans to continue submitting proposals to the City, raising the inference that the recruitment was intended to exploit D's insider knowledge and relationships.
Private Firm Improper Recruitment Prohibition Constraint
Firm AE&R was constrained from recruiting Engineer D as a means of improperly influencing future City contract awards, and was obligated to ensure that Engineer D's recruitment was not structured to exploit D's prior contracting authority over AE&R for competitive advantage in future City procurements.
NSPE Code Section II.5.b; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I.6; NSPE Code Section III.6
From the initiation of recruitment discussions with Engineer D through the duration of AE&R's ongoing City procurement activities
Firm AE&R Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation
Firm AE&R required the capability to recognize that the absence of formal revolving door provisions in the City's employment contracts did not eliminate the firm's professional ethics obligations when recruiting Engineer D, and to apply professional codes to self-impose appropriate restrictions on D's involvement in City procurement activities
AE&R recruited Engineer D despite the absence of formal revolving door provisions and planned to continue pursuing City contracts
AE&R's recruitment of Engineer D and announcement of D's role without apparent conflict-of-interest management measures raises questions about whether the firm exercised this capability
{'entity_type': 'Municipal Government', 'role_in_case': 'Former employer of Engineer D and current client of Firm AE&R', 'authority': 'Accept or reject conflict disclosures; establish procurement requirements', 'obligations': 'Protect public interest in procurement; evaluate disclosed conflicts thoughtfully'}
City government that employed Engineer D as City Engineer and continued to engage Firm AE&R for consulting services, bearing authority to accept or reject disclosure of Engineer D's conflicts of interest and to establish procurement arrangements that protect the public interest.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Firm AE&R Recruiting Former Public Official'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Engineer D Former City Engineer'}
Engineer D who resigned the position as City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality
Engineer D could voluntarily abstain from participation in procurement matters before the City
disclosure by Engineer D and acceptance by the City may cure the matter
{'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'growth_context': 'Rapid growth with rapid infrastructure growth', 'contracting_context': 'AE and construction contracts managed through City Engineer', 'policy_gap': 'No revolving door provisions in senior employment contracts'}
The mid-sized municipality experiencing rapid growth that employed Engineer D as City Engineer, awarded contracts to AE&R during Engineer D's tenure, and lacks revolving-door provisions in senior employment contracts, making it a stakeholder affected by the ethical issues raised.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Revolving door transition'}
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer D'}
a mid-sized municipality that has been experiencing rapid growth along with rapid infrastructure growth
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon 1.6 – Honorable and Ethical Conduct
Consistent with Fundamental Canon 1.6, such values form the context of an engineer's professional relationships and apply in this case
These transitional employment practices, in the spirit of NSPE Code of Ethics, are intended to help Engineer D engage only in conduct that is honorable, responsible, ethical, and lawful
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the overarching normative framework for Engineer D's situation
Fundamental canon establishing that engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession, cited as the overarching value context for Engineer D's transitional employment obligations
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.a – Conflict of Interest Disclosure
known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence the engineer's judgment or the quality of their services (II.4.a)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer D's conflict of interest disclosure requirements
Specific code provision requiring disclosure of known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence the engineer's judgment or quality of services, cited as the basis for Engineer D's disclosure obligations
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.c – Prohibition on Improper Career Advancement
Code Sections II.4.c and III.6 which prohibit engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in identifying ethical constraints on Engineer D
Specific code provision prohibiting engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method, cited as applicable to Engineer D's transitional employment
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.e – Conflict of Interest for Public Officials
according to NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.e, Engineer A was not eligible to provide engineering services to Smithtown for the local road project
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 11-12 analysis
Specific code provision establishing that an engineer who is an officer or principal of a firm is not eligible to provide engineering services to a public entity in matters where they served as a public official, cited in BER Case 11-12
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.b – Prohibition on Improper Inducement
Code Section II.5.b would prohibit the principals of Firm AE&R from inducing Engineer A to join the firm as a way of influencing the awarding of city contracts for improper reasons not related to Engineer A's qualifications and experience
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Firm AE&R's obligations
Specific code provision prohibiting firm principals from inducing an engineer to join the firm as a way of improperly influencing contract awards, cited as applicable to Firm AE&R's conduct in recruiting Engineer D
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4 – Continuing Confidentiality Obligation
Confidentiality is another ethical obligation that continues after one severs employment (Code Section III.4)
Engineer D should not use or disclose confidential information acquired during the course of or by reason of duties or employment with the City
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in identifying Engineer D's post-employment obligations
Specific code provision establishing that confidentiality obligations continue after an engineer severs employment, prohibiting Engineer D from using or disclosing confidential information acquired during City employment for personal gain
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 – Prohibition on Improper Career Advancement Methods
Specific code provision prohibiting engineers from advancing their professional careers by improper or questionable methods, cited alongside Section II.4.c as applicable to Engineer D's transitional employment
Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer
Engineer D; ethical reviewers analyzing the case
Primary normative authority governing Engineer D's obligations as a licensed professional engineer, including duties to avoid conflicts of interest, act with impartiality in public roles, and uphold public trust — all implicated by the transition from City Engineer to private firm associate
Accumulation of privileged insider knowledge about city projects and procurement
Creation of conditions that would constrain future private employment options
Development of professional relationships with private firms that could later create conflict-of-interest concerns
Duty to serve the public interest as a public-sector engineer
Obligation to act as a faithful agent to the municipality as client
Professional obligation to provide competent engineering oversight
Faithful agency to public employer/client
Public safety, health, and welfare as paramount
Fulfill assigned public duties as primary contact for AE firms and contractors; ensure proper contract award and project oversight on behalf of the municipality
Evaluation of AE firm qualifications and performance
During tenure as City Engineer, prior to resignation announcement
Engineer D regularly participated in contract negotiation, award, and senior-level project review involving AE firms, including AE&R, throughout tenure as City Engineer. This established the insider knowledge, relationships, and influence that later generate ethical concerns upon departure.
Participation in Contract Negotiations (Action 1) → Conflict of Interest State Established (Event 4)
Engineer D regularly participated in contract negotiation, award, and senior-level project review: creating the foundational condition that, upon joining AE&R, triggered a formal conflict-of-interest state by operation of professional ethics standards
Participation in Contract Negotiations (Action 1)
If Engineer D had never participated in AE&R-related contract negotiations or awards, the conflict-of-interest state would not have been established upon hire; alternatively, if Engineer D had joined a firm with no prior city contract history, no conflict would arise
Conflict of Interest State Established (Event 4)
AE&R's status as a firm that received or competed for city contracts during that period
Engineer D's active role in awarding or overseeing AE&R contracts while City Engineer
Engineer D's subsequent transition to employment at AE&R
Existence of applicable professional ethics codes governing revolving-door conflicts
Combination of prior supervisory/award authority over AE&R contracts + direct employment acceptance at AE&R = sufficient to establish conflict of interest as a matter of professional ethics law
Historical contract awards to AE&R shift from routine records to evidence requiring justification; the burden of proof on merit-based selection is now implicitly reversed in the court of public opinion
Concurrent with or immediately following AE&R's public hire announcement
The public announcement of Engineer D's hire by AE&R renders visible the historical pattern of AE&R receiving contracts during Engineer D's tenure, creating a factual record that invites scrutiny of whether those awards were influenced by the prospective employment relationship. This is an outcome of the public announcement rather than a new action.
NSPE; state engineering ethics bodies; municipal ethics authorities
Professional and Ethical Standards Governing Conflicts of Interest for Engineers in Public Official Roles
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer D; AE&R firm; City administration
Governs Engineer D's obligations arising from the intersection of public procurement authority and private employment transition, including duties of impartiality, avoidance of exploitation of insider relationships, and disclosure obligations
Municipal Qualification-Based Selection and Procurement Requirements for Engineering Services
Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award (consultant and construction)
Engineer D as City Engineer; AE&R in future proposal submissions; City procurement officials
Establishes the procurement framework within which Engineer D exercised contract negotiation and award authority, and within which AE&R will continue to submit proposals — relevant to assessing whether Engineer D's transition creates improper advantage in future procurement processes
Is it ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with AE&R?
Did Engineer D have an obligation to disclose the employment negotiations with AE&R to the City before or during the period when AE&R contracts were being reviewed, awarded, or administered under Engineer D's authority?
Does AE&R bear independent ethical responsibility for recruiting Engineer D given the firm's knowledge of Engineer D's prior oversight authority over AE&R's City contracts, and does that recruitment strategy itself constitute an attempt to gain improper competitive advantage?
Should the absence of a formal revolving-door contractual provision in the City's employment contracts be treated as an ethical gap that Engineer D and AE&R are obligated to fill through voluntary self-restraint, or does the absence of such a provision effectively neutralize the ethical concern?
What specific categories of confidential information acquired by Engineer D during tenure as City Engineer — such as non-public budget data, proprietary bid evaluations, or internal scoring criteria — would be impermissible to use or disclose at AE&R, and how should Engineer D identify and quarantine that information upon joining the firm?
Is it ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City?
Does the principle of Revolving Door Integrity — which demands that Engineer D avoid exploiting prior public authority for private gain — conflict with the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition, which generally permits engineers to leverage their expertise and professional reputation when seeking new employment?
How should the tension between the Loyalty Principle — requiring Engineer D to act as a faithful agent to the new employer AE&R — and the Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance principle — requiring Engineer D to protect the City's interests even after departure — be resolved when AE&R assigns Engineer D to projects that directly implicate Engineer D's prior City oversight decisions?
Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount — which prioritizes the public's interest in competent, unbiased municipal engineering oversight — conflict with the principle of Professional Accountability as applied to AE&R's recruitment strategy, given that holding AE&R accountable may deter firms from hiring experienced public engineers and thereby reduce the talent available for public-sector work?
Does the Transparency Principle — requiring full disclosure of Engineer D's transition and potential conflicts to the City — conflict with the Incumbent Advantage Prohibition as applied to AE&R, in that disclosure and consent mechanisms may effectively legitimize an arrangement that gives AE&R a structural competitive advantage over other firms that never had access to a former City Engineer with insider knowledge?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer D fulfill their duty of loyalty and faithful agency to the City by accepting employment with AE&R — a firm they had directly overseen — without first disclosing the employment negotiation to the City during the period when they still held authority over contract awards and senior-level project reviews?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's permissive ruling on Engineer D's employment acceptance — grounded in the absence of a contractual revolving-door prohibition — produce net beneficial outcomes for the public, the engineering profession, and competitive procurement integrity, or does it incentivize municipalities to remain without such protections to the long-term detriment of public trust?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer D demonstrate the professional integrity and honorable character expected of a senior public official by accepting a position at AE&R — a firm they had repeatedly evaluated, contracted with, and overseen — without proactively establishing a voluntary cooling-off period or embargo from City-related work, regardless of whether one was legally required?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer D's immediate, direct involvement in AE&R's projects with the City violate a categorical duty to avoid exploiting confidential information and insider relationships acquired in a position of public trust, irrespective of whether disclosure and consent are obtained from the City?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's nuanced, case-by-case approach to Engineer D's immediate involvement in City projects — relying on disclosure, consent, and voluntary embargoes — produce better outcomes for procurement fairness and public confidence than a bright-line prohibition on post-public-service involvement for a defined cooling-off period would?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Firm AE&R demonstrate the honorable professional character expected of an engineering firm by immediately assigning Engineer D to City projects, thereby leveraging Engineer D's insider relationships and knowledge, rather than voluntarily restraining such assignments out of respect for competitive fairness and public trust?
Would the Board's ethical assessment of Engineer D's employment acceptance have differed if Engineer D had disclosed the employment negotiations to the City while still serving as City Engineer and actively participating in contract awards and senior-level project reviews involving AE&R?
If the City had included a formal revolving-door provision in Engineer D's employment contract — such as a one-year cooling-off period — would the Board's conclusion on the ethics of accepting employment with AE&R have changed, and would such a provision have been sufficient to address the underlying ethical concerns even if Engineer D found a way to circumvent it, as Engineer P did in BER Case 15-8?
Would the ethical calculus regarding Engineer D's immediate involvement in AE&R's City projects have been clearer — and the Board's answer less 'mixed' — if AE&R had voluntarily assigned Engineer D exclusively to projects unrelated to the City for a defined period, rather than immediately deploying Engineer D on City-facing work?
If Engineer D had possessed and disclosed specific confidential information about the City's budget constraints, internal evaluation criteria, or negotiating positions that would directly benefit AE&R in an active or upcoming procurement, would the Board's conditional approval of immediate project involvement — subject to disclosure and consent — still hold, or would that scenario constitute a categorical ethical prohibition regardless of consent?
Would the Board's ethical analysis have been more restrictive if AE&R had been actively engaged in a competitive proposal submission to the City at the precise moment Engineer D was hired, rather than simply planning to submit future proposals — thereby making the perception of improper influence concrete rather than speculative?
City Engineer, transitioning to private sector
Allowing ongoing participation in city matters during the notice period without full conflict disclosure
Creating a window of ambiguity during which conflict-of-interest obligations are unclear
Triggering ethical scrutiny under revolving door principles
Basic professional courtesy of providing resignation notice
Partial transparency regarding intent to enter private sector
Faithful agency to public employer through end of tenure
Formally notify the municipality of impending departure while managing the timing and scope of disclosure about the new employer, potentially to avoid immediate scrutiny or allow AE&R to control its own announcement
Conflict-of-interest identification and disclosure
Professional judgment regarding transition ethics
Duty to disclose material information affecting the City's ability to manage transition and conflict
Full and timely disclosure of conflicts of interest to the public employer
Obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in public-sector role
Engineer D chose to announce resignation from the City Engineer position and disclosed acceptance of a position at an unnamed engineering firm. The decision to withhold the specific firm's identity at the time of announcement represents a partial disclosure that deferred full transparency.
Resignation and Partial Disclosure (Action 2) → Engineer D's Resignation Announced / AE&R Public Hire Announcement (Events 1 & 2)
Engineer D chose to announce resignation from the City Engineer position and disclosed acceptance of employment at AE&R, triggering an immediate public transition event and rendering visible the historical pattern of AE&R receiving city contracts
Resignation and Partial Disclosure (Action 2)
If Engineer D had resigned without disclosing the AE&R hire, or if AE&R had not publicly announced the hire, the prior contract history might have remained less visible, though the underlying conflict would still exist
Engineer D's Resignation Announced / AE&R Public Hire Announcement (Events 1 & 2)
AE&R's decision to publicly announce the hire (Action 7 precursor)
Engineer D's choice to disclose the AE&R hire publicly rather than privately or not at all
Engineer D's volitional decision to resign from city position
The existence of a prior contractual relationship between AE&R and the city
Engineer D (primary); AE&R principals (shared)
Public resignation + public hire announcement together were sufficient to expose the prior AE&R contract history and initiate public and professional scrutiny of the conflict
State X highway department's refusal (Case 15-8) before Engineer P joining AE firm as independent contractor (Case 15-8)
In response, Engineer P left the State X highway department and joined the AE firm not as an 'employee' but as an 'independent contractor.'
State X highway department's refusal (Case 15-8)
Engineer P joining AE firm as independent contractor (Case 15-8)
Demonstrates professional integrity that may enhance long-term reputation
Potential resentment from AE&R principals who expected Engineer D to contribute to city project work
Reduced immediate value to AE&R if Engineer D cannot work on the firm's most significant city contracts
Duty to protect confidential information obtained in public role
Faithful agency to former public employer/client through non-exploitation of insider access
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest that compromise professional integrity
Obligation to preserve public trust in municipal engineering processes
Prevent exploitation of insider knowledge and supervisory relationships in private-sector work on the same projects Engineer D previously managed publicly, protecting both the City's interests and the integrity of the engineering profession
Communication with AE&R management about scope limitations
Identification of which projects create direct conflicts
Professional discipline to self-impose recusal
Post-hire, ongoing throughout transition period
If recusal is not adopted: violation of conflict-of-interest obligations and confidentiality duties
Potential violation of objectivity and impartiality standards
Post-hire, Engineer D faces the implied decision of whether to voluntarily recuse from all active city projects that were formerly under Engineer D's oversight as City Engineer, regardless of whether disclosure has been made or accepted. This represents an independent ethical obligation distinct from the cooling-off question.
confidentiality obligation overlaps Engineer D's post-employment period at AE&R
Confidentiality is another ethical obligation that continues after one severs employment (Code Section III.4). Engineer D should not use or disclose confidential information acquired during the course of or by reason of duties or employment with the City.
Engineer D's post-employment period at AE&R
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
contract negotiations by US government engineers (Case 58-1) overlaps engineers' active US government employment (Case 58-1)
Several of those engineers negotiated with at least two AE firms with the intent of taking part in the design and supervision of the work...At about the time the various contract negotiations were wrapping up, the engineers resigned from their US government positions
contract negotiations by US government engineers (Case 58-1)
engineers' active US government employment (Case 58-1)
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The absence of formal revolving door provisions does not eliminate the ethical obligation to protect procurement integrity; Engineer D should voluntarily recuse from City-related work at AE&R
Defeasibility edge from concreteexpression
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.87
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer — the primary contracting authority — to AE&R, a firm that regularly received City contracts during D's tenure, raises serious concerns about whether future AE&R contract awards can be made through genuinely lawful, merit-based competitive processes
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
Both Engineer D and AE&R should proactively disclose the relationship to the City, implement internal ethical screens, and Engineer D should abstain from City-related business development and contract work at AE&R for an appropriate period
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
Residual public loyalty obligations take precedence over new private employer loyalty where the conflict arises directly from the prior public role; Engineer D must prioritize avoiding harm to the City's procurement integrity over serving AE&R's competitive interests
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.88
Engineer D's prior loyalty obligations to the City as City Engineer — including the duty to serve the City's procurement interests faithfully — come into tension with emerging loyalty obligations to new employer AE&R, particularly where AE&R's interests in City contracts directly implicate D's prior public authority
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Accountability requires affirmative action — disclosure, recusal, and ethical screening — not merely compliance with formal contractual minimums
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
source_field=concreteexpression; confidence=0.86
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer with primary contracting authority over AE&R to an associate position at AE&R — a firm that plans to continue pursuing City contracts — implicates the revolving door integrity principle, requiring D to abstain from leveraging insider relationships and privileged procurement knowledge for AE&R's benefit
The ethical obligation to protect public trust and procurement integrity overrides Engineer D's interest in immediately contributing to AE&R's City-related business development; voluntary recusal and disclosure are required
Transparency obligations to the public agency and the public override any interest in non-disclosure of the conflict; the City must be informed to protect procurement integrity
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.89
Even absent formal cooling-off provisions, Engineer D's prior role as primary contracting authority creates an ethical obligation to voluntarily abstain from City-related work at AE&R and to avoid using confidential procurement information or relationships acquired as City Engineer
AE&R must implement ethical screens, disclose the conflict to the City, and ensure that future City contract pursuits are based solely on merit and do not exploit Engineer D's prior contracting authority or relationships
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.88
AE&R's conduct implicates the prohibition on incumbent advantage because the recruitment of Engineer D is reasonably understood as designed to preserve and extend AE&R's preferred position with the City through insider relationships rather than merit-based competition
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
engineers' resignation from US government (Case 58-1) meets entry into contract with foreign government (Case 58-1)
At about the time the various contract negotiations were wrapping up, the engineers resigned from their US government positions and entered into a contract with the foreign government to work on the hydroelectric project.
engineers' resignation from US government (Case 58-1)
entry into contract with foreign government (Case 58-1)
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
one-year cooling-off period (Case 15-8 / Engineer D scenario) starts Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role
Engineer D could voluntarily abstain from participation in procurement matters before the City...for an agreed period of say, one year after she leaves the public job.
one-year cooling-off period (Case 15-8 / Engineer D scenario)
Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role
Entity1 and Entity2 start at the same time, Entity1 ends first
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
invokedby: Firm AE&R Preferred Engineering Contractor
Engineer D was obligated to recuse themselves from any involvement in AE&R's preparation, submission, or negotiation of proposals or contracts with the City for a sufficient cooling-off period following departure from the City Engineer role
Engineer D was obligated to evaluate the conflict-of-interest implications of accepting employment at AE&R — a firm that benefited extensively from contracts awarded or supervised during D's tenure as City Engineer — and to refrain from acc
Engineer D was obligated to proactively disclose to the City and to AE&R the nature and extent of their prior contracting authority over AE&R — including the volume of projects awarded, the senior review role, and the potential for improper
Engineer D was obligated, as City Engineer with primary contracting authority, to ensure that all AE firm contracts — including those awarded to AE&R — were conducted through open, competitive, and qualification-based processes, and to refr
Engineer D was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the City throughout their tenure as City Engineer, including refraining from any conduct — such as negotiating private employment with a firm under D's contracting authorit
Engineer D was obligated to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — including the decision to accept employment at AE&R — so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement pr
Engineer D was obligated to disclose to the City any employment negotiations with AE&R immediately upon their initiation — while D still held the City Engineer position with contracting authority over AE&R — and to recuse from all City-AE&R
Firm AE&R was obligated to refrain from exploiting the incumbent advantage created by recruiting Engineer D — the City's former primary contracting authority — including refraining from using D's insider knowledge, relationships, or prior a
Firm AE&R was obligated to conduct itself honorably and responsibly in its recruitment of Engineer D and in all subsequent City procurement activities, including evaluating whether recruiting the City's former primary contracting authority
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'prior_role': 'City Engineer with contracting authority', 'new_role': 'Associate at Firm AE&R', 'ethical_trigger': 'Prior contracting authority over new employer during public tenure; no revolving door contractual restrictions'}
Transitions from City Engineer role with contracting authority over AE&R to associate position at AE&R, which plans to continue pursuing municipal contracts, raising revolving-door ethical concerns in the absence of formal contractual restrictions.
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Municipality'}
{'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
{'type': 'prior_contracting_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
Engineer D Absence of Revolving Door Contractual Constraint
From the point of Engineer D's departure from City employment through ongoing association with AE&R's City-directed work
Engineer D's professional situation at the intersection of prior public authority and new private employment
Not yet terminated — absence of contractual restriction does not eliminate the ethical conflict
City's employment contracts for senior-level employees do not include revolving door provisions, leaving Engineer D without a formal contractual prohibition on joining a firm that benefited from their public authority
Engineer D Confidential Information Held Post-Employment
Ongoing from Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role through private employment
Engineer D holding confidential information acquired during tenure as City Engineer
Information becomes public or is no longer relevant to active matters
Engineer D should not be allowed to breach confidentiality for personal gain
Engineer D's access to confidential city information during public tenure, which persists after employment ends
Engineer D No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition
From Engineer D's resignation as City Engineer through acceptance of position at Firm AE&R and ongoing ethical evaluation
The facts of the case specifically note Engineer A's employment contract with the City did not include a revolving door prohibition such as Engineer P faced in Case 15-8
No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition State
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to associate at Firm AE&R without contractual revolving-door restriction
Resolution through disclosure, isolation, or voluntary cooling-off period
But that does not mean such employment would exempt Engineer A from the ethical requirements and obligations of the NSPE Code of Ethics
Thus, on the face of the matter, it would seem there is no legal barrier to Engineer A accepting employment with Firm AE&R
Engineer D resigned as City Engineer and accepted private employment with a firm previously subject to their oversight, without any contractual prohibition on doing so
Firm AE&R Preferred Engineering Contractor
{'firm_type': 'AE (Architectural-Engineering) consulting firm', 'municipal_relationship': "Completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure", 'new_hire': 'Engineer D as associate', 'future_intent': 'Continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City'}
Private AE firm that completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, subsequently hired Engineer D as an associate, and plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City, creating revolving-door conflict of interest concerns.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Municipality'}
{'type': 'subject_to_contracting_authority_of', 'target': 'Engineer D (former City Engineer)'}
Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
{'firm_type': 'Private Architectural-Engineering Consulting Firm', 'prior_relationship': "Regular contractor with municipality during Engineer D's tenure", 'new_hire': 'Engineer D as Associate', 'ethical_obligations': ['Ensure hiring not motivated by improper contract influence', 'Comply with NSPE Code Section II.5.b', "Manage Engineer D's isolation from conflicted projects", 'Base hiring on qualifications and experience']}
Private consulting AE firm that regularly conducted business with the municipality during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and subsequently hired Engineer D as an associate, subject to NSPE Code Section II.5.b obligations to ensure the hiring was not a means of improperly influencing future city contract awards.
{'type': 'contractor', 'target': 'Mid-Sized Municipality'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer D Former City Engineer'}
{'type': 'former_counterpart', 'target': 'Engineer D Former City Engineer'}
AE Firm Recruiting Former Public Official
Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'position': 'City Engineer', 'tenure_characteristic': 'Main point of contact for AE firms and contractors; contract negotiation and award authority', 'revolving_door_restriction': 'None - City does not include revolving door provisions in senior employment contracts'}
Served as City Engineer with primary contracting authority and senior review responsibilities for AE firms and contractors; announced departure to join private firm AE&R that conducted business with the City during Engineer D's tenure.
{'type': 'contracting_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Municipality'}
Ongoing from Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role through private employment at Firm AE&R
Engineer D should not unfairly profit from or otherwise trade upon the contacts, associations, and special knowledge she acquired during tenure as a public servant
Engineer D's possession of insider knowledge, contacts, and associations from City Engineer tenure
Relevant projects conclude, knowledge becomes public, or voluntary recusal from related procurement
In particular this would apply to direct procurement activities
Engineer D's accumulation of privileged project knowledge, procurement relationships, and institutional contacts during public service
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer D Revolving Door Case
AE&R's continued pursuit of City contracts
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to AE&R associate
The public's interest in fair, unbiased municipal engineering procurement and in government officials not converting public authority into private advantage is implicated by Engineer D's immediate transition to AE&R, a firm that benefited from D's contracting authority
Public welfare in this context extends beyond physical safety to encompass the integrity of public procurement processes and the public's right to government officials who do not exploit their positions for private gain
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award (consultant and construction) and senior-level review of major project issues that arise from time to time.
Public welfare obligations require that even absent formal revolving door provisions, Engineer D and AE&R must consider whether the transition undermines public trust and procurement integrity
AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City.
From Engineer D's resignation as City Engineer through ongoing employment at Firm AE&R
Engineer D who resigned the position as City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality, and shortly thereafter accepted the position of 'associate' at Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
Engineer D transitioning from City Engineer to associate at Firm AE&R
Resolution through disclosure and acceptance by City, project isolation, or expiration of voluntary cooling-off period
Engineer D's prior responsibilities with the City for projects currently under contract by D's new employer would raise concerns about objectivity and fairness if Firm AE&R directly placed Engineer D in responsible charge of those projects
Engineer D resigned as City Engineer and accepted position at Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D regularly interacted during public tenure
Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked Against AE&R Incumbent Advantage
AE&R's future competitive submissions to the City
Other AE firms competing for City contracts
Incumbent Advantage Prohibition in Public Procurement
AE&R's recruitment of Engineer D immediately after D's departure from the City Engineer role — with plans to continue pursuing City contracts — creates a structural competitive advantage over other AE firms that did not have the same relationship with the City's contracting authority
Fairness in competition requires that no firm gain structural advantage through recruitment of the official who exercised primary contracting authority over them; the competitive playing field is distorted when insider relationships substitute for merit
AE&R should implement ethical screens and disclose the conflict to the City to restore competitive fairness; the City should evaluate whether additional procurement safeguards are warranted
Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
Engineer D Concurrent Employment Negotiation Conflict Avoidance Obligation Instance
Engineer D negotiated and accepted a position at AE&R while still serving as City Engineer with contracting authority over AE&R; the timing of the announcement suggests negotiations occurred during D's tenure.
Concurrent Employment Negotiation Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to disclose to the City any employment negotiations with AE&R immediately upon their initiation — while D still held the City Engineer position with contracting authority over AE&R — and to recuse from all City-AE&R contracting matters during the negotiation period.
From the initiation of employment discussions with AE&R through the date of departure from the City Engineer role
Engineer D Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation Instance
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer with contracting authority over AE&R to an associate position at AE&R creates a significant appearance of impropriety that implicates the honor and integrity of public procurement processes.
Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — including the decision to accept employment at AE&R — so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement processes and to avoid the appearance of converting public contracting authority into private competitive advantage.
Throughout the transition from public to private employment and in all subsequent City-related procurement activities
Engineer D Revolving Door Conflict Disclosure Obligation Instance
Engineer D served as City Engineer with primary contracting authority over AE&R, which completed many City projects during D's tenure; D then accepted an associate position at AE&R without apparent disclosure or conflict management measures.
Revolving Door Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to proactively disclose to the City and to AE&R the nature and extent of their prior contracting authority over AE&R — including the volume of projects awarded, the senior review role, and the potential for improper advantage — before or upon accepting the associate position at AE&R, so that all parties could evaluate and manage the conflict of interest.
Upon initiation of employment negotiations with AE&R and upon acceptance of the associate position
Transparency Principle Invoked for Disclosure of Engineer D Transition
Disclosure to City of AE&R's recruitment of former contracting authority
Disclosure to City of Engineer D's new employment
Client confidentiality regarding AE&R's business strategy
Both Engineer D and AE&R have transparency obligations to disclose the nature of their prior relationship — D as the City's primary contracting authority over AE&R — to the City and to other AE firms competing for City contracts, enabling the City to implement appropriate procurement safeguards
Transparency in this context requires more than announcing the new employment; it requires disclosure of the specific nature and extent of Engineer D's prior authority over AE&R and the potential implications for future City procurement processes
Engineer D Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation Instance
Engineer D served as the City's primary contracting authority over AE firms including AE&R, which received many City contracts during D's tenure; D subsequently accepted employment at AE&R.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
Engineer D was obligated, as City Engineer with primary contracting authority, to ensure that all AE firm contracts — including those awarded to AE&R — were conducted through open, competitive, and qualification-based processes, and to refrain from any conduct that would give AE&R preferential access to City contracts in anticipation of or following D's transition to that firm.
Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer and particularly during any period of concurrent employment negotiations with AE&R
Engineer D Post-Public-Service Recusal Obligation Instance
Engineer D transitioned directly from City Engineer — with primary contracting authority over AE&R — to an associate position at AE&R, which plans to continue pursuing City contracts; no cooling-off period or recusal mechanism was identified.
Engineer D was obligated to recuse themselves from any involvement in AE&R's preparation, submission, or negotiation of proposals or contracts with the City for a sufficient cooling-off period following departure from the City Engineer role, given D's prior contracting authority over AE&R.
From the date of accepting the AE&R position through a sufficient cooling-off period to eliminate the appearance and reality of improper advantage
The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
Incumbent Advantage Prohibition Invoked Against AE&R Recruitment Strategy
AE&R's competitive positioning relative to other AE firms
Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
AE&R's recruitment of Engineer D — the City's primary contracting authority during AE&R's period of extensive City project work — structured to enable AE&R to continue pursuing City contracts, constitutes an attempt to convert an incumbent relationship into a structural competitive advantage through the revolving door
Loyalty Principle Tension in Engineer D Dual Obligations
Engineer D's future conduct regarding City-related work at AE&R
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to AE&R
Loyalty to a former public employer does not cease upon departure; residual loyalty obligations require Engineer D to avoid using knowledge and relationships acquired in public service to disadvantage the City or distort its procurement processes for AE&R's benefit
Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer D Revolving Door Conduct
Engineer D's decision to accept AE&R position
Engineer D's responsibility to disclose and manage the conflict
Engineer D bears professional accountability for the decision to accept a position at AE&R immediately after leaving the City Engineer role, including accountability for the foreseeable appearance of impropriety and the potential distortion of City procurement processes, regardless of whether formal revolving door provisions exist
Professional accountability requires Engineer D to proactively address the ethical implications of the transition rather than relying on the absence of formal contractual restrictions as justification for proceeding without ethical safeguards
Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
Engineer D Faithful Agent Obligation Instance
Engineer D served as the City's primary contracting authority and senior reviewer; the acceptance of employment at AE&R — a firm that benefited from City contracts during D's tenure — raises questions about whether D's loyalty to the City was maintained throughout the tenure.
Engineer D was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the City throughout their tenure as City Engineer, including refraining from any conduct — such as negotiating private employment with a firm under D's contracting authority — that would compromise D's undivided loyalty to the City's procurement interests.
Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and particularly during any period of concurrent employment negotiations with AE&R
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_role': 'City Engineer', 'new_role': 'Associate at Firm AE&R', 'contractual_prohibition': 'None', 'ethical_obligations': ['Avoid improper use of insider contacts and knowledge', 'Maintain confidentiality of city information', 'Disclose conflicts on active city projects', 'Consider voluntary cooling-off period for procurement matters', 'Avoid being placed in responsible charge of formerly overseen projects without disclosure and city acceptance']}
Former City Engineer of a mid-sized municipality who resigned and shortly thereafter accepted an associate position at Firm AE&R, a consulting firm with which Engineer D regularly interacted during tenure as City Engineer, without a contractual revolving-door prohibition but subject to ethical obligations under the NSPE Code.
{'type': 'former_client_relationship', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Mid-Sized Municipality'}
Engineer D who resigned the position as City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality, and shortly thereafter accepted the position of 'associate' at Firm AE&R
Engineer D's prior responsibilities with the City for projects currently under contract by D's new employer would raise concerns about objectivity and fairness
a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
Firm AE&R Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation Instance
AE&R recruited Engineer D — the City's former primary contracting authority — immediately after D's departure, with plans to continue pursuing City contracts, creating a significant appearance of impropriety in public procurement.
Firm AE&R was obligated to conduct itself honorably and responsibly in its recruitment of Engineer D and in all subsequent City procurement activities, including evaluating whether recruiting the City's former primary contracting authority immediately after D's departure was consistent with the spirit of fair and competitive public procurement.
Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
From the initiation of recruitment discussions with Engineer D and continuing through all subsequent City procurement activities
Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance Invoked for Engineer D and AE&R
City's ongoing procurement of AE services
Engineer D's acceptance of AE&R position
The immediate timing of Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to AE&R associate — combined with AE&R's history of City contracts during D's tenure and plans to continue pursuing City work — creates a paradigmatic post-public-service conflict requiring avoidance measures even in the absence of formal revolving door contractual provisions
The relational trust between Engineer D and the City, built through D's exercise of contracting authority, must not be converted into competitive advantage for AE&R; both D and AE&R bear obligations to avoid the appearance and reality of improper benefit
Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Invoked for Engineer D Case
Integrity of municipal AE procurement process
Procurement integrity requires not only procedurally correct selection processes but also that those processes be free from the structural distortion created when a former contracting authority joins a preferred incumbent firm
Revolving Door Integrity Invoked for Engineer D Transition
AE&R's future City contract pursuits involving Engineer D
Engineer D's conduct at AE&R regarding City-related work
Firm AE&R Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation Instance
AE&R recruited Engineer D immediately after D's departure from the City Engineer role, with plans to continue pursuing City contracts; AE&R had an established pattern of City project awards during D's tenure.
AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation
Firm AE&R was obligated to refrain from exploiting the incumbent advantage created by recruiting Engineer D — the City's former primary contracting authority — including refraining from using D's insider knowledge, relationships, or prior authority in City proposal preparation, and to disclose the potential conflict to the City.
From the date of hiring Engineer D and continuing through all subsequent City procurement activities
Engineer D Post-Employment Conflict of Interest
From announcement of departure through ongoing employment at AE&R, which continues to submit proposals and perform work for the City
Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to associate at AE&R
Not yet terminated — state persists as long as Engineer D holds a position at AE&R while AE&R pursues City work
Engineer D accepted a position at AE&R, a firm that completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer and that plans to continue pursuing City contracts
Engineer D Revolving Door Employment Acceptance Integrity Obligation Instance
Engineer D accepted an associate position at AE&R immediately after departing as City Engineer; AE&R had completed many City projects during D's tenure and planned to continue pursuing City work; the City had no revolving door provisions.
Revolving Door Employment Acceptance Integrity Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to evaluate the conflict-of-interest implications of accepting employment at AE&R — a firm that benefited extensively from contracts awarded or supervised during D's tenure as City Engineer — and to refrain from accepting that position without adequate conflict mitigation measures, a sufficient cooling-off period, or full disclosure to the City.
At the time of accepting the associate position at AE&R