Accepting Part-Time Moonlighting Approach
Accepting Part-Time Moonlighting Approach (Action 3) → Dual Role Conflict Condition Crystallized (Event 5)
Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Shared-Client Conflict Non-Acceptance Engineer A Traffic Airport
Engineer A reviews municipal traffic signal submissions in DOT role while being solicited to consult for those same municipalities on airport improvements through former employer
Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Shared-Client Conflict Non-Acceptance Constraint
Engineer A cannot accept the part-time airport consulting role because, even though airport design and traffic signal engineering are technically distinct domains, the shared municipal client base — municipalities that submit traffic signal plans to Engineer A's DOT review AND would be the private consulting clients for airport improvements — creates a conflict of interest that renders the dual engagement ethically impermissible regardless of domain distinction.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2; BER Case 02-8
Engineer A reviews private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities) for traffic signal work performed on the state highway system
For the duration of Engineer A's State DOT employment
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
The State DOT contracts directly with municipalities by means of a grant agreement to fund improvements to municipal airports
NSPE / professional engineering community
Faithful Agent and Trustee Obligation Standard
Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here
The Board invokes the engineer's obligation to serve as a faithful agent and trustee as the normative basis for finding an ethical violation in Engineer A's dual employment situation, where the intersection of highway and airport responsibilities creates a conflict-of-interest risk
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Public Procurement Engineer A Municipal Airport QBS
State DOT provides FAA QBS guidelines to municipalities; Engineer A's proposed private role would have Engineer A seeking contracts through the very procurement framework Engineer A's employer helps to administer
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
Engineer A must avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety that would arise from simultaneously holding a State DOT position that provides FAA QBS guidelines to municipalities for airport consultant selection while actively seeking airport consulting contracts with those same municipalities through the former firm — a visible conflict that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the consultant selection process.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, 16-3
The State DOT does not contract directly with consultants hired by the municipalities for their airport improvements, nor is the state involved in the selection of airport consultants other than to provide FAA guidelines with respect to consultant qualifications-based selection procedures
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities
Appearance of Impropriety in Engineer A Dual Role
Municipalities Submitting Traffic Signal Plans
Cross-Domain Same-Client Public-Private Conflict Prohibition
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
The BER identified clear ethical appearance issues arising from Engineer A simultaneously reviewing traffic signal plans submitted by municipalities in his governmental role while consulting for those same municipalities on airport projects in his private role, creating a perception that his governmental decisions could be influenced by or linked to his private consulting relationship
Even if Engineer A maintained perfect objectivity in both roles, the structural appearance of a connection between his governmental review authority over municipalities and his private consulting income from those same municipalities creates an impropriety that undermines public trust in both roles
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
Moreover, there are clear ethical appearance issues that would presumably need to be addressed.
Appearance concerns reinforce the substantive conflict finding, providing an independent basis for ethical concern beyond actual conflict
the Board can easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
The Board noted in Case 97-1 that these cases frequently raise the question of whether an engineer can ethically devote sufficient attention to the responsibilities involved.
Finding no ethical violation, the Board noted that with regard to Engineer A's dual role as a governmental employee and a private employee, both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities.
In Case 97-1, Engineer A held a full-time engineering position with a governmental agency and was also employed on a part-time basis by an engineering firm.
While as we noted in Case 97-1, with regard to Engineer A's dual role as a governmental employee and a private employee...
Cited as precedent for dual public-government and private-sector employment situations; the Board draws analogical reasoning from Case 97-1's finding of no ethical violation where both employers were aware of and did not object to the dual employment, while distinguishing the present case on conflict-of-interest grounds
BER Escalating Dual-Role Precedent Severity Triangulation Engineer A Airport Traffic DOT
BER Escalating Dual-Role Precedent Severity Triangulation Capability
Engineer A (and the BER reviewing this case) must possess the capability to identify and apply the escalating severity spectrum of BER dual-role precedents — including BER Case 67-1 and BER Case 02-8 (the present case) — to correctly determine that the cross-domain shared-client conflict in this case falls within the impermissible range established by precedent.
BER Case 02-8 is itself one of the precedents in the escalating severity spectrum; the capability to triangulate among these precedents is essential for correctly resolving the ethical question.
Retrieving and triangulating BER precedents involving government-private dual employment conflicts to calibrate the ethical analysis of Engineer A's situation against established case law.
Prior to Engineer A's employment with the State DOT's traffic engineering division, Engineer A performed airport design through a consulting firm which currently does no traffic signal work in the state highway system.
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements
Case 97-1 BER ruling before current case analysis
Case 97-1 Engineer A BER Dual-Role Precedent Permissible Moonlighting Baseline
BER Moonlighting Precedent Permissibility Boundary Distinction Capability
The Case 97-1 engineer demonstrated the baseline permissible moonlighting scenario — where both employers were aware and no substantive conflict existed — establishing the precedent against which the present case's structural conflicts are distinguished.
BER Case 97-1 established the permissible baseline for dual governmental-private employment where mutual employer awareness and absence of substantive conflict were sufficient to avoid ethical violation
Dual employment arrangement where both governmental agency and private firm were aware and did not object, with no substantive shared-client or interrelated-domain conflict identified
Case 97-1 Engineer A Dual-Role Government-Private Engineer
In Case 97-1, Engineer A held a full-time engineering position with a governmental agency and was also employed on a part-time basis by an engineering firm. Finding no ethical violation, the Board noted that with regard to Engineer A's dual role as an governmental employee and a private employee, both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'primary_employer': 'State governmental agency', 'secondary_employer': 'Private engineering firm', 'outcome': 'No ethical violation found where both employers aware and no conflict arose'}
Precedent engineer from BER Case 97-1 who held a full-time government agency position while also employed part-time by a private engineering firm; cited to establish the general ethical framework for moonlighting engineers where both employers are aware and no conflict exists.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Private engineering firm'}
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'State governmental agency'}
Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting Engineer
In Case 97-1, Engineer A held a full-time engineering position with a governmental agency and was also employed on a part-time basis by an engineering firm
Finding no ethical violation, the Board noted that with regard to Engineer A's dual role as an governmental employee and a private employee, both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities
CausalLink_Accepting Part-Time Moonlighti
CausalLink_Disclosing Dual Employment to
CausalLink_Monitoring and Addressing Emer
CausalLink_Reviewing Private Firm Contrac
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing in Engineer A Moonlighting Analysis
Dual Employment Employer Awareness and Non-Objection Condition
The BER distinguished the present case from Case 97-1 by identifying the structural conflict between Engineer A's governmental review authority over municipalities and his proposed private consulting for those same municipalities — a conflict absent in Case 97-1 — thereby demonstrating that Case 97-1's permissibility finding was fact-specific and not a general rule authorizing dual government-private employment whenever employers are aware
Ethical precedent must be applied through careful fact-specific comparison; the superficial similarity between the present case and Case 97-1 (both involving dual government-private employment with employer awareness) obscures the dispositive factual difference (same-client structural conflict in the present case, absent in Case 97-1)
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board can easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports.
Careful precedent distinguishing prevents the Case 97-1 holding from being over-read as a general authorization for dual employment, preserving the contextual integrity of the moonlighting ethics framework
Competitive Employment Freedom Constraint Invoked for Former Firm Solicitation
Former Consulting Firm Soliciting Engineer A
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
Engineer A's freedom to accept part-time work with the former consulting firm is constrained not by confidentiality concerns (the former firm does no traffic signal work) but by the conflict of interest arising from the overlap between the firm's target clients and Engineer A's governmental review authority
While Engineer A has a general right to accept outside employment, that freedom is bounded by the conflict of interest created by the governmental role — the constraint here is conflict-based rather than confidentiality-based
Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
The conflict of interest constraint overrides the general freedom to accept competitive employment; Engineer A cannot accept the solicitation
Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Former Consulting Firm FAA QBS Airport Contracts
Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
The former consulting firm must possess the capability to assess whether soliciting a current State DOT employee to seek airport consulting contracts — in a procurement process governed by FAA QBS guidelines administered by that same DOT — compromises the fairness and integrity of the competitive procurement process.
The former firm solicits Engineer A to help seek airport consulting contracts with municipalities whose consultant selection is governed by FAA QBS guidelines that Engineer A's DOT employer administers.
Evaluating whether recruiting Engineer A for part-time consulting creates an unfair competitive advantage in FAA QBS-governed airport consultant selection processes.
The State DOT does not contract directly with consultants hired by the municipalities for their airport improvements, nor is the state involved in the selection of airport consultants other than to provide FAA guidelines with respect to consultant qualifications-based selection procedures.
It would be unethical for Engineer A to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
Beyond the Board's finding that the dual role is unethical, the structural conflict arises not merely from Engineer A's technical review authority over traffic signal plans but from the shared municipal stakeholder relationship itself. Because the State DOT funds municipal airport improvements through grant agreements, and Engineer A would be soliciting those same municipalities for private airport consulting contracts on behalf of his former firm, the conflict is present at the moment of solicitation — before any design work is performed, before any traffic signal plan is reviewed, and regardless of whether any specific municipality ever submits a traffic signal plan to Engineer A for review. The Board's conclusion therefore rests on a broader foundation than technical domain overlap: it rests on the fact that Engineer A's government employer has an ongoing financial and regulatory relationship with the very clients Engineer A would be privately soliciting, creating an inherent tension between Engineer A's duty of loyalty to the State DOT and his private commercial interest in securing consulting contracts from those municipalities.
The Board's conclusion implicitly rejects a domain-separation defense — the argument that because airport design and highway traffic engineering are technically distinct disciplines, no conflict of interest can arise. This rejection is analytically sound and should be made explicit: the ethical conflict in this case is not generated by technical overlap between the two engineering domains but by the identity of the shared client base. Highways and airports are interrelated components of a state transportation infrastructure system, and the State DOT's grant authority over municipal airports means that Engineer A's government employer exercises a funding and oversight relationship over the same municipalities that Engineer A's former firm would be soliciting for airport consulting work. Even if Engineer A never reviewed a single traffic signal plan submitted by a municipality his former firm was simultaneously soliciting, the appearance of preferential access, informational advantage, and divided loyalty would persist. The domain-separation argument therefore fails not because the technical fields are identical but because the client relationships are structurally inseparable from the government role.
The Board's conclusion carries an important but unstated implication regarding the sufficiency of employer disclosure and recusal as curative measures. Even if Engineer A were to disclose the proposed part-time engagement to the State DOT and commit to recusing himself from every traffic signal review involving municipalities his former firm was simultaneously soliciting for airport contracts, those procedural steps would not eliminate the structural conflict. First, the recusal obligation would expand in proportion to the former firm's solicitation activity: the more municipalities the firm approached, the more reviews Engineer A would be unable to perform, progressively impairing his ability to fulfill his primary duties to the State DOT. Second, Engineer A's role in disseminating FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines to municipalities creates an informational and procedural advantage for his former firm that recusal from traffic signal reviews cannot neutralize, because the advantage flows from Engineer A's government position itself rather than from any specific act of review. Third, the absence of a formal revolving-door or outside-employment prohibition in State DOT policy does not create ethical permissibility; it merely means that the ethical obligation must be derived from the NSPE Code's faithful agent and conflict-of-interest provisions rather than from an explicit regulatory rule. Employer non-objection following disclosure is therefore insufficient to cure the underlying structural conflict.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the Board's conclusion reveals a failure of proactive professional integrity that extends beyond the specific act of accepting the part-time role. Engineer A's willingness to entertain the solicitation from his former firm without first independently identifying and disclosing the structural conflict to the State DOT suggests an insufficient internalization of the faithful agent obligation. A professionally virtuous engineer in Engineer A's position would have recognized, without external prompting, that the combination of government grant authority over municipal airports, personal involvement in disseminating FAA consultant selection guidelines, and a former employer's interest in securing airport consulting contracts from those same municipalities created a conflict requiring immediate disclosure and likely declination. The absence of an explicit statutory prohibition does not diminish this obligation; rather, it heightens the importance of the engineer's own ethical judgment as the primary safeguard. The NSPE Code's faithful agent and conflict-of-interest provisions are designed precisely to operate in the space where formal rules are silent, and Engineer A's apparent reliance on the absence of an explicit prohibition as a basis for entertaining the solicitation reflects a compliance-oriented rather than integrity-oriented approach to professional ethics.
The Board's conclusion has systemic implications beyond Engineer A's individual case: it establishes that a government engineer who administers grant relationships with municipalities and disseminates federal consultant selection guidelines to those municipalities occupies a position of structural influence over the competitive procurement environment in which private consulting firms operate, and that this structural influence — not merely direct contract award authority — is sufficient to render part-time private consulting for firms competing in that environment unethical. This principle is significant because it extends the conflict-of-interest analysis beyond the narrow question of whether the government engineer has formal authority to select or approve private consultants. Even where, as here, the State DOT does not directly contract with airport consultants and is not formally involved in their selection, Engineer A's role in shaping the informational and procedural environment through FAA guideline dissemination creates an indirect but real competitive advantage for any firm he simultaneously represents in soliciting those same municipalities. Public trust in the integrity of qualifications-based selection procedures depends on the assurance that government officials who shape those procedures are not simultaneously positioned to benefit from them through private employment, and the Board's conclusion appropriately protects that trust.
In response to Q101: The mere act of soliciting airport consulting contracts from municipalities that also receive State DOT grant funding constitutes a conflict of interest even before any design work is performed or any traffic signal review involving those municipalities occurs. The conflict crystallizes at the moment Engineer A begins representing his former firm's interests to municipal clients who simultaneously exist within the State DOT's grant administration network. Because Engineer A's DOT role gives him ongoing awareness of which municipalities are receiving or seeking airport grant funding, and because those same municipalities may submit traffic signal plans for his review, the solicitation activity itself creates a structural misalignment of loyalties that is independent of whether any specific adverse act ever takes place. The NSPE Code's faithful agent obligation under Section II.4 is not contingent on harm having materialized; it requires that the engineer avoid placing himself in a position where private interests could influence — or appear to influence — the discharge of public duties. Solicitation is precisely such a position-taking act.
In response to Q102: Engineer A's ethical exposure would not be materially eliminated by the adoption of an explicit State DOT revolving-door or outside-employment policy, though such a policy would clarify the procedural landscape. The current absence of a formal prohibition does create a false sense of permissibility that poses systemic risk to public trust, because engineers in government positions may incorrectly treat the silence of institutional policy as ethical authorization. However, the NSPE Code's ethical obligations are self-executing and do not depend on employer policy to activate. The faithful agent obligation under Section II.4 and the part-time work consistency requirement under Section III.6.b impose duties that exist regardless of whether the State DOT has codified them in an employment handbook. The absence of a formal revolving-door provision is therefore non-exculpatory: it shifts the burden of ethical self-governance entirely onto the engineer, making proactive disclosure and voluntary restraint more — not less — important. A formal policy would reduce systemic risk by making the prohibition legible to all engineers in similar positions, but its absence does not create a permissive ethical space.
In response to Q103: Engineer A's role in disseminating FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines to municipalities creates an independent and significant informational advantage for his former firm that compromises competitive procurement integrity even if Engineer A never directly selects or approves airport consultants. By virtue of his DOT position, Engineer A has privileged access to which municipalities are actively pursuing airport improvements, what the applicable selection criteria are, and how those criteria are being interpreted and communicated at the state level. When Engineer A simultaneously solicits those same municipalities on behalf of his former firm, he is effectively converting government-acquired knowledge and institutional access into a private commercial advantage. This is precisely the conduct that the government grant authority non-exploitation principle prohibits. The harm to competitive procurement fairness does not require that Engineer A manipulate any specific selection decision; the asymmetric informational position itself distorts the competitive environment in ways that disadvantage other consulting firms who lack a government insider simultaneously advocating for their interests at the municipal level.
In response to Q104: Recusal from every traffic signal review involving municipalities that Engineer A's former firm is simultaneously soliciting for airport consulting work would not be sufficient to cure the structural conflict, and the cumulative pattern of recusals would itself impair Engineer A's ability to fulfill his primary duties to the State DOT. The structural conflict in this case is not reducible to discrete, identifiable review events that can be cleanly excised through recusal. Rather, it pervades Engineer A's entire relationship with the municipal stakeholder population that forms the operational environment of his DOT role. As the number of municipalities being solicited by the former firm grows — a natural consequence of an active business development effort — the proportion of Engineer A's caseload requiring recusal would expand correspondingly, hollowing out his capacity to perform the core functions for which the State DOT employs him. This outcome would itself constitute a detriment to his regular work within the meaning of Section III.1.c. Furthermore, recusal addresses only the direct review conflict; it does not address the informational advantage, the appearance of impropriety in the grant administration relationship, or the faithful agent obligation that runs to the State DOT as an institution rather than merely to individual review decisions.
In response to Q201: The Moonlighting Contextual Assessment principle does conflict with the Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation principle in this case, and the latter must prevail. While the Moonlighting Contextual Assessment principle correctly recognizes that part-time private engineering work is not categorically prohibited, it operates as a permissive baseline that is subject to override when the specific conditions of the private engagement create a structural loyalty conflict with the engineer's primary employer. Here, the shared municipal stakeholder population — municipalities that are simultaneously grant recipients under State DOT airport funding agreements and prospective clients of Engineer A's former firm — means that Engineer A cannot serve both principals without the interests of one potentially influencing his conduct toward the other. The fact that the technical domains differ (highways versus airports) does not dissolve this conflict because the conflict's source is the shared client relationship, not technical overlap. The Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation is not domain-specific; it runs to the employer as an institution and encompasses all conduct that could compromise the engineer's undivided loyalty, including conduct in technically distinct fields when the same municipal clients are involved.
In response to Q202: The Competitive Employment Freedom Constraint principle must yield to the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety principle in this case because Engineer A's government position does not merely create an indirect background influence on the regulatory environment — it creates a direct, operational relationship with the specific municipal entities that would be the targets of his private solicitation. An engineer's right to pursue legitimate private professional opportunities is a genuine and important interest, but it is not absolute when the engineer occupies a government role that shapes the funding, procedural, and informational environment in which those private opportunities arise. The appearance of impropriety standard does not require proof of actual bias; it requires only that a reasonable observer, aware of the full facts, would question whether Engineer A's government conduct could be influenced by his private commercial interests. Given that Engineer A reviews traffic signal submissions from municipalities, administers FAA guideline dissemination to those same municipalities, and would simultaneously be soliciting them for airport consulting contracts through his former firm, the appearance of impropriety is not merely plausible — it is structurally inevitable.
In response to Q203: The Cross-Domain Infrastructure Linkage principle and the Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing principle are in genuine tension, but the Board correctly resolves that tension by identifying the shared municipal client relationship — rather than technical domain overlap — as the primary source of the conflict. The Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing principle would, in isolation, support a finding that moonlighting in a technically distinct engineering domain (airports versus highways) is permissible, as prior BER cases have allowed engineers to perform private work in fields unrelated to their government employer's technical mandate. However, the Cross-Domain Infrastructure Linkage principle defeats this defense not primarily by arguing that highways and airports are interrelated infrastructure systems in an abstract engineering sense, but by demonstrating that the same municipal entities who are Engineer A's government-side stakeholders would become his private-side clients. When the shared-client relationship is the primary conflict vector, technical domain separation provides no meaningful ethical insulation. The Board's resolution is therefore analytically sound: domain distinction is relevant to conflict analysis only when it also produces stakeholder separation, and here it does not.
In response to Q204: The Employer Awareness Non-Sufficient to Cure Structural Conflict principle and the Government Procedure Compliance Caution principle do conflict in the specific scenario where State DOT policy neither explicitly prohibits nor explicitly authorizes outside employment, and this conflict creates a genuine risk of reasonable but incorrect ethical self-assessment by the engineer. An engineer who discloses the proposed part-time engagement to the State DOT and receives no objection may plausibly but incorrectly conclude that procedural compliance has resolved the underlying ethical obligation. This conclusion is incorrect because the NSPE Code's ethical duties are not delegable to the employer's silence. The faithful agent obligation under Section II.4 requires the engineer to independently assess whether the private engagement compromises his loyalty and objectivity, regardless of whether the employer raises an objection. Employer non-objection is relevant evidence that the employer does not perceive an institutional conflict, but it does not substitute for the engineer's own ethical judgment about whether the structural conditions for a conflict exist. The absence of a formal policy thus creates a systemic vulnerability: engineers may treat procedural disclosure as ethical absolution, when in fact the ethical analysis must proceed independently of the employer's response.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill the duty of a faithful agent and trustee to the State DOT by entertaining the part-time solicitation without proactively identifying and disclosing the structural conflict. Deontological ethics requires that duties be discharged not merely in their formal observance but in their spirit, and the faithful agent duty under Section II.4 imposes an affirmative obligation to protect the employer's interests from being compromised by the engineer's private conduct. The structural overlap between the State DOT's grant relationships with municipalities and the municipalities Engineer A would be soliciting for airport consulting work was ascertainable at the moment the solicitation was received. A deontologically compliant engineer would have recognized this overlap immediately, disclosed it to the State DOT without being asked, and declined the engagement pending a determination that no conflict existed. The mere act of entertaining the solicitation — weighing its attractiveness, considering its feasibility — without first performing this conflict identification and disclosure represents a failure to treat the faithful agent duty as a categorical obligation rather than a factor to be balanced against personal professional interest.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the cumulative harms to public trust, competitive procurement fairness, and FAA qualifications-based selection integrity that would likely result from Engineer A accepting the part-time role are substantial and systemic, even if no single act of direct interference with state highway decisions could be identified. First, public trust in the State DOT's impartiality in administering airport grant agreements would be undermined if it became known that a DOT employee was simultaneously soliciting those grant recipients for private consulting work. Second, competitive procurement fairness would be distorted because Engineer A's former firm would enjoy an informational and relational advantage over competing airport consultants who lack a government insider with access to municipal stakeholders. Third, FAA qualifications-based selection integrity would be compromised because the guidelines Engineer A disseminates to municipalities would be perceived — and may in fact function — as a tool for positioning his former firm favorably in the consultant selection process. These harms compound over time: each municipality solicited, each guideline disseminated, and each grant agreement administered while the dual role persists adds to the cumulative erosion of institutional integrity. The consequentialist calculus strongly supports the Board's conclusion that the engagement is unethical.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's willingness to accept the part-time solicitation without proactively identifying and disclosing the structural conflict to the State DOT reflects a failure of professional integrity, even in the absence of an explicit statutory prohibition. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not merely by its compliance with rules but by whether it reflects the character dispositions — honesty, prudence, integrity, and practical wisdom — that define a professional of good character. A virtuous engineer in Engineer A's position would have recognized, without being prompted by a rule, that the solicitation created a structural tension between private interest and public duty. The virtuous response would have been immediate, voluntary disclosure to the State DOT, accompanied by a request for guidance and a willingness to decline the engagement if the conflict could not be resolved. The absence of a statutory prohibition does not diminish this obligation; virtue ethics holds that good character requires doing the right thing precisely when no external rule compels it. Engineer A's failure to proactively surface the conflict suggests that professional integrity was being subordinated to personal professional opportunity, which is a character failure independent of any rule violation.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's role in disseminating FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines to municipalities does create an independent duty not to exploit that informational and procedural authority by simultaneously soliciting those same municipalities for private airport consulting contracts. This duty arises from two intersecting deontological obligations: the faithful agent duty owed to the State DOT, which prohibits using government-acquired authority and information for private benefit, and a duty of non-exploitation owed to the municipalities themselves, who receive the FAA guidelines in their capacity as grant recipients relying on the State DOT's impartial guidance. When Engineer A disseminates selection guidelines while simultaneously representing a firm that would benefit from those guidelines being interpreted favorably, he converts a public informational function into a private commercial tool. Deontologically, this is impermissible regardless of whether Engineer A intends any manipulation, because the duty not to exploit institutional authority is categorical and does not depend on subjective intent. The informational authority vested in Engineer A by his DOT role must be exercised exclusively in the public interest, and any private use of that authority — including using it to position a former employer advantageously in consultant selection — constitutes a breach of this independent duty.
In response to Q401: The Board's conclusion would likely not have differed materially even if Engineer A had proactively disclosed the solicitation to the State DOT, obtained explicit employer approval, and committed to recusing himself from any DOT review or grant activity involving municipalities being simultaneously solicited for airport consulting work. While proactive disclosure and employer approval are necessary conditions for any permissible moonlighting arrangement, they are not sufficient conditions when the structural conflict is as pervasive as it is here. Employer approval addresses the institutional dimension of the faithful agent obligation but does not resolve the appearance of impropriety that arises from the shared municipal stakeholder relationship, nor does it eliminate the informational advantage that Engineer A's government position confers on his former firm. Furthermore, as analyzed in response to Q104, the cumulative pattern of recusals required to operationalize the conflict management commitment would itself impair Engineer A's ability to perform his primary DOT duties, creating a detriment to regular work under Section III.1.c. Disclosure and approval are ethically significant mitigating steps that would reflect better professional character, but they cannot transform a structurally conflicted engagement into a permissible one.
In response to Q402: If Engineer A's former consulting firm had no existing or prospective relationships with any municipality that also received State DOT airport grant funding or submitted traffic signal plans for DOT review, the shared-municipal-stakeholder conflict would dissolve as the primary basis for the Board's ethical finding, and part-time engagement might then be permissible under the NSPE Code subject to the standard moonlighting conditions. The Board's analysis in this case rests fundamentally on the overlap between the State DOT's municipal grant relationships and the municipalities Engineer A would be soliciting for private airport consulting work. If that overlap were entirely absent — if the former firm operated exclusively in municipalities with no State DOT airport grant relationships and no traffic signal submissions pending before Engineer A — the faithful agent concern would be substantially reduced, the appearance of impropriety would be far less acute, and the cross-domain same-client conflict would not arise. The remaining considerations — such as the general appearance of a government engineer doing private consulting work — would need to be evaluated under the standard moonlighting framework of Sections III.1.c and III.6.b, and might well be resolved in Engineer A's favor. This counterfactual confirms that the shared municipal stakeholder relationship is the load-bearing element of the Board's ethical analysis, not the mere fact of dual employment.
In response to Q403: The ethical analysis would change significantly if Engineer A had fully transitioned out of State DOT employment before accepting the part-time role with the former firm, because the faithful agent obligation and the shared-stakeholder conflict are both contingent on the existence of the concurrent government employment relationship. Once Engineer A is no longer a State DOT employee, he no longer owes a faithful agent duty to the DOT, no longer reviews traffic signal submissions from municipalities, and no longer disseminates FAA guidelines in an official capacity. However, a cooling-off period would still be ethically necessary to address residual revolving-door concerns: Engineer A would retain, for some period after departure, government-acquired knowledge about which municipalities are pursuing airport improvements, the status of their grant relationships, and the internal workings of the DOT's consultant selection guidance function. A minimum cooling-off period of one to two years — consistent with common revolving-door standards in government ethics frameworks — combined with a scope limitation prohibiting Engineer A from soliciting municipalities with whom he had direct official contact during his DOT tenure, would be necessary to adequately mitigate these residual concerns. The precise duration and scope of any cooling-off requirement would depend on the nature and recency of Engineer A's official contacts with specific municipalities.
In response to Q404: If Engineer A's role at the State DOT had been limited strictly to internal administrative functions with no contract review authority over private firms and no involvement in disseminating FAA consultant selection guidelines, the structural conflict identified by the Board would be substantially weakened but would not entirely dissolve. The shared municipal stakeholder relationship — the fact that the State DOT administers airport grant agreements with the same municipalities Engineer A would be soliciting for private consulting work — would remain as a residual basis for an appearance of impropriety concern, because Engineer A's government employer would still have an ongoing financial and regulatory relationship with his private clients. However, without the contract review authority and the FAA guideline dissemination role, the specific mechanisms by which Engineer A could exploit his government position for private advantage would be largely eliminated, and the faithful agent concern would be considerably attenuated. In this more limited scenario, the ethical analysis would likely turn on whether the appearance of impropriety arising solely from the grant administration relationship — without any direct review or informational authority — is sufficient to render the engagement impermissible. The Board's reasoning suggests that the grant relationship alone would still raise concerns, but the case for prohibition would be materially weaker and might be resolved through disclosure, employer approval, and appropriate scope limitations rather than outright prohibition.
The Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation and the Moonlighting Contextual Assessment principle are not inherently incompatible, but this case demonstrates that the shared-municipal-stakeholder relationship collapses the domain-separation buffer that ordinarily makes part-time private engineering work permissible. In cases where the engineer's government employer funds, regulates, or maintains grant relationships with the very municipalities the engineer would privately solicit, the Moonlighting Contextual Assessment principle cannot be satisfied on its own terms — the 'appropriate conditions' prerequisite fails structurally, not merely procedurally. The Board resolved this tension by treating the Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation as lexically prior: once a structural conflict of interest is identified at the level of shared clients and overlapping institutional authority, no amount of domain-separation argument (highways versus airports) can rehabilitate the moonlighting permission. This case teaches that the Moonlighting Contextual Assessment principle is a conditional permission, not a freestanding right, and that the Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation functions as the gating condition that must be satisfied before the conditional permission activates.
The Competitive Employment Freedom Constraint and the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety principle exist in genuine tension in this case, and the Board's resolution reveals an important prioritization rule: when an engineer occupies a government position that shapes — even indirectly — the regulatory and funding environment in which private work would occur, the Appearance of Impropriety principle is not merely a reputational concern but a structural integrity concern that overrides the engineer's individual interest in pursuing private professional opportunities. The key analytical move is that the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety principle does not require proof of actual interference or actual favoritism; the structural overlap between Engineer A's DOT grant-administration role and the municipalities Engineer A would solicit for airport consulting is itself the disqualifying condition. This means the Competitive Employment Freedom Constraint is not defeated by a showing of bad intent but by a showing of institutional architecture — the government position's reach into the private market is sufficient. The case thus teaches that appearance-of-impropriety analysis in government-employment contexts is objective and structural, not subjective and intent-dependent.
The Cross-Domain Infrastructure Linkage principle defeating the domain-separation defense stands in productive but ultimately subordinate tension with the Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing principle. The Board's implicit reasoning suggests that even if one were to accept the domain-separation argument — treating highway traffic engineering and airport design as sufficiently distinct technical fields — the shared-municipal-stakeholder relationship independently generates a conflict that the domain-separation defense cannot address. This means the Cross-Domain Infrastructure Linkage principle and the Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing principle are not directly in conflict so much as they operate at different levels of analysis: technical domain overlap is one pathway to finding a conflict, but shared client relationships constitute a parallel and independent pathway. The case teaches that an engineer cannot defeat a conflict-of-interest finding by demonstrating technical distinctiveness alone when the conflict arises from institutional relationships rather than technical overlap. Furthermore, the Employer Awareness Non-Sufficient to Cure Structural Conflict principle interacts critically with the Government Procedure Compliance Caution principle to establish that procedural disclosure to the State DOT — even if it produced no objection — would not dissolve the underlying ethical obligation, because the structural conflict is not a procedural deficiency curable by notice but a substantive incompatibility between the two roles. This interaction warns against conflating procedural compliance with ethical permissibility, a distinction that is especially consequential in government-employment contexts where formal policies may be silent on specific dual-employment scenarios.
Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Engineer A Traffic Review Airport Consulting Municipalities
Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the prior employment relationship with the former consulting firm, combined with the proposed part-time consulting role, creates an actual and apparent conflict of interest requiring recusal from reviewing any traffic signal submissions from municipalities that are also private airport consulting clients.
The obligation to recuse from traffic signal review for shared municipal clients illustrates why the dual role is impermissible — the recusal obligation would substantially impair Engineer A's ability to perform DOT duties.
Identifying that if the consulting role were accepted (which it should not be), Engineer A would be required to recuse from reviewing traffic signal plans submitted by municipalities that are also private clients — an obligation that itself demonstrates the irreconcilability of the dual role.
Engineer A reviews private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities) for traffic signal work performed on the state highway system.
Conflict of Interest Recusal Obligation Invoked for Municipal Traffic Review
If Engineer A were to accept the private consulting role, Engineer A would be obligated to recuse from reviewing any traffic signal plans submitted by municipalities that are also clients of the private firm — a recusal obligation that would substantially impair Engineer A's ability to perform governmental duties
The recusal obligation that would arise from the dual role underscores why the role itself is impermissible — the conflicts would be pervasive given that municipalities interact with both Engineer A's DOT division and are the target clients of the private firm
The breadth of required recusals confirms that the dual role is structurally incompatible with Engineer A's governmental responsibilities, reinforcing the prohibition on accepting the solicitation
Conflict of Interest Recusal Traffic Signal Review Engineer A Municipal Airport Clients
Engineer A reviews municipal traffic signal submissions in the DOT role; if Engineer A simultaneously consults for those municipalities privately, recusal from their DOT submissions would be required
Conflict of Interest Recusal from Former Employer Work Obligation
If Engineer A were to accept the part-time consulting role (which is itself ethically impermissible), Engineer A would be additionally obligated to recuse from reviewing any traffic signal plans or contracts submitted by municipalities for which Engineer A is simultaneously performing private airport consulting work.
Conditional: applicable only if Engineer A accepts the private consulting role; ongoing for the duration of any such dual engagement
Cross-Domain Infrastructure Linkage Defeating Domain-Separation Defense
The BER rejected the argument that Engineer A's highway review responsibilities and airport consulting responsibilities were sufficiently distinct to avoid conflict, finding instead that highways and airports are inextricably linked transportation infrastructure systems such that decisions in one domain predictably affect the other
The physical and operational linkage between highway and airport infrastructure — including shared hub facilities and interdependent traffic flows — means that Engineer A's governmental highway review authority and private airport consulting role are not genuinely separate domains for conflict-of-interest purposes
Cross-Domain Infrastructural Linkage Conflict Recognition Obligation
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere. For example, there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
Infrastructure linkage analysis resolves the apparent domain-separation defense against the engineer, confirming that a structural conflict exists
For example, there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
While the scope of his responsibilities (state highways vs. airports) are clearly different, there may be situations and circumstances where his role in one or another area could be compromised.
Cross-Domain Same-Client Conflict Applied to Engineer A Highway-Airport Roles
Engineer A's governmental role reviewing traffic signal plans and contracts submitted by municipalities, combined with his proposed private consulting role for those same municipalities on airport projects, exemplifies the cross-domain same-client structural conflict — the municipalities are simultaneously subject to his governmental review authority and potential private consulting clients, creating irreconcilable structural leverage
The cross-domain same-client prohibition applies with full force even though Engineer A's governmental domain (highways/traffic signals) differs from his proposed private domain (airports), because the municipalities appear in both roles and his governmental authority over them creates structural leverage regardless of domain
The same-client identity overrides the domain-separation defense, and the infrastructure linkage analysis provides an additional independent basis for finding conflict
Cross-Domain Same-Client Conflict Invoked for Engineer A Municipal Overlap
The municipalities that submit traffic signal plans to Engineer A's DOT division for review are the same class of entities the former consulting firm wants Engineer A to solicit for private airport consulting work — creating a same-client conflict across different technical domains
Even though airport design and traffic signal review are technically distinct, Engineer A's governmental authority over municipal traffic signal submissions creates structural leverage over those same municipalities as potential private consulting clients, making the private solicitation ethically impermissible
The client-identity overlap is the operative conflict mechanism; the domain distinction does not cure the conflict because the municipalities cannot fully separate their interactions with Engineer A in his governmental capacity from their evaluation of him as a private consultant
Cross-Domain Same-Client Conflict Non-Engagement Engineer A Municipal Airport Consulting
Engineer A reviews municipal traffic signal plans in the DOT role; the former firm solicits Engineer A to seek airport consulting contracts with those same municipalities
Cross-Domain Same-Client Government-Private Consulting Non-Engagement Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to decline the former consulting firm's solicitation to perform part-time airport consulting for municipalities, because those same municipalities submit traffic signal plans and contracts to Engineer A's DOT division for review, creating a cross-domain same-client conflict of interest that compromises Engineer A's objectivity in the governmental review function regardless of the technical distinction between traffic engineering and airport design.
Upon receipt of the solicitation from the former consulting firm; obligation is ongoing for the duration of Engineer A's State DOT employment
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
Cross-Domain Shared-Client Government-Private Conflict Boundary Recognition Engineer A Municipal Overlap
Cross-Domain Shared-Client Government-Private Conflict Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the shared municipal client relationship — municipalities interacting with Engineer A in both the DOT traffic review capacity and the proposed private airport consulting capacity — creates an irreconcilable conflict equivalent to a same-domain conflict, even though traffic engineering and airport design are technically distinct domains.
The case turns on whether the cross-domain but shared-client relationship between Engineer A's DOT role and the proposed airport consulting role creates an impermissible conflict — the central ethical question of BER Case 02-8.
Mapping the overlap between municipalities submitting traffic signal plans to Engineer A's DOT division and municipalities that would be private airport consulting clients, and determining that this shared-client relationship is ethically disqualifying.
Engineer A reviews private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities)
The State DOT contracts directly with municipalities by means of a grant agreement to fund improvements to municipal airports.
Should Engineer A accept the part-time airport consulting solicitation from the former firm, or decline it on the basis that the shared municipal client relationship creates an irreconcilable structural conflict with the State DOT employment?
Engineer A must decide whether to accept the former consulting firm's solicitation to perform part-time airport consulting work for municipalities while remaining a State DOT employee who reviews those same municipalities' traffic signal plans and administers their airport grant agreements. The core tension is between Engineer A's legitimate professional interest in pursuing private consulting opportunities in a technically distinct domain and the faithful agent obligation owed to the State DOT, which is compromised by the shared municipal stakeholder relationship regardless of technical domain separation.
Refuse the former firm's solicitation on the grounds that the shared municipal client base creates a structural conflict of interest with the State DOT employment that cannot be cured by disclosure, recusal, or employer approval, and that the faithful agent obligation requires declining the engagement regardless of technical domain distinction.
Accept the part-time role after proactively disclosing the arrangement to the State DOT and obtaining employer approval, committing to recuse from any DOT review or grant activity involving municipalities simultaneously being solicited for airport consulting work, on the theory that procedural safeguards adequately manage the conflict.
Accept the part-time role on the basis that airport design and highway traffic engineering are technically distinct disciplines with no formal overlap, that the former firm does no competing state highway work, and that the absence of an explicit outside-employment prohibition at the State DOT renders the dual engagement permissible under the standard moonlighting framework.
If Engineer A were to proceed with the dual role, should Engineer A treat employer disclosure and a recusal commitment as sufficient ethical safeguards, or must Engineer A recognize that the structural conflict cannot be cured by procedural measures and decline the engagement regardless of employer non-objection?
Even assuming Engineer A were to proceed with the part-time engagement (which the Board finds impermissible), a secondary question arises regarding whether employer awareness and non-objection — combined with a recusal commitment — would be sufficient to cure the structural conflict, or whether the conflict is so pervasive that no procedural remedy can render the dual role ethical. This decision point captures the tension between the view that procedural compliance (disclosure, approval, recusal) satisfies the engineer's ethical obligations and the view that the structural conflict is substantive and non-curable through procedural means.
Recognize that employer disclosure and non-objection are necessary but not sufficient conditions for ethical permissibility, and decline the engagement on the independent ground that the structural conflict — shared municipal stakeholders, expanding recusal obligations, and informational advantage from FAA guideline dissemination — cannot be cured by procedural measures regardless of employer consent.
Proceed with the dual role after obtaining explicit State DOT approval and implementing a systematic recusal protocol, treating the employer's informed non-objection as the authoritative institutional judgment that the conflict is manageable and that the engineer's independent ethical obligation is thereby satisfied.
Accept the engagement with a narrowly scoped recusal protocol limited to municipalities where active airport consulting contracts exist (rather than mere solicitation), subject to periodic review by the State DOT ethics officer, on the theory that a targeted and supervised recusal regime adequately manages the conflict without requiring full declination.
Should Engineer A treat the conflict of interest as arising at the moment of solicitation activity — requiring immediate declination — or as arising only upon execution of a consulting contract or a specific act of biased governmental review, permitting Engineer A to explore the opportunity while monitoring for concrete conflicts?
A threshold question precedes the full conflict analysis: does the structural conflict of interest arise at the moment Engineer A begins soliciting municipal clients on behalf of the former firm, or only upon actual execution of a consulting contract or performance of a specific act of biased review? This question determines when Engineer A's ethical obligations are triggered and whether the mere act of entertaining or pursuing the solicitation — without yet performing any airport design work or reviewing any traffic signal plan for a solicited municipality — already constitutes an ethical violation of the faithful agent and appearance-of-impropriety standards.
Treat the conflict of interest as arising at the moment the former firm's solicitation is received — because the structural overlap between DOT grant municipalities and the municipalities to be solicited is immediately ascertainable — and decline the engagement without proceeding to contract negotiation, on the ground that the faithful agent obligation prohibits position-taking that places private interests in tension with public duties regardless of whether any specific harm has yet occurred.
Proceed with exploring the part-time opportunity while implementing a real-time monitoring protocol that triggers recusal from any DOT review or grant activity the moment a specific municipality becomes a target of the former firm's solicitation, treating the conflict as transactional and manageable rather than structural and categorical.
Pause before accepting or declining the solicitation, proactively disclose the former firm's approach to the State DOT ethics officer and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, and request a formal advisory opinion on whether the structural overlap is sufficient to prohibit the engagement — treating the timing question as genuinely uncertain and requiring authoritative resolution before any solicitation activity begins.
Should Engineer A accept the part-time role soliciting municipal airport consulting contracts for his former firm while remaining a State DOT employee, or decline the engagement on the basis of structural conflict of interest?
Engineer A State DOT Traffic Engineer: Whether to Accept Part-Time Moonlighting Role with Former Firm Soliciting Municipal Airport Contracts
Decline the former firm's solicitation on the basis that the shared municipal stakeholder relationship between the State DOT's grant administration function and the municipalities to be solicited creates a structural conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure or recusal while concurrent DOT employment continues.
Accept the part-time role after disclosing the dual employment to both the State DOT and the former firm, and commit to recusing from every DOT traffic signal review or grant activity involving municipalities simultaneously solicited for airport consulting work, treating procedural safeguards as sufficient to manage the conflict.
Accept the part-time role on the grounds that airport design and highway traffic engineering are technically distinct disciplines, that Engineer A has no formal authority to select or approve airport consultants, and that the absence of an explicit State DOT outside-employment prohibition renders the engagement permissible under the standard moonlighting framework.
Should Engineer A continue performing his State DOT duties — including reviewing private firm traffic signal contracts and disseminating FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines to municipalities — while simultaneously soliciting those same municipalities for private airport consulting contracts, or must he treat the cross-domain same-client overlap as independently disqualifying regardless of domain separation?
Engineer A: Whether Reviewing Private Firm Contracts and Disseminating FAA Guidelines While Simultaneously Soliciting Those Same Municipal Clients for Private Airport Consulting Constitutes an Exploitable Cross-Domain Same-Client Conflict
Treat the cross-domain same-client overlap as independently disqualifying and refrain from any private solicitation of municipalities that receive State DOT airport grant funding or submit traffic signal plans for DOT review, recognizing that the informational and procedural advantage from the FAA guideline dissemination role cannot be neutralized by recusal or disclosure alone.
Continue both DOT duties and private solicitation activity, but implement a systematic recusal protocol under which Engineer A abstains from reviewing any traffic signal plans or grant activities involving municipalities simultaneously being solicited by his former firm, treating targeted recusal as sufficient to manage the specific conflict events as they arise.
Continue DOT duties without modification but restrict the former firm's solicitation activity to municipalities that have no current or pending State DOT airport grant relationships and no traffic signal submissions before Engineer A, thereby eliminating the shared-stakeholder overlap while preserving Engineer A's ability to perform his primary DOT functions and pursue legitimate private professional opportunities.
Should Engineer A treat proactive disclosure to the State DOT and receipt of employer non-objection as sufficient ethical authorization to proceed with the part-time role, or must Engineer A independently conclude that the structural conflict is irresolvable regardless of the employer's response?
Engineer A: Whether Employer Disclosure and Approval Are Sufficient to Cure the Structural Dual-Employment Conflict, or Whether the Faithful Agent Obligation Requires Independent Ethical Assessment Beyond Procedural Compliance
Perform an independent ethical assessment under the NSPE Code's faithful agent and conflict-of-interest provisions, conclude that the structural overlap between DOT grant relationships and the municipalities to be privately solicited renders the engagement impermissible regardless of employer response, and decline the part-time role without relying on the State DOT's silence as authorization.
Proactively disclose the proposed part-time engagement to the State DOT in full detail, request explicit guidance or approval, and treat the employer's informed response — whether approval, conditional approval, or non-objection — as the authoritative determination of whether the engagement is institutionally permissible, supplementing that determination with personal recusal commitments.
Disclose the proposed engagement to the State DOT and simultaneously seek an advisory opinion from the NSPE Board of Ethical Review or a comparable professional ethics body before accepting or declining, treating the absence of a formal State DOT policy as a gap that warrants external ethical guidance rather than unilateral resolution by either the engineer or the employer.
Developers Submitting Traffic Signal Plans
{'type': 'Private development entities', 'relationship_to_DOT': 'Submit traffic signal plans for state highway system review'}
Private developers submit traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates to Engineer A's DOT division for review as part of state highway system work. They are regulated entities whose submissions Engineer A evaluates in his public role.
{'type': 'regulated_by', 'target': 'State DOT Employer Authority'}
{'type': 'reviewed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A State DOT Traffic Engineer'}
traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities) for traffic signal work performed on the state highway system
Dual Public-Private Employment Ethics Standard
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
Engineer A when evaluating the propriety of accepting part-time consulting work while employed by the State DOT
Governs Engineer A's simultaneous role as a State DOT employee and potential part-time private consultant for his former firm, addressing conflicts of interest, faithful agent obligations to both employers, and appearance of impropriety
Dual-Role Faithful Agent Breach Self-Recognition Engineer A DOT Airport Consulting
Dual-Role Faithful Agent Breach Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that accepting private airport consulting work while employed as a State DOT traffic engineer would constitute a breach of the fundamental duty to serve as a faithful agent and trustee for the DOT employer, given the interrelated municipal client relationships.
Engineer A's DOT employer has relationships with the same municipalities Engineer A would privately serve; accepting the consulting role would divide Engineer A's loyalty between the DOT and the former firm's private clients.
Self-assessment that the proposed part-time airport consulting role — involving the same municipalities that interact with Engineer A's DOT division — compromises the DOT employer's interests and the engineer's undivided loyalty obligation.
Dual-Role Public-Private Conflict Invoked for Engineer A Airport Consulting
Engineer A simultaneously holds a State DOT position reviewing municipal traffic signal plans and is solicited to perform private airport consulting for those same municipalities, creating a dual-role conflict even though the technical domains differ, because the municipalities interact with Engineer A in both capacities
The principle applies here because the linkage between Engineer A's governmental role (reviewing municipal traffic signal submissions) and the proposed private role (airport consulting for those same municipalities) compromises independent judgment in both roles, even though traffic engineering and airport design are nominally distinct domains
The structural overlap in client identity (same municipalities) across both roles triggers the conflict prohibition despite domain distinctness, consistent with the principle's explicit coverage of cases where 'domains appear distinct but linkages compromise judgment'
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Engineer A DOT Airport Consulting
Engineer A serves as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal submissions while being solicited by former employer for part-time airport consulting for those same municipalities
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from accepting the former consulting firm's solicitation to perform part-time airport consulting for municipalities because Engineer A's State DOT traffic engineering role and the proposed airport consulting role are sufficiently interrelated through the shared municipal client base — the same municipalities that receive DOT airport grants and submit traffic signal plans to Engineer A's review — creating a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety even though traffic signals and airport design are technically distinct domains.
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Engineer A Municipal Overlap
Engineer A's DOT role involves reviewing municipal traffic signal plans and the DOT administers airport grants to municipalities; private consulting for those same municipalities creates an interrelated conflict
Dual-Role Public-Private Engineer Interrelated Domain Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that even though airport design and traffic signal review are technically distinct domains, the shared municipal client base creates an interrelated conflict where Engineer A's private consulting relationship with municipalities could influence — or appear to influence — Engineer A's objectivity in reviewing those municipalities' traffic signal submissions and in administering their airport grant agreements.
Upon receipt of the solicitation; obligation to recognize and act on the conflict is immediate
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Invoked for Municipal Client Overlap
Municipal Airport Improvement Grant Recipient
Engineer A occupying both a governmental review role over municipalities and a private consulting solicitation role targeting those same municipalities creates an appearance of impropriety — municipalities may perceive that engaging Engineer A's private firm improves their standing in DOT reviews, or that refusing creates risk of unfavorable treatment
The appearance of impropriety arises from the structural power asymmetry: municipalities subject to Engineer A's review authority cannot freely evaluate the private consulting solicitation without the shadow of that authority influencing their decision
The appearance of impropriety is sufficient to prohibit the dual role, regardless of Engineer A's actual intent to maintain objectivity
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Engineer A Municipal Airport Traffic
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that simultaneously serving as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal submissions and as a private airport consultant seeking contracts from those same municipalities creates an appearance of impropriety that would undermine public confidence in both the DOT review process and the private consulting relationship.
The shared municipal client relationship between Engineer A's DOT role and the proposed private consulting role creates an appearance of impropriety even if the subject matter domains are technically distinct.
Assessing how the dual role would appear to municipalities submitting traffic signal plans to Engineer A's DOT division while also being solicited as private airport consulting clients.
Dual Role Conflict Condition Crystallized
Dual Role Conflict Condition Crystallized (Event 5) → Monitoring and Addressing Emerging Conflicts (Action 5)
Employer Awareness Non-Sufficient to Cure Structural Conflict in Engineer A Case
Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict of Interest
The BER distinguished the present case from Case 97-1 by holding that even assuming both the state DOT and the consulting firm were aware of and did not object to Engineer A's dual employment, this mutual awareness was insufficient to cure the structural conflict arising from his governmental review authority over the same municipalities he would privately consult for
Employer awareness and non-objection are necessary but not sufficient conditions for ethical dual employment; when structural conflicts exist between the governmental and private roles with respect to the same clients, no amount of employer consent can restore the objectivity and undivided loyalty that the faithful agent obligation requires
assuming both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm are aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and do not object to these activities, the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here.
Structural conflict analysis overrides the employer-awareness condition established as sufficient in Case 97-1, demonstrating that the Case 97-1 holding was fact-specific and not a general rule
Finding no ethical violation, the Board noted that with regard to Engineer A's dual role as an governmental employee and a private employee, both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities.
Engineer A Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Conflict — Highways vs. Airports
From the commencement of Engineer A's part-time consulting engagement with the airport-focused firm, persisting through the duration of both roles
Municipalities served in both capacities
Private consulting firm (private employer)
State highway agency (government employer)
the Board can easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Latent Conflict State
Engineer A's simultaneous role as state highway employee and part-time consultant for firm working on municipal airports
Not resolved in the case; would terminate upon withdrawal from one role or implementation of formal conflict management
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere
While the scope of his responsibilities (state highways vs. airports) are clearly different, there may be situations and circumstances where his role in one or another area could be compromised
Engineer A accepting part-time consulting work with a firm serving municipalities on airport projects while employed full-time as a state highway engineer serving the same municipalities
Engineer A Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Latent Conflict
From the moment Engineer A is approached by the former firm through resolution of the solicitation
Engineer A's simultaneous State DOT traffic engineering role and proposed part-time airport consulting role
Engineer A's acceptance or refusal of the part-time role, or formal ethics clearance
Prior to Engineer A's employment with the State DOT's traffic engineering division, Engineer A performed airport design through a consulting firm which currently does no traffic signal work in the state highway system
Former consulting firm's approach to Engineer A for part-time airport design work while he remains a State DOT employee
Engineer A Appearance of Impropriety Municipal Dual Role Highway Airport
The Board identified clear ethical appearance issues arising from Engineer A's dual roles with the same municipal clients in adjacent infrastructure domains as an independent basis for concern beyond actual conflict.
Engineer A was constrained to avoid the appearance of impropriety created by simultaneously serving the same municipalities in a State DOT oversight capacity and as a private consultant for airport projects, regardless of whether actual impropriety could be demonstrated.
Duration of Engineer A's State DOT employment
Engineer A BER Moonlighting Precedent Permissibility Boundary Distinction DOT Airport Case 97-1
Engineer A was required to retrieve and correctly apply BER Case 97-1 as a moonlighting precedent, distinguishing the factual circumstances that made dual employment permissible in that case from the present case's structural conflicts — recognizing that shared municipal clients and interrelated highway-airport domains place the present case outside the permissible precedent range despite similar employer awareness.
The BER explicitly invoked and distinguished Case 97-1 to reach the conclusion that Engineer A's proposed dual employment constitutes an ethical violation despite the precedent's permissibility finding
Application of Case 97-1 precedent analysis to identify why the present solicitation falls outside the permissible moonlighting boundary established by that case
While as we noted in Case 97-1...the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here.
Engineer A Cross-Domain Interrelated Infrastructure Conflict DOT Highway Airport
The BER rejected the domain-separation defense, finding that highway and airport infrastructure are physically and functionally linked such that Engineer A's dual role creates an irresolvable conflict even though the formal technical domains differ.
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the highway and airport infrastructure domains are sufficiently interrelated — given that highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could impact decisions in the other — such that the nominally distinct scope of responsibilities (state highways vs. airports) does not eliminate the conflict of interest arising from serving the same municipalities in both roles.
At the time of evaluating the private consulting solicitation
there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related
Engineer A Cross-Domain Same-Client DOT Highway Airport Municipal Conflict
The municipalities that submit traffic signal plans to Engineer A's DOT division for review are the same class of entities for whom the former consulting firm proposed private airport consulting services, creating a cross-domain same-client conflict.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting private airport consulting work for municipalities that are the same entities Engineer A reviews in the governmental highway traffic signal plan review function, recognizing that the shared client relationship creates a structural conflict of interest regardless of the technical domain distinction.
At the time of solicitation and before acceptance of the private consulting engagement
From Engineer A's hire by the State DOT through the present scenario
Engineer A serves as a traffic engineer for the State DOT
Engineer A's active employment relationship with the State DOT
Engineer A reviews private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans
Engineer A's employment with the State DOT traffic engineering division
Engineer A Dual-Role Faithful Agent Breach Self-Recognition DOT Airport Municipal Clients
Engineer A was required to recognize that accepting private airport consulting work for the same municipalities whose traffic signal plans Engineer A reviews in the governmental role constitutes a breach of the fundamental duty to serve as faithful agent and trustee for the State DOT employer — regardless of mutual employer awareness and non-objection.
The BER grounded its finding of ethical violation in Engineer A's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT employer
Recognition that the faithful agent obligation to the State DOT employer is violated by the proposed private consulting engagement with shared municipal clients
the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here.
Engineer A Dual Employment Professional Liability Risk Awareness DOT Airport
Dual Employment Professional Liability Risk Awareness Capability
Engineer A was required to assess and remain mindful of the potential adverse effects that the proposed dual employment arrangement could have on the professional liability of the State DOT employer, including risks arising from shared client relationships and resource use.
The BER cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of liability concerns as part of the broader dual employment ethical analysis
Obligation to factor liability concerns into the assessment of the former firm's solicitation for part-time airport consulting
Other questions arise relating to whether such practices may have an adverse effect on the professional liability of the employer and other professional practice areas.
the Board must also caution Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies, liability concerns, and the avoiding the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
Engineer A Dual Public-Private Interrelated Domain Conflict DOT Highway Airport
Engineer A's State DOT role involves reviewing traffic signal plans for municipalities that are the same entities for which the former firm would have him perform airport design consulting.
Engineer A was prohibited from accepting the part-time airport consulting role because his State DOT highway responsibilities and the proposed private airport consulting work are sufficiently interrelated — highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere can impact decisions in another — creating a foreseeable conflict of interest with the same municipalities served in both roles.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2; BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8
there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
Engineer A Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition DOT Airport Municipal Overlap
Engineer A was required to recognize that simultaneously reviewing municipal traffic signal plans in the governmental role while privately consulting for those same municipalities on airport projects creates an appearance of impropriety that must be affirmatively addressed — including recognizing that the appearance issue exists independently of whether any actual conflict materializes.
The BER explicitly identified clear ethical appearance issues as a factor requiring Engineer A's attention in the dual employment analysis
Recognition of the ethical appearance issues arising from the dual role with shared municipal clients in interrelated infrastructure domains
Engineer A Employer-Aware Dual Employment Insufficient Mitigation
From the point at which both employers became aware and did not object, through the Board's determination that a violation exists nonetheless
both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities
Employer-Aware Dual Employment Insufficient Mitigation State
The condition in which both of Engineer A's employers are aware of and do not object to his dual role, yet the Board finds this insufficient to satisfy faithful agent obligations
Not resolved; would require structural conflict resolution beyond mere employer awareness
Both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm becoming aware of Engineer A's dual employment without objecting, combined with the structural conflict arising from shared municipal stakeholders across adjacent domains
Engineer A Employer Awareness Non-Sufficiency Structural Conflict DOT Airport
Engineer A, a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal traffic signal plans, was solicited by a former employer to perform part-time airport consulting for the same municipalities; the BER held that even assuming employer awareness and non-objection, the structural conflict constitutes a violation of the NSPE Code.
Employer Awareness Non-Sufficiency to Cure Structural Dual-Employment Conflict Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to decline the private airport consulting engagement with the former firm even if both the State DOT and the consulting firm were aware of and did not object to the dual employment, because the structural conflict of interest arising from Engineer A's governmental review authority over the same municipalities for whom private consulting was proposed cannot be cured by employer awareness alone.
assuming both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm are aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and do not object to these activities, the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here
Engineer A Employer Non-Objection Insufficient Faithful Agent DOT Airport
The Board distinguished the present case from BER Case 97-1 (where no ethical violation was found with mutual employer awareness) by finding that the structural conflict created by shared municipal clients in interrelated domains cannot be cured by employer consent alone.
Employer Non-Objection Dual Employment Ethical Insufficiency Constraint
Even if both the State DOT and the former consulting firm were aware of and did not object to Engineer A's dual employment, this mutual non-objection was insufficient to satisfy Engineer A's independent ethical obligation as faithful agent and trustee to the State DOT, and the dual engagement remained ethically impermissible.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 97-1 and 02-8
Engineer A Ethical Appearance Conflict — Highway-Airport Dual Role
Concurrent with both employment relationships
there are clear ethical appearance issues that would presumably need to be addressed
Ethical Appearance Conflict Without Demonstrated Actual Conflict State
The visible appearance of conflict created by Engineer A's dual roles serving the same municipalities in adjacent infrastructure domains, independent of whether an actual conflict has materialized
Structural resolution of the dual role or implementation of formal disclosure and recusal mechanisms
The public visibility of Engineer A's dual roles across highway and airport domains for the same municipal clients
Engineer A FAA QBS Selection Integrity Non-Interference Airport Consultant Solicitation
The State DOT provides FAA guidelines on qualification-based selection procedures to municipalities selecting airport improvement consultants, creating an institutional role that Engineer A's private solicitation would compromise.
FAA QBS Guideline Dissemination Role Private Airport Consulting Solicitation Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from participating in seeking airport consulting contracts with municipalities through the former firm, given the State DOT's role in disseminating FAA qualification-based selection guidelines to those same municipalities for airport consultant procurement.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2, III.7; FAA QBS requirements; BER Case 02-8
Engineer A Faithful Agent Trustee DOT Employer Structural Conflict
The BER grounded its finding of ethical violation in Engineer A's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT, holding that the structural conflict arising from the dual municipal client relationship breaches this fundamental duty.
Engineer A was obligated to serve as faithful agent and trustee of the State DOT employer, which required declining the private airport consulting engagement that created a structural conflict of interest with the governmental review function.
Throughout the period of State DOT employment
Engineer A Former Employer Part-Time Re-Engagement Solicitation
From the moment the former firm approaches Engineer A through his decision to accept or decline
Former Employer Part-Time Re-Engagement Solicitation State
Engineer A being solicited by former employer for part-time work while holding government position
Engineer A's acceptance (with or without disclosure) or refusal of the solicitation
Former consulting engineering firm's approach to Engineer A proposing part-time engagement
Engineer A Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation DOT Airport Municipalities
The State DOT administers airport improvement grants to municipalities, and Engineer A was solicited to perform private airport consulting for those same grant-recipient municipalities, creating a structural power relationship that the BER identified as ethically problematic.
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Private Consulting Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting private airport consulting work solicited through the former firm for municipalities that receive State DOT airport improvement grants, recognizing that the DOT's grant authority over those municipalities creates a structural power asymmetry that could be exploited to obtain private consulting work.
Engineer A Government Procedure Policy Compliance DOT Outside Employment
The Board cautioned Engineer A to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies as an independent requirement beyond the substantive conflict-of-interest analysis.
Moonlighting Government Procedure Policy Compliance Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to identify and comply with all applicable State DOT government procedures, policies, and state ethics regulations governing outside employment before accepting or performing any private consulting work.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 02-8; applicable state ethics statutes
the Board must also caution Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies
Prior to and throughout any dual employment arrangement
Engineer A Government Resource Non-Use Private Airport Consulting
The Board explicitly cautioned Engineer A regarding the prohibition on using public resources in the performance of private work, even if the dual employment were otherwise permissible.
Government Employer Resource Non-Use in Private Consulting Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from using any State DOT materials, equipment, data, time, or institutional resources in the performance of private airport consulting work for the former firm.
the Board must also caution Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies, liability concerns, and the avoiding the use of public resources in the performance of private work
Duration of any private consulting engagement concurrent with State DOT employment
Engineer A Governmental Procedure Compliance DOT Airport Dual Employment
The BER cautioned Engineer A to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies in connection with any dual employment arrangement.
Governmental Procedure and Policy Compliance in Dual-Role Employment Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to carefully follow all applicable State DOT government procedures, policies, and regulations governing dual employment before and during any private consulting engagement, including conflict-of-interest statutes and agency-specific outside employment approval requirements.
whether such practices are consistent with the policies and procedures of the employer
Before accepting and throughout any dual employment arrangement
The Board must also caution Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies, liability concerns, and the avoiding the use of public resources in the performance of private work
Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance DOT Airport Dual Employment
Governmental Procedure and Policy Dual Employment Compliance Capability
Engineer A was required to identify and comply with all applicable State DOT government procedures, policies, state ethics statutes, and conflict-of-interest regulations governing dual employment — including avoiding use of public resources in private work — before accepting any outside consulting engagement.
The BER cautioned Engineer A to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies as part of the broader dual employment ethical obligations
Obligation to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies as part of the dual employment ethical analysis
Engineer A Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Municipal Airport Consulting
The State DOT has grant agreements with municipalities, and Engineer A's proposed private consulting for those same municipalities would create a structural conflict between his grant oversight role and his private financial interest.
Grant-Administering Government Engineer Private Consulting Municipal Client Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from accepting private airport consulting work for municipalities that receive grant funding administered or reviewed by the State DOT, as this would constitute exploitation of his governmental grant administration authority for private commercial benefit.
Engineer A Interrelated Infrastructure Domain Cross-Conflict Recognition DOT Highway Airport
Interrelated Infrastructure Domain Cross-Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that the highway and airport infrastructure domains are functionally interrelated — with highway-airport hubs inextricably linked and traffic and airport issues closely related — such that serving the same municipalities in both domains creates a conflict of interest even though the formal scope of responsibilities differs.
The BER identified the highway-airport functional linkage as a key factor elevating the cross-domain shared-client conflict to an ethically impermissible level
Recognition that decisions in the state highway domain could compromise or appear to compromise Engineer A's judgment in the private airport consulting role for the same municipalities
Engineer A Moonlighting Multi-Factor Assessment DOT Airport Consulting
Engineer A considered accepting part-time airport consulting work for municipalities that also interact with his DOT division; the BER enumerated the multi-factor framework applicable to all moonlighting assessments.
Moonlighting Conflict of Interest Multi-Factor Contextual Assessment Before Acceptance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to conduct a comprehensive multi-factor contextual assessment before accepting the part-time airport consulting engagement, evaluating conflict of interest potential, resource use, employer policy compliance, professional liability impact, and capacity to devote sufficient attention to both roles.
Among the more significant considerations in this area are the extent to which such practice may constitute a conflict of interest, whether the individual is using the materials, equipment, and resources of the individual's full-time employer in pursuing and performing part-time work, and whether such practices are consistent with the policies and procedures of the employer
Before accepting any part-time private consulting engagement concurrent with State DOT employment
As with all such cases, a review of all of the facts and circumstances is critical to a determination of the ethical issues
The Board noted in Case 97-1 that these cases frequently raise the question of whether an engineer can ethically devote sufficient attention to the responsibilities involved
Engineer A Moonlighting Multi-Factor Pre-Acceptance Assessment DOT Airport
Engineer A, a State DOT highway employee, was solicited by his former private consulting firm to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities that also interact with the DOT.
Moonlighting Multi-Factor Pre-Acceptance Assessment Constraint
Before accepting the part-time airport consulting engagement with the former firm, Engineer A was constrained to conduct a comprehensive multi-factor assessment covering conflict of interest potential, public resource use, employer policy compliance, professional liability impact, and capacity to devote sufficient attention to both roles.
Among the more significant considerations in this area are the extent to which such practice may constitute a conflict of interest, whether the individual is using the materials, equipment, and resources of the individual's full-time employer in pursuing and performing part-time work, and whether such practices are consistent with the policies and procedures of the employer.
Prior to acceptance of any part-time private consulting engagement while employed by State DOT
As with all such cases, a review of all of the facts and circumstances is critical to a determination of the ethical issues.
Engineer A No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition
Concurrent with Engineer A's DOT employment and the solicitation
The State DOT does not contract directly with consultants hired by the municipalities for their airport improvements, nor is the state involved in the selection of airport consultants
No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition State
Absence of explicit statutory or contractual prohibition on Engineer A's proposed part-time private engagement
Adoption of a formal prohibition, or resolution of the engagement question
Solicitation by former employer in the absence of any stated formal prohibition
Engineer A No Formal Revolving Door Provision Non-Exculpation DOT Airport
Engineer A's situation involved no explicit statutory or contractual prohibition on the proposed part-time private engagement, yet the Board found an ethical violation based on independent NSPE Code obligations.
No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
The absence of an explicit revolving door provision or contractual restriction in Engineer A's State DOT employment agreement did not relieve Engineer A of independent ethical obligations under the NSPE Code to avoid conflicts of interest and serve as faithful agent to the governmental employer.
Engineer A Professional Liability Adverse Effect Avoidance DOT Airport Dual Employment
The Board identified professional liability impact on the employer as one of the significant considerations in evaluating the ethical permissibility of moonlighting arrangements.
Dual Employment Professional Liability Adverse Effect Avoidance Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to assess and avoid any dual employment arrangement that could adversely affect the professional liability exposure of the State DOT or create conflicts in other professional practice areas.
Engineer A Professional Liability Awareness DOT Airport Dual Employment
The BER cautioned Engineer A regarding liability concerns arising from dual employment with the State DOT and a private consulting firm serving the same municipalities.
Dual Employment Professional Liability Risk Awareness Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to assess and be mindful of the potential adverse effects of the proposed dual employment arrangement on the professional liability of the State DOT employer before accepting the private airport consulting engagement.
Other questions arise relating to whether such practices may have an adverse effect on the professional liability of the employer and other professional practice areas
Before and during any dual employment arrangement
Engineer A Public Resource Use in Private Work Prohibition
Concurrent with Engineer A's dual employment
Public (as beneficiary of public resources)
whether the individual is using the materials, equipment, and resources of the individual's full-time employer in pursuing and performing part-time work
Public Resource Use in Private Work Prohibition State
Engineer A's obligation to avoid using state highway agency resources, materials, equipment, or time in the performance of his private airport consulting work
Cessation of one of the employment relationships or formal authorization
the avoiding the use of public resources in the performance of private work
Engineer A's simultaneous government employment and private consulting engagement, creating access to public resources that must not be diverted to private use
Engineer A Public Resources Non-Use DOT Airport Private Work
The BER cautioned Engineer A to avoid using public resources in the performance of private work as part of the dual employment ethical analysis.
Public Resources Non-Use in Private Consulting Work Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using any State DOT public resources — including materials, equipment, data, time, or institutional assets — in the performance of private airport consulting work for the former firm.
Throughout any concurrent dual employment arrangement
Engineer A Regulatory Compliance State - FAA QBS Guidelines
Ongoing; applies whenever municipalities select airport consultants under DOT grant agreements
the state involved in the selection of airport consultants other than to provide FAA guidelines with respect to consultant qualifications-based selection procedures
FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines applicable to airport consultant selection by municipalities
State DOT's provision of FAA guidelines for consultant qualifications-based selection
Engineer A Shared Municipal Stakeholder Dual Role Conflict
Activated upon the solicitation; would persist through any accepted private engagement
Shared Municipal Stakeholder Dual Role Conflict State
Overlap between State DOT's grant relationships with municipalities and Engineer A's proposed private consulting for those same municipalities
Refusal of private engagement, recusal from relevant DOT dealings, or formal ethics clearance
State DOT's grant agreement relationships with municipalities combined with the former firm's solicitation of Engineer A to seek contracts with those same municipalities
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'primary_employer': 'State highway/DOT agency', 'secondary_role': 'Part-time airport design consultant for private engineering firm', 'conflict_domain': 'Highway-airport infrastructure interconnection'}
State highway employee who was solicited by a former employer to perform part-time airport consulting for municipalities that also interact with his state DOT employer on highway matters; the Board finds a violation of the NSPE Code based on conflict-of-interest and faithful agent/trustee obligations.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'State DOT / Highway Agency'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Municipal Airport Improvement Grant Recipient'}
{'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Former Employer Soliciting Part-Time Airport Consultant'}
State DOT Engineer Concurrent Airport Consultant
Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies, liability concerns, and the avoiding the use of public resources in the performance of private work
the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Traffic engineering (current); Airport design (prior)', 'employment_status': 'Full-time State DOT employee', 'prior_experience': 'Airport design through private consulting firm'}
Engineer A is a licensed traffic engineer employed by the State DOT who reviews private firm contracts and traffic signal plans submitted by developers and municipalities for state highway work. He is simultaneously solicited by his former consulting firm to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities — the same municipalities that interact with his DOT employer — creating a significant conflict of interest.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'State DOT'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Former Consulting Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'reviewer_of', 'target': 'Municipal and Developer Traffic Signal Submissions'}
{'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Former Consulting Engineering Firm'}
Prior to Engineer A's employment with the State DOT's traffic engineering division, Engineer A performed airport design through a consulting firm
Engineer A's airport design work at consulting firm before Engineer A's employment at State DOT
Engineer A's airport design work at consulting firm before proposed part-time consulting role with same firm
Engineer A's full-time DOT employment before consulting firm's approach for part-time work
FAA Guidelines for Qualification-Based Selection of Airport Consultants
Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
State DOT in administering airport improvement grant agreements with municipalities; municipalities in selecting airport consultants
The State DOT provides FAA guidelines on qualification-based selection procedures to municipalities selecting airport improvement consultants, establishing the procurement framework within which Engineer A's former firm would be competing for contracts
FAA QBS Consultant Selection Non-Interference Engineer A Airport Consulting Solicitation
FAA QBS Consultant Selection Non-Interference Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that participating in seeking airport consulting contracts with municipalities subject to FAA QBS guidelines administered by Engineer A's own DOT employer constitutes interference with the integrity of the consultant selection process, making such participation ethically impermissible.
The State DOT provides FAA guidelines for qualifications-based consultant selection; Engineer A's former firm solicits Engineer A to participate in seeking airport consulting contracts governed by those same guidelines.
Recognizing that the State DOT provides FAA QBS guidelines to municipalities for airport consultant selection, and that Engineer A seeking such contracts through a former employer exploits and undermines that governmental oversight role.
FAA QBS Guideline Dissemination Role Private Airport Consulting Solicitation Prohibition Engineer A
State DOT provides FAA QBS guidelines to municipalities for airport consultant selection; Engineer A's former firm seeks to use Engineer A to obtain those consulting contracts
Engineer A is prohibited from seeking private airport consulting contracts with municipalities through the former consulting firm because the State DOT's role in providing FAA QBS guidelines to those municipalities for consultant selection means Engineer A's institutional position would create an appearance of impropriety and a structural conflict of interest in the consultant selection process that Engineer A's employer helps to govern.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2, III.7; FAA QBS consultant selection requirements
FAA QBS Selection Integrity Non-Interference Engineer A Airport Consultant Solicitation
The State DOT provides FAA QBS guidelines for municipal airport consultant selection; Engineer A is solicited to seek those same consulting contracts
FAA QBS Consultant Selection Integrity Non-Interference Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from participating — through the former consulting firm or otherwise — in seeking airport consulting contracts with municipalities whose consultant selection processes are governed by FAA QBS guidelines that Engineer A's State DOT division provides, because Engineer A's governmental role in administering those QBS guidelines creates an appearance of improper advantage over competing consultants.
Upon receipt of the solicitation; obligation persists for the duration of Engineer A's State DOT employment
Faithful Agent DOT Employer Loyalty Engineer A Private Consulting Boundary
Engineer A's State DOT employer reviews municipal traffic signal plans and administers airport improvement grants to municipalities; accepting private consulting for those same municipalities would breach the faithful agent duty
Engineer A is obligated to act as a faithful agent to the State DOT employer by not undertaking private consulting work that compromises the DOT's interest in impartial review of municipal traffic signal plans and objective administration of airport improvement grant agreements.
Engineer A serves as a traffic engineer for the State DOT.
Ongoing throughout Engineer A's State DOT employment
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked for Engineer A State DOT Loyalty
Engineer A owes faithful agent duties to the State DOT as employer, which include not undertaking private consulting work that compromises the DOT's interest in impartial review of municipal submissions and uncompromised administration of airport grant programs
Faithful agency to the DOT requires Engineer A to subordinate private commercial interests to the DOT's institutional interests in objective review and grant administration integrity
The current employer's (DOT's) faithful agent claim takes precedence over the former employer's solicitation; the ethical limits of faithful agency do not permit the private consulting engagement
Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation Violated by Structural Conflict
The BER grounded its finding of ethical violation in Engineer A's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee of his governmental employer — an obligation that is incompatible with simultaneously serving as a private consultant for the same municipalities over which he exercises governmental review authority
The faithful agent and trustee obligation requires undivided loyalty to the employer's interests; accepting private consulting work for entities subject to the engineer's governmental review authority structurally compromises this undivided loyalty regardless of the engineer's subjective intent
The faithful agent obligation overrides the employer-awareness condition, establishing that structural conflicts cannot be cured by employer knowledge and non-objection alone
However, the Board also indicated that should a conflict-of-interest arise (e.g., where Engineer A or the firm's activities conflict with the governmental employer's activities or interests) Engineer A would need to carefully address those activities consistent with NSPE Code Sections III.6.b., II.4.d., II.4.e. and other applicable provisions of the NSPE Code.
{'type': 'Private consulting engineering firm', 'current_state_work': 'No traffic signal work in state highway system', 'target_work': 'Airport improvement design for municipalities (master plans, runway extensions)'}
Engineer A's former consulting engineering firm, which currently does no traffic signal work in the state highway system, approaches Engineer A to perform part-time airport design consulting work for municipalities that also interact with Engineer A's current DOT employer on highway matters.
{'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A State DOT Traffic Engineer'}
{'type': 'seeking_clients_from', 'target': 'Municipal Airport Improvement Grant Recipients'}
{'type': 'soliciting', 'target': 'Engineer A State DOT Traffic Engineer'}
Former Employer Soliciting Part-Time Airport Consultant
a consulting firm which currently does no traffic signal work in the state highway system
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.)
Former Employer Re-Engagement Government Position Faithful Agent Non-Compromise Engineer A
Engineer A's former employer solicits re-engagement while Engineer A holds a State DOT position with multiple points of intersection with the firm's prospective municipal clients
Former Employer Re-Engagement Government Position Faithful Agent Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer A's prior employment relationship with the soliciting consulting firm does not create an entitlement to accept re-engagement; Engineer A must evaluate the solicitation against the full scope of State DOT duties — including grant administration, traffic signal plan review for municipalities, and FAA QBS guideline dissemination — and must decline the solicitation because acceptance would compromise faithful agent obligations to the State DOT employer.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2; BER Cases 97-1, 02-8
Former Firm Re-Engagement Approach Occurs
Government Employer Resource Non-Use Private Consulting Engineer A DOT Airport
Engineer A's State DOT position provides access to governmental resources, municipal relationships, and institutional data that must not be deployed for private commercial benefit
If Engineer A were to accept the private airport consulting role (which is itself ethically impermissible), Engineer A would be additionally constrained from using any State DOT resources — including time, data, analytical tools, institutional relationships, or DOT-branded materials — in the performance of private airport consulting work for the former firm.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Cases 02-8, 07-12
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Applied to Engineer A DOT-Municipality Relationship
Engineer A's position at the State DOT, which administers airport improvement grants to municipalities, creates a structural power relationship over those municipalities that the proposed private airport consulting role could exploit — whether by implying favorable grant treatment or leveraging insider knowledge of grant requirements — reinforcing the conflict-of-interest finding
The grant administration dimension of Engineer A's DOT role adds a financial leverage vector to the structural conflict analysis, compounding the traffic signal review authority conflict with an additional grant-authority conflict over the same municipal clients
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation in Private Consulting Solicitation
Grant authority conflict reinforces the traffic signal review conflict, providing multiple independent bases for the structural conflict finding
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Engineer A Airport Grant Municipalities
The State DOT contracts directly with municipalities via grant agreements for airport improvements; Engineer A is solicited to seek airport consulting contracts with those same grant-recipient municipalities
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from accepting private airport consulting work solicited through the former firm for municipalities that receive State DOT airport improvement grant funding, because Engineer A's governmental employer administers those grant agreements and the dual relationship would exploit — or appear to exploit — the State DOT's grant authority over those municipalities to obtain private consulting business.
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Invoked for Airport Grant Municipalities
The State DOT — Engineer A's employer — directly funds municipal airport improvements via grant agreements, and Engineer A is solicited to privately consult for those same grant-recipient municipalities on the very airport improvement projects the DOT funds, creating an impermissible exploitation of the governmental grant relationship
The DOT's grant authority over municipal airport improvements creates a structural power relationship between Engineer A's employer and the municipalities; Engineer A's private consulting solicitation for those same municipalities on those same grant-funded projects exploits that relationship, even if unintentionally
The grant-funding relationship is an independent and additional source of conflict beyond the traffic review overlap; together they make the private consulting engagement clearly impermissible
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Recognition Engineer A Airport Municipalities
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Private Consulting Solicitation Recognition Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that accepting private airport consulting work for municipalities that receive State DOT airport improvement grants constitutes exploitation of the governmental grant authority relationship, making such consulting ethically impermissible.
The State DOT funds municipal airport improvements through grant agreements; Engineer A's former firm solicits Engineer A to seek airport consulting contracts with those same grant-recipient municipalities.
Identifying that the municipalities Engineer A would privately serve as an airport consultant are the same municipalities receiving State DOT grant funding, and that Engineer A's governmental role involves that funding relationship.
Government Procedure Compliance Caution to Engineer A
Public Resource Non-Exploitation in Concurrent Private Practice
The BER cautioned Engineer A to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies in connection with his dual employment, recognizing that governmental employment creates heightened procedural compliance obligations that extend to the management of outside employment activities
Government engineers face not only the standard employer-policy compliance obligations applicable to all moonlighting engineers, but also public-sector procedural requirements — including ethics regulations, conflict-of-interest statutes, and outside-employment approval processes — that impose additional constraints on concurrent private practice
Employer Policy Compliance Obligation in Concurrent Private Practice
Procedural compliance obligation is presented as a companion caution to the substantive conflict finding, establishing that even if the conflict were resolved, procedural compliance would remain independently required
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Engineer A Airport Traffic
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the proposed airport consulting engagement — though technically distinct from traffic engineering — creates a foreseeable conflict due to the shared municipal client relationships and overlapping spheres of influence between the DOT traffic review role and the proposed airport consulting role.
Engineer A reviews traffic signal plans from municipalities while the same municipalities receive DOT airport improvement grants; the former firm solicits Engineer A to seek airport consulting contracts with those same municipalities.
Recognition that municipalities submitting traffic signal plans to Engineer A's DOT division are the same municipalities that would be Engineer A's private airport consulting clients, creating an indirect but ethically significant linkage.
Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Engineer A Dual Employment Outside Work
Engineer A is a State DOT employee considering part-time private consulting; state governmental employment typically carries specific outside employment approval and disclosure requirements
Engineer A is obligated to identify and comply with all applicable State DOT policies, state ethics statutes, and conflict-of-interest regulations governing outside employment before accepting or performing any part-time consulting work for the former firm, recognizing that governmental employment typically imposes specific procedural requirements on outside employment that must be satisfied independently of the ethical analysis.
Before accepting the solicitation from the former consulting firm
Governmental Procedure Policy Dual Employment Compliance Engineer A State DOT Outside Work
Engineer A must possess the capability to identify and comply with all applicable State DOT policies, state ethics statutes, and conflict-of-interest regulations governing outside employment — including researching applicable rules before accepting any outside consulting engagement.
Engineer A is a state government employee subject to state ethics statutes and DOT employment policies that govern outside consulting work.
Proactively researching State DOT outside employment policies and applicable state ethics statutes before responding to the former firm's solicitation.
Grant-Administering Government Engineer Private Consulting Municipal Client Prohibition Engineer A
State DOT contracts directly with municipalities via grant agreements for airport improvements; Engineer A's proposed private consulting would serve those same grant-recipient municipalities
Engineer A is prohibited from accepting private airport consulting work for municipalities that are grant recipients of the State DOT airport improvement program, because Engineer A's governmental employer administers the grant agreements with those municipalities, creating a structural conflict of interest between Engineer A's private financial interest in obtaining consulting contracts and the impartial exercise of governmental grant administration functions.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.2; State ethics statutes
For the duration of Engineer A's State DOT employment and grant administration responsibilities
Infrastructure Interconnection Overlap Recognized
Infrastructure Interconnection Overlap Recognized (Event 6) → Dual Role Conflict Condition Crystallized (Event 5)
Monitoring and Addressing Emerging Conflicts
Moonlighting Contextual Assessment Applied to Engineer A Airport Consulting
The BER applied the multi-factor moonlighting assessment to Engineer A's proposed part-time airport consulting for municipalities that also submit traffic signal plans to his DOT division, finding that the conflict-of-interest dimension was dispositive despite the apparent domain separation between highways and airports
The contextual assessment framework reveals that even when both employers are aware and non-objecting, the structural intersection of governmental review authority over municipalities with private consulting for those same municipalities creates an irreconcilable conflict that renders the moonlighting arrangement ethically impermissible
Moonlighting Conflict of Interest Contextual Assessment Principle
The conflict-of-interest dimension of the moonlighting assessment overrides the employer-awareness condition, resulting in a finding of ethical violation
{'type': 'Local government entities', 'highway_relationship': 'Submit traffic signal plans to State DOT for review by Engineer A', 'airport_relationship': 'Receive State DOT grant funding; independently hire airport design consultants'}
Municipalities submit traffic signal plans and contracts to Engineer A's DOT division for review, and separately receive state DOT grant funding for airport improvements for which they independently hire consultants. Their dual relationship with the DOT — as regulated entities on highways and as grant recipients for airports — is central to the conflict-of-interest analysis.
{'type': 'grant_recipient_from', 'target': 'State DOT Employer Authority'}
{'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Former Consulting Firm Soliciting Engineer A'}
traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities)
seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis
Engineer A in evaluating whether to accept part-time consulting role
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's ethical obligations as a licensed engineer simultaneously employed by the State DOT and potentially engaged in private consulting for a former employer
Engineer A would need to carefully address those activities consistent with NSPE Code Sections III.6.b., II.4.d., II.4.e. and other applicable provisions of the NSPE Code
Primary normative authority invoked to evaluate whether Engineer A's dual employment as a state highway employee and part-time consultant to an engineering firm serving municipalities constitutes an ethical violation; specific sections III.6.b., II.4.d., and II.4.e. are cited
No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Non-Exculpation Engineer A DOT Airport
No explicit statutory or contractual revolving door prohibition identified in Engineer A's DOT employment; Board finds this insufficient to satisfy ethical obligations
The absence of an explicit revolving door provision or formal contractual prohibition in Engineer A's State DOT employment agreement does not relieve Engineer A of independent ethical obligations under the NSPE Code to avoid conflicts of interest and act as a faithful agent — Engineer A cannot treat the absence of formal restrictions as implicit permission to accept the former firm's solicitation.
At the time of solicitation and throughout any dual employment period
Objectivity Obligation Invoked for Engineer A DOT Review Impartiality
Engineer A's objectivity in reviewing traffic signal plans submitted by municipalities would be compromised if those same municipalities are simultaneously clients of the private consulting firm for which Engineer A works part-time, because Engineer A has a financial interest in maintaining favorable relationships with those municipalities
Objectivity requires that Engineer A's governmental review function be free from any financial or commercial interest in the outcome of interactions with the entities being reviewed; the private consulting relationship creates exactly such an interest
Objectivity in the governmental review role is non-negotiable; the private consulting engagement must be declined to preserve it
Prior Airport Design Experience Accumulated
Prior Airport Design Experience Accumulated (Event 1) → Former Firm Re-Engagement Approach Occurs (Event 4)
Professional engineering ethics bodies and state regulatory frameworks
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineer A in assessing whether his DOT role creates conflicts with private consulting activities
Governs Engineer A's obligations as a State DOT employee who reviews private engineering contracts and traffic signal plans, and who would simultaneously be soliciting airport consulting contracts from municipalities that receive DOT grant funding
Public Resource Non-Exploitation Caution to Engineer A
The BER specifically cautioned Engineer A to avoid using public resources in the performance of private work, recognizing that his governmental position provides access to public materials, equipment, information, and facilities that must not be diverted to support his private airport consulting activities
Even if the structural conflict could somehow be resolved, Engineer A would remain obligated to maintain strict separation between governmental and private work resources — a practical obligation that becomes increasingly difficult to satisfy when the same clients appear in both roles
Resource-separation obligation is presented as an independent caution alongside the conflict-of-interest finding, reinforcing the multi-dimensional nature of moonlighting ethics
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked for Public Trust in DOT Review Function
The public's interest in impartial, objective governmental review of traffic signal plans and airport grant administration requires that Engineer A not compromise the integrity of those functions by accepting private consulting work for the same municipalities subject to that review and funding authority
Public welfare here encompasses not only physical safety but the integrity of public procurement and governmental oversight functions — the public relies on DOT engineers to exercise impartial judgment free from private commercial interests
Public welfare in the form of institutional integrity of governmental review functions takes precedence over Engineer A's personal interest in supplemental private income or loyalty to former employer
) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT?
Does the mere act of soliciting airport consulting contracts from municipalities that also receive State DOT grant funding constitute a conflict of interest, even before any actual design work is performed or any traffic signal review involving those municipalities occurs?
Would Engineer A's ethical exposure change materially if the State DOT were to adopt an explicit revolving-door or outside-employment policy, and does the current absence of such a formal prohibition create a false sense of permissibility that itself poses a systemic risk to public trust?
To what extent does Engineer A's role in disseminating FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines to municipalities create an informational advantage for his former firm that would compromise the integrity of competitive procurement, even if Engineer A never directly selects or approves airport consultants?
If Engineer A were to recuse himself from every traffic signal review involving municipalities for which his former firm is simultaneously seeking airport consulting contracts, would that recusal be sufficient to cure the structural conflict, or would the cumulative pattern of recusals itself impair Engineer A's ability to fulfill his primary duties to the State DOT?
Does the Moonlighting Contextual Assessment principle — which permits part-time private engineering work under appropriate conditions — conflict with the Faithful Agent Trustee Obligation principle when the private work involves the same municipal stakeholders that the engineer's government employer funds through grant agreements, even if the technical domains differ?
How should the Competitive Employment Freedom Constraint principle — which recognizes an engineer's right to pursue legitimate private professional opportunities — be weighed against the Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety principle when the engineer holds a government position that, even indirectly, shapes the regulatory and funding environment in which the private work would occur?
Does the Cross-Domain Infrastructure Linkage principle — which defeats a domain-separation defense by recognizing that highways and airports are interrelated infrastructure systems — stand in tension with the Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing principle, which might otherwise permit moonlighting in a technically distinct engineering domain, and how should the Board resolve that tension when the shared client relationship is the primary source of conflict rather than technical overlap?
Does the Employer Awareness Non-Sufficient to Cure Structural Conflict principle conflict with the Government Procedure Compliance Caution principle in cases where State DOT policy neither explicitly prohibits nor explicitly authorizes outside employment, such that an engineer who discloses and receives no objection from the employer might reasonably but incorrectly conclude that procedural compliance has resolved the underlying ethical obligation?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty as a faithful agent and trustee to the State DOT by even entertaining the part-time solicitation from their former firm, given that the State DOT's grant relationships with municipalities structurally overlap with the municipalities Engineer A would be soliciting for airport consulting work?
From a consequentialist perspective, what cumulative harms to public trust, competitive procurement fairness, and FAA qualifications-based selection integrity would likely result if Engineer A accepted the part-time role, even if no single act of direct interference with state highway decisions could be identified?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to accept the part-time solicitation without proactively identifying and disclosing the structural conflict to the State DOT reflect a failure of professional integrity, even in the absence of an explicit statutory prohibition on such dual employment?
From a deontological perspective, does the fact that Engineer A's State DOT role involves disseminating FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines to municipalities create an independent duty not to exploit that informational and procedural authority by simultaneously soliciting those same municipalities for private airport consulting contracts?
Would the Board's conclusion have differed if Engineer A had proactively disclosed the solicitation to the State DOT, obtained explicit employer approval, and committed to recusing themselves from any DOT review or grant activity involving municipalities they were simultaneously soliciting for airport consulting work?
What if Engineer A's former consulting firm had no existing or prospective relationships with any municipality that also received State DOT airport grant funding or submitted traffic signal plans for DOT review — would the shared-municipal-stakeholder conflict dissolve entirely, and would part-time engagement then be permissible under the NSPE Code?
Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer A had fully transitioned out of State DOT employment before accepting the part-time role with the former firm, and if so, what minimum cooling-off period or scope limitation would be necessary to eliminate the revolving-door and faithful-agent concerns identified by the Board?
If Engineer A's role at the State DOT had been limited strictly to internal administrative functions with no contract review authority over private firms and no involvement in disseminating FAA consultant selection guidelines, would the structural conflict identified by the Board still be sufficient to render the part-time airport consulting engagement unethical?
State government and professional ethics frameworks
Revolving Door Employment Policy for State DOT Employees
Engineer A and State DOT in evaluating the propriety of the proposed part-time arrangement
Addresses the ethical and regulatory constraints on Engineer A re-engaging with his former private consulting employer while holding a State DOT position, particularly given the DOT's role in administering airport improvement grants to municipalities
Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Engineer A Former Firm Airport Solicitation
Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the former consulting firm's solicitation — leveraging Engineer A's prior airport design experience and current DOT position — constitutes a revolving door conflict, where the transition from private firm to public agency creates obligations that preclude re-engagement with the former employer in a capacity that exploits the governmental role.
Engineer A previously worked for the consulting firm doing airport design, then moved to the State DOT; the former firm now solicits Engineer A to leverage both the prior expertise and the current governmental relationships.
Identifying that the former firm is soliciting Engineer A specifically because of the combination of prior airport design expertise and current DOT governmental position, creating a revolving door dynamic.
Revolving Door Ethics Constraint Engineer A Former Firm Re-Engagement
Engineer A previously worked for the consulting firm in airport design before joining the State DOT; the firm now seeks to re-recruit Engineer A for part-time airport consulting targeting the same municipalities the DOT serves
Engineer A's prior employment with the consulting firm, combined with Engineer A's current State DOT role that intersects with the firm's prospective municipal airport clients through grant administration and QBS guideline dissemination, triggers revolving door ethical constraints that prohibit Engineer A from re-engaging with the former firm in a capacity that exploits the governmental position for private commercial benefit.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 97-1, 02-8
Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation Engineer A State DOT Ethics Statutes
Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that even if State DOT policies or state ethics statutes do not explicitly prohibit the proposed consulting arrangement, professional ethics obligations require Engineer A to apply standards that exceed the regulatory minimum and decline the solicitation on ethical grounds.
State ethics statutes and DOT policies may not explicitly address every dimension of the proposed consulting arrangement; Engineer A must apply professional ethics standards to fill any regulatory gaps.
Applying NSPE Code provisions and professional ethics principles to fill any gaps in formal state regulations governing the proposed dual employment arrangement.
{'type': 'State government agency', 'functions': ['Traffic signal plan review', 'Airport improvement grant administration', 'Highway system oversight']}
The State DOT employs Engineer A as a traffic engineer and contracts with municipalities via grant agreements for airport improvements. It also receives traffic signal plans and contracts from municipalities and developers for review, making it the public employer whose interests Engineer A must faithfully serve.
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A State DOT Traffic Engineer'}
{'type': 'grant_authority_for', 'target': 'Municipal Airport Improvement Grant Recipients'}
{'type': 'regulator_of', 'target': 'Highway traffic signal submissions'}
The State DOT does not contract directly with consultants hired by the municipalities for their airport improvements
State DOT Employer Prior Approval Disclosure Engineer A Airport Consulting Solicitation
Engineer A is a State DOT employee solicited by a former employer for part-time work involving municipalities that interact with Engineer A's DOT division
State DOT Employer Prior Approval and Disclosure Obligation for Outside Employment
Engineer A is obligated to proactively disclose the former firm's solicitation to the State DOT employer and seek prior approval before accepting any part-time consulting arrangement, providing full details of the proposed engagement including the identity of the soliciting firm, the nature of the work, and the identity of the municipal clients involved.
Immediately upon receiving the solicitation and before accepting any engagement
State DOT Prior Approval Disclosure Procedural Constraint Engineer A Airport Consulting
State governmental employment typically requires prior approval for outside employment; Engineer A must comply with applicable state procedures before accepting the former firm's solicitation
Before accepting any outside employment or consulting engagement, Engineer A is procedurally required to identify and comply with all applicable State DOT policies, state ethics statutes, and conflict-of-interest regulations governing outside employment by state agency employees — including obtaining prior written approval from the State DOT employer — and cannot proceed with the former firm's solicitation without completing this procedural compliance step.
State DOT employment policies; State ethics statutes; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2
Prior to accepting any outside consulting engagement
State DOT Prior Approval Proactive Disclosure Engineer A Airport Consulting Solicitation
State DOT Prior Approval Proactive Disclosure for Outside Employment Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to proactively disclose the former firm's solicitation to the State DOT employer and seek prior approval before accepting any part-time airport consulting role, in compliance with state DOT outside employment policies and state ethics statutes.
The former firm's solicitation of Engineer A for part-time airport consulting while Engineer A remains a DOT employee triggers state outside employment disclosure and prior approval requirements.
Identifying the solicitation as a triggering event for outside employment disclosure, preparing a complete disclosure to the DOT employer, and refraining from accepting the role pending employer review and approval.
Transition to State DOT (Action 1) → Contract Review Authority Activated (Event 3)
Transitional Employment Ethics Framework
Engineer A and ethics reviewers analyzing the propriety of the proposed arrangement
Provides analytical framework for evaluating Engineer A's transition from private airport design consulting to public DOT employment, and the ethical constraints on re-engaging with his former firm in a part-time capacity
period of serious ethical concern over moonlighting before recent years (muted ethical concern)
proposed part-time consulting role overlaps Engineer A's full-time DOT employment