ProEthica Case 10 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.514384
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

AE&R Assigns Engineer D to City Contracts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

AE&R Assigns Engineer D to City Contracts (Action 7) → City Project Involvement Risk Created (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

AE&R Public Hire Announcement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

AE&R projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Accepting Employment with AE&R
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Accepting Employment with AE&R (Action 3) → Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527424
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Adopting One-Year Cooling-Off Period
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Case-11-12
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 11-12
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, BER Case 11-12 considered the situation of Engineer A, who served as the part-time town engineer for Smithtown
textreferences: Engineer A was not eligible to provide engineering services to Smithtown for the local road project
textreferences: In determining it would not be ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the work for Smithtown
textreferences: More recently, BER Case 11-12 considered the situation of Engineer A, who served as the part-time town engineer for Smithtown
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing conflict of interest in dual employment situations
usedincontext: 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
version: 2011
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Case-14-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 14-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 14-8 for example – which is in many ways the converse of the situation Engineer D faces in the present case
textreferences: BER Case 14-8 for example – which is in many ways the converse of the situation Engineer D faces in the present case
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A should be assigned other duties by the State, remain isolated from the State's water rights case
textreferences: Engineer D can follow the recommendations in Case 14-8 and remain isolated from former projects until those contracts lapse
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as direct guidance on Engineer D's obligations regarding isolation from former projects
usedincontext: 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
version: 2014
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Case-15-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 15-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 15-8 offers direct guidance on the ethics of transitional employment
textreferences: BER Case 15-8 offers direct guidance on the ethics of transitional employment
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review believes that Engineer P's actions were unethical
textreferences: as was done in Case 15-8, an embargo or 'cooling off' period, often one-year duration, can ameliorate such concerns
textreferences: 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'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as direct guidance on revolving door ethics and cooling-off periods applicable to Engineer D
usedincontext: 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
version: 2015
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Case-58-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 58-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: We start the discussion by reviewing the first case the Board of Ethical Review published, BER Case 58-1
textreferences: Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise', of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession'
textreferences: The crucial question is, therefore, 'Were these advantages used unfairly?'
textreferences: The… [engineers] in question have violated the spirit of the Canons and Rules
textreferences: We start the discussion by reviewing the first case the Board of Ethical Review published, BER Case 58-1
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the first and foundational revolving door case
usedincontext: 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
version: 1958
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.515747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Case-63-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 63-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 63-5, a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
textreferences: In BER Case 63-5, a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: the engineer was acting in a dual capacity but not a divided one
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing transitional and dual employment ethics
usedincontext: 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
version: 1963
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Case-74-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 74-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 74-2, the Board considered a case involving a state law that required that every municipality have a municipal engineer
textreferences: In BER Case 74-2, the Board considered a case involving a state law that required that every municipality have a municipal engineer
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing dual employment and public interest considerations
usedincontext: 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
version: 1974
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER-Cases-Public-Official-Private-Employment
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Public Officials Transitioning to Private Engineering Practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
usedby: Ethical reviewers and Engineer D in assessing professional obligations
usedincontext: 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
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER 58-1 US Government Engineers
type: GovernmentEngineerTransitioningtoPrivateSector
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Foreign Government Agency'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'US Government Agency'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Joint Venture Corporation'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Government Engineer Transitioning to Private Sector
sourcetext: engineers negotiated with at least two AE firms with the intent of taking part in the design and supervision of the work
textreferences: The engineers formed a corporation to be part of a joint venture to design the hydroelectric project
textreferences: engineers negotiated with at least two AE firms with the intent of taking part in the design and supervision of the work
textreferences: the engineers resigned from their US government positions and entered into a contract with the foreign government
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER Case 11-12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER Case 14-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER Case 15-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER Case 58-1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER Case 63-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

BER Case 74-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Case 10 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.528077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_AE&R Assigns Engineer D to Cit
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_Accepting Employment with AE&R
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_Adopting One-Year Cooling-Off
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_Disclosure and City Acceptance
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_Participation in Contract Nego
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_Resignation and Partial Disclo
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

CausalLink_Voluntary Recusal from City Pr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

City-Revolving-Door-Policy-Absence
type: RevolvingDoorEmploymentPolicy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Municipality (City government)
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: City Employment Contract Provisions (or Absence Thereof) Regarding Post-Employment Restrictions
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Revolving Door Employment Policy
sourcetext: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
usedby: Engineer D; City administration; ethical reviewers
usedincontext: 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
version: Current municipal employment contracts
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.515889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

City Project Involvement Risk Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 104
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: II.4.e.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.5.b.
cited provision4: III.6.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.c.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
cited provision3: II.4.c.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.4.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: I.4.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.e.
cited provision4: III.4.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 101
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.4.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: II.4.e.
cited provision5: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.718937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 305
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 306
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
cited provision3: II.4.c.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 101
cited provision1: II.4.a.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 104
cited provision1: III.4.
cited provision2: III.4.a.
cited provision3: II.4.a.
cited provision4: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_217
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 405
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: II.4.e.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: I.6.
cited provision4: III.4.
conclusion number: 217
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 1
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.4.a.
cited provision3: III.4.
cited provision4: III.4.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 102
answers question3: 103
answers question4: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.4.c.
cited provision3: II.4.e.
cited provision4: II.5.b.
cited provision5: III.6.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.719865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Conflict of Interest State Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Cooling-Off-Period-One-Year-Standard
type: Cooling-OffPeriodFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER Case 15-8 and state law precedent)
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: One-Year Cooling-Off Period for Transitional Employment
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Cooling-Off Period Framework
sourcetext: an embargo or 'cooling off' period, often one-year duration, can ameliorate such concerns
textreferences: 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
textreferences: an embargo or 'cooling off' period, often one-year duration, can ameliorate such concerns
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as a recommended practice for Engineer D in marginal or prohibitive conflict situations
usedincontext: 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
version: Derived from BER Case 15-8 and professional practice norms
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
role label: Engineer D City Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
role label: Engineer D City Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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
option2: 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
role label: Firm AE&R
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: Engineer D City Engineer: Pre-Departure Disclosure and Conflict Avoidance During Employment Negotiations with AE&R
option1: 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
option2: Continue exercising contracting authority over AE&R projects without disclosing ongoing employment negotiations to the City
role label: Engineer D City Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.722052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: Engineer D Post-Public-Service Recusal and Competitive Procurement Fairness: Immediate Involvement in AE&R's City Projects
option1: 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
option2: 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
role label: Engineer D
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.722117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: 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?
focus: Firm AE&R Independent Ethical Responsibility: Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation and Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement
option1: 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
option2: 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
role label: Engineer D City Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.722180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Disclosure and City Acceptance Seeking
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Disclosure and City Acceptance Seeking (Action 4 — omission or commission) → Conflict of Interest State Established / Cooling-Off Period Obligation Activated (Events 4 & 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A BER 11-12 Dual Role Advisory and Design with Termination
type: DualRoleAdvisoryandDesignState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's review of Engineer B's work through offer to perform design work for Smithtown
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Smithtown
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Dual Role Advisory and Design State
subject: Engineer A serving as part-time town engineer who reviewed and terminated Engineer B then offered own firm for design work
terminatedby: BER determination that the arrangement was unethical
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer A used advisory role to evaluate and terminate Engineer B, then positioned own firm to receive the design contract
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.520592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A BER 14-8 Cross-Side Employment Transition
type: Cross-SideEmploymentTransitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's resignation from private firm through State employment while water rights case was active
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Former private employer
affectedparties: Private client
affectedparties: State
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State – the State being an objector to the analysis Engineer A prepared
stateclass: Cross-Side Employment Transition State
subject: Engineer A who prepared water rights analysis for private client then joined the State as objector to that analysis
terminatedby: Isolation from the case and assignment to other duties, or conclusion of the proceeding
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State – the State being an objector to the analysis Engineer A prepared
textreferences: Engineer A should be assigned other duties by the State, remain isolated from the State's water rights case
triggeringevent: Engineer A resigned from private firm and accepted State employment while their prior analysis was under legal review with the State as objector
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.520742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A Part-Time Town Engineer BER 11-12
type: Dual-RolePart-TimeMunicipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Smithtown'}
relationships: {'type': 'firm_principal', 'target': 'Engineer A Consulting Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 11-12'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Dual-Role Part-Time Municipal Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, who served as the part-time town engineer for Smithtown and also had a consulting engineering practice
textreferences: Engineer A offered, and Smithtown agreed, that Engineer A's firm should perform the design work for the local road project for Smithtown
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A, who served as the part-time town engineer for Smithtown and also had a consulting engineering practice
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A Private-to-State Transition BER 14-8
type: Private-to-PublicTransitioningEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adversarial_party', 'target': 'State Agency BER 14-8'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'Water Rights Analysis Client BER 14-8'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Private Engineering Firm BER 14-8'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'State Agency BER 14-8'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Private-to-Public Transitioning Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client
textreferences: Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State – the State being an objector to the analysis Engineer A prepared
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A stamping water rights analysis (Case 14-8) before legal review of the analysis (Case 14-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A's employment at private firm (Case 14-8) before Engineer A's employment at the State (Case 14-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A's resignation from private firm (Case 14-8) during legal review of the water rights analysis (Case 14-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer A's review of Engineer B's preliminary work (Case 11-12) during Engineer B's preliminary design services (Case 11-12)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer B BER 63-5 Dual Role Advisory and Design
type: DualRoleAdvisoryandDesignState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Duration of Engineer B's part-time city engineer retainer and concurrent design engagement
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: City council
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Dual Role Advisory and Design State
subject: Engineer B serving as part-time city engineer while also performing design services for the same city
terminatedby: Completion of design project or termination of dual role
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: City council selected Engineer B for plan preparation in addition to advisory retainer role
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.520444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer B Part-Time City Engineer BER 63-5
type: Dual-RolePart-TimeMunicipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'advisor', 'target': 'City Council BER 63-5'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Small Community Municipality BER 63-5'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Dual-Role Part-Time Municipal Engineer
sourcetext: a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
textreferences: Engineer B was engaged in full-time private practice and treated his part-time service to the community as a public service
textreferences: Engineer B was selected by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
textreferences: a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer B's selection for road project design (Case 11-12) before Engineer B beginning preliminary design services (Case 11-12)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer B's termination (Case 11-12) before Engineer A's firm offering to perform design work (Case 11-12)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Absence of Revolving Door Contractual Constraint
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of Engineer D's departure from City employment through ongoing association with AE&R's City-directed work
affectedparties: AE&R
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Competing AE firms
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:12.628652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:12.628652+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer D's professional situation at the intersection of prior public authority and new private employment
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — absence of contractual restriction does not eliminate the ethical conflict
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.514954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D City Engineer
type: CityEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contracting_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, works as the City Engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area
textreferences: Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, works as the City Engineer
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Client Relationship Established with City
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, up to the point of departure
affectedparties: AE&R
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Other AE firms and contractors
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:12.628652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:12.628652+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, works as the City Engineer
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer D's prior professional relationship with the City as City Engineer, including senior-level oversight of AE firms and contractors
terminatedby: Engineer D's announced resignation from the City Engineer position
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, works as the City Engineer
triggeringevent: Engineer D's role as City Engineer with contract negotiation and award authority over AE firms including AE&R
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.515113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer D held primary contracting authority and AE&R completed many projects for the City during D's tenure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint Instance
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4.a; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I.6
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and retrospectively relevant to the post-employment transition
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.524517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation Instance
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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)
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer and particularly during any period of concurrent employment negotiations with AE&R
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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)
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Concurrent Conflict Disclosure Timing
type: ConcurrentConflictDisclosureTimingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Concurrent Conflict Disclosure Timing Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Concurrent Employment Negotiation Conflict Avoidance Obligation Instance
type: ConcurrentEmploymentNegotiationConflictAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Concurrent Employment Negotiation Conflict Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the initiation of employment discussions with AE&R through the date of departure from the City Engineer role
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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)
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Concurrent Employment Negotiation Disclosure Constraint Instance
type: ConcurrentEmploymentNegotiationDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Concurrent Employment Negotiation Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.4.a; NSPE Code Section II.4.c; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I.6
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: From the initiation of employment negotiations with AE&R through the date of formal departure from City Engineer role
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Confidential Client Information Constraint Instance
type: ConfidentialClientInformationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Confidential Client Information Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.4.a
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Indefinitely following departure from City Engineer role
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Confidential Information Held Post-Employment
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing from Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role through private employment
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: City contractors and consultants
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Firm AE&R
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Confidentiality is another ethical obligation that continues after one severs employment (Code Section III.4)
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer D holding confidential information acquired during tenure as City Engineer
terminatedby: Information becomes public or is no longer relevant to active matters
textreferences: Confidentiality is another ethical obligation that continues after one severs employment (Code Section III.4)
textreferences: Engineer D should not be allowed to breach confidentiality for personal gain
textreferences: Engineer D should not use or disclose confidential information acquired during the course of or by reason of duties or employment with the City
triggeringevent: Engineer D's access to confidential city information during public tenure, which persists after employment ends
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.521369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Instance
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.4.a; NSPE Code Section II.4.e
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: From the initiation of employment negotiations with AE&R through the duration of AE&R's ongoing City procurement activities
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.524383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Faithful Agent Obligation Capability
type: Trustee-AgentRoleDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Trustee-Agent Role Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Faithful Agent Obligation Instance
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and particularly during any period of concurrent employment negotiations with AE&R
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.524097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Former City Engineer
type: RevolvingDoorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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']}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_client_relationship', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Mid-Sized Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Revolving Door Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: Engineer D could voluntarily abstain from participation in procurement matters before the City
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation Instance
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout the transition from public to private employment and in all subsequent City-related procurement activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Insider Knowledge Advantage
type: InsiderKnowledgeAdvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing from Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role through private employment at Firm AE&R
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Competing consulting firms
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Firm AE&R
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Insider Knowledge Advantage State
subject: Engineer D's possession of insider knowledge, contacts, and associations from City Engineer tenure
terminatedby: Relevant projects conclude, knowledge becomes public, or voluntary recusal from related procurement
textreferences: Code Sections II.4.c and III.6 which prohibit engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method
textreferences: 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
textreferences: In particular this would apply to direct procurement activities
triggeringevent: Engineer D's accumulation of privileged project knowledge, procurement relationships, and institutional contacts during public service
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.521521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition
type: NoFormalRevolvingDoorProhibitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer D's resignation as City Engineer through acceptance of position at Firm AE&R and ongoing ethical evaluation
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Firm AE&R
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition State
subject: Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to associate at Firm AE&R without contractual revolving-door restriction
terminatedby: Resolution through disclosure, isolation, or voluntary cooling-off period
textreferences: But that does not mean such employment would exempt Engineer A from the ethical requirements and obligations of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Thus, on the face of the matter, it would seem there is no legal barrier to Engineer A accepting employment with Firm AE&R
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.521063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint Instance
type: NoFormalRevolvingDoorProvisionGapConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.6; NSPE Code Sections II.4.a, II.4.c, III.6; BER Case 58-1
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
temporalscope: From the date of employment acceptance at AE&R through a reasonable cooling-off period
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint Instance
type: Post-EmploymentConfidentialInformationNon-ExploitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.4.a; BER Case 58-1
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Indefinitely following departure from City Engineer role, for all information acquired during public tenure
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.524653
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Post-Employment Conflict of Interest
type: Post-EmploymentConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From announcement of departure through ongoing employment at AE&R, which continues to submit proposals and perform work for the City
affectedparties: AE&R
affectedparties: City of municipality
affectedparties: City taxpayers and public
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Other AE firms competing for City contracts
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:12.628652+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:12.628652+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to associate at AE&R
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — state persists as long as Engineer D holds a position at AE&R while AE&R pursues City work
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.514782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Post-Public-Service Recusal Judgment
type: Post-Public-ServiceRecusalJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Public-Service Recusal Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer D transitioned to AE&R, which planned to continue submitting proposals to the City, in the absence of any formal revolving door provisions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Post-Public-Service Recusal Obligation Instance
type: Post-Public-ServiceRecusalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Post-Public-Service Recusal Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: From the date of accepting the AE&R position through a sufficient cooling-off period to eliminate the appearance and reality of improper advantage
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Revolving Door
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Multiple BER precedents address analogous revolving door and dual-role situations that are directly applicable to Engineer D's circumstances
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Application of precedent-based reasoning would have enabled Engineer D to correctly identify disclosure, recusal, and employment acceptance integrity obligations
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance
type: PublicContractingAuthorityIntegrityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Conflict Disclosure Obligation Instance
type: RevolvingDoorConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Revolving Door Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon initiation of employment negotiations with AE&R and upon acceptance of the associate position
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Conflict Recognition
type: RevolvingDoorConflictRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Employment
type: RevolvingDoorEmploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer D's resignation as City Engineer through ongoing employment at Firm AE&R
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Firm AE&R
affectedparties: Other competing consultants
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Revolving Door Employment State
subject: Engineer D transitioning from City Engineer to associate at Firm AE&R
terminatedby: Resolution through disclosure and acceptance by City, project isolation, or expiration of voluntary cooling-off period
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer D resigned as City Engineer and accepted position at Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D regularly interacted during public tenure
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.521218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Employment Acceptance Integrity Obligation Instance
type: RevolvingDoorEmploymentAcceptanceIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer D
obligationclass: Revolving Door Employment Acceptance Integrity Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the associate position at AE&R
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Engineer
type: RevolvingDoorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_employer', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_contracting_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Revolving Door Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Ethics Constraint Instance
type: RevolvingDoorEthicsConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Revolving Door Ethics Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: 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
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: From the date of employment acceptance at AE&R through a reasonable cooling-off period following departure from City Engineer role
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.524244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation
type: RevolvingDoorRegulatoryGapNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: The City did not include revolving door provisions in employment contracts for senior employees, creating a regulatory gap that professional ethics codes must fill
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer D
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D's Resignation Announced
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D's isolation from former projects during remaining active duration of former City contracts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D's resignation announcement before Engineer D accepting position at unnamed firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D's resignation announcement before Firm AE&R's announcement of Engineer D as newly hired associate
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer before Engineer D's employment at Firm AE&R
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.528048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer P BER 15-8 Cooling-Off Period Circumvention
type: Cooling-OffPeriodCircumventionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer P's departure from State X highway department through engagement with AE firm as independent contractor
affectedparties: AE firm
affectedparties: Engineer P
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: State X highway department
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer P left the State X highway department and joined the AE firm not as an 'employee' but as an 'independent contractor'
stateclass: Cooling-Off Period Circumvention State
subject: Engineer P joining AE firm as independent contractor to circumvent one-year waiting period
terminatedby: BER determination that the arrangement was unethical
textreferences: Engineer P left the State X highway department and joined the AE firm not as an 'employee' but as an 'independent contractor'
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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'
triggeringevent: State X highway department refused permission; Engineer P restructured engagement as independent contractor to avoid the restriction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.520895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer P Highway Department to AE Firm BER 15-8
type: Cooling-OffPeriodEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'State X Highway Department'}
relationships: {'type': 'new_contractor', 'target': 'AE Firm BER 15-8'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Cooling-Off Period Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer P left the State X highway department and joined the AE firm not as an 'employee' but as an 'independent contractor'
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review believes that Engineer P's actions were unethical
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineer P's request for permission to leave (Case 15-8) before State X highway department's refusal of permission (Case 15-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineers BER 58-1 Insider Knowledge Advantage
type: InsiderKnowledgeAdvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engineers' work on preliminary design through negotiation of private contract and resignation from government
affectedparties: Competing AE firms
affectedparties: Foreign government agency
affectedparties: US Government
affectedparties: US Government engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Insider Knowledge Advantage State
subject: US Government engineers who prepared preliminary plans for hydroelectric project
terminatedby: BER conclusion and case resolution
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineers acquired intimate project knowledge and owner contacts through government employment, then negotiated private contracts to continue the work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.520108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Engineers BER 58-1 Revolving Door Employment
type: RevolvingDoorEmploymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From formation of private corporation through resignation from government and contract execution with foreign government
affectedparties: Competing AE firms
affectedparties: Foreign government agency
affectedparties: US Government agency
affectedparties: US Government engineers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:29:00.918801+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The engineers formed a corporation to be part of a joint venture to design the hydroelectric project
stateclass: Revolving Door Employment State
subject: US Government engineers transitioning to private corporation for hydroelectric project
terminatedby: BER case resolution
textreferences: 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
textreferences: The engineers formed a corporation to be part of a joint venture to design the hydroelectric project
triggeringevent: Engineers organized private company and negotiated contract while still employed by US Government
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.520271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked Against AE&R Incumbent Advantage
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AE&R's future competitive submissions to the City
appliedto: Other AE firms competing for City contracts
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Incumbent Advantage Prohibition in Public Procurement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
invokedby: Municipality Public Responsibility Role
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.521862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation Instance
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm AE&R
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
temporalscope: From the initiation of recruitment discussions with Engineer D and continuing through all subsequent City procurement activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Assessment
type: IncumbentAdvantageNon-ExploitationAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm AE&R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
textreferences: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation Instance
type: AEFirmIncumbentAdvantageNon-ExploitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:31:58.305239+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm AE&R
obligationclass: AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
temporalscope: From the date of hiring Engineer D and continuing through all subsequent City procurement activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.523377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Preferred Engineering Contractor
type: PreferredEngineeringContractor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer D'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to_contracting_authority_of', 'target': 'Engineer D (former City Engineer)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Preferred Engineering Contractor
sourcetext: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
textreferences: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Private Firm Improper Recruitment Prohibition Constraint Instance
type: PrivateFirmImproperRecruitmentProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Firm AE&R
constraintclass: Private Firm Improper Recruitment Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:11.144037+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.5.b; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I.6; NSPE Code Section III.6
sourcetext: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
temporalscope: From the initiation of recruitment discussions with Engineer D through the duration of AE&R's ongoing City procurement activities
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.525231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
type: AEFirmRecruitingFormerPublicOfficial
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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']}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contractor', 'target': 'Mid-Sized Municipality'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer D Former City Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_counterpart', 'target': 'Engineer D Former City Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: AE Firm Recruiting Former Public Official
sourcetext: Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Firm AE&R Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation
type: RevolvingDoorRegulatoryGapNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: AE&R recruited Engineer D despite the absence of formal revolving door provisions and planned to continue pursuing City contracts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:33:23.172296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm AE&R
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

II.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

II.4.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

II.4.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

II.5.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

III.4.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

III.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Incumbent Advantage Prohibition Invoked Against AE&R Recruitment Strategy
type: IncumbentAdvantageProhibitioninPublicProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AE&R's competitive positioning relative to other AE firms
appliedto: AE&R's future City contract submissions
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Firm AE&R Preferred Engineering Contractor
invokedby: Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
principleclass: Incumbent Advantage Prohibition in Public Procurement
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Loyalty Principle Tension in Engineer D Dual Obligations
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer D's future conduct regarding City-related work at AE&R
appliedto: Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to AE&R
balancingwith: Client Loyalty to new employer AE&R
balancingwith: Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance
balancingwith: Revolving Door Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Engineer D Revolving Door Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Mid-Sized Municipality City Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:36.547233+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Firm AE&R Recruiting Former Public Official'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Engineer D Former City Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: Engineer D who resigned the position as City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality
textreferences: Engineer D could voluntarily abstain from participation in procurement matters before the City
textreferences: Engineer D who resigned the position as City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality
textreferences: disclosure by Engineer D and acceptance by the City may cure the matter
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.519959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Municipality Public Responsibility Role
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:50.915470+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Revolving door transition'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer D'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: a mid-sized municipality that has been experiencing rapid growth along with rapid infrastructure growth
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
textreferences: a mid-sized municipality that has been experiencing rapid growth along with rapid infrastructure growth
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Fundamental-Canon-1-6
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon 1.6 – Honorable and Ethical Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Consistent with Fundamental Canon 1.6, such values form the context of an engineer's professional relationships and apply in this case
textreferences: Consistent with Fundamental Canon 1.6, such values form the context of an engineer's professional relationships and apply in this case
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the overarching normative framework for Engineer D's situation
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518693
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-4-a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.a – Conflict of Interest Disclosure
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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)
textreferences: 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)
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer D's conflict of interest disclosure requirements
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-4-c
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.c – Prohibition on Improper Career Advancement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Code Sections II.4.c and III.6 which prohibit engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method
textreferences: Code Sections II.4.c and III.6 which prohibit engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in identifying ethical constraints on Engineer D
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-4-e
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4.e – Conflict of Interest for Public Officials
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 11-12 analysis
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II-5-b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.b – Prohibition on Improper Inducement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Firm AE&R's obligations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III-4
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4 – Continuing Confidentiality Obligation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Confidentiality is another ethical obligation that continues after one severs employment (Code Section III.4)
textreferences: Confidentiality is another ethical obligation that continues after one severs employment (Code Section III.4)
textreferences: Engineer D should not use or disclose confidential information acquired during the course of or by reason of duties or employment with the City
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in identifying Engineer D's post-employment obligations
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-III-6
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 – Prohibition on Improper Career Advancement Methods
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:28:11.805846+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Code Sections II.4.c and III.6 which prohibit engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method
textreferences: Code Sections II.4.c and III.6 which prohibit engineers from advancing their professional careers by any improper or questionable method
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in identifying ethical constraints on Engineer D
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.518543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer
usedby: Engineer D; ethical reviewers analyzing the case
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.515258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Participation in Contract Negotiations
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Participation in Contract Negotiations (Action 1) → Conflict of Interest State Established (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance Invoked for Engineer D and AE&R
type: Post-Public-ServiceConflictAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AE&R's recruitment strategy
appliedto: City's ongoing procurement of AE services
appliedto: Engineer D's acceptance of AE&R position
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional employment freedom
balancingwith: Revolving Door Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
principleclass: Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Prior AE&R Contract History Exposed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Invoked for Engineer D Case
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Future City contract awards to AE&R
appliedto: Integrity of municipal AE procurement process
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Revolving Door Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Municipality Public Responsibility Role
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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)
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.521674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked for Engineer D Revolving Door Conduct
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer D's decision to accept AE&R position
appliedto: Engineer D's responsibility to disclose and manage the conflict
balancingwith: Client Loyalty to AE&R
balancingwith: Professional freedom of employment
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
tensionresolution: Accountability requires affirmative action — disclosure, recusal, and ethical screening — not merely compliance with formal contractual minimums
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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)
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Public-Official-Conflict-of-Interest-Standard
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE; state engineering ethics bodies; municipal ethics authorities
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional and Ethical Standards Governing Conflicts of Interest for Engineers in Public Official Roles
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Engineer D; AE&R firm; City administration
usedincontext: 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
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer D Revolving Door Case
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AE&R's continued pursuit of City contracts
appliedto: Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to AE&R associate
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional freedom of employment
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Municipality Public Responsibility Role
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.517069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Qualification-Based-Selection-Procurement-Law-Municipal
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Municipal and state legislative bodies
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Municipal Qualification-Based Selection and Procurement Requirements for Engineering Services
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:26:34.671444+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: 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)
textreferences: 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)
textreferences: the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
usedby: Engineer D as City Engineer; AE&R in future proposal submissions; City procurement officials
usedincontext: 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
version: Current local statutes
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.516290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Is it ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with AE&R?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716800
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Is it ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.716991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Question_405
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 405
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.717599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Resignation and Partial Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.526908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Resignation and Partial Disclosure (Action 2) → Engineer D's Resignation Announced / AE&R Public Hire Announcement (Events 1 & 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.720835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T21:02:35.721282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Revolving Door Integrity Invoked for Engineer D Transition
type: RevolvingDoorIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: AE&R's future City contract pursuits involving Engineer D
appliedto: Engineer D's conduct at AE&R regarding City-related work
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Post-Public-Service Conflict Avoidance
balancingwith: Professional freedom of employment
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Engineer D Revolving Door Engineer
principleclass: Revolving Door Integrity
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

State X highway department's refusal (Case 15-8) before Engineer P joining AE firm as independent contractor (Case 15-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked for Disclosure of Engineer D Transition
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Disclosure to City of AE&R's recruitment of former contracting authority
appliedto: Disclosure to City of Engineer D's new employment
balancingwith: Client confidentiality regarding AE&R's business strategy
balancingwith: Revolving Door Integrity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 10
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 10
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T20:30:42.376289+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer D Former City Engineer
invokedby: Firm AE&R Recruiting Former City Engineer
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
wasattributedto: Case 10 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.522821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

Voluntary Recusal from City Projects
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

confidentiality obligation overlaps Engineer D's post-employment period at AE&R
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.528020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

contract negotiations by US government engineers (Case 58-1) overlaps engineers' active US government employment (Case 58-1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

engineers' resignation from US government (Case 58-1) meets entry into contract with foreign government (Case 58-1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction

one-year cooling-off period (Case 15-8 / Engineer D scenario) starts Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:47:25.527962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 10 Extraction