NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case on Engineer Legislative Testimony and Professional Criticism
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution
freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
Future engineers and ethics reviewers facing analogous situations
This case itself constitutes a BER case precedent establishing norms for engineers testifying before legislative bodies with competing technical analyses and engaging in professional criticism of each other's work
BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition
Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Engineering Approaches Recognition Capability
The BER possessed the capability to recognize that for a large and complicated engineering problem such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches all based on sound engineering principles, and that the approach finally adopted may properly reflect public policy determinations as well as engineering diagnoses.
BER review of ethics complaints arising from competing legislative testimony on dam configuration for water-power complex
BER determination that both the low-dams and one-high-dam positions represent sound engineering approaches and that neither engineer can be said to be 'incorrect'
BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition
Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment Recognition
Public Policy Infrastructure Decision Engineering Efficiency Override Non-Indictment Capability
The BER possessed the capability to recognize that when the state legislature resolves the dam configuration question through public policy considerations, the engineer whose technically sound but policy-overridden recommendation was not adopted is not thereby shown to have been incorrect, unethical, or incompetent.
BER review of ethics complaints arising from competing legislative testimony on dam configuration; legislature may ultimately decide based on public policy rather than pure engineering efficiency
BER determination that public policy override of engineering efficiency recommendation does not constitute ethical indictment of the efficiency-advocating engineer
BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
Both Engineers Competing Public Goods Balanced Legislative Testimony Constraint
Engineers testifying before state legislative committee on dam configuration affecting water supply, flood control, and electric power production
Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE were constrained to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in their legislative testimony, prohibiting the distortion, suppression, or selective omission of findings that favor one public good over another in the presentation of their competing dam configuration analyses.
NSPE Canon 7; Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint; BER case discussion
Large public projects are notably in this category, and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy.
the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area
Both Engineers Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Permissibility
BER evaluating whether engineers' competing legislative testimony positions were ethically permissible
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
The BER was constrained to recognize that the correctness or ultimate validity of each engineer's dam configuration opinion was not germane to the ethics evaluation — it was sufficient that each engineer was sincere in the opinion and believed it served the public interest, prohibiting the conditioning of advocacy permissibility on the engineer's ability to prove the substantive correctness of the low-dams or high-dam position.
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint; BER case discussion
During ethics review of the legislative testimony
There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness — Due-Restraint Self-Application
Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
The Canon 24 peer critic engineering witness must possess the capability to apply due restraint when publicly criticizing another engineer's work — avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions and data, and offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks.
Public criticism of another engineer's work in any forum including legislative committees, commissions, courts, and engineering society gatherings
Offering public criticism of another engineer's work before a public body, commission, court, or engineering society gathering with due restraint per Canon 24
Canon 24 Peer Critic Engineering Witness
Canon 24- 'He will exercise due restraint in criticizing another engineer's work in public, recognizing the fact that the engineering societies and the engineering press provide the proper forum for technical discussions and criticism.'
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
CausalLink_Evaluate Engineers' Ethical Co
CausalLink_Publicly Criticize Opposing An
Technical analyses entered into public record; both engineers now publicly accountable for accuracy and integrity of submitted data; conditions for mutual criticism established
Both engineers submitted voluminous engineering data in support of their respective positions (low dams vs. single high dam), making their technical analyses part of the public legislative record and available for scrutiny.
It is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
Beyond the Board's finding that conflicting engineering opinions at legislative hearings are ethically permissible, the analysis must recognize that each engineer's retained status creates a structural tension that does not automatically constitute an ethical violation but does impose an affirmative disclosure obligation. Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE represent institutional parties with direct financial or regulatory stakes in the legislative outcome. The ethical permissibility of their testimony is conditioned not merely on the technical quality of their analyses but on the legislature's ability to weigh that testimony with full awareness of each witness's institutional affiliation. Failure to disclose such affiliation at the outset of testimony would constitute an independent ethical violation — separate from and not cured by the technical soundness of the engineering data submitted — because it deprives the legislative committee of information essential to calibrating the weight and potential bias of expert opinion. The Board's conclusion of permissibility implicitly assumes such disclosure occurred; where it does not, the ethical calculus changes materially.
The Board's standard of 'high level of professional deportment' as the operative constraint on permissible peer criticism, while directionally sound, is insufficiently specified to function as a practically enforceable ethical boundary. The standard identifies the outer limit — that criticism must not descend into personal disparagement of competence or integrity — but provides no intermediate guidance for the wide range of conduct between dispassionate technical disagreement and outright personal attack. Specifically, the standard does not address whether an engineer may characterize an opposing engineer's methodology as fundamentally flawed versus merely reaching a different conclusion from the same data, whether rhetorical emphasis or selective presentation of data constitutes a deportment violation, or who bears institutional responsibility for making that determination in real time before a legislative body. The Board's framework would be strengthened by recognizing that the deportment standard imposes a self-regulatory obligation on each engineer — requiring each to affirmatively distinguish technical criticism of methodology and conclusions from any implication of bad faith or professional incompetence on the part of the opposing engineer — and that crossing this line would trigger violations of the canons governing relations with fellow engineers regardless of the public interest context of the testimony.
The Board's conclusion that conflicting engineering opinions are ethically permissible does not fully resolve the deeper epistemic obligation that both engineers bear when testifying on questions involving genuinely indeterminate variables. The dam design controversy necessarily rests on projected population growth, future water demand, long-range cost estimates, and hydrological forecasts — all of which carry inherent uncertainty that cannot be resolved by engineering analysis alone. An engineer who presents conclusions derived from such estimates with unqualified confidence, without acknowledging the range of uncertainty or the sensitivity of conclusions to changes in underlying assumptions, risks misleading the legislative committee even if every individual data point submitted is accurate. The ethical obligation of objectivity and data-grounded testimony therefore extends beyond the accuracy of submitted data to encompass an affirmative duty to characterize the epistemic status of that data — distinguishing established engineering fact from projection, and identifying where reasonable engineers applying sound methodology could reach materially different conclusions depending on which assumptions are adopted. Both engineers' submission of voluminous data satisfies the completeness obligation but does not by itself discharge the epistemic humility obligation, which requires explicit acknowledgment of the indeterminate factors underlying each position. Failure to make such acknowledgment, while not necessarily rising to the level of a canon violation in every instance, represents a meaningful departure from the full objectivity standard that legislative bodies are entitled to expect from retained engineering experts.
The Board's framework for permissible legislative advocacy by retained engineers implicitly treats the advocacy-objectivity tension as resolved by the requirement of good faith and factual grounding, but does not address the structural problem that arises when an engineer's honest technical conviction and the client's institutional interest happen to be perfectly aligned. The ethical analysis cannot simply presume good faith where the engineer's position mirrors the client's financial interest without independent verification that the engineer's conviction preceded and is independent of the retention relationship. A more complete ethical framework would require each engineer to be able to demonstrate — at least to themselves and to the profession — that their technical conclusion was reached through independent analysis and would have been the same regardless of who retained them. This does not mean that retained engineers cannot advocate for positions that benefit their clients; it means that the ethical legitimacy of such advocacy depends on the integrity of the analytical process that generated the conclusion, not merely on the technical quality of the data submitted in support of it. Where an engineer cannot make this showing, the testimony may satisfy the formal requirements of the canons while falling short of the substantive objectivity standard that gives expert legislative testimony its ethical justification.
The Board's conclusion that legislative committees constitute appropriate forums for engineering peer criticism — extending the permissibility of such criticism beyond courts and regulatory commissions to legislative bodies — carries an important but unaddressed corollary: the adversarial dynamic that peer criticism generates in a legislative setting may, if unchecked, distort rather than inform legislative deliberation. Unlike courts, which have procedural mechanisms for managing expert testimony and cross-examination, or regulatory commissions with technical staff capable of independently evaluating competing analyses, legislative committees typically lack the institutional capacity to adjudicate between two bodies of voluminous, technically complex, and mutually contradictory engineering data. The ethical permissibility of mutual criticism therefore does not guarantee that such criticism produces better legislative outcomes; it may instead create a spectacle of expert disagreement that leaves legislators less informed than a single, balanced, neutral technical assessment would have done. Engineers appearing before legislative bodies therefore bear a heightened obligation — beyond what the Board explicitly articulates — to structure their criticism constructively, identifying not merely the flaws in the opposing analysis but the specific factual or methodological questions that the legislature would need to resolve in order to make an informed policy choice. This obligation does not prohibit advocacy but channels it toward the legislature's actual informational needs rather than toward the rhetorical defeat of the opposing engineer.
The Board's framework correctly insulates good-faith, data-grounded engineering testimony from retroactive ethical indictment based on subsequent project failure, but this protection is not unconditional and its limits deserve explicit articulation. If a legislative body adopts one engineer's recommended approach and that approach subsequently causes public harm, the ethical analysis of the testimony does not change retroactively — provided the engineer's testimony accurately represented the state of engineering knowledge at the time, acknowledged material uncertainties, and did not suppress or mischaracterize data that would have been material to the legislative decision. However, if post-adoption evidence reveals that the engineer possessed information at the time of testimony that was inconsistent with the conclusions presented — or that the engineer's confidence in projections was not warranted by the underlying data — the retroactive ethical analysis would be substantially different. Furthermore, the Board's framework does not address whether the engineer whose approach was rejected retains any continuing professional obligation after the legislative decision is made. Where the rejected engineer has identified specific safety risks or unresolved technical vulnerabilities in the adopted approach, the public interest canon may impose a residual obligation to bring those concerns to appropriate authorities — not to relitigate the legislative decision, but to ensure that implementation proceeds with awareness of the risks that the legislative process may not have fully resolved.
In response to Q101: The fact that each engineer is retained by and represents an interested party creates a material conflict of interest that should be affirmatively disclosed to the legislative committee before testimony begins. While the Board's conclusion focuses on the permissibility of conflicting opinions and peer criticism, it does not address the threshold obligation of disclosure. An engineer appearing before a legislative body as an expert witness occupies a dual role — advocate for a client and technical resource for a public deliberative body — and the legislature is entitled to calibrate the weight it assigns to testimony based on the witness's institutional affiliations. Failure to disclose retention by the state power commission or the private power company before offering technical conclusions would constitute an independent ethical violation under the objectivity and public interest canons, regardless of the technical quality of the testimony itself. The ethical permissibility of the testimony's content does not cure a procedural failure to disclose the conditions under which that testimony was produced. Both engineers therefore bear an affirmative pre-testimony disclosure obligation that is logically prior to, and analytically separable from, the Board's finding on the permissibility of conflicting opinions.
In response to Q102: Where the engineering question involves genuinely indeterminate factors — including future population growth, water demand projections, and cost estimates subject to wide variance — both engineers bear an affirmative ethical obligation to explicitly acknowledge the epistemic limits of their analyses to the legislative committee, rather than presenting conclusions with unqualified confidence. The Board's conclusion permits conflicting opinions and peer criticism but implicitly assumes that the testimony is grounded in factual data. However, when the underlying data itself rests on estimates and projections that are inherently uncertain, presenting conclusions as though they were determinate findings would mislead the legislature about the reliability of the technical basis for each position. Epistemic humility is not merely a professional virtue in this context; it is an ethical requirement flowing from the public interest canon. An engineer who presents cost or demand projections as settled facts, knowing they are estimates subject to significant variance, crosses from permissible advocacy into a form of misrepresentation that the Board's framework does not sanction. Both engineers' obligations to submit voluminous data are necessary but not sufficient — the data must be accompanied by honest characterization of its limitations.
In response to Q103: If the legislature adopts the engineering approach that one of the testifying engineers opposed, that engineer's professional duty does not categorically terminate at the moment of legislative decision. The Board's conclusion addresses the permissibility of testimony and peer criticism during the hearing process, but does not resolve what obligations survive the legislative outcome. Where the engineer who advocated against the adopted approach possesses specific technical knowledge of unresolved safety risks or material uncertainties that were not fully credited in the legislative deliberation, the public interest canon imposes a continuing obligation to flag those concerns through appropriate channels — not to relitigate the policy decision, but to ensure that implementation proceeds with awareness of known risks. This continuing obligation is narrower than the testimony obligation: it does not require the engineer to publicly oppose the legislature's choice, but it does require the engineer to communicate safety-relevant information to appropriate authorities if implementation proceeds in a manner that the engineer reasonably believes creates public danger. The engineer's role as a retained advocate ends with the legislative decision; the engineer's role as a professional with public safety obligations does not.
In response to Q104: The standard of 'high level of professional deportment' required for permissible peer criticism is insufficiently defined to function as a meaningfully enforceable ethical constraint in the legislative hearing context. The Board's conclusion conditions ethical permissibility on this standard without specifying what conduct it prohibits, who bears responsibility for making the determination, or what procedural mechanism exists for enforcement before a legislative body. In practice, the standard operates as a post-hoc evaluative criterion rather than a prospective behavioral guide. The responsibility for determining when criticism has crossed from legitimate technical challenge into unprofessional conduct falls ambiguously across multiple actors — the engineers themselves through self-regulation, the legislative committee through its procedural authority, and the NSPE Board through retrospective ethics review — without clear allocation of primary responsibility. This ambiguity is not merely academic: in an adversarial legislative hearing where both engineers are retained advocates with institutional interests at stake, the incentive structure may systematically push toward more aggressive criticism than the deportment standard contemplates, with no real-time enforcement mechanism to check it. The Board should articulate specific behavioral markers — such as prohibitions on impugning professional integrity, mischaracterizing opposing data, or making claims unsupported by submitted evidence — to give the deportment standard operational content.
In response to Q201: The principle of loyalty to client within ethical limits and the objectivity obligation create a genuine and underappreciated tension in the legislative testimony context that the Board's conclusion does not fully resolve. An engineer retained by the state power commission or a private power company is not a neutral expert; the engineer is an institutional advocate whose analysis was commissioned to support a predetermined preferred outcome. The ethical framework permits this arrangement but requires that advocacy remain grounded in honest technical conviction. The critical boundary is crossed when an engineer selectively presents data, omits material uncertainties, or frames conclusions in ways designed to obscure rather than illuminate the technical landscape for the legislature. Permissible loyal representation means presenting the strongest honest case for the client's preferred approach; it does not permit suppressing data that would undermine that case or overstating the certainty of projections that are genuinely contested. The legislature, as the ultimate decision-making authority on a public infrastructure question, is entitled to the full technical picture even when that picture is inconvenient for the retaining client. Engineers who subordinate completeness of disclosure to client preference cross from loyal advocacy into a compromise of objectivity that the canons do not permit.
In response to Q203 and Q301: The ethical analysis of whether both engineers fulfilled their duty of objectivity and honest conviction cannot rest on a bare presumption of good faith when each engineer's position aligns perfectly with the financial or institutional interests of their retaining client. The Board's framework implicitly assumes good faith without requiring affirmative evidence that each engineer's honest technical conviction preceded and is independent of client retention. From a deontological perspective, this is an insufficient basis for ethical clearance: the duty of objectivity is not satisfied merely by the absence of proven bad faith; it requires that the engineer's professional judgment be genuinely independent of client pressure. The ethical analysis should therefore require, at minimum, that each engineer be able to demonstrate that their technical conclusions were reached through independent analysis and would have been the same regardless of which party retained them. Where an engineer's conclusions track client interests with perfect fidelity across every contested technical question — cost estimates, efficiency projections, growth assumptions — the alignment itself becomes ethically relevant evidence that warrants scrutiny rather than presumptive acceptance. The Board's conclusion is correct that honest disagreement is permissible, but the honesty of the disagreement should not be assumed; it should be a condition that each engineer is expected to be able to substantiate.
In response to Q204 and Q302: The extension of the peer criticism forum to legislative committees raises a consequentialist concern that the Board's conclusion does not adequately address: adversarial mutual criticism between retained experts may distort rather than improve legislative deliberation by substituting the appearance of technical debate for the substantive technical guidance that the legislature actually needs. In a model where both testifying engineers are retained advocates, the legislature receives not two independent expert opinions but two institutionally filtered analyses, each optimized to support a predetermined conclusion. The mutual criticism that results may illuminate genuine technical disagreements, but it may equally reflect strategic efforts to undermine the opposing position rather than honest engagement with its merits. From a consequentialist perspective, the question is whether this adversarial model produces better public policy outcomes than alternatives — such as requiring the legislature to also commission testimony from unaffiliated neutral engineers, or requiring retained engineers to explicitly identify the strongest technical arguments for the opposing position before criticizing it. The Board's conclusion that the practice is ethically permissible does not establish that it is epistemically optimal for legislative decision-making, and the ethical framework would be strengthened by acknowledging this gap and encouraging supplementary mechanisms for ensuring that legislative bodies receive genuinely disinterested technical input alongside retained expert advocacy.
In response to Q402: If either engineer's criticism of the other had crossed from technical analysis into personal disparagement of the opposing engineer's competence or integrity, the Board's finding of ethical permissibility would be reversed. The condition of 'high level of professional deportment' that the Board identifies as necessary for permissible peer criticism would be violated by conduct that attacks the opposing engineer as a professional rather than engaging with the technical substance of the opposing analysis. Specific canons implicated would include those requiring engineers to act with honesty and integrity, to avoid conduct that tends to bring discredit upon the profession, and to treat professional colleagues with respect. The ethical distinction is between saying 'the opposing analysis reaches an incorrect conclusion because it underestimates sedimentation rates based on the data submitted' — which is permissible technical criticism — and saying 'the opposing engineer is incompetent or has produced a dishonest analysis' — which is personal disparagement that the canons do not permit. The legislative forum does not lower the standard of professional conduct; if anything, the public and civic character of legislative testimony heightens the obligation to model professional behavior, because disparagement before a legislative committee damages not only the targeted engineer's reputation but also public confidence in engineering expertise as a reliable basis for infrastructure policy.
In response to Q403: If the legislature adopted the high dam solution and it subsequently failed causing public harm, the ethical analysis of the private power company engineer's testimony would not retroactively change under the Board's framework, provided the testimony was offered in good faith and grounded in honest technical analysis at the time it was given. The Board's framework correctly insulates good-faith, data-grounded testimony from post-hoc ethical indictment based on outcome, because engineering judgment is inherently probabilistic and the ethical quality of testimony must be assessed at the time of the testimony, not in light of subsequent events. However, this insulation is conditional: it applies only where the engineer genuinely believed the analysis was sound and disclosed material uncertainties honestly. If post-failure investigation revealed that the engineer had suppressed known risk data, overstated cost advantages, or presented uncertain projections as settled findings, the ethical analysis would change — not because the dam failed, but because the testimony would be shown to have been dishonest at the time it was given. The outcome-independence of the ethical assessment thus depends entirely on the integrity of the testimony process, reinforcing the importance of the epistemic humility and disclosure obligations identified in response to Q102.
In response to Q404: If both engineers had testified as independent private citizens rather than as retained representatives of institutional clients, the advocacy-objectivity tension identified in the Board's analysis would be substantially reduced but not entirely eliminated. The absence of a retaining client removes the structural incentive to subordinate technical judgment to institutional interest, and eliminates the disclosure obligation regarding client affiliation. However, independent engineers testifying before a legislative committee would still be subject to the same substantive ethical obligations: grounding opinions in honest technical conviction, acknowledging epistemic limits, maintaining professional deportment in peer criticism, and serving the public interest. The ethical framework governing the content and manner of testimony would be materially the same; what would change is the presumptive starting point for assessing good faith. A retained engineer's alignment with client interests requires affirmative explanation; an independent engineer's position is presumptively free of that structural bias. The practical implication is that the ethical analysis of retained legislative witnesses should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny — not because retained engineers are presumed dishonest, but because the structural conditions of their engagement create incentives that independent witnesses do not face, and the ethical framework should be calibrated to account for those structural differences rather than treating retained and independent witnesses as ethically equivalent.
The tension between Loyalty to Client Within Ethical Limits and the Objectivity Obligation for data-grounded legislative testimony was resolved not by subordinating one to the other, but by treating honest, fact-grounded advocacy as simultaneously satisfying both. The Board's framework implicitly holds that a retained engineer who genuinely believes in the technical position being advanced, submits voluminous supporting data, and maintains professional deportment is not compromising objectivity merely by advocating for a client's preferred outcome. The resolution depends critically on the sequence of conviction: the engineer's honest technical judgment must precede and independently ground the advocacy, not be manufactured to serve the client's interest. Where that sequence holds, client loyalty and objectivity are complementary rather than conflicting. Where it does not — where the engineer's conclusion is shaped by the retainer rather than by the analysis — both principles are violated simultaneously. This case teaches that the advocacy-objectivity tension in retained expert testimony is resolved through the internal epistemic condition of honest prior conviction, not through structural independence from the client.
The principle of Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency and the Engineer Public Testimony Role interact in this case to establish a division of institutional authority that has direct ethical implications for how engineers should frame their testimony. The Board's framework recognizes that a legislature may legitimately choose a less efficient engineering solution for policy reasons — balancing water supply, flood control, and power production against cost, environmental impact, and community preference — and that an engineer who advocates purely on efficiency grounds is not thereby misleading the legislature, provided the engineer does not affirmatively misrepresent the policy dimension as settled by engineering analysis alone. The ethical risk arises when an engineer presents a technically superior solution as if it were the only legitimate choice, collapsing the distinction between engineering judgment and policy judgment. This case teaches that the Engineer Public Testimony Role at a legislative hearing carries an implicit obligation to demarcate the boundary between what engineering analysis can determine — relative efficiency, cost estimates, structural feasibility — and what it cannot determine — the weighting of competing public goods, distributional consequences, and community values. Failure to maintain that demarcation does not merely mislead the legislature; it usurps a policy function that belongs to the elected body, constituting an independent ethical failure distinct from any inaccuracy in the technical data itself.
The principle of Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension — treating a legislative committee as a legitimate public body before which peer criticism is permissible — and the principle of Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment interact to create a framework that is permissive in scope but demanding in manner. The Board resolves the tension between these principles not by restricting the forum or the subject matter of criticism, but by imposing a conduct standard — 'high level of professional deportment' — as the sole operative constraint. This resolution has a significant structural implication: it shifts the entire ethical burden from what engineers may say to how they say it, leaving the legislature exposed to the full adversarial force of competing retained expert testimony without any structural mechanism — such as mandatory disclosure of epistemic uncertainty, required acknowledgment of indeterminate factors, or affirmative identification of areas of technical agreement — to help the legislative body distinguish genuine technical disagreement from advocacy-driven framing. The case thus reveals a latent tension between the Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility principle and the Honest Disagreement Permissibility principle: the former authorizes aggressive mutual criticism, while the latter presupposes that disagreement is genuine and not manufactured by the adversarial structure of retained testimony. The deportment standard alone cannot resolve this deeper tension, because professional manner is orthogonal to epistemic sincerity. A more complete ethical framework would require both high deportment and affirmative epistemic transparency — including acknowledgment of the Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy inherent in cost and growth estimates — as joint conditions for permissible peer criticism before a legislative body.
Should the retained engineer affirmatively disclose client affiliation and the associated interest to the legislative committee before offering engineering testimony, or proceed without disclosure and allow the testimony to be evaluated solely on its technical merits?
Each engineer is retained by an interested party — one by a public agency, one by a private company — and must decide whether to affirmatively disclose that retained status and the associated financial or institutional interest to the legislative committee before presenting technical testimony. The retained relationship creates a structural conflict between the engineer's role as an objective technical expert and the client's preferred policy outcome.
Before presenting technical findings, explicitly inform the legislative committee of the retaining party's identity, the nature of the financial or institutional relationship, and any interest the client holds in the legislative outcome, so that committee members can properly calibrate the weight of the testimony.
Present engineering data and conclusions without volunteering the retained relationship, relying on the committee to independently investigate affiliations and treating the technical quality of the submission as sufficient to establish credibility.
Disclose the retained relationship and additionally clarify on the record which elements of the testimony reflect the engineer's independent professional judgment versus positions advanced at the client's direction, preserving the honest-conviction prerequisite while fully informing the legislature.
Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (State Power Commission PE or Private Power Company PE)
Should the testifying engineer present cost and demand projections as definitive engineering conclusions, or explicitly acknowledge to the legislative committee that the opinion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors subject to significant variance?
Both engineers are testifying on a large, complex water-power infrastructure project whose engineering conclusions depend heavily on indeterminate estimates — future population growth, water demand projections, construction cost variances, and equipment efficiency trends. Each engineer must decide whether to present these estimate-dependent conclusions as settled engineering fact or to transparently acknowledge the epistemic uncertainty underlying the analysis.
Deliver cost projections, demand forecasts, and efficiency comparisons as firm engineering findings without qualifying their estimate-based character, maximizing the persuasive force of the testimony in support of the client's preferred solution.
Explicitly inform the legislative committee that the engineering opinion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost by each method, population growth trajectories, and future equipment efficiency — and present the range of uncertainty so that the legislature can properly calibrate the evidentiary weight of the testimony.
Disclose the estimate-based character of the analysis and additionally identify the specific threshold conditions — e.g., higher-than-projected population growth, lower construction cost differentials — under which the opposing engineer's solution would become the more efficient choice, fulfilling the competing-public-goods balanced advisory obligation.
When criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis before the legislative committee, should the engineer confine criticism to technical substance and data, or extend it to characterizations of the opposing engineer's professional competence or motivations?
During legislative testimony, each engineer must decide how to address the opposing engineer's analysis and conclusions. The engineers may criticize the opposing technical work — which is permissible and expected in this adversarial legislative forum — but must choose whether that criticism remains grounded in engineering data and professional deportment or extends into characterizations of the opposing engineer's competence, integrity, or professional judgment.
Limit all criticism of the opposing engineer's work to specific engineering findings, data interpretations, cost methodology, and technical conclusions, offering the committee an alternative analysis rather than characterizing the opposing engineer's competence, motives, or professional integrity — fully satisfying Canon 24's due-restraint requirement.
Go beyond technical disagreement to suggest that the opposing engineer's conclusions reflect incompetence, bias toward the retaining client, or professional failure, framing the disagreement as a question of the opposing engineer's fitness rather than a legitimate difference in engineering judgment.
Criticize the opposing engineer's specific technical methodology and conclusions on engineering grounds while affirmatively acknowledging to the committee that the opposing approach is a technically defensible alternative grounded in sound engineering principles, satisfying both Canon 24 restraint and the multiple-sound-approaches recognition obligation.
After the legislature adopts the opposing engineering approach, does the engineer whose position was rejected have a continuing ethical obligation to flag unresolved safety or technical concerns about the adopted solution, or does the legislative decision extinguish that obligation?
The legislature ultimately adopts the engineering approach that one of the testifying engineers opposed — for example, choosing the high-dam solution over the series of low dams, potentially for public policy reasons unrelated to pure engineering efficiency. The engineer whose preferred approach was rejected must decide whether any continuing ethical obligation attaches to the post-decision phase, particularly if the engineer has residual concerns about the adopted approach.
Accept the legislature's policy determination as a legitimate exercise of public authority that may properly reflect non-engineering considerations, recognize that the adopted approach is technically sound even if not the engineer's preferred solution, and refrain from continuing to advocate for the rejected approach in ways that could undermine implementation of the adopted plan.
Where the engineer holds specific, data-grounded concerns about safety or technical adequacy of the adopted approach — distinct from mere preference for the alternative — discharge a continuing public-welfare obligation by communicating those concerns through appropriate professional or regulatory channels, not as continued advocacy for the rejected solution but as fulfillment of the paramount duty to public safety.
Continue publicly advocating for the rejected engineering solution after the legislative decision, treating the policy determination as reversible and using professional standing to campaign against implementation of the adopted approach, regardless of whether specific safety concerns justify continued intervention.
Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (whose position was not adopted)
Should an ethics adjudicating body treat the alignment of an engineer's technical conclusion with the retaining client's financial interest, or the legislature's rejection of the engineer's preferred approach, as evidence of an ethical violation requiring sanction?
An ethics adjudicating body is evaluating whether either engineer acted unethically by advocating a position that happened to align perfectly with the retaining client's financial interest, or by losing the legislative debate. The adjudicating body must decide whether to treat the alignment between the engineer's technical conclusion and the client's preferred outcome — or the subsequent legislative rejection of one engineer's position — as evidence of ethical failure.
Assess each engineer's conduct exclusively on whether the testimony was grounded in honest professional conviction, supported by complete engineering data, and conducted with professional deportment — treating client-interest alignment and legislative outcome as irrelevant to the ethical evaluation, consistent with the good-faith sincerity sufficiency standard.
Treat the fact that each engineer's technical conclusion aligned with the retaining client's preferred outcome as presumptive evidence that the testimony was advocacy rather than objective engineering judgment, shifting the burden to the engineer to affirmatively disprove client influence on the technical conclusions.
Treat the legislature's adoption of the opposing approach as retrospective evidence that the rejected engineer's analysis was technically unsound or in bad faith, using the policy outcome as a proxy for the quality of the engineering judgment underlying the rejected testimony.
Ethics Adjudicating Body (Board of Ethical Review or equivalent)
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Execution
Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Capability
After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, both engineers and any reviewing ethics body must recognize that the legislative decision is legitimate and that all involved engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions
Legislative resolution of competing dam design proposals; post-decision ethical assessment
Recognition that post-legislative-decision, neither engineer's position constitutes an ethical violation
State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Private Company PE
After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, the private power company PE must recognize that the legislative decision is legitimate and that all involved engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions
Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
Dam Design Legislative Debate Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment
Multi-year public controversy over optimal dam configuration for water supply, flood control, and electric power production resolved by legislative policy determination
Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
When the state legislature ultimately resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question through public policy considerations, neither engineer's technically grounded advocacy position may be retroactively characterized as an ethical violation, and the engineer whose efficiency-based recommendation was not adopted must not be ethically indicted for having presented that position.
BER Case Discussion; principle that large public projects may properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and determinations of public policy
Post-legislative resolution of the dam configuration question
Dam Design Legislative Debate — Post-Decision Acceptance
After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, the State Power Commission PE was required to accept that outcome as legitimate and refrain from continued professional disparagement of the engineer who reached a different conclusion.
Post-legislative-decision context following state legislature's resolution of dam configuration question
Recognition that post-legislative-decision, both engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition Execution
Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
Both the state power commission PE and any reviewing ethics body must recognize that mutual peer criticism between two retained legislative witnesses representing opposing parties is ethically permissible when grounded in technical analysis
Legislative hearing; both PEs criticize each other's engineering analysis as retained witnesses for opposing parties
Recognition that both engineers freely criticizing each other's analysis before the legislature does not constitute an ethical violation
Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (interpretive)
Standard for Public Criticism of Another Engineer's Work
Engineer Professional Criticism Conduct Standard
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
Board of Ethical Review in determining permissible scope of public criticism at hearings
The BER interprets Canon 24's 'due restraint' requirement to mean that public criticism of another engineer must avoid personalities and abuse, and must be grounded in engineering conclusions or alternative analyses — establishing the conduct standard for adversarial expert testimony
Engineer 1 testimony (series of low dams) overlaps Engineer 2 testimony (single high dam)
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies...Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies...Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
Engineer 1 testimony (series of low dams)
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
NSPE / Professional engineering ethics community
Engineer Obligation to Participate in Civic and Legislative Affairs
Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations
Both professional engineers testifying before the legislature
Engineers participate in state legislative hearings on major public infrastructure decisions (water supply, flood control, electric power), fulfilling their professional obligation to contribute technical expertise to civic decision-making
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering community
Professional Norms Governing Public Criticism of Another Engineer's Work
Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
Both professional engineers at the legislative hearing
Each engineer publicly criticizes the other's engineering analysis and findings at the legislative hearing; the standard governs whether such criticism is ethically permissible and under what conditions
Factual and Empirical Grounding Requirement for Engineering Opinion
Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
Canon 7—'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the legitimacy of differing engineering conclusions on the same factual record
Canon 7's requirement that engineers refrain from publicly expressing opinion unless informed as to the facts is cited to establish that engineering opinion must be grounded in factual knowledge — water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc. — even when those facts admit of differing interpretations
NSPE / Professional engineering community
Factual and Empirical Grounding Requirement for Engineering Testimony
engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution
his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution
Both engineers submit voluminous engineering data to support their competing positions, satisfying the requirement that professional commentary and criticism be grounded in factual engineering analysis
Both engineers' conduct formally under ethical scrutiny; professional norms activated as evaluative framework; outcome will establish precedent or guidance for similar cases
Retrospectively, after legislative hearings concluded (Discussion section of case)
The conduct of both engineers during the legislative hearings, including their testimony and mutual criticism, became subject to retrospective ethical analysis by an ethics board or equivalent professional reviewers, constituting a formal professional accountability event.
Narrowing Canon 24's implied forum restriction so as not to impede engineers' duty to participate in public decision-making
Potentially broadening the interpretation of Canon 5 beyond courts and formal tribunals to encompass legislative public hearings
Setting precedent that honest differences of opinion among qualified engineers are professionally legitimate and expected
Obligation to interpret canons in a manner consistent with engineers' duty to serve the public interest
Obligation to provide clear professional ethics guidance to the engineering community
Obligation to resolve apparent conflicts among Canon 5, Canon 7, Canon 24, and Rule 10 in a coherent and principled manner
Engineering practice involves judgment and opinion, not merely recitation of data
Engineers serving as advocates before public bodies is professionally recognized and sanctioned
Engineers' duty to inform public decision-makers should not be subordinated to forum-preference implications of Canon 24
Public criticism of peer engineering work is permissible with due restraint, confined to engineering substance
Establish authoritative professional guidance clarifying when engineers may legitimately advocate competing positions before public bodies, publicly criticize peer analyses, and express opinions on contested engineering matters without violating applicable canons
Ability to identify and resolve tensions among competing professional obligations
Authority to render binding or persuasive professional ethics guidance
Expertise in engineering professional ethics and canon interpretation
Judgment to distinguish permissible advocacy from prohibited conduct
After the legislative hearings, in the case discussion phase
The ethics board or discussion authors chose to retrospectively analyze the professional conduct of both engineers against Canons 5, 7, and 24 and Rule 10, rendering a judgment on the propriety of their testimony and mutual public criticism.
Highway Route Engineering Opinion Witness — Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition
The highway route engineering opinion witness must possess the capability to recognize that both the through-residential-district (efficiency/cost) and through-lightly-populated-area (public policy) highway routing approaches represent sound engineering positions, and that an engineer presenting either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
Highway routing decision involving trade-off between engineering efficiency (through populated district) and public policy (through lightly populated area at greater cost)
Presenting a highway routing point of view — whether efficiency-based or public-policy-based — while recognizing the legitimacy of the competing approach
Highway Route Engineering Opinion Witness
Legislative Dam Design Public Policy Open Debate Appropriate Authority Resolution
Multi-year public and legislative debate over optimal engineering approach to water supply, flood control, and electric power; the legislature is the appropriate authority to resolve the competing engineering positions
Both testifying engineers, the state legislature, and any ethics adjudicating body
Public Policy Engineering Decision Open Debate Appropriate Authority Resolution Constraint
The competing engineering positions on the dam design question — series of low dams versus one high dam — are subject to open public debate before the state legislature, and the ultimate resolution must be made by the legislature as the appropriate public authority; neither engineer nor any ethics body may treat one engineer's professionally grounded position as the exclusive correct answer that forecloses the other's ethical legitimacy.
BER Case No. 79-2; NSPE Code provisions on public policy engineering decisions
The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
Throughout the legislative deliberation process and after resolution
Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
Policy arena opened; competing stakeholders mobilized; engineers placed on notice that technical expertise may be called upon
Beginning of multi-year period (exact date unspecified)
A multi-year legislative debate over water supply, flood control, and power production proposals formally began, creating the institutional context in which competing engineering solutions would be evaluated.
Legislative Debate Initiated → Legislative Hearings Convened
After years of debate, the state legislature formally convened hearings dedicated to evaluating competing proposals, suggesting the sustained legislative debate was the direct precursor to formal hearings
Without the sustained multi-year legislative debate and unresolved competing proposals, formal hearings would likely not have been convened, or would have been convened much later
Absence of prior resolution through informal channels
Existence of unresolved competing proposals (low dams vs. single high dam)
Sustained multi-year legislative interest in water supply, flood control, and power production
Combination of unresolved competing proposals + legislative pressure + public interest in infrastructure outcomes
Legislative Hearing Engineer Civic Service Informed Policy Facilitation
State legislature deliberating on major public infrastructure decisions involving water supply, flood control, and electric power; both engineers submit voluminous data to facilitate informed legislative decision-making
Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Constraint
Both engineers testifying before the state legislative committee must structure and present their testimony and data in a manner that facilitates an informed policy decision by the legislature — including presenting material technical findings, trade-offs, and the basis for their competing conclusions — prohibiting presentation that, while technically accurate in individual findings, fails to provide the legislature with the complete information necessary to make an informed policy choice on the dam design question.
NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions; Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
During legislative hearing testimony and data submission
Official public forum created; engineers formally positioned as expert witnesses; competing analyses placed under public and legislative scrutiny
After multi-year debate period; specific date unspecified
After years of debate, the state legislature formally convened hearings dedicated to evaluating competing water, flood control, and power production proposals, creating an official forum for expert testimony.
Model Law — Section 2(d): Definition of Engineering Practice
The practice of engineering is 'the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to ... creative work. . . .' (Section 2 (d), Model Law).
Board of Ethical Review to ground the nature of engineering practice as opinion-based and judgment-dependent
Cited to define the practice of engineering as the application of special knowledge of mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to creative work, supporting the conclusion that engineering judgment inherently involves opinion and creative application rather than singular correct answers
Mutual Legislative Witness Peer Criticism Permissibility Recognition
Both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis; the permissibility constraint establishes that this mutual criticism is ethically legitimate in the legislative advocacy context
Both testifying engineers and any ethics adjudicating body reviewing their conduct
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Peer Criticism Permissibility Constraint
The mutual criticism of each other's engineering analysis and findings by the two retained legislative witnesses does not constitute an ethics violation — provided the criticism is grounded in engineering data, avoids personalities and abuse, and is not malicious or false — and any ethics body reviewing this conduct is constrained from characterizing such criticism as a violation of professional ethics provisions.
NSPE Canons 5, 7, 24; NSPE Rule 10; Model Law Section 2(d); BER legislative testimony case precedent
Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
During and after legislative hearing; applicable to any subsequent ethics review
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers (historical)
Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment
Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals.
The only Canon which need give us pause is Canon 24 dealing with public criticism of the work of another engineer.
Board of Ethical Review in deliberating on engineer's right to offer contrary expert opinion at public hearings
Canon 5, Canon 7, and Canon 24 are cited as the operative ethical framework governing engineer expert opinion testimony, public expression of engineering views, and public criticism of another engineer's work
NSPE Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 10 (historical)
Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected.
Board of Ethical Review in analyzing whether an engineer may advocate a contrary position at a public hearing
Rule 10 is cited to establish that engineers may serve as advocates for a position, implying that contrary engineering conclusions are professionally expected and permissible
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies
Both professional engineers testifying before the state legislature
Governs the ethical conduct of professional engineers testifying before a state legislative committee, including obligations of honesty, objectivity, and professional criticism
{'entity_type': 'Private corporation', 'interest': 'Electric power production, water infrastructure'}
Private industry entity whose engineering position (one high dam) is represented before the state legislature; retains the testifying PE.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness'}
{'type': 'stakeholder_in', 'target': 'State Legislature Hearings'}
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company
Private Power Company PE Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application
Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application Capability
The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the low-dam series approach is less effective and more expensive — does not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite required to establish a violation of the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation
Legislative hearing; private power company PE criticizes low-dam series analysis as less effective and more expensive than one high dam
Criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis and findings on technical grounds without malicious intent
Private Power Company PE Adverse Technical Conclusion Non-Malicious Non-Violation
Private power company PE criticizes the low-dams engineering analysis as less effective and more expensive; this criticism is grounded in engineering data and does not constitute malicious injury to the opposing engineer's reputation
Ethics adjudicating body reviewing private power company PE's criticism of low-dams approach
Adverse Technical Conclusion Malicious Intent Non-Presumption Constraint
The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's low-dams engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the series-of-low-dams approach is less effective and more expensive — cannot alone constitute a violation of ethics provisions prohibiting injury to another engineer's professional reputation; malicious or false intent is a necessary predicate that must be affirmatively shown and cannot be presumed from the adverse technical conclusion alone.
NSPE Code Section 12; BER precedent on adverse technical conclusion non-presumption of malice
Applicable to any ethics review of the legislative testimony
Private Power Company PE Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Constraint
Private power company PE publicly criticizing state power commission PE's engineering analysis at state legislative hearing on dam configuration
Inter-Engineer Public Policy Criticism Professional Deportment Constraint
The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's low-dams engineering analysis before the state legislative committee, was constrained by Canon 24's due-restraint requirement to avoid personalities and abuse, and to base criticism on engineering conclusions and the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses — not on personal attacks on the opposing engineer's competence or motives.
NSPE Canon 24; BER interpretation that due restraint means avoiding personalities and abuse while grounding criticism in engineering data
During legislative committee testimony and any public criticism of the opposing engineer's work
We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
Private Power Company PE Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
Engineer testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production
Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Testimony Duty Constraint
The Private Power Company PE was not constrained by Canon 24's forum-preference language (engineering society gatherings and engineering press) from testifying before the state legislative committee, because Canon 24's forum implication must not be interpreted as interfering with the engineer's duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance.
NSPE Canon 24; Canon 5; BER interpretation extending Canon 5 testimony obligations to public hearings and procedures
Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press.
Throughout the legislative testimony proceedings
However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
Private Power Company PE Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration
Retained Legislative Witness Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration Capability
The private power company PE was required to calibrate the permissible boundary between legitimate advocacy for the one-high-dam position and impermissible conduct such as misrepresentation or personal attacks on the opposing engineer
Legislative hearing; private power company PE advocates for one high dam while criticizing low-dam series analysis
Freely criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis and findings while remaining within ethical boundaries of professional deportment
Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Execution
Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
The private power company PE was required to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in legislative testimony, ensuring the committee understood the tradeoffs between competing public welfare objectives
Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production
Testifying about engineering analysis addressing water supply, flood control, and electric power production objectives simultaneously
A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory at Legislature
The legislative debate involves multiple competing public goods — water supply, flood control, and electric power — and the engineer's testimony must address these trade-offs honestly
Professional engineer representing the private power company
The private power company PE must acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, and must not distort, suppress, or selectively omit findings that bear on the trade-offs between these competing goods in a manner that misleads the legislative committee.
NSPE Code objectivity provisions; BER Case 98-5 on competing public goods non-distortion
A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power.
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
Private Power Company PE Data Submission Completeness Execution
Legislative Hearing Voluminous Data Submission Completeness Capability
The private power company PE compiled and submitted voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the one-high-dam position, fulfilling the data-submission completeness obligation
Legislative hearing; PE submits engineering analysis supporting one high dam as more effective and less expensive solution
Submission of voluminous engineering data supporting the one-high-dam engineering position to the state legislative committee
Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded High-Dam Legislative Opinion
Engineer submits voluminous engineering data supporting the high-dam position, satisfying the factual-grounding requirement
The private power company PE's advocacy for the one-high-dam approach must be grounded in established facts and completed engineering analysis — the engineer may not publicly express the high-dam position before the legislature unless that position is founded on completed professional analysis.
NSPE Canon 7 (refrain from publicly expressing opinion unless informed as to the facts); Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded Legislative Opinion Constraint
Private power company PE testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration
The Private Power Company PE was constrained by Canon 7 to refrain from publicly expressing the high-dam engineering opinion before the legislative committee unless informed as to the facts relating thereto — requiring that the opinion be grounded in established engineering data including water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, and other relevant physical facts.
NSPE Canon 7; BER recognition that Canon 7 requires engineers to be informed as to the facts before publicly expressing technical opinions
Canon 7-'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
Prior to and during legislative committee testimony
Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Recognition
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Evaluation Capability
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the one-high-dam position served the public interest, without requiring proof that the position was objectively correct
Legislative hearing; ethics review of whether the PE's advocacy testimony was ethically permissible
Testifying sincerely that engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
Private Power Company PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation Recognition
Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
Ethics bodies reviewing the private power company PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (one high dam) from the same facts as the state power commission PE (low dams) constitutes honest technical disagreement, not an ethical violation
Both PEs analyze the same water supply, flood control, and power generation problem and reach different engineering conclusions
Reaching a different engineering conclusion from the same water resource facts as the opposing PE
Private Power Company PE Inter-Engineer Criticism Professional Deportment
Both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis and findings; the deportment constraint governs the manner in which such criticism is permissibly offered
The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee must be offered at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities, abuse, and malicious or false attacks — and must be grounded in engineering conclusions and data rather than personal disparagement.
NSPE Canon 24 (due restraint); NSPE Code Section 12; BER Case Nos. 63-6 and 65-9
During legislative hearing testimony and cross-criticism of opposing engineer
Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Client Affiliation Disclosure
Engineer explicitly identified as 'representing a private power company' — the disclosure obligation is satisfied on the facts of this case
Legislative Testimony Retained Engineer Client Affiliation Disclosure Constraint
The private power company PE must clearly disclose to the legislative committee that the testimony is offered on behalf of the private power company as a retained witness — the engineer may not present the high-dam advocacy in a manner that obscures the client relationship and implies independent expert status.
NSPE Code non-deception provisions; Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
At the outset of and throughout legislative testimony
Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony NSPE Code Conformance
State legislative hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; engineer retained by private power company advocates for one high dam
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
The private power company PE's testimony before the legislative committee must conform fully to the NSPE Code of Ethics — including honesty, objectivity, factual grounding, and avoidance of misleading selectivity — regardless of the advocacy role played on behalf of the company.
NSPE Canons of Ethics (Canons 5, 7, 24); NSPE Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 10
Throughout the legislative hearing testimony and data submission process
Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity Conformance
NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
The private power company PE was required to self-assess whether testimony before the state legislative committee conformed to NSPE Code obligations of objectivity and truthfulness
Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills; PE testifies as retained witness for private power company
Testifying before the legislative committee that engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution
Private Power Company PE Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Single-Answer Recognition
State power commission PE and private power company PE each testified before a state legislative committee advocating competing dam configurations for a water-power complex
Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
The Private Power Company PE's advocacy for one high dam could not be characterized as incorrect or unethical solely because the State Power Commission PE reached a different technically grounded conclusion (series of low dams), as both approaches were based on sound engineering principles applied to the same complex water-power problem.
BER Case Discussion; NSPE Canons 5, 7; BER recognition that large complex engineering problems admit multiple sound approaches
Throughout the legislative testimony and ethics review proceedings
Private Power Company PE Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
The private power company PE and any reviewing ethics body must recognize that mutual peer criticism between two retained legislative witnesses representing opposing parties is ethically permissible when grounded in technical analysis
Legislative hearing; private power company PE criticizes state power commission PE's low-dam analysis
Recognition that freely criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis before the legislature does not constitute an ethical violation
Private Power Company PE NSPE Code Legislative Testimony Conformance
Private power company PE testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision
The Private Power Company PE was constrained to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — including Canon 5's requirement that opinion be founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction, Canon 7's requirement of factual grounding, and Canon 24's due-restraint requirement — prohibiting testimony that was selective in a deceptive manner, factually unsupported, or structured to mislead the legislative body.
NSPE Canons 5, 7, 24; Rule 10; Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
Canon 5- 'He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal.'
Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment Execution
The private power company PE was required to criticize the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee with high-level professional deportment, avoiding personalities and basing criticism on engineering conclusions
Legislative hearing; private power company PE criticizes low-dam series analysis while advocating for one high dam
Freely criticizing the analysis and findings of the opposing engineer before the legislative committee
Private Power Company PE Retained Witness Objectivity Maintenance
Expert Witness Non-Advocate Objectivity in Regulatory Testimony Capability
The private power company PE, as a retained witness before the legislative committee, was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions independent of the private power company's advocacy interests, maintaining objectivity while presenting the one-high-dam position
Legislative hearing; PE testifies as retained witness for private power company on water resource infrastructure
Testifying based on engineering analysis rather than purely on the private power company's commercial interests
Private Power Company PE Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Permissibility Recognition
Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
The private power company PE and reviewing ethics bodies must recognize that reaching a different engineering conclusion (one high dam) from the same water resource facts as the state power commission PE (low dams) is ethically permissible and does not imply misconduct
Reaching the one-high-dam conclusion from the same set of water resource engineering facts analyzed by the opposing PE
Private Power Company PE Technical Fact Command for Legislative Testimony
Technical Fact Command and Reporting Readiness Capability
The private power company PE was required to be fully in command of all relevant engineering facts and data before delivering legislative testimony supporting the one-high-dam position, ensuring the technical basis could withstand scrutiny from the opposing PE and the legislative committee
Legislative hearing; PE must command all engineering facts to support testimony and withstand peer criticism
Submitting voluminous engineering data in support of the one-high-dam position before the legislative committee
Private Power Company PE Voluminous Data Submission Completeness
Engineer satisfies this constraint by submitting voluminous engineering data; the constraint is met on the facts of this case
Retained Legislative Witness Data Completeness and Factual Grounding Constraint
The private power company PE must submit complete and voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the high-dam position — selective or incomplete data submission that misleads the legislature about the engineering basis for the position is prohibited.
NSPE Canon 7; NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions
During legislative hearing data submission
Private Power Company PE Water Resource Multi-Criteria Analysis
Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Engineering Analysis Capability
The private power company PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis supporting the one-high-dam position across water supply, flood control, and electric power production dimensions
Engineering analysis of water supply, flood control, and electric power production alternatives for state legislative consideration
Conducting engineering analysis concluding that one high dam is a more effective and less expensive solution producing the same results
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference Self-Application
Canon 24 Forum Limitation Legislative Duty Non-Interference Self-Application Capability
The Private Power Company PE was required to recognize that Canon 24's forum preference for engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not prohibit — and should not be interpreted as interfering with — the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer must navigate Canon 24 forum limitation language while fulfilling duty to public body
Testifying before the state legislative committee and offering technical criticism of the competing engineering analysis without treating Canon 24 as a prohibition on such public body testimony
Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
Private Power Company PE — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment Capability
The Private Power Company PE was required to possess the capability to acknowledge that the one-high-dam recommendation rested on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost comparisons, population growth, and economic development projections, and to communicate this epistemic uncertainty honestly to the legislative committee.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer testifying for private power company position favoring one high dam
Testifying before the state legislative committee that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, while recognizing that such conclusions are grounded in estimated rather than mathematically certain factors
the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
Private Power Company PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite Self-Verification
Engineering Advocate Honest Conviction Prerequisite Self-Verification Capability
The Private Power Company PE was required to verify, before advocating for the one-high-dam position before the legislative committee, that this advocacy position reflected genuine honest professional conviction rather than mere client instruction.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer serving as retained advocate for private power company position
Advocacy for one-high-dam position before state legislative committee grounded in sincere professional engineering judgment
Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
Private Power Company PE — NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment
The Private Power Company PE was required to self-assess whether the manner, content, and framing of legislative testimony on the one-high-dam position conformed to the NSPE Code of Ethics, including obligations to be objective and truthful and to serve the public interest.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer testifying as retained witness for private power company
Testifying before state legislative committee in a manner consistent with NSPE Code obligations including Canon 5, Canon 7, and Canon 24
Canon 7- 'He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he is informed as to the facts relating thereto.'
Private Power Company PE — Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment
The Private Power Company PE was required to criticize the state power commission PE's engineering analysis before the legislative committee at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions and data, and offering alternative conclusions rather than personal attacks.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer criticizing opposing engineer's analysis before state legislature
Offering technical criticism of the series-of-low-dams engineering analysis before the state legislative committee with due restraint per Canon 24
Private Power Company PE — Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition
The Private Power Company PE was required to recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (one high dam) from the same physical facts as the state power commission PE (series of low dams) is ethically permissible and does not imply that either engineer acted unethically or incompetently.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; both engineers working from same physical fact base but reaching different engineering conclusions
Presenting the one-high-dam engineering conclusion before the state legislative committee based on the same underlying physical facts as the opposing engineer
Professional Reputations Publicly Contested
Both engineers' professional standing now publicly contested; ethics review of their conduct becomes relevant; the legislative record becomes a basis for professional accountability
During and after legislative hearings, following mutual criticism
As a result of both engineers publicly criticizing each other's analyses before the legislature, each engineer's professional competence and judgment became a matter of public record and dispute, placing their reputations at stake.
Framework for Engineer Participation in Public Hearings and Proceedings
Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
This should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
Board of Ethical Review in resolving whether engineer may testify at public hearing contrary to another engineer's conclusions
The BER extends Canon 5's testimony provisions to public hearings and procedures, establishing that engineers have a duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance, even when this involves criticizing another engineer's work
Derived from Canon 5 extension and Canon 24 interpretation
Professional engineering ethics community
Framework for Engineer Participation in Government Legislative Hearings
Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals
Both professional engineers called to testify at legislative hearings
Governs the procedural and normative conditions under which engineers may participate as technical witnesses before a state legislative committee on matters of water supply, flood control, and electric power
Engineering expertise partially delegitimized in the eyes of non-expert observers; legislature forced to make policy decisions without reliable technical consensus; profession's self-regulatory credibility implicated
During and following legislative hearings
The visible public disagreement between two credentialed professional engineers before a legislative body produced an emergent outcome in which the authority of engineering expertise as a reliable guide for public decision-making was implicitly called into question.
State Power Commission Representative and Private Power Company Representative
Potential perception that engineering testimony is advocacy rather than objective science
Public airing of professional disagreement that could undermine public confidence in engineering expertise generally
Risk of crossing into personal criticism or abuse, violating Canon 24's restraint requirement
Canon 5: Offering opinion founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction, including critical evaluation of competing analyses
Duty to client/employer to vigorously advocate for their position by countering opposing arguments
Duty to the public and the legislature to surface engineering weaknesses in competing proposals so decision-makers are fully informed
Canon 24: Due restraint in public criticism of another engineer's work
Criticism confined to engineering conclusions and alternative analyses rather than personal attacks
Transparency and intellectual honesty in surfacing weaknesses in competing technical positions
Undermine the credibility of the opposing engineering position and strengthen the persuasiveness of their own recommendation before the legislative committee
Potential risk of violating Canon 24 if criticism extended beyond engineering conclusions to personalities or abuse (not confirmed as violated in the case, but identified as active constraint)
Ability to critically evaluate and identify weaknesses in competing engineering analyses
Communication skills to present technical critique accessibly to a legislative audience
Expertise sufficient to offer alternative engineering conclusions or data interpretations
Professional judgment to distinguish substantive engineering criticism from personal attack
During legislative hearings, in the course of and following each other's testimony
Both engineers independently chose to publicly criticize each other's engineering analyses and findings during the legislative hearings, each challenging the other's methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions.
Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis → Ethics Review Triggered
The conduct of both engineers during the legislative hearings, including their testimony and mutual criticism, triggered an ethics review, directly linking the public criticism behavior to the initiation of professional ethics scrutiny
If the engineers had limited their disagreement to technical substance without public personal criticism, or had conducted their disagreement through private professional channels, an ethics review would likely not have been triggered
Both engineers engaging in public mutual criticism of each other's analyses
Existence of a professional ethics board or review mechanism with jurisdiction over engineer conduct
The conduct rising to a level perceived as violating professional ethics standards
The criticism occurring in a high-visibility public legislative forum
Both engineers (shared responsibility for triggering review); Ethics board (direct responsibility for initiating review)
Public mutual criticism in a legislative forum combined with the visibility of professional reputational harm was sufficient to trigger formal ethics review
Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis → Professional Reputations Publicly Contested
As a result of both engineers publicly criticizing each other's analyses before the legislature, each engineer's professional reputation became publicly contested, directly linking the act of mutual public criticism to reputational harm
If either or both engineers had confined criticism to private professional channels or refrained from personal attacks on each other's analyses, public reputational contestation would have been significantly reduced or avoided
A public legislative forum amplifying the criticism beyond professional circles
Both engineers independently choosing to publicly criticize each other's engineering analyses
Competing analyses already in the public record providing substantive basis for criticism
Both engineers (shared and symmetric responsibility)
Mutual public criticism in a high-visibility legislative forum, combined with pre-existing competing public analyses, was sufficient to publicly contest both engineers' professional reputations
Publicly Criticize Opposing Analysis → Public Trust In Expertise Strained
The visible public disagreement between two credentialed professional engineers before a legislative body strained public trust in engineering expertise, with the public criticism being the direct visible mechanism eroding that trust
If the engineers had presented their disagreement as a legitimate technical uncertainty with clearly articulated assumptions and limitations, rather than as mutual professional criticism, public trust in expertise may have been maintained or less severely strained
Public and legislators lacking independent technical capacity to adjudicate between competing expert claims
The contradiction occurring in a high-visibility public legislative forum
The criticism being personal or reputational rather than purely technical and constructive
Two credentialed engineers publicly contradicting each other's technical findings
Both engineers (shared responsibility); legislative process design (indirect contributing responsibility)
Visible expert contradiction in a public forum, where the public cannot independently verify which expert is correct, was sufficient to strain public trust in engineering expertise generally
Is there a violation of the Canons of Ethics by one or both engineers' in offering conflicting opinions or in criticizing the work of the other at a hearing on an engineering project in the interest of the public?
Does the fact that each engineer is retained by and represents an interested party — one a public agency, one a private company — create an undisclosed conflict of interest that should be affirmatively disclosed to the legislative committee before testimony begins, and does failure to do so constitute an independent ethical violation regardless of the technical quality of the testimony?
Where the engineering question involves genuinely indeterminate factors — such as future population growth, water demand projections, and cost estimates subject to wide variance — are the engineers ethically obligated to explicitly acknowledge the epistemic limits of their analyses to the legislative committee, rather than presenting their conclusions with unqualified confidence?
If the legislature ultimately adopts the engineering approach that one of the testifying engineers opposed, does that engineer have any continuing ethical obligation — such as flagging safety concerns or unresolved technical risks — or does the engineer's professional duty end when the legislative decision is made?
Does the standard of 'high level of professional deportment' required for permissible peer criticism impose a meaningfully enforceable constraint, or is it so vague that it provides no practical ethical guidance — and who bears responsibility for determining when criticism has crossed from legitimate technical challenge into unprofessional conduct before a legislative body?
Does the principle of Loyalty to Client Within Ethical Limits conflict with the Objectivity Obligation requiring data-grounded legislative testimony — and specifically, at what point does an engineer's advocacy for a client's preferred dam design cross from permissible loyal representation into a compromise of the objectivity that legislative bodies are entitled to expect from expert witnesses?
Does the principle of Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency conflict with the Engineer Public Testimony Role at a legislative infrastructure hearing — and if a legislature may legitimately choose a less efficient engineering solution for policy reasons, does an engineer who advocates purely on efficiency grounds risk misleading the legislature about the full range of considerations it is entitled to weigh?
Does the principle of Honest Disagreement Permissibility conflict with Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity when one or both engineers' positions happen to align perfectly with their clients' financial or institutional interests — and should the ethical analysis require affirmative evidence that each engineer's honest conviction preceded and is independent of client retention, rather than merely assuming good faith?
Does the principle of Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension — treating a legislative committee as a legitimate public body before which peer criticism is permissible — conflict with the principle of Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution, insofar as aggressive mutual criticism between retained experts may distort rather than inform legislative deliberation, effectively substituting adversarial advocacy for the disinterested technical guidance that the legislature actually needs?
From a deontological perspective, did both engineers fulfill their duty of objectivity and honest conviction when testifying before the state legislature, given that each was retained by a party with a financial or institutional stake in the outcome?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the practice of allowing retained engineers with opposing institutional affiliations to publicly criticize each other's analyses before a legislative committee produce better public policy outcomes than a model in which only neutral, unaffiliated experts testify?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did both engineers demonstrate the professional virtues of intellectual honesty, epistemic humility, and civic responsibility when they submitted voluminous engineering data and openly criticized each other's analyses before the legislative committee, particularly given the inherent indeterminacy of cost and growth estimates underlying each position?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Canon requiring engineers to act in the public interest impose a categorical duty on retained legislative witnesses to disclose the limitations and uncertainties of their own analyses — not merely to criticize the opposing engineer's findings — and did both engineers in this case satisfy that duty?
If either engineer had failed to disclose their institutional affiliation — the state power commission or the private power company — at the outset of their legislative testimony, would the Board's conclusion of ethical permissibility have changed, and what additional obligations would have been triggered?
What if one engineer's criticism of the other had crossed from technical analysis into personal disparagement of the opposing engineer's competence or integrity — would the Board's finding of ethical permissibility have been reversed, and which specific canons would have been violated?
If the legislature had ultimately adopted the high dam solution over the low dams recommendation, and the high dam subsequently failed causing public harm, would the ethical analysis of the private power company engineer's testimony retroactively change — or does the Board's framework insulate good-faith, data-grounded testimony from post-hoc ethical indictment regardless of outcome?
What if both engineers had been retained not by institutional clients but had testified as independent private citizens — would the ethical framework governing their mutual criticism and conflicting opinions have been materially different, and would the advocacy-objectivity tension identified by the Board have been resolved more easily?
Engineer Affiliation and Client Representation Disclosure in Legislative Testimony
Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
Each engineer testifies while explicitly representing a specific client (state power commission and private power company respectively), raising obligations of transparent affiliation disclosure before the legislative body
{'entity_type': 'Legislative body', 'function': 'Receiving testimony and recommendations on pending infrastructure legislation'}
Legislative committee convening hearings to receive technical comments and recommendations on proposed bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
{'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness'}
{'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness'}
Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered
{'entity_type': 'Government agency', 'jurisdiction': 'State level', 'interest': 'Water supply, flood control, and electric power policy'}
Public agency whose engineering position (low dams) is represented before the state legislature; retains or employs the testifying PE.
{'type': 'employs_or_retains', 'target': 'State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness'}
A professional engineer representing the state power commission
State Power Commission PE Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application
The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the high-dam approach is less efficient — does not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite required to establish a violation of the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation
Legislative hearing; state power commission PE criticizes high-dam analysis as less efficient than low-dam series
State Power Commission PE Adverse Technical Conclusion Non-Malicious Non-Violation
State power commission PE criticizes the high-dam engineering analysis as less efficient; this criticism is grounded in engineering data and does not constitute malicious injury to the opposing engineer's reputation
Ethics adjudicating body reviewing state power commission PE's criticism of high-dam approach
The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's high-dam engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the high-dam approach is less efficient and more expensive — cannot alone constitute a violation of ethics provisions prohibiting injury to another engineer's professional reputation; malicious or false intent is a necessary predicate that must be affirmatively shown and cannot be presumed from the adverse technical conclusion alone.
State Power Commission PE Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Constraint
State power commission PE publicly criticizing private power company PE's engineering analysis at state legislative hearing on dam configuration
The State Power Commission PE, in criticizing the Private Power Company PE's high-dam engineering analysis before the state legislative committee, was constrained by Canon 24's due-restraint requirement to avoid personalities and abuse, and to base criticism on engineering conclusions and the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses — not on personal attacks on the opposing engineer's competence or motives.
State Power Commission PE Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
The State Power Commission PE was not constrained by Canon 24's forum-preference language (engineering society gatherings and engineering press) from testifying before the state legislative committee, because Canon 24's forum implication must not be interpreted as interfering with the engineer's duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance.
State Power Commission PE Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration
The state power commission PE was required to calibrate the permissible boundary between legitimate advocacy for the low-dams position and impermissible conduct such as misrepresentation or personal attacks on the opposing engineer
Legislative hearing; state power commission PE advocates for low-dam series while criticizing high-dam analysis
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution
State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Execution
The state power commission PE was required to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in legislative testimony, ensuring the committee understood the tradeoffs between competing public welfare objectives
Testifying about engineering studies addressing water supply, flood control, and electric power production objectives simultaneously
engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams
State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory at Legislature
Professional engineer representing the state power commission
The state power commission PE must acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, and must not distort, suppress, or selectively omit findings that bear on the trade-offs between these competing goods in a manner that misleads the legislative committee.
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
State Power Commission PE Data Submission Completeness Execution
The state power commission PE compiled and submitted voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position, fulfilling the data-submission completeness obligation
Legislative hearing; PE submits engineering studies and data supporting low-dam series as most efficient engineering solution
Submission of voluminous engineering data supporting the series-of-low-dams engineering position to the state legislative committee
State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Legislative Opinion Constraint
State power commission PE testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration
The State Power Commission PE was constrained by Canon 7 to refrain from publicly expressing the low-dams engineering opinion before the legislative committee unless informed as to the facts relating thereto — requiring that the opinion be grounded in established engineering data including water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, and other relevant physical facts.
State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Low-Dams Legislative Opinion
Engineer submits voluminous engineering data supporting the low-dams position, satisfying the factual-grounding requirement
The state power commission PE's advocacy for the series-of-low-dams approach must be grounded in established facts and completed engineering analysis — the engineer may not publicly express the low-dams position before the legislature unless that position is founded on completed professional studies.
State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Recognition
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the low-dams position served the public interest, without requiring proof that the position was objectively correct
Testifying sincerely that engineering studies support the low-dams position as the most efficient engineering solution
State Power Commission PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation Recognition
Ethics bodies reviewing the state power commission PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (low dams) from the same facts as the private power company PE (high dam) constitutes honest technical disagreement, not an ethical violation
State Power Commission PE Inter-Engineer Criticism Professional Deportment
The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee must be offered at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities, abuse, and malicious or false attacks — and must be grounded in engineering conclusions and data rather than personal disparagement.
State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Client Affiliation Disclosure
Engineer explicitly identified as 'representing the state power commission' — the disclosure obligation is satisfied on the facts of this case
The state power commission PE must clearly disclose to the legislative committee that the testimony is offered on behalf of the state power commission as a retained witness — the engineer may not present the low-dams advocacy in a manner that obscures the client relationship and implies independent expert status.
State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony NSPE Code Conformance
State legislative hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; engineer retained by state power commission advocates for series of low dams
The state power commission PE's testimony before the legislative committee must conform fully to the NSPE Code of Ethics — including honesty, objectivity, factual grounding, and avoidance of misleading selectivity — regardless of the advocacy role played on behalf of the commission.
State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity Conformance
The state power commission PE was required to self-assess whether testimony before the state legislative committee conformed to NSPE Code obligations of objectivity and truthfulness
Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills; PE testifies as retained witness for state power commission
Testifying before the legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution
State Power Commission PE Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Single-Answer Recognition
The State Power Commission PE's advocacy for a series of low dams could not be characterized as incorrect or unethical solely because the Private Power Company PE reached a different technically grounded conclusion (one high dam), as both approaches were based on sound engineering principles applied to the same complex water-power problem.
State Power Commission PE NSPE Code Legislative Testimony Conformance
State power commission PE testifying before state legislative committee on major public infrastructure decision
The State Power Commission PE was constrained to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — including Canon 5's requirement that opinion be founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction, Canon 7's requirement of factual grounding, and Canon 24's due-restraint requirement — prohibiting testimony that was selective in a deceptive manner, factually unsupported, or structured to mislead the legislative body.
State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment Execution
The state power commission PE was required to criticize the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee with high-level professional deportment, avoiding personalities and basing criticism on engineering conclusions
Legislative hearing; state power commission PE criticizes high-dam analysis while advocating for low-dam series
State Power Commission PE Retained Witness Objectivity Maintenance
The state power commission PE, as a retained witness before the legislative committee, was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions independent of the state power commission's advocacy interests, maintaining objectivity while presenting the low-dams position
Legislative hearing; PE testifies as retained witness for state power commission on water resource infrastructure
Testifying based on engineering studies rather than purely on the state power commission's policy preferences
State Power Commission PE Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Permissibility Recognition
The state power commission PE and reviewing ethics bodies must recognize that reaching a different engineering conclusion (low dams) from the same water resource facts as the private power company PE (high dam) is ethically permissible and does not imply misconduct
Reaching the low-dams conclusion from the same set of water resource engineering facts analyzed by the opposing PE
State Power Commission PE Technical Fact Command for Legislative Testimony
The state power commission PE was required to be fully in command of all relevant engineering facts and data before delivering legislative testimony supporting the low-dams position, ensuring the technical basis could withstand scrutiny from the opposing PE and the legislative committee
Submitting voluminous engineering data in support of the low-dams position before the legislative committee
State Power Commission PE Voluminous Data Submission Completeness
The state power commission PE must submit complete and voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position — selective or incomplete data submission that misleads the legislature about the engineering basis for the position is prohibited.
State Power Commission PE Water Resource Multi-Criteria Analysis
The state power commission PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis supporting the series-of-low-dams position across water supply, flood control, and electric power production dimensions
Conducting engineering studies with professional colleagues concluding that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference Self-Application
The State Power Commission PE was required to recognize that Canon 24's forum preference for engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not prohibit — and should not be interpreted as interfering with — the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision.
State Power Commission PE — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
The State Power Commission PE was required to possess the capability to acknowledge that the low-dams recommendation rested on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost comparisons, population growth, and economic development projections, and to communicate this epistemic uncertainty honestly to the legislative committee.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer testifying for state power commission position favoring series of low dams
Testifying before the state legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams, while recognizing that such support is grounded in estimated rather than mathematically certain factors
State Power Commission PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite Self-Verification
The State Power Commission PE was required to verify, before advocating for the series-of-low-dams position before the legislative committee, that this advocacy position reflected genuine honest professional conviction rather than mere client instruction.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer serving as retained advocate for state power commission position
Advocacy for low-dams position before state legislative committee grounded in sincere professional engineering judgment
State Power Commission PE — NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment
The State Power Commission PE was required to self-assess whether the manner, content, and framing of legislative testimony on the low-dams position conformed to the NSPE Code of Ethics, including obligations to be objective and truthful and to serve the public interest.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration; engineer testifying as retained witness for state power commission
State Power Commission PE — Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment
The State Power Commission PE was required to criticize the private power company PE's engineering analysis before the legislative committee at a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions and data, and offering alternative conclusions rather than personal attacks.
Offering technical criticism of the one-high-dam engineering analysis before the state legislative committee with due restraint per Canon 24
State Power Commission PE — Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition
The State Power Commission PE was required to recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (series of low dams) from the same physical facts as the private power company PE (one high dam) is ethically permissible and does not imply that either engineer acted unethically or incompetently.
Presenting the low-dams engineering conclusion before the state legislative committee based on the same underlying physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff) as the opposing engineer
Inviting public scrutiny and counter-testimony from opposing engineers
Potentially subordinating objective engineering analysis to his employer's institutional interests
Publicly aligning his professional reputation with one contested engineering position
Canon 5: Expressing opinion founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction before a public tribunal
Canon 7: Refraining from publicly expressing opinion unless informed as to the relevant facts
Duty to client/employer (state power commission) to advocate for their preferred engineering solution
Duty to the public to offer expert knowledge to bodies responsible for acts of public importance
Expert testimony grounded in engineering studies and professional judgment
Public service through participation in legislative process
Transparency through submission of supporting engineering data
Persuade the legislative committee that a series of low dams represents the most efficient engineering solution for water supply, flood control, and power production
Ability to conduct and interpret engineering studies on water-power systems
Capacity to present complex technical data to a legislative audience
Expertise in hydraulic and civil engineering
Professional judgment on efficiency and cost trade-offs
During legislative hearings, after years of public debate
The state power commission engineer chose to testify before the legislative committee in favor of a series of low dams, submitting voluminous engineering data to support his position.
Testify for Low Dams → Competing Analyses Made Public
Both engineers submitted voluminous engineering data in support of their respective positions, indicating that the act of testifying was the direct mechanism by which competing analyses entered the public and legislative record
If either engineer had declined to testify or withheld their engineering data, the competing analyses would not have been fully made public in this forum; if both declined, no public technical record would have been established
Legislative hearings providing a formal public forum for submission of engineering data
Private power company engineer's decision to testify in favor of a single high dam
State power commission engineer's decision to testify in favor of low dams
Both engineers (state power commission engineer and private power company engineer), shared responsibility
Both engineers testifying with voluminous supporting data in a formal legislative forum was sufficient to make competing analyses public
Inviting public rebuttal from the opposing engineer
Potentially serving the financial interests of his private employer rather than purely objective engineering analysis
Publicly committing his professional reputation to a contested engineering position
Duty to client/employer (private power company) to advocate for their preferred engineering solution
Expert testimony grounded in independent engineering analysis
Recognition that multiple sound engineering solutions may exist for complex problems
Transparency through submission of competing engineering data
Persuade the legislative committee that a single high dam is a more effective and less expensive solution producing equivalent results to the low-dam series
Ability to independently analyze and compare dam configurations for cost and effectiveness
Professional judgment on engineering trade-offs between alternative designs
The private power company engineer chose to testify before the legislative committee in favor of a single high dam, submitting competing engineering data arguing for greater effectiveness and lower cost than the low-dam alternative.
Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer
{'project_type': 'Water-power complex or comparable large public infrastructure', 'indeterminate_factors': ['Construction cost estimates', 'Population growth', 'Economic development trends', 'Future equipment efficiency'], 'engineering_basis': 'Sound engineering principles with multiple valid approaches'}
An engineer working on a large, complicated public infrastructure project such as a water-power complex, where multiple technically sound approaches exist and the final adopted approach reflects both engineering diagnoses and public policy determinations, including estimates of indeterminate factors.
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Public agency client'}
{'type': 'subject_to', 'target': 'Public policy determination authority'}
Public Policy Balancing Large Project Engineer
Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles
engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area
the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also determinations of public policy
Water-Power Complex Large Project Engineer — Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition
Engineers working on large, complicated public infrastructure projects such as water-power complexes must possess the capability to recognize that multiple technically sound approaches exist and that the final approach may properly incorporate public policy determinations beyond pure engineering efficiency.
Large water-power complex infrastructure project with competing engineering approaches presented to state legislature
Recognition that both series-of-low-dams and one-high-dam configurations represent sound engineering approaches to the water-power complex problem
Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Analysis — Private Power Company PE
The Private Power Company PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis of the one-high-dam versus low-dams alternatives, evaluating engineering efficiency, economic cost, flood control effectiveness, water supply adequacy, electric power production, and constructability.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer presenting multi-criteria analysis supporting one-high-dam position
Submission of voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee supporting the one-high-dam position across multiple engineering criteria
Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Analysis — State Power Commission PE
The State Power Commission PE possessed the technical capability to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis of the low-dams versus one-high-dam alternatives, evaluating engineering efficiency, economic cost, flood control effectiveness, water supply adequacy, electric power production, and constructability.
Legislative hearing on dam configuration for water-power complex; engineer presenting multi-criteria analysis supporting low-dams position
Submission of voluminous engineering data to the legislative committee supporting the series-of-low-dams position across multiple engineering criteria
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.65
No fundamental tension — the subjective balancing principle and the honest disagreement principle mutually reinforce each other in establishing that both engineers' positions are ethically legitimate.
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
Neither the state power commission PE's low-dams position nor the private power company PE's high-dam position is inherently unethical solely by virtue of the disagreement between them — both positions are professionally grounded and represent legitimate engineering conclusions from the same set of facts, and neither engineer may be characterized as acting unethically merely because the other engineer reached a different conclusion.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, both engineers and any reviewing ethics body are constrained from treating the losing engineer's position as having been unethical — the post-decision resolution of the debate does not retroactively establish that the engineer whose position was not adopted acted unethically.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Public policy considerations legitimately supplement engineering efficiency analysis on large public projects; the engineer's role is to present technically sound options, not to insist that only the efficiency-optimized solution is correct.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
Mutual criticism is permissible provided it is confined to engineering conclusions and data; the due-restraint requirement of Canon 24 is satisfied by grounding criticism in engineering analysis rather than personalities.
Due restraint does not prohibit public peer criticism; it channels it into engineering-grounded form, permitting robust technical disagreement while prohibiting personal attacks.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
The non-equivalence principle resolves the potential tension with reputation-injury prohibitions by establishing that good-faith adverse technical findings — even when self-interested in the sense that each engineer's client benefits from the other's position being rejected — do not cross the threshold of malicious or false injury.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
The public testimony obligation and the loyalty obligation to respective clients are reconciled by the advocacy-objectivity balance principle: engineers may represent their clients' preferred solutions while maintaining technical integrity in how they present and support those solutions.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.77
Objectivity does not require false certainty about indeterminate factors; it requires honest disclosure of the estimative nature of key inputs and honest application of professional judgment to those estimates.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.72
Good faith sincerity is demonstrated by the engineering analysis basis for the testimony and the submission of voluminous supporting data.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.8
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's legislative testimony are constrained from conditioning the permissibility of the high-dam advocacy on the ultimate correctness of that engineering position — it is sufficient that the engineer sincerely believed the one-high-dam approach was more effective and less expensive and was acting in the public interest.
Open debate before the legislature is the proper resolution mechanism; engineers participate by providing objective, grounded testimony and criticism, and the legislature exercises public policy judgment to choose among technically sound alternatives.
The permissibility of disagreement is bounded by the objectivity obligation: each engineer must ground their differing conclusion in engineering data and honest conviction, not advocacy bias.
The honest disagreement principle resolves any apparent tension by establishing that differing conclusions from the same physical facts are normal in engineering practice, provided each engineer has conducted a genuine analysis.
Advocacy of a position is permissible (Rule 10), but advocacy must be grounded in objective engineering analysis — the engineer is an advocate for a technically supported position, not a hired gun for a predetermined conclusion.
The Private Power Company PE, in testifying that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, was constrained to acknowledge that this opinion necessarily rested on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost comparisons, population growth projections, economic development trends, and future equipment efficiency — and could not present this judgment as mathematically certain or uniquely correct.
The forum extension is bounded by the due-restraint requirement: criticism before public bodies must still be engineering-grounded and avoid personalities, but the forum itself is legitimate.
The competing public goods principle is satisfied when each engineer presents voluminous supporting data for their position, enabling the legislature to assess the trade-offs across all three public goods rather than relying on advocacy alone.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
The Private Power Company PE's advocacy for one high dam before the state legislative committee was constrained to reflect the engineer's honest professional conviction — the engineer could not ethically advocate the high-dam position unless genuinely convinced of its technical soundness, as Rule 10's recognition of the advocate role presupposes that advocacy reflects sincere professional judgment.
Good faith sincerity is demonstrated by the engineering studies basis for the testimony and the submission of voluminous supporting data.
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's legislative testimony are constrained from conditioning the permissibility of the low-dams advocacy on the ultimate correctness of that engineering position — it is sufficient that the engineer sincerely believed the low-dams approach was the most efficient solution and was acting in the public interest.
The State Power Commission PE, in testifying that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, was constrained to acknowledge that this opinion necessarily rested on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost comparisons, population growth projections, economic development trends, and future equipment efficiency — and could not present this judgment as mathematically certain or uniquely correct.
The State Power Commission PE's advocacy for a series of low dams before the state legislative committee was constrained to reflect the engineer's honest professional conviction — the engineer could not ethically advocate the low-dams position unless genuinely convinced of its technical soundness, as Rule 10's recognition of the advocate role presupposes that advocacy reflects sincere professional judgment.
legislative committee hearings before Discussion section retrospective ethical analysis
The Discussion section retrospectively analyzes the ethical and professional propriety of this testimony and mutual criticism (as noted in the timeline summary), implying the analysis follows the hearings.
Discussion section retrospective ethical analysis
multi-year legislative and public debate before legislative committee hearings
The most efficient and economical method...has been debated...for several years. Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered.
multi-year legislative and public debate
mutual public criticism of each engineer's analysis during legislative committee hearings
mutual public criticism of each engineer's analysis
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
pending legislative bills (water supply, flood control, power production) starts multi-year legislative and public debate
A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power. The most efficient and economical method...has been debated...for several years.
pending legislative bills (water supply, flood control, power production)
Entity1 and Entity2 start at the same time, Entity1 ends first
For the water-power complex, there are many approaches all based on sound engineering principles (low dams vs. one high dam), and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect determinations of public policy as well as engineering diagn
Each engineer serves their respective client's interests (state power commission preferring low dams; private power company preferring one high dam) faithfully by presenting and defending their client's preferred engineering solution before
Both engineers are obligated to ground their legislative testimony in objective engineering analysis rather than pure client advocacy; the submission of voluminous engineering data by each witness is the primary indicator that both are meet
Each engineer freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other before the state legislative committee; this mutual criticism is ethically permissible because it is grounded in engineering data and conclusions rather than personal at
The question of whether a series of low dams or one high dam is the most efficient and economical solution is a legitimate engineering policy debate that has been ongoing for years among the legislature and citizenry; both engineers' positi
The private power company PE occupies a hybrid role: simultaneously representing the company's preferred solution (one high dam) and serving as a technically responsible professional whose testimony carries independent credibility before th
The state power commission PE occupies a hybrid role: simultaneously representing the commission's preferred solution (low dams) and serving as a technically responsible professional whose testimony carries independent credibility before th
Canon 24's due-restraint requirement means that engineering witnesses criticizing each other's dam analyses before the state legislature must avoid personalities and abuse, ground criticism in engineering conclusions or application of engin
Although Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press, this limitation does not interfere with the duty of the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Com
Both engineers are advising on a project that simultaneously serves multiple public goods — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — and each must present the trade-offs of their preferred solution (low dams vs. high dam
The choice between a series of low dams and one high dam for water supply, flood control, and power production involves subjective policy trade-offs that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis alone; both engineers'
The private power company PE's testimony that one high dam is more effective and less expensive is ethically sanctioned because it is grounded in genuine engineering analysis, reflecting sincere belief that this solution best serves the pub
The state power commission PE's testimony that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution is ethically sanctioned because it is grounded in genuine engineering studies conducted by the PE and professional colleagues, re
The state power commission PE concludes that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, while the private power company PE concludes that one high dam is more effective and less expensive; both conclusions are grounded
Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE are obligated to ground their legislative testimony in objective engineering analysis and voluminous supporting data — including factual agreement on water flow, soil condi
The competing dam configuration analyses (low dams vs. one high dam) are legitimately subject to open public debate before the state legislative committee, and the legislature — not either engineer — is the appropriate authority to resolve
The case text illustrates that engineering judgment optimizing solely for efficiency and cost might route a highway through a heavily populated residential district, but public policy may legitimately dictate routing through a lightly popul
Both engineers testifying before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bear a heightened obligation to perform their role consistently with professional ethics standards, because their
The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE reached different engineering conclusions (low dams vs. one high dam) from the same physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc.), and this disagreement i
The competing dam configuration opinions of the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE necessarily rest on estimates of indeterminate factors — construction costs by alternative methods, population growth, economic devel
Each engineer's criticism of the other's analysis and findings — including the implicit conclusion that the other's engineering position is incorrect — does not constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure the other's professional repu
The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE each testified before the state legislative committee and each criticized the other's engineering analysis and findings; this mutual criticism is ethically permissible because i
The private power company PE was obligated to submit voluminous and complete engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the one-high-dam position, ensuring the legislature had the full evidentiary basis for the engineering
The state power commission PE was obligated to submit voluminous and complete engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position, ensuring the legislature had the full evidentiary basis for the engineering con
The Private Power Company PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, was obligated to acknowledge that this conclusion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors includi
The State Power Commission PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, was obligated to acknowledge that this conclusion rests on estimates of indeterminate
The Private Power Company PE was obligated to recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not interfere with the duty to offer expert k
The State Power Commission PE was obligated to recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not interfere with the duty to offer expert
The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing c
The State Power Commission PE, in criticizing the Private Power Company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing c
The private power company PE was obligated, when criticizing the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee, to maintain a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personal attacks
The state power commission PE was obligated, when criticizing the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee, to maintain a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personal attacks
The private power company PE was obligated to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, grounding testimony in engineering analysis rather than pure client advocacy, and presen
The state power commission PE was obligated to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, grounding testimony in engineering studies and professional analysis rather than pure c
The Private Power Company PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee on the dam configuration question, was obligated to present testimony that acknowledged the multi-dimensional public welfare implications — water supply, flo
The State Power Commission PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee on the dam configuration question, was obligated to present testimony that acknowledged the multi-dimensional public welfare implications — water supply, fl
The Private Power Company PE, in advocating before the state legislative committee for one high dam, was obligated to ensure that this advocacy position was grounded in honest conviction based on adequate professional knowledge and analysis
The State Power Commission PE, in advocating before the state legislative committee for a series of low dams, was obligated to ensure that this advocacy position was grounded in honest conviction based on adequate professional knowledge and
The private power company PE was obligated to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, presenting the trade-offs between the hig
The state power commission PE was obligated to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, presenting the trade-offs between the lo
The private power company PE was obligated to ground the one-high-dam engineering position in established facts and completed professional analysis, submitting complete engineering data to the legislative committee rather than unsupported a
The state power commission PE was obligated to ground the low-dams engineering position in established facts and completed professional analysis, submitting complete engineering data to the legislative committee rather than unsupported advo
submission of voluminous engineering data during legislative committee hearings
submission of voluminous engineering data
{'context': 'Highway routing decision involving populated vs. lightly populated areas', 'canon_obligations': ['Canon 5', 'Canon 7', 'Rule 10'], 'opinion_type': 'Engineering judgment integrated with public policy advocacy'}
An engineer who presents a point of view on highway routing — either through a populated residential district (efficiency/cost) or through a lightly populated area (public policy) — before a public body, commission, or tribunal, bearing Canon 5 obligations to ground opinion in adequate knowledge and honest conviction.
{'type': 'peer_critic_of', 'target': 'Opposing engineering opinion witness'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Public body or commission'}
Public Body Engineering Opinion Witness Engineer
Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district
An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect'
Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals
Low-Dams vs. High-Dam Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy
Two engineers reach opposing conclusions on the optimal dam design approach for the same water supply, flood control, and electric power objectives
Both testifying engineers and any ethics adjudicating body
BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, 79-2; NSPE Code provisions on honest differences of professional opinion
Throughout the legislative debate and any subsequent ethics review
Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Legislative Advocacy
The private power company PE sincerely advocates for the high-dam approach based on engineering analysis; the ultimate legislative resolution of the debate does not retroactively render the advocacy unethical
Ethics adjudicating body reviewing private power company PE's legislative testimony
NSPE Code civic advocacy provisions; BER precedent on good faith sincerity sufficiency
Applicable to any post-hearing ethics review
Private Power Company PE Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
Private power company PE serving as retained advocate for one-high-dam position before state legislative committee
Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Constraint
NSPE Rule 10; Canon 5; Canon 7; BER recognition that the advocate role presupposes honest conviction
Private Power Company PE Indeterminate Factor Estimate Epistemic Humility
Engineer testifying before state legislative committee on water-power complex dam configuration based on estimated indeterminate factors
Indeterminate Factor Estimate-Based Opinion Epistemic Humility Constraint
NSPE Canon 5; Canon 7; BER recognition that engineers must base opinions on estimates of indeterminate factors
it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Legislative Advocacy
The state power commission PE sincerely advocates for the low-dams approach based on engineering studies; the ultimate legislative resolution of the debate does not retroactively render the advocacy unethical
Ethics adjudicating body reviewing state power commission PE's legislative testimony
State Power Commission PE Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
State power commission PE serving as retained advocate for low-dams position before state legislative committee
State Power Commission PE Indeterminate Factor Estimate Epistemic Humility
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Ethical Non-Indictment
Multi-year public and legislative debate over optimal engineering approach; whichever position the legislature does not adopt remains ethically legitimate
BER Case No. 79-2; NSPE Code provisions on public policy engineering debate
After legislative resolution of the dam design question
Engineer Public Criticism of Peer with Due Restraint
During public hearings, proceedings, or other public forums where engineering work is under review
Professionally Permissible Inter-Engineer Public Criticism State
Engineer offering public criticism of another engineer's work before a public body
Conclusion of the public proceeding or forum
in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses
Engineer's duty to client, employer, or public requiring expression of contrary engineering opinion on peer's work
Highway Routing Engineering vs. Public Policy Tension
During the planning and public deliberation phase of the highway routing decision
Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area.
Engineering Judgment vs. Public Policy Override State
Engineers and public body deliberating on highway routing through residential vs. rural area
Final routing decision by the responsible public authority
Engineering efficiency analysis recommending residential routing while public policy favors rural routing at greater cost
Multi-Approach Water-Power Complex Engineering Problem
Throughout the analysis and public deliberation of the water-power complex project
in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles
Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
Engineers analyzing a complex water-power project with multiple technically valid approaches
Final adoption of one approach by the responsible public body
There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts
Recognition that a large, complicated engineering problem admits multiple sound engineering approaches
Private Power Company PE Honest Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition
State legislative committee hearing where the private power company PE publicly challenges the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and advocates for the one-high-dam alternative.
Private Power Company PE and ethics adjudicators
Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
The private power company PE's public expression of disagreement with the state power commission PE's low-dams engineering conclusion — by proposing the alternative one-high-dam approach and contributing to open legislative debate — is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code, provided the statements are honest and grounded in professional judgment.
Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — Private Power Company PE
Private power company PE's legislative testimony on one high dam as more effective and less expensive
The private power company PE occupies a hybrid role: simultaneously representing the company's preferred solution (one high dam) and serving as a technically responsible professional whose testimony carries independent credibility before the legislature; this requires presenting the high-dam analysis truthfully and with supporting data, not merely as commercial advocacy.
The private company PE must present the high-dam position truthfully and with full engineering analysis, permitting emphasis on cost and effectiveness advantages while not suppressing material technical information that would be relevant to the legislature's decision.
Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
The advocacy-objectivity balance is maintained by grounding the testimony in engineering analysis and submitting voluminous data, which demonstrates technical support for the position rather than purely commercial advocacy.
Retained Engineer Advocacy-Objectivity Balance — State Power Commission PE
State power commission PE's legislative testimony on low dams as the most efficient engineering solution
The state power commission PE occupies a hybrid role: simultaneously representing the commission's preferred solution (low dams) and serving as a technically responsible professional whose testimony carries independent credibility before the legislature; this requires presenting the low-dam analysis truthfully and with supporting data, not merely as advocacy.
The state PE's obligation is to present the commission's engineering position truthfully and with full supporting data, permitting emphasis on the low-dam solution's advantages while not suppressing material technical information that would be relevant to the legislature's decision.
The advocacy-objectivity balance is maintained by grounding the testimony in engineering studies and submitting voluminous data, which signals that the position is technically supported rather than purely advocacy-driven.
State Power Commission PE Honest Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition
State legislative committee hearing where the state power commission PE publicly challenges the private power company PE's engineering analysis and advocates for the low-dams alternative.
State Power Commission PE and ethics adjudicators
The state power commission PE's public expression of disagreement with the private power company PE's high-dam engineering conclusion — by proposing the alternative low-dams approach and contributing to open legislative debate — is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code, provided the statements are honest and grounded in professional judgment.
{'canon_obligations': ['Canon 24 due restraint', 'Canon 5 opinion grounding', 'Canon 7 factual basis'], 'permitted_forums': ['Engineering society gatherings', 'Engineering press', 'Public hearings', 'Courts', 'Commissions', 'Tribunals'], 'criticism_basis': 'Engineering conclusions, alternative analyses, application of engineering data'}
An engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer before a public body, commission, court, or in engineering society gatherings or the engineering press, subject to Canon 24's due restraint obligation — required to avoid personalities and abuse, ground criticism in engineering conclusions, and offer alternative analyses.
{'type': 'peer_critic_of', 'target': 'Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client, employer, or public interest'}
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint'
Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press
the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses
this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies
Competing Low Dam vs. High Dam Design Approaches
Throughout the multi-year legislative debate and during the committee hearings
Two technically distinct engineering solutions — series of low dams versus one high dam — each claimed to achieve the same water supply, flood control, and power production objectives
Legislative adoption of a specific bill or approach
Legislative debate over the most efficient and economical method to achieve water supply, flood control, and electric power goals
Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
During the engineer's engagement with the public body as advocate or expert witness
Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected
Engineer Advocate Role Before Public Body State
Engineer appearing before courts, commissions, public hearings, and other tribunals to offer expert opinion in support of a position
Conclusion of the public proceeding; public body renders decision
We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures
this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance
Engineer retained by client, employer, or acting from public duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion before a public body on a matter of public importance
Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing — Water-Power Complex Multiple Approaches
Water-power complex dam configuration decision
Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
For the water-power complex, there are many approaches all based on sound engineering principles (low dams vs. one high dam), and the approach finally adopted may properly reflect determinations of public policy as well as engineering diagnoses — confirming that the choice between technically sound alternatives involves subjective policy balancing, not a single objectively correct engineering answer.
The water-power complex is a paradigm case of the subjective balancing principle: multiple technically sound approaches exist, the choice among them involves public policy as well as engineering analysis, and engineers who reach different conclusions in good faith are each acting ethically.
Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment Principle
Acknowledging policy subjectivity does not relieve engineers of the objectivity obligation; it means that objectivity must be applied to the full range of technically sound options, not used to falsely claim that only one option is correct.
Loyalty to Client Within Ethical Limits — Dual Legislative Advocacy
Legislative advocacy for competing dam design solutions on behalf of respective clients
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
Each engineer serves their respective client's interests (state power commission preferring low dams; private power company preferring one high dam) faithfully by presenting and defending their client's preferred engineering solution before the legislature, while remaining within the bounds of professional ethics by grounding testimony in engineering analysis and data.
Loyalty to client in the legislative testimony context means presenting the client's preferred engineering position with full professional support, including voluminous data and peer criticism, but not exceeding what the engineering evidence supports.
Loyalty and objectivity are reconciled by the advocacy-objectivity balance principle: faithful representation of client interests is ethically permissible when grounded in genuine engineering analysis.
Private Power Company PE Data Submission Completeness
State legislative committee hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills; PE submits engineering data supporting one high dam.
Private Power Company PE (Legislative Witness)
Retained Legislative Witness Engineer Data-Submission Completeness Obligation
The private power company PE was obligated to submit voluminous and complete engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the one-high-dam position, ensuring the legislature had the full evidentiary basis for the engineering conclusion.
Private Power Company PE — Competing Public Goods Balanced Legislative Testimony
Private Power Company PE testified before the state legislative committee on a water-power complex project serving water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
Competing Public Goods Water Supply Flood Control Power Production Balanced Testimony Obligation
The Private Power Company PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee on the dam configuration question, was obligated to present testimony that acknowledged the multi-dimensional public welfare implications — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — of the one high dam approach, rather than presenting testimony that optimized for only one public good.
Private Power Company PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
Private Power Company PE served as an advocate for the private power company's preferred engineering solution (one high dam) before the state legislative committee.
Legislative Hearing Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Obligation
The Private Power Company PE, in advocating before the state legislative committee for one high dam, was obligated to ensure that this advocacy position was grounded in honest conviction based on adequate professional knowledge and analysis, not merely in the client's preferred outcome.
State Power Commission PE Data Submission Completeness
State legislative committee hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills; PE submits engineering data supporting series of low dams.
State Power Commission PE (Legislative Witness)
The state power commission PE was obligated to submit voluminous and complete engineering data to the legislative committee in support of the low-dams position, ensuring the legislature had the full evidentiary basis for the engineering conclusion.
State Power Commission PE — Competing Public Goods Balanced Legislative Testimony
State Power Commission PE testified before the state legislative committee on a water-power complex project serving water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
The State Power Commission PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee on the dam configuration question, was obligated to present testimony that acknowledged the multi-dimensional public welfare implications — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — of the series of low dams approach, rather than presenting testimony that optimized for only one public good.
State Power Commission PE — Honest Conviction Advocacy Prerequisite
State Power Commission PE served as an advocate for the state power commission's preferred engineering solution (series of low dams) before the state legislative committee.
The State Power Commission PE, in advocating before the state legislative committee for a series of low dams, was obligated to ensure that this advocacy position was grounded in honest conviction based on adequate professional knowledge and analysis, not merely in the client's preferred outcome.
Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
Private power company PE testifies before legislative committee that engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution for water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's testimony
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Evaluation Obligation
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the one-high-dam solution best served the public interest; the PE need not be proven technically correct, and correctness of the engineering position is not germane to the ethical evaluation.
At any point of ethics review following the legislative testimony
Private Power Company PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation
Two qualified PEs reach opposing engineering conclusions on the most efficient and economical method for water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the disagreement is genuine and data-supported on both sides.
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the private power company PE's conduct
Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
Any ethics body reviewing the private power company PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (one high dam) from the same underlying engineering problem as the state power commission PE (series of low dams) does not constitute an ethical violation — honest professional disagreement between qualified engineers is a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice.
State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
State power commission PE testifies before legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution for water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's testimony
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's legislative testimony must recognize that it is sufficient to establish that the PE sincerely believed the series-of-low-dams solution best served the public interest; the PE need not be proven technically correct, and correctness of the engineering position is not germane to the ethical evaluation.
State Power Commission PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation
Ethics adjudicators reviewing the state power commission PE's conduct
Any ethics body reviewing the state power commission PE's testimony must recognize that reaching a different technical conclusion (series of low dams) from the same underlying engineering problem as the private power company PE (one high dam) does not constitute an ethical violation — honest professional disagreement between qualified engineers is a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice.
BER evaluating whether the mutual peer criticism and competing engineering positions of the two legislative witnesses constituted ethics violations.
Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition Obligation
The BER was obligated to recognize that for a large and complicated engineering problem such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches all based on sound engineering principles, and that neither the State Power Commission PE (low dams) nor the Private Power Company PE (one high dam) could be said to be 'incorrect' or unethical for advocating their respective technically sound positions.
Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
BER evaluating the ethics of competing engineering positions on dam configuration (series of low dams vs. one high dam) before the state legislative committee.
Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency Non-Ethical-Indictment Obligation
The BER was obligated to recognize that when a large public infrastructure project is ultimately resolved by public policy considerations rather than pure engineering efficiency, neither the engineer who advocated the efficiency-optimized solution nor the engineer who advocated the policy-preferred solution can be said to have acted unethically, because the approach finally adopted may properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and determinations of public policy.
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment
State legislative committee hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; two qualified PEs present opposing engineering positions, each supported by voluminous data; the legislature will ultimately resolve the policy question.
Both testifying PEs and ethics adjudicators
Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
After the state legislature resolves the low-dams vs. one-high-dam policy question, both engineers and any reviewing ethics body are obligated to recognize that neither engineer's honest professional judgment was unethical, and to refrain from treating the legislative outcome as an ethical indictment of the engineer whose position was not adopted.
Following legislative resolution of the dam design policy question
Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing — Dam Design Alternatives
Legislative choice between low-dam series and single high-dam infrastructure solutions
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
The choice between a series of low dams and one high dam for water supply, flood control, and power production involves subjective policy trade-offs that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis alone; both engineers' conclusions are reached in good faith and each is acting ethically regardless of which solution the legislature ultimately selects.
The years-long public debate over the most efficient and economical method confirms that this is not a question with a single technically correct answer; the subjective balancing principle establishes that both engineers' good-faith positions are ethically valid contributions to the policy process.
Multi-Year Public Infrastructure Policy Controversy
Several years prior to and including the legislative committee hearings
Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
Sustained public and legislative debate over the optimal engineering approach to water supply, flood control, and electric power production
Legislative resolution of the competing proposals
Pending legislative bills and ongoing public debate about competing infrastructure approaches
Private Power Company Engineer Legislative Testimony
During the legislative committee hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power bills
Engineer representing private power company
Engineer representing state power commission
Legislative Testimony Competing Principal Representation State
Professional engineer representing a private power company testifying before the legislative committee
Legislative committee calling hearings to receive comments and recommendations on competing proposals
Private Power Company PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
Private power company PE criticizes the state power commission PE's analysis and findings before the legislative committee, implicitly challenging the correctness of the low-dams engineering position.
Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
The private power company PE's criticism of the state power commission PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the series-of-low-dams approach is less effective and more expensive — does not constitute reputation-injuring conduct prohibited by professional codes, because no malicious or false intent is present; the adverse finding flows from good-faith engineering analysis.
Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory
Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the choice between one high dam and a series of low dams involves trade-offs across multiple public goods.
Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
The private power company PE was obligated to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, presenting the trade-offs between the high-dam and low-dams approaches completely and objectively so that the legislature could make an informed policy decision.
Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency — Highway Routing Illustration
Dam configuration selection for water-power complex
Highway route selection decision involving populated vs. lightly populated areas
Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
The case text illustrates that engineering judgment optimizing solely for efficiency and cost might route a highway through a heavily populated residential district, but public policy may legitimately dictate routing through a lightly populated area at greater cost and less efficiency — and an engineer presenting either point of view is not incorrect.
This principle applies to the dam case by analogy: the choice between low dams and one high dam may properly reflect public policy considerations beyond pure engineering efficiency, and both engineers presenting their respective technically sound approaches are acting correctly.
Public Policy Override of Pure Engineering Efficiency Principle
State Power Commission Engineer Legislative Testimony
Professional engineer representing the state power commission testifying before the legislative committee
State Power Commission PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
State power commission PE criticizes the private power company PE's analysis and findings before the legislative committee, implicitly challenging the correctness of the high-dam engineering position.
The state power commission PE's criticism of the private power company PE's engineering analysis — implicitly concluding that the high-dam approach is less efficient and more expensive — does not constitute reputation-injuring conduct prohibited by professional codes, because no malicious or false intent is present; the adverse finding flows from good-faith engineering analysis.
State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory
Legislative hearing on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; the choice between low dams and one high dam involves trade-offs across multiple public goods.
The state power commission PE was obligated to acknowledge and address the competing public goods at stake — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — in the legislative testimony, presenting the trade-offs between the low-dams and high-dam approaches completely and objectively so that the legislature could make an informed policy decision.
Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded High-Dam Opinion
Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE submits voluminous engineering data supporting the one-high-dam conclusion.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
The private power company PE was obligated to ground the one-high-dam engineering position in established facts and completed professional analysis, submitting complete engineering data to the legislative committee rather than unsupported advocacy.
At the time of legislative testimony and data submission
Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
Private Power Company PE testified before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production, advocating for one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution.
Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Honest Acknowledgment Obligation
The Private Power Company PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee that one high dam is more effective and less expensive, was obligated to acknowledge that this conclusion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency trends, rather than presenting the conclusion as settled engineering fact.
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
Private Power Company PE testified and offered peer criticism before the state legislative committee, a public body rather than an engineering society or press forum.
Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Duty Obligation
The Private Power Company PE was obligated to recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not interfere with the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision, and accordingly to testify and criticize the opposing analysis before the legislature.
Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment — Canon 24 Due Restraint in Legislative Testimony
Public criticism of competing dam engineering analyses before state legislative committee
Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility Principle
Canon 24's due-restraint requirement means that engineering witnesses criticizing each other's dam analyses before the state legislature must avoid personalities and abuse, ground criticism in engineering conclusions or application of engineering data, and offer alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks.
Due restraint operationalizes as a deportment standard: criticism must be engineering-grounded and alternative-analysis-based, not personality-based or abusive, even in an adversarial legislative advocacy context.
Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment Standard
State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Low-Dams Opinion
Legislative hearing on water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE submits voluminous engineering data supporting the series-of-low-dams conclusion.
The state power commission PE was obligated to ground the low-dams engineering position in established facts and completed professional analysis, submitting complete engineering data to the legislative committee rather than unsupported advocacy.
State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
State Power Commission PE testified before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production, advocating for a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution.
The State Power Commission PE, in testifying before the state legislative committee that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, was obligated to acknowledge that this conclusion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors including construction cost, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency trends, rather than presenting the conclusion as settled engineering fact.
Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
State Power Commission PE testified and offered peer criticism before the state legislative committee, a public body rather than an engineering society or press forum.
The State Power Commission PE was obligated to recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not interfere with the duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to the state legislative committee bearing responsibility for the dam configuration decision, and accordingly to testify and criticize the opposing analysis before the legislature.
Canon 5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals. We believe that the wording of Canon 5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.
Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity — Private Power Company PE Testimony
Private power company PE's advocacy for single high dam before state legislature
Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
The private power company PE's testimony that one high dam is more effective and less expensive is ethically sanctioned because it is grounded in genuine engineering analysis, reflecting sincere belief that this solution best serves the public interest in achieving the desired water supply, flood control, and power production results.
The ethics analysis does not require that the high-dam position be objectively correct; it is sufficient that the private company PE sincerely believes, based on engineering analysis, that it serves the public interest in achieving the desired results more effectively and economically.
Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Principle
Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity — State Power Commission PE Testimony
State power commission PE's advocacy for low-dam series before state legislature
The state power commission PE's testimony that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution is ethically sanctioned because it is grounded in genuine engineering studies conducted by the PE and professional colleagues, reflecting sincere belief that this solution best serves the public interest in water supply, flood control, and power production.
The ethics analysis does not require that the low-dam position be objectively correct; it is sufficient that the state PE sincerely believes, based on engineering studies, that it serves the public interest.
Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Dam Configuration Legislative Testimony
Dam configuration analysis presented before state legislative committee
The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE reached different engineering conclusions (low dams vs. one high dam) from the same physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc.), and this disagreement is ethically permissible because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer.
In this context, the permissibility principle applies because both engineers agreed on the underlying physical facts but reached different conclusions based on their best professional judgment about the application of those facts — a paradigm case of legitimate engineering disagreement.
Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
During the legislative committee hearings, concurrent with testimony submission
Both engineers openly criticizing each other's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee
Submission of competing engineering analyses with contradictory conclusions by each engineer
Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment — Mutual Legislative Criticism
Mutual criticism of competing engineering analyses before the state legislature committee
Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Principle
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
Each engineer freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other before the state legislative committee; this mutual criticism is ethically permissible because it is grounded in engineering data and conclusions rather than personal attacks, serving the legislature's need for adversarial technical scrutiny of competing proposals.
The deportment standard requires that legislative peer criticism be grounded in engineering conclusions and data rather than personalities or abuse; the case indicates both engineers submitted voluminous engineering data, suggesting the criticism was substantively grounded and therefore within ethical bounds.
The deportment standard is satisfied when criticism is data-grounded and directed at analysis and findings rather than personal character; the case description indicates both engineers criticized 'the analysis and findings of the other,' suggesting compliance with this standard.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution — Dam Design Legislative Hearing
State legislature hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills
The question of whether a series of low dams or one high dam is the most efficient and economical solution is a legitimate engineering policy debate that has been ongoing for years among the legislature and citizenry; both engineers' positions are ethically valid contributions to that open debate, and the legislature — not either engineer — is the appropriate authority to resolve it.
In this legislative context, the open-resolution principle means that neither the state PE nor the private company PE is ethically obligated to defer to the other's conclusion; the legislature is the proper decision-making authority and both engineers serve the public interest by presenting their competing analyses.
No tension requiring resolution — both engineers' participation in open legislative debate is affirmatively sanctioned by the principle that public engineering debates must be resolved by appropriate public authority through open deliberation.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution — Legislature as Proper Decision Authority
State legislative committee decision on dam configuration bills
The competing dam configuration analyses (low dams vs. one high dam) are legitimately subject to open public debate before the state legislative committee, and the legislature — not either engineer — is the appropriate authority to resolve which technically sound approach will be adopted; both engineers participate in good faith in this debate.
The legislature bears responsibility for the public decision; the engineers' role is to provide expert input to inform that decision, not to determine it — confirming that open public debate before the appropriate public authority is the proper resolution mechanism for competing engineering positions on public infrastructure.
public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance
Water-Power Complex Indeterminate Factor Estimation
During the engineering analysis and opinion formation phase of the water-power complex project
engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
Indeterminate Factor Engineering Estimate Reliance State
Engineers forming opinions on water-power complex based on estimated indeterminate factors
Completion of engineering opinion and submission to public body
Need to form professional opinions on construction costs, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
State legislative committee hearing where two retained engineers representing opposing parties (state agency vs. private company) mutually criticize each other's technical analyses on the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question.
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Peer Criticism Permissibility Obligation
Both the state power commission PE and the private power company PE, and any ethics adjudicating body reviewing their conduct, were obligated to recognize that freely criticizing each other's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee is ethically permissible — not a collegial violation — provided the criticism is data-grounded and professionally conducted.
Throughout the legislative hearing process and any subsequent ethics review
Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Low Dams vs. High Dam Engineering Positions
Competing engineering analyses of dam design for water supply, flood control, and electric power production
The state power commission PE concludes that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, while the private power company PE concludes that one high dam is more effective and less expensive; both conclusions are grounded in engineering analysis and data, making this a legitimate professional disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party.
Engineering problems involving large infrastructure trade-offs do not always have a single correct answer; both the low-dam and high-dam positions represent honest professional conclusions from engineering analysis, and neither engineer is acting unethically by reaching a different conclusion than the other.
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams. Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity — Dam Configuration Competing Analyses
State legislative committee hearing on low-dam versus high-dam bills
Both the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE are obligated to ground their legislative testimony in objective engineering analysis and voluminous supporting data — including factual agreement on water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, and runoff — so that the legislature receives technically reliable input for its policy decision on dam configuration.
The objectivity obligation applies equally to both the public agency engineer and the private company engineer; neither is exempt from the requirement to ground testimony in engineering data simply because they represent an advocacy position.
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
State Power Commission PE and Private Power Company PE each freely criticized the other's analysis and findings before the state legislative committee on dam configuration.
Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Personality-Avoidance Obligation
The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or data applications, and offering alternative conclusions (one high dam) rather than personal attacks.
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
The State Power Commission PE, in criticizing the Private Power Company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or data applications, and offering alternative conclusions (series of low dams) rather than personal attacks.
He will exercise due restraint in criticizing another engineer's work in public
Engineer Public Testimony Role — Legislative Infrastructure Hearing
State legislative committee hearings on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bills
Both engineers testifying before the state legislative committee on water supply, flood control, and electric power production bear a heightened obligation to perform their role consistently with professional ethics standards, because their technical expertise gives their testimony disproportionate influence on the legislature's policy decisions affecting the public welfare.
In the legislative context, engineers' technical testimony shapes public policy decisions that will affect the public for decades; the heightened obligation therefore requires not just truthfulness but also completeness, data support, and professional deportment in peer criticism.
Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
Objectivity Obligation — Data-Grounded Legislative Testimony
Technical testimony before state legislature on dam design alternatives
Both engineers are obligated to ground their legislative testimony in objective engineering analysis rather than pure client advocacy; the submission of voluminous engineering data by each witness is the primary indicator that both are meeting their objectivity obligation in the legislative hearing context.
Objectivity in legislative testimony requires that engineering conclusions be derived from engineering studies and analysis, not merely asserted; the data submission requirement operationalizes objectivity in this context.
Objectivity and loyalty to respective clients are reconciled by the principle that engineers may advocate for their clients' preferred solutions provided the advocacy is grounded in genuine engineering analysis.
Competing Public Goods Balancing — Water Supply Flood Control Power Production
Legislative decision on water supply, flood control, and electric power production infrastructure
Both engineers are advising on a project that simultaneously serves multiple public goods — water supply, flood control, and electric power production — and each must present the trade-offs of their preferred solution (low dams vs. high dam) fully and objectively so the legislature can make an informed policy decision balancing these competing public interests.
The engineers' obligation is not merely to advocate for their client's preferred solution but to ensure the legislature has sufficient technical information to balance the competing public goods at stake — water supply security, flood control effectiveness, and power production efficiency.
Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility — Dam Testimony
Legislative committee hearing on dam configuration bills
The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE each testified before the state legislative committee and each criticized the other's engineering analysis and findings; this mutual criticism is ethically permissible because it is grounded in engineering data and conclusions rather than personal attacks, and neither engineer maliciously or falsely attempts to injure the other's professional reputation.
The dual-advocate permissibility principle is satisfied here because both engineers are expressing engineering opinions grounded in the same physical facts, offering alternative analyses rather than personal attacks, and doing so before a public body bearing responsibility for an important public decision.
The only Canon which need give us pause is Canon 24 dealing with public criticism of the work of another engineer. But Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy — Dam Configuration Cost and Growth Estimates
Dam configuration cost and benefit analysis presented to state legislature
The competing dam configuration opinions of the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE necessarily rest on estimates of indeterminate factors — construction costs by alternative methods, population growth, economic development, and future equipment efficiency trends — such that the engineers are exercising judgment, not reciting known data, and differing conclusions are professionally legitimate.
The indeterminacy of key inputs (cost estimates, growth projections) means that the engineers' opinions are inherently judgment-based, and the legislature must understand this epistemic condition when evaluating competing analyses.
Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy and Estimate-Based Judgment Principle
Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension — Legislative Committee as Public Body
State legislative committee hearing on dam configuration bills
Although Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press, this limitation does not interfere with the duty of the State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE to offer their expert knowledge and criticism of each other's dam analyses to the state legislative committee, which bears responsibility for an act of public importance.
The state legislative committee is a public body bearing responsibility for an act of public importance (water supply, flood control, energy production legislation), and therefore falls within the extended forum for engineering peer criticism under Canon 5 as extended to public hearings and procedures.
Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension to Public Bodies Principle
Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
Legislative committee hearing where both engineers freely criticize each other's analysis and findings on the low-dams vs. one-high-dam question.
Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment Obligation
The private power company PE was obligated, when criticizing the state power commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee, to maintain a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personal attacks, grounding criticism in engineering data and conclusions, and offering alternative analyses rather than abusive characterizations.
During legislative testimony when criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis
State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
The state power commission PE was obligated, when criticizing the private power company PE's engineering analysis and findings before the legislative committee, to maintain a high level of professional deportment — avoiding personal attacks, grounding criticism in engineering data and conclusions, and offering alternative analyses rather than abusive characterizations.
Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
State legislature hearings on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE represents private power company's preferred solution of one high dam.
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Obligation
The private power company PE was obligated to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, grounding testimony in engineering analysis rather than pure client advocacy, and presenting the one-high-dam position with objectivity and professional integrity.
During and throughout the legislative committee hearing testimony
State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
State legislature hearings on bills involving water supply, flood control, and electric power production; PE represents state power commission's preferred solution of a series of low dams.
The state power commission PE was obligated to testify before the state legislative committee in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, grounding testimony in engineering studies and professional analysis rather than pure client advocacy, and presenting the low-dams position with objectivity and professional integrity.
Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence — Legislative Dam Analysis Criticism
Mutual adverse technical criticism before state legislature committee on dam design
Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Peer Critique Prohibition
Each engineer's criticism of the other's analysis and findings — including the implicit conclusion that the other's engineering position is incorrect — does not constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure the other's professional reputation, because such adverse technical findings are the expected output of competing engineering analyses presented in a legislative forum.
In the legislative hearing context, adverse technical criticism of a peer's engineering analysis is a normal and expected feature of the process; the legislature specifically called hearings to receive competing technical views, making adverse findings an institutionally sanctioned form of peer engagement.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'affiliation': 'State Power Commission', 'specialty': 'Water supply, flood control, and power infrastructure engineering', 'testimony_position': 'Series of low dams as optimal solution'}
Testified before the state legislative committee that engineering studies support a series of low dams as the most efficient engineering solution; submitted voluminous engineering data and criticized the opposing engineer's analysis.
{'type': 'peer_adversary', 'target': 'Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness'}
{'type': 'represents', 'target': 'State Power Commission'}
{'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'State Legislature Committee'}
State Agency Legislative Hearing Witness Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'affiliation': 'Private Power Company', 'specialty': 'Water supply, flood control, and power infrastructure engineering', 'testimony_position': 'Single high dam as optimal and more economical solution'}
Testified before the state legislative committee that his engineering analysis supports one high dam as a more effective and less expensive solution; submitted voluminous engineering data and criticized the opposing engineer's analysis.
{'type': 'peer_adversary', 'target': 'State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness'}
{'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Private Power Company'}
Private Company Legislative Hearing Witness Engineer