Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer
U.S. DOE employee and private consultant
Blurring of independent government expertise with paid industry advocacy
Conflict of interest between DOE duties and private client advocacy
Potential breach of government employment trust and policies
Integrity and honesty in professional relationships
Supplement government income with consulting fees by leveraging specialized coal bed methane expertise
Knowledge of professional ethics obligations in dual employment
Prior to the State Y hearing; at the time of retainer agreement
Faithful agent and trustee obligation to government employer (U.S. DOE)
Obligation to avoid actions that compromise professional integrity or create appearance of impropriety
Obligation to avoid conflicts of interest in dual public-private employment
Engineer A accepted a paid consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company while simultaneously employed as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher, establishing a direct conflict of interest between his public and private roles in the same technical domain.
Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1) → Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6)
Engineer A accepted a paid consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company while simultaneously [holding DOE employment], and it was subsequently revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the State Y hearing was paid for by the [retaining company]
Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1)
Had Engineer A declined the retainer or recused himself from testifying, no financial sponsorship relationship would have existed to be revealed
Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6)
Engineer A's decision to accept retainer payment from an interested party
Engineer A's participation in the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
The coal bed methane company's financial interest in the hearing outcome
Acceptance of retainer + participation in hearing + subsequent public scrutiny = inevitable disclosure of financial sponsorship
Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation (Government Employee Context)
NSPE Code of Ethics / BER interpretive tradition
Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer
the Board indicated that it believed, based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee, that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
Invoked to establish that Engineer A's simultaneous service as a U.S. DOE employee in the coal bed methane division and as a private consultant in the same domain constitutes a breach of the basic trust owed to his public employer as a faithful agent and trustee
Ethical standard regarding dual public-private roles enters professional record; the engineering profession is formally on notice that such conduct is problematic; subsequent violations occur against a backdrop of established precedent
Approximately 1967; referenced in Discussion section
A prior Board of Ethical Review case from approximately 1967 (Case 67-1) established precedent regarding dual public-private role violations by engineers, providing the first documented instance of the pattern that Engineer A's conduct later replicated and escalated.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 02-8
Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
In deciding that 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... while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case.
Cited as a more recent precedent establishing that a state DOT traffic engineer who simultaneously seeks private consulting contracts with municipalities in a related technical domain (airports) creates an impermissible conflict of interest and violates the NSPE Code of Ethics, even when both employers are aware of the arrangement
BER Case No. 02-8 before current Engineer A case
Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case. This case seems to present a more extreme example
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 67-1
in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Cited as foundational precedent establishing that an engineer serving simultaneously as county engineer and private consulting engineer, who prepares plans and then recommends and votes to approve those same plans in a public capacity, acts unethically due to direct conflict of interest
BER Case No. 67-1 before BER Case No. 02-8
Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8 [relative to BER Case No. 67-1]
BER Ethics Board BER 67-1 02-8 Present Case Escalating Severity Triangulation
BER Escalating Dual-Role Precedent Severity Triangulation Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to retrieve and triangulate among BER 67-1, BER 02-8, and the present case, identifying an escalating severity spectrum from self-approval (67-1) through adjacent-domain conflict (02-8) to exact same-domain conflict (present case)
The Board's discussion section systematically reviewed prior BER cases to establish the escalating severity framework applicable to the present case
Systematic analysis of BER 67-1 (county engineer/planning board self-approval), BER 02-8 (state DOT/airport adjacent-domain conflict), and the present case (DOE coal bed methane/private coal bed methane exact same-domain conflict), characterizing the present case as 'more extreme'
This Board has examined situations involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
For example, in the early BER Case No. 67-1, John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board.
CausalLink_Accepting Conflicting Consulti
CausalLink_Claiming Personal Testimony Ca
CausalLink_Omitting Consulting Relationsh
CausalLink_Using DOE-Branded Presentation
The answer 'on my own behalf' would be technically true but substantively misleading given the paid consulting arrangement
The public record would not accurately reflect the basis of his testimony
The regulatory body would remain uninformed of his actual capacity as a paid industry advocate
Technically avoided making an affirmatively false claim of official DOE representation
Candor and full honesty in professional communications
Obligation to correct rather than exploit misleading impressions
Technically avoid claiming official DOE endorsement while deflecting scrutiny of his actual role as a paid industry consultant, preserving the ambiguity that allowed his testimony to carry implied government credibility
Ability to accurately characterize the basis and capacity of professional testimony
Judgment to recognize when a direct question requires full disclosure
Understanding of professional ethics obligations in expert testimony
At the conclusion of testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Obligation not to deceive through technically true but misleading statements
Obligation of candor and full honesty when directly questioned by a regulatory body
Obligation to correct misleading impressions created by prior conduct (DOE-branded presentation)
Obligation to disclose the actual capacity and financial basis of his testimony
When directly asked at the conclusion of his testimony whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A stated he was testifying 'on his own behalf,' creating a materially ambiguous and misleading response given that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company and his presentation displayed DOE affiliation.
Claiming Personal Testimony Capacity (Action 4) → Ethical Ambiguity Compounded Despite Belated Disclaimer
When directly asked at the conclusion of his testimony whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A claimed personal testimony capacity; however, this belated disclaimer failed to counteract the impression already created by the DOE-branded presentation and DOE title disclosure throughout the testimony
Claiming Personal Testimony Capacity (Action 4)
Had Engineer A made the personal capacity disclaimer at the outset of testimony and used unbranded materials, the disclaimer would have been effective; placed at the conclusion after DOE-branded testimony, it was insufficient to prevent the harm
Ethical Ambiguity Compounded Despite Belated Disclaimer
Direct questioning by hearing officials indicating existing confusion about Engineer A's capacity
Prior use of DOE-branded materials throughout testimony
Prior verbal disclosure of DOE employment without capacity disclaimer
Timing of disclaimer at conclusion rather than outset of testimony
DOE branding throughout testimony + late-stage disclaimer + media already present = disclaimer insufficient to prevent misidentification or cure ethical ambiguity
It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's testimony was unethical in its manner, the selective disclosure pattern Engineer A employed — affirmatively disclosing his State X licensure limitation while strategically omitting his paid retainer from the coal bed methane company — reveals a calculated rather than negligent ethical failure. Engineer A demonstrated awareness of disclosure obligations by volunteering the licensure caveat, which makes the simultaneous concealment of his financial relationship with the regulated industry difficult to characterize as mere oversight. This distinction matters because negligent omission and intentional concealment occupy different positions on the ethical severity spectrum, and the Board's conclusion is strengthened when the surrounding conduct suggests deliberate credential management rather than inadvertent omission. The partial transparency about licensure may have actively functioned to create a false impression of procedural compliance, making the concealment of the retainer relationship more — not less — ethically serious than a simple failure to disclose.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's testimony was unethical in its manner is further supported by the downstream public record harm that his conduct foreseeably produced. When a newspaper subsequently identified Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' rather than as a paid industry consultant, this misidentification was not an independent journalistic error — it was the predictable consequence of Engineer A's sustained display of his DOE job title throughout his PowerPoint presentation without any counterbalancing disclosure of his private retainer. The newspaper's characterization accurately reflected the impression Engineer A's testimony was structured to create. This downstream distortion of the public record implicates Engineer A's obligations not merely to the regulatory body before which he testified, but to the broader public whose understanding of the regulatory proceeding was shaped by his misleading credential presentation. An engineer's honesty obligations in expert testimony extend to the foreseeable public record of that testimony, not only to the immediate audience in the hearing room.
Engineer A's response — 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — when asked whether he represented the U.S. DOE constitutes a textbook instance of a technically true but materially misleading statement that violates the honesty obligations of the NSPE Code. The statement was technically accurate in the narrow sense that the DOE had not dispatched Engineer A to testify, but it was structurally designed to deflect inquiry about his actual capacity and interests. A complete and honest answer to the question being asked — whether his DOE affiliation was relevant to his testimony — would have required Engineer A to affirmatively disclose that he was appearing as a paid consultant for the coal bed methane company, not as a disinterested technical expert. By answering only the literal question while omitting the material context that would have changed how the regulatory body weighed his testimony, Engineer A violated the prohibition on artfully misleading statements. The ethical obligation of honesty in professional representations is not satisfied by statements that are technically defensible but functionally deceptive in context.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as an expert witness under these circumstances is reinforced by the escalating severity framework established across the BER precedent cases. BER Case 67-1 addressed a county engineer who reviewed plans he had himself prepared — a direct self-review conflict. BER Case 02-8 addressed an engineer who consulted privately in a domain adjacent to his government employment. The present case represents a more extreme configuration than either precedent: Engineer A's private consulting work was not merely adjacent to but identical in subject matter to his U.S. DOE responsibilities, and he testified before a regulatory body on the very type of permits his federal employer's research directly informs. This same-domain, same-subject-matter overlap creates a conflict of interest that is categorically more severe than the adjacent-domain conflict found sufficient to constitute an ethical violation in BER 02-8. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as expert witness is therefore not merely supported by precedent — it is compelled by a logical escalation of the conflict-of-interest analysis that the prior cases establish.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as expert witness under these circumstances raises a question the Board did not explicitly address: whether the ethical impermissibility of Engineer A's participation was curable through disclosure alone, or whether the same-domain dual-role conflict was irresolvable regardless of what disclosures Engineer A might have made. The analysis suggests the latter. Even if Engineer A had fully disclosed at the outset that he was retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company and had explicitly distinguished his consulting capacity from his DOE employment, the underlying structural conflict — a federal coal bed methane researcher testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane permits — would have remained. Disclosure can mitigate conflicts of interest that are contingent and manageable; it cannot resolve conflicts that are inherent in the dual-role structure itself. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should not have served as expert witness implies that the appropriate remedy was abstention from the engagement, not improved disclosure practices, and this distinction has significant implications for how engineers in government roles should evaluate private consulting opportunities in the same technical domain.
The Board's conclusions, taken together, reveal a compounding violation structure that is more ethically serious than either violation considered in isolation. Engineer A's use of a DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation in private retained testimony simultaneously violated the principle prohibiting exploitation of government affiliation for private benefit and the principle prohibiting use of public resources in private work. These two violations are not merely additive — they are mutually reinforcing. The DOE branding lent unearned institutional credibility to testimony that was in fact purchased by a regulated industry, and the use of government-produced or government-associated materials in that testimony meant that public resources were being deployed to advance a private commercial interest. The regulatory body and the public were therefore harmed not only by the misleading credential presentation but by the implicit suggestion that the U.S. Department of Energy's institutional authority stood behind testimony that was actually the product of a private commercial arrangement. Engineers serving in dual government-private roles should understand that using government-associated materials in private work does not merely create a conflict of interest — it actively weaponizes the government's credibility against the public interest the government exists to serve.
It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances.
In response to Q101: The distinction between intentional misrepresentation and negligent failure to segregate professional identities does not meaningfully reduce the ethical severity of Engineer A's conduct. Whether Engineer A deliberately displayed his U.S. DOE job title to lend unearned governmental credibility to privately retained testimony, or simply failed to recognize that using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in a private consulting context would create a misleading impression, the material effect on the regulatory body and the public was identical: the State Y Environmental Quality Council and subsequent newspaper readers understood Engineer A to be speaking with the authority of a federal agency rather than as a paid industry consultant. The NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts does not require proof of intent — negligent misrepresentation that produces a materially false impression in a regulatory proceeding violates the honesty and objectivity obligations just as surely as deliberate deception. If anything, the negligence framing is more damning in one respect: an engineer who cannot recognize that displaying government credentials while concealing an industry retainer will mislead a regulatory body demonstrates a fundamental failure to internalize the ethical standards his profession requires. The Board's constraint that negligent versus intentional government credential misuse does not exculpate Engineer A is therefore correct, and the ethical severity of the conduct should be assessed by its foreseeable effect on the integrity of the regulatory record, not by the subjective mental state that produced it.
In response to Q102: Engineer A's response — 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — when asked whether he represented the U.S. DOE constitutes a textbook case of a technically true but materially misleading statement that violates his honesty obligations under the NSPE Code. The statement was technically accurate in the narrow sense that the DOE had not dispatched him to testify and he was not formally representing agency policy. However, the statement was structurally designed — whether consciously or not — to deflect the questioner's concern without resolving it. The questioner's evident purpose was to understand whose interests Engineer A's testimony served and what institutional affiliations shaped his views. By answering only the narrow question of formal DOE authorization while omitting the equally material fact that he was retained and compensated by a coal bed methane company, Engineer A exploited the ambiguity between 'representing the DOE' and 'being paid by an industry the DOE regulates.' A fully honest response would have disclosed both the absence of formal DOE authorization and the presence of a private industry retainer. The NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts and its requirement of objective and truthful testimony are not satisfied by statements that are literally accurate but strategically incomplete. The artfully misleading omission prohibition is directly implicated: Engineer A's response left the regulatory body with a more distorted understanding of his actual capacity and interests than if he had said nothing at all.
In response to Q103: Engineer A's simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher and private consultant for coal bed methane companies almost certainly constituted a breach of his faithful agent obligation to the DOE, and he should have obtained explicit DOE authorization before accepting private consulting work in the same technical domain. The faithful agent obligation requires that an engineer not engage in outside employment to the detriment of his regular work or his employer's interests. When the outside employment operates in the identical technical and regulatory domain as the government role — coal bed methane research and permitting — the potential for detriment is not speculative but structural. Engineer A's private clients have direct financial interests in the regulatory outcomes that his DOE work informs. His private consulting relationships therefore create an incentive structure that could consciously or unconsciously shape how he performs his government duties, what findings he emphasizes, and what positions he advocates within the agency. Whether the DOE was aware of or consented to this arrangement does not resolve the ethical question: the faithful agent duty is not satisfied merely by disclosure to an employer who fails to object. It requires that the outside work genuinely not be detrimental to the employer's interests and the public trust the employer serves. The same-domain concurrent employment conflict here is so direct that it is difficult to conceive of a disclosure and authorization framework that would fully resolve it, which is why the Board's escalating severity analysis — from BER 67-1 through BER 02-8 to the present case — correctly identifies this as the most serious of the three conflict patterns examined.
In response to Q104: The newspaper's subsequent identification of Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' rather than as a paid industry consultant is not merely an incidental downstream consequence of his testimony — it is direct evidence that his conduct created a foreseeable and material misimpression in the public record. A regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits is a matter of public concern, and the testimony presented at such a hearing enters the public record in a way that shapes both the regulatory outcome and public understanding of the issues. When Engineer A displayed his DOE title throughout his PowerPoint presentation and answered the capacity question in a way that deflected rather than clarified his industry relationship, he created conditions under which any reasonable observer — including a journalist covering the hearing — would conclude that a government researcher had testified. The fact that this misimpression materialized in print confirms that the risk was not hypothetical. Engineer A's obligations under the NSPE Code extend beyond his duties to the regulatory body itself: the Code's requirement that engineers conduct themselves honorably so as to enhance the reputation of the profession, and its prohibition on conduct that deceives the public, are implicated whenever an engineer's professional conduct produces a materially false public understanding of a matter affecting public welfare. The coal bed methane discharge permit proceeding directly affected environmental quality and public health, making the public trust dimension of Engineer A's misrepresentation independently significant beyond any procedural violation of the hearing's disclosure norms.
In response to Q201: The faithful agent obligation to the DOE and the objectivity obligation as an expert witness do not merely conflict with each other in Engineer A's situation — they are simultaneously and independently violated by the same underlying conduct, and satisfying one while violating the other is not possible given the structural nature of the dual role. The faithful agent obligation requires that Engineer A not engage in outside work detrimental to his government employer's interests; accepting a private retainer from a coal bed methane company to testify in a regulatory proceeding that his DOE work informs is precisely such detrimental outside employment. The objectivity obligation requires that Engineer A's expert testimony be free from the distorting influence of financial relationships with the parties whose interests the testimony serves; his private retainer from the coal bed methane company is precisely such a distorting financial relationship. These two violations are not in tension with each other in the sense of competing values that must be balanced — they are compounding failures that reinforce each other. An engineer who has breached his faithful agent duty by accepting a conflicting private retainer cannot then satisfy his objectivity obligation by testifying honestly, because the very existence of the retainer relationship structurally compromises his objectivity regardless of his subjective good faith. The Board's conclusion that it was unethical for Engineer A to serve as an expert witness under these circumstances is therefore grounded not merely in the disclosure failures at the hearing but in the irresolvable structural conflict created by accepting the retainer in the first place.
In response to Q202 and Q203: The partial transparency Engineer A did provide — disclosing his State X licensure at the outset — created a false sense of procedural compliance that may have actively obscured the more ethically significant omissions regarding his paid industry relationship and his DOE credential conflation. By opening with a disclosure that satisfied a formal procedural expectation (licensure status), Engineer A established a frame in which the regulatory body might reasonably assume that all material disclosures had been made. This is the mechanism by which accurate presentation of one credential dimension can compound rather than mitigate the harm of omitting another: the licensure disclosure signaled transparency and good faith, making the subsequent omission of the industry retainer less likely to be noticed or questioned. Similarly, accurately presenting his DOE title without simultaneously disclosing his industry retainer created a more misleading impression than either element alone would have produced, because the DOE title lent the testimony a governmental authority that the retainer relationship directly contradicted. The principle of Government Affiliation Material Accuracy and the principle of Conflict of Interest Disclosure are not in tension here — they are jointly required, and satisfying one while omitting the other produces a net increase in the misleading character of the testimony. The NSPE Code's honesty and objectivity obligations require that disclosures be complete enough to give the regulatory body an accurate understanding of the witness's actual capacity and interests, not merely technically accurate in the dimensions the witness chooses to address.
In response to Q204: Engineer A's use of a DOE-branded PowerPoint in privately retained testimony simultaneously violated both the Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation principle and the Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work principle, and the Board should treat such compounding violations as categorically more serious than either violation in isolation. The Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation principle prohibits Engineer A from leveraging his DOE identity to lend unearned credibility to private testimony — the DOE title in his presentation implied governmental authority and institutional backing that his private consulting role did not carry. The Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work principle prohibits using government-developed materials, presentations, or resources in private commercial work — a PowerPoint developed in the context of DOE employment and bearing DOE identification is a government resource that should not be repurposed for private client benefit without explicit authorization. When both violations occur through the same act — displaying the DOE-branded presentation in a privately retained regulatory appearance — the harm is not merely additive but multiplicative: the regulatory body is simultaneously misled about Engineer A's institutional affiliation and the coal bed methane company receives a commercial benefit (enhanced witness credibility) derived from public resources. This compounding effect justifies heightened scrutiny and supports the Board's conclusion that Engineer A's participation as an expert witness under these circumstances was independently unethical, separate from and in addition to the disclosure failures during the testimony itself.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fulfill his categorical duty of honesty when he answered 'I am testifying on my own behalf' without disclosing his financial retainer from the coal bed methane company. Kantian deontological ethics requires not merely that statements be literally true but that they be offered in a spirit that respects the rational agency of the listener — that is, that they provide the listener with the information necessary to form an accurate understanding of the matter at hand. A statement that is technically true but structurally designed to foreclose further inquiry — by answering a narrow version of the question asked while omitting the information that would have answered the question's evident purpose — fails this test. The questioner asked whether Engineer A represented the DOE in order to understand whose interests his testimony served. Engineer A's answer addressed only the formal authorization dimension while strategically omitting the private retainer dimension that was equally responsive to the question's purpose. From a deontological standpoint, the duty of honesty is not satisfied by the avoidance of literal falsehood; it requires that the engineer not use technically true statements as instruments of deception. The maxim 'answer only the narrow question while omitting the material context that would change the listener's understanding' cannot be universalized as a principle of professional conduct without destroying the epistemic foundation on which regulatory proceedings depend.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harm produced by Engineer A's testimony clearly outweighed any benefit the coal bed methane company or the regulatory process derived from his technical expertise. The harms were multiple and compounding: the State Y Environmental Quality Council received testimony it could not properly evaluate because it lacked knowledge of the witness's financial relationship with the regulated industry; the regulatory record was distorted by testimony that appeared to carry governmental authority it did not possess; the newspaper's misidentification of Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' propagated this distortion into the public record; and the public trust in government-affiliated expert witnesses was eroded by the revelation that a DOE employee had testified as a paid industry consultant without disclosure. These harms are not merely reputational — they affect the quality of environmental regulatory decisions that have direct consequences for public health and environmental quality. Against these harms, the benefit of Engineer A's technical expertise to the coal bed methane company was private and commercial, and the benefit to the regulatory process was undermined by the credibility distortion his undisclosed retainer created. A consequentialist analysis also requires consideration of systemic effects: if government-employed engineers routinely testified as undisclosed industry consultants, the entire institution of expert witness testimony in regulatory proceedings would be compromised. The deterrent value of finding Engineer A's conduct unethical therefore extends beyond the individual case to the integrity of the regulatory system as a whole.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's conduct throughout the State Y hearing reflects the character of an engineer who strategically deploys credentials for client advantage rather than one who genuinely internalizes professional ethical standards. The virtue of integrity requires consistency between one's internal commitments and external conduct — an engineer of integrity does not present one professional identity to a regulatory body while concealing a financial relationship that materially qualifies that identity. The virtue of objectivity requires that expert testimony be offered in a spirit of genuine service to the truth-finding function of the regulatory process, not as an instrument of advocacy for a paying client. Engineer A's display of his DOE title throughout his PowerPoint presentation while concealing his private retainer is not a momentary lapse but a sustained pattern of conduct across the entire hearing — from the initial credential presentation through the PowerPoint display to the deflective answer at the close of testimony. This pattern suggests not inadvertence but a settled disposition to exploit the credibility of his government affiliation for private commercial benefit. A virtuous engineer, confronted with the question of whether he represented the DOE, would have recognized the question's evident purpose and responded with full transparency about both his government employment and his private retainer. The fact that Engineer A instead gave a technically true but strategically incomplete answer suggests that he understood the significance of the omission and chose concealment over transparency — a choice that reflects a fundamental failure of professional character.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A breached his duty as a faithful agent to the U.S. Department of Energy by accepting private consulting retainers in the same coal bed methane domain in which he performs his federal duties, and this breach exists independently of whether the DOE was aware of or consented to the arrangement. The faithful agent duty is not merely a contractual obligation that can be discharged by disclosure and employer acquiescence — it is a categorical professional obligation grounded in the engineer's role as a trustee of the public interest that his government employer serves. The DOE's coal bed methane research function exists to serve the public interest in sound energy and environmental policy; Engineer A's private consulting for coal bed methane companies creates a financial interest in regulatory outcomes that is structurally adverse to the disinterested pursuit of that public interest. Even if the DOE were to formally authorize the outside consulting, the ethical obligation not to exploit government affiliation for private commercial gain would remain. The deontological analysis therefore supports a stronger conclusion than the Board's explicit findings: not only was it unethical for Engineer A to testify as he did, but it was independently unethical for him to have accepted the private consulting retainer in the same domain as his government duties, regardless of disclosure, regardless of employer knowledge, and regardless of whether any specific testimony was ever given.
In response to Q401: If Engineer A had affirmatively disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company, and had explicitly distinguished his personal consulting capacity from his U.S. DOE employment, the State Y Environmental Quality Council would have been positioned to appropriately weigh his testimony, and the newspaper misidentification and associated public trust harm would almost certainly have been avoided. The regulatory body's ability to evaluate expert testimony depends entirely on its knowledge of the witness's affiliations and financial interests — without that knowledge, it cannot apply the appropriate skepticism to testimony offered by a paid industry advocate. Affirmative disclosure at the outset would have transformed the regulatory record from one containing a misleading impression of governmental authority to one accurately reflecting the testimony of a technically qualified private consultant with a disclosed financial interest. However, such disclosure would not have fully resolved the ethical concerns arising from Engineer A's dual role: the same-domain conflict between his DOE employment and his private coal bed methane consulting would have remained, and the faithful agent breach would have persisted regardless of what was disclosed at the hearing. The counterfactual therefore supports a two-level analysis: disclosure would have resolved the testimony-specific ethical violations (the misleading credential presentation, the undisclosed retainer, the artfully incomplete capacity answer) while leaving intact the more fundamental ethical violation of accepting a private retainer in the same domain as his government duties.
In response to Q402 and Q403: Even if Engineer A had declined the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and testified solely in a personal technical capacity without any financial relationship to the regulated industry, the same-domain dual-role conflict created by his DOE employment would have raised serious ethical concerns about his participation as an expert witness — though the analysis would be significantly less clear-cut than in the actual case. The core concern is whether a government employee whose agency has regulatory and research responsibilities in a domain can testify as a private expert in regulatory proceedings affecting that domain without compromising either his government role or the integrity of the proceeding. Without a financial retainer, the most acute conflict of interest would be absent, but the appearance of conflict — and the potential for his government expertise to be perceived as carrying institutional authority it does not formally represent — would remain. If Engineer A had additionally used a presentation containing no DOE branding and had explicitly noted his consulting relationship (or its absence), the credential conflation violation would have been resolved. Whether the remaining same-domain dual-role concern would have been sufficient to render his participation impermissible depends on whether the DOE had authorized the testimony and whether Engineer A could genuinely testify objectively without his government role shaping his analysis in ways favorable to the industry. The Board's escalating severity framework — from BER 67-1 through BER 02-8 to the present case — suggests that same-domain conflicts without financial retainers (analogous to BER 02-8's adjacent-domain pattern) are ethically problematic but potentially resolvable through proper authorization and disclosure, while same-domain conflicts with financial retainers (the present case) are categorically impermissible.
In response to Q404: If the State Y Environmental Quality Council had adopted a formal pre-testimony disclosure requirement mandating that all expert witnesses declare any financial relationships with regulated industries before testifying, Engineer A's conduct would have constituted a procedural violation in addition to an ethical one — but the absence of such a formal requirement does not diminish, let alone eliminate, his independent ethical obligation to disclose the retainer relationship under the NSPE Code. The NSPE Code's disclosure obligations are self-executing professional duties that do not depend on external regulatory frameworks for their activation. An engineer's obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, to avoid deceptive acts, and to issue truthful and objective testimony exists regardless of whether the forum in which he testifies has adopted formal disclosure rules. The absence of a formal requirement may affect whether Engineer A faces procedural sanctions from the regulatory body, but it has no bearing on whether he violated his professional ethical obligations. Indeed, the NSPE Code's conflict of interest disclosure standard has evolved precisely to address situations where formal regulatory requirements have not yet caught up with professional ethical norms — the Code's requirements are intended to be more demanding than the minimum required by law or regulation. Engineer A's failure to disclose his retainer relationship was therefore an independent ethical violation under the NSPE Code regardless of the State Y Environmental Quality Council's procedural framework, and the Board's conclusions are properly grounded in the Code's self-executing obligations rather than in any external disclosure requirement.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation to Engineer A's DOE employer and his Objectivity Obligation as an expert witness was not merely unresolved — it was structurally irresolvable given the facts. Both obligations were simultaneously compromised by the same act: accepting a private retainer from a coal bed methane company while employed as a federal coal bed methane researcher. Satisfying the Faithful Agent Obligation would have required Engineer A to either abstain from private consulting in the same domain or obtain explicit DOE authorization, neither of which occurred. Satisfying the Objectivity Obligation would have required Engineer A to testify free of undisclosed financial interests in the outcome, which was impossible once the retainer was accepted. This case teaches that when a single professional act simultaneously breaches two foundational obligations — loyalty to employer and objectivity to the public — no amount of partial disclosure (such as the licensure statement) can rehabilitate the ethical posture. The Board's conclusions implicitly recognize this irresolvability by finding violations on both the manner of testimony and the threshold decision to serve as expert witness at all, treating the two violations as compounding rather than alternative.
The principle of Government Affiliation Material Accuracy and the principle of Conflict of Interest Disclosure do not merely coexist in this case — they interact in a compounding and mutually reinforcing way that produces a deception greater than either omission alone would generate. Engineer A's accurate display of his U.S. DOE job title, standing alone, would have been truthful. His concealment of his industry retainer, standing alone, would have been a conflict of interest violation. But the combination of the two — prominently displaying DOE credentials while concealing a paid relationship with the regulated industry — created an affirmative misrepresentation: the audience, including the regulatory body and the press, was led to believe that DOE institutional authority stood behind testimony that was in fact commercially motivated. This case teaches that partial transparency can be more ethically dangerous than silence, because it selectively activates the credibility of one identity (government researcher) to suppress scrutiny of another (paid industry consultant). The Board's finding that the manner of testimony was unethical is best understood as a recognition that this compounding dynamic violated the Honesty Obligation and the prohibition on deceptive acts at a level beyond what either violation in isolation would have reached.
The Licensure Disclosure principle, which Engineer A did satisfy by announcing at the outset that he was licensed only in State X, illustrates a critical lesson about the hierarchy of ethical obligations in expert testimony: procedural compliance with a lesser disclosure requirement does not discharge — and may actively obscure — the more substantive obligation of conflict of interest disclosure. Engineer A's licensure statement created a false impression of procedural good faith, signaling to the regulatory body that he was being forthright about his credentials and limitations. This partial transparency functioned as ethical camouflage, making the subsequent omission of his industry retainer less visible and less likely to be probed. This case teaches that the NSPE Code's honesty and conflict of interest provisions must be understood as a hierarchy in which financial relationship disclosure is categorically more material to the integrity of regulatory testimony than jurisdictional licensure status. When a less material disclosure is made prominently and a more material one is withheld entirely, the overall conduct is not partially compliant — it is affirmatively misleading. The Board's conclusion that the manner of testimony was unethical is consistent with treating the licensure disclosure not as a mitigating factor but as an element of the broader pattern of selective transparency that characterized Engineer A's conduct.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard in Recommendation Contexts
Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
BER in evaluating whether Engineer A's omission of his consulting relationship constituted an ethical conflict of interest violation
Applies to Engineer A's failure to disclose his financial relationship with coal bed methane companies while providing technical testimony that implicitly supports their regulatory interests, creating an undisclosed conflict between his apparent neutrality and his actual financial stake.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
Engineer A's concealment of his financial relationship with coal bed methane companies violated the evolved standard that requires affirmative disclosure of conflicts rather than mere avoidance of the conflicted engagement.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
Engineer A was required to comply with the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard by promptly and completely disclosing his financial relationship with coal bed methane companies to the State Y Environmental Quality Council, rather than applying an outdated absolute-avoidance framework or simply declining to disclose — the evolved standard requires disclosure, not mere avoidance.
NSPE Code of Ethics; evolved conflict-of-interest management standard; BER precedent on disclosure superseding avoidance
Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company.
At the outset of and throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies.
information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
A compensated advocacy relationship now exists between Engineer A and the regulated industry; testimony is financially motivated, transforming its character from independent expert opinion to paid advocacy
Prior to and surrounding the hearing date
A coal bed methane company retained Engineer A through his private consulting business and paid for his attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, creating a financial relationship that was not disclosed during testimony.
Cross-Council Regulatory Testimony Conflict Non-Participation Engineer A State X Council State Y Hearing
Engineer A served on the State X Environmental Quality Council while simultaneously accepting a private retainer to testify before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on coal bed methane discharge permit rules — creating a cross-council conflict of interest.
Cross-Council Regulatory Testimony Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company before the State Y Environmental Quality Council while simultaneously serving as a member of the State X Environmental Quality Council, as this dual role created an appearance of impropriety and a structural conflict of interest that compromised the engineer's impartiality and the public's trust in both councils.
NSPE Code of Ethics; conflict of interest provisions; appearance of impropriety standards
Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
At the time of testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits.
DOE's institutional authority is implicitly attached to privately sponsored testimony; the hearing body and public may reasonably infer government endorsement of testimony that is actually industry-funded advocacy
During the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Engineer A disclosed his DOE employment during testimony, which, combined with the DOE-branded PowerPoint, lent implicit government credibility to testimony that was actually sponsored by a private industry client.
Engineer A enters a structurally conflicted professional state; all subsequent professional actions are colored by undisclosed dual allegiances
Prior to hearing; ongoing background condition
Engineer A holds simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE employee while maintaining a private consulting practice serving coal bed methane companies, creating an inherent dual-role conflict before any testimony occurs.
DOE Employment Status Established (Event 1) + Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1) → Dual Conflict of Interest Creating Systemic Ethical Violation
Engineer A holds simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE employee while maintaining a private consulting business, and accepted a paid consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company, creating overlapping conflicts between federal employment obligations, private financial interests, and professional engineering ethics duties
DOE Employment Status Established (Event 1) + Accepting Conflicting Consulting Retainer (Action 1)
If Engineer A had either: (a) not accepted the retainer, (b) not testified at the hearing, or (c) fully disclosed all relationships and obtained appropriate clearances, the systemic ethical violation would not have materialized in its current form
Dual Conflict of Interest Creating Systemic Ethical Violation
Acceptance of retainer from a party with regulatory interests
Failure to obtain required clearances or make required disclosures under federal employment and professional ethics rules
Testimony before a public regulatory body on matters related to the retaining company's interests
Federal employment + private retainer from interested party + regulatory testimony + non-disclosure = sufficient to establish violation of NSPE Code Section III.4 (conflict of interest) and applicable federal ethics regulations
Should Engineer A affirmatively disclose his paid retainer from the coal bed methane company and distinguish his private consulting capacity from his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, or testify using his DOE-branded presentation while answering capacity questions narrowly and literally?
Engineer A, simultaneously employed as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher and retained as a private consultant by a coal bed methane company, must decide how to present his credentials and financial relationships when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on coal bed methane discharge permits.
At the outset of testimony, affirmatively disclose that attendance is funded by the coal bed methane company through a private consulting retainer, explicitly distinguish the private consulting capacity from DOE employment, and remove or clearly disclaim DOE branding from the presentation so the regulatory body can accurately weigh the testimony.
Present DOE-branded credentials as part of standard professional identification, answer the direct question about DOE representation with the technically accurate statement 'I am testifying on my own behalf,' and rely on the absence of a formal State Y disclosure requirement as sufficient procedural compliance — leaving it to the regulatory body to probe further if interested.
Satisfy the most salient credential disclosure by announcing State X licensure limitations at the outset — as Engineer A did — while treating the consulting retainer as a private commercial arrangement not subject to affirmative disclosure absent a direct and specific question about financial compensation from the regulated industry.
Should Engineer A decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and abstain from serving as a paid expert witness in the same domain as his DOE duties, or accept the retainer and participate as expert witness on the basis that disclosure and employer awareness can adequately manage the conflict?
Engineer A, employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane domain, must decide whether to accept a private consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company and serve as a paid expert witness in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane discharge permits — a domain identical to his federal responsibilities.
Refuse the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely on the ground that the exact same-domain overlap between the private engagement and DOE duties creates an irresolvable structural conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure, employer notification, or any other procedural measure.
Seek and obtain formal written authorization from the DOE for the private consulting engagement, treating employer consent and compliance with applicable federal dual-employment regulations as sufficient to manage the conflict and permit participation as expert witness with full disclosure at the hearing.
Accept the consulting retainer and serve as expert witness while making comprehensive affirmative disclosures at the hearing — including the retainer relationship, the DOE employment, and the domain overlap — on the theory that full transparency to the regulatory body adequately manages the conflict even absent formal employer authorization.
Should Engineer A use his DOE-branded presentation materials and professional title in his regulatory testimony while privately retained by the coal bed methane industry, or must he remove government branding and affirmatively clarify the private capacity of his appearance before presenting any technical opinions?
Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title throughout his PowerPoint presentation while testifying as a privately retained consultant for a coal bed methane company, creating a compounding misrepresentation in which accurate credential display and concealed financial relationship together produced a false impression of governmental authority behind commercially motivated testimony.
Present testimony using a presentation that contains no U.S. DOE branding or institutional identification, explicitly identify the private consulting capacity and the coal bed methane company retainer at the outset, and ensure that any reference to DOE employment is accompanied by an affirmative clarification that the testimony is not offered on behalf of or with the endorsement of the federal agency.
Present the DOE job title as one element of a standard professional credential slide — alongside licensure status and technical qualifications — treating it as factual background information about the engineer's expertise rather than as an institutional endorsement, without separately disclosing the private retainer unless directly and specifically asked about compensation.
Retain the DOE-branded presentation materials but add a brief oral statement at the outset noting that the testimony is offered in a personal professional capacity rather than as an official DOE position, without affirmatively disclosing the coal bed methane company retainer on the theory that the capacity disclaimer adequately distinguishes the government and private roles.
Should Engineer A affirmatively disclose both his paid retainer from the coal bed methane company and his non-licensure in State Y at the outset of testimony, or limit his disclosure to the licensure caveat while testifying under his DOE-branded presentation?
Engineer A: Dual-Role Capacity and Financial Relationship Disclosure at State Y Regulatory Hearing
At the opening of testimony, affirmatively state both that he is retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company and that he is appearing in a private consulting capacity distinct from his U.S. DOE employment, in addition to disclosing his State X licensure limitation.
Disclose only the State X licensure limitation at the outset — satisfying the explicit procedural expectation of the forum — and rely on the 'I am testifying on my own behalf' response to address any direct questions about DOE representation, treating financial relationship disclosure as required only if the forum's rules expressly mandate it.
Present credentials and testimony without volunteering the retainer relationship at the outset, but commit to fully disclosing the consulting relationship and compensation if the regulatory body or opposing parties directly ask about financial affiliations with the regulated industry.
Should Engineer A decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely given his concurrent U.S. DOE employment in the identical technical and regulatory domain, or accept the retainer subject to disclosure and DOE authorization?
Engineer A: Decision to Accept Same-Domain Private Consulting Retainer While Employed as Federal Coal Bed Methane Researcher
Refuse the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely on the grounds that the same-domain overlap with his U.S. DOE employment creates a structurally irresolvable conflict of interest that no disclosure or authorization framework can cure.
Before accepting the retainer, obtain explicit written authorization from the U.S. DOE confirming that the private consulting engagement does not conflict with his federal duties, and condition acceptance on that authorization together with full disclosure to the regulatory body at any hearing.
Accept the consulting retainer on the basis that private consulting in the same technical domain is permissible when accompanied by comprehensive disclosure to all affected parties — the DOE, the regulatory body, and opposing parties — treating the conflict as manageable through transparency rather than categorically disqualifying.
Should Engineer A present his regulatory testimony using his U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint — which displays his government job title throughout — or use a presentation that reflects only his personal technical credentials and explicitly identifies his consulting relationship with the coal bed methane company?
Engineer A: Use of DOE-Branded Presentation Materials in Privately Retained Regulatory Testimony
Prepare and deliver a presentation that omits DOE branding and job title identification, presents only personal technical credentials, and explicitly identifies his consulting relationship with and compensation from the coal bed methane company, so that the regulatory body and public record accurately reflect his actual capacity.
Proceed with the DOE-branded PowerPoint as prepared but supplement it with an explicit oral statement at the outset of testimony disclosing the private retainer and distinguishing his consulting capacity from his government employment, treating the credential display as a truthful representation of his qualifications rather than an institutional endorsement.
Present testimony using the existing DOE-branded PowerPoint on the basis that his government job title is a truthful credential identifier, that he disclosed his State X licensure limitation, and that the regulatory body bears responsibility for inquiring into financial relationships if it considers them material to the proceeding.
Should Engineer A affirmatively disclose his paid consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company at the outset of his regulatory testimony, or should he limit his disclosures to his DOE employment and State X licensure status and answer capacity questions only as narrowly posed?
Engineer A, a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher retained as a private consultant by a coal bed methane company, must decide how to present his credentials and affiliations when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council — specifically whether to affirmatively disclose his paid industry retainer alongside his DOE employment, or to answer only what is directly asked while displaying his DOE-branded presentation.
At the outset of testimony, affirmatively disclose the paid consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company, explicitly distinguish his personal consulting capacity from his U.S. DOE employment, and remove or clearly disclaim the DOE branding from his presentation so the regulatory body can accurately weigh his testimony.
Disclose his DOE employment and State X licensure limitation as procedural credentials at the outset, answer capacity questions as narrowly posed without volunteering the retainer relationship, and rely on the regulatory body to ask follow-up questions if it requires further information about financial affiliations.
Decline to serve as expert witness in the State Y proceeding unless and until he obtains explicit DOE authorization for same-domain private consulting, recognizing that the structural conflict between his federal coal bed methane research role and private industry testimony cannot be resolved through disclosure alone.
Should Engineer A accept the private consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company and serve as expert witness in the State Y regulatory proceeding, or should he abstain from the engagement because his concurrent U.S. DOE employment in the identical technical domain creates an irresolvable conflict of interest?
Engineer A, a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher, must decide whether to accept a private consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company and serve as an expert witness in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane discharge permits — a domain identical to his federal duties — or to abstain from the engagement on the ground that the same-domain dual-role conflict is structurally irresolvable regardless of what disclosures he might make.
Decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and refrain from serving as expert witness in the State Y proceeding, recognizing that the same-domain overlap between his DOE coal bed methane research and the subject matter of the testimony creates a structural conflict of interest that no disclosure or authorization framework can fully resolve.
Accept the consulting retainer and serve as expert witness, but affirmatively disclose the retainer relationship, distinguish his consulting capacity from his DOE employment, and remove DOE branding from his presentation — treating enhanced disclosure as sufficient to manage the dual-role conflict without requiring abstention.
Condition acceptance of the retainer on obtaining explicit written authorization from the DOE permitting same-domain private consulting, treating the faithful agent obligation as dischargeable through employer consent and formal procedural compliance rather than as a categorical prohibition on same-domain dual employment.
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Engineer A DOE Consulting Testimony
Engineer A accepted a private retainer from a coal bed methane company to testify at a regulatory hearing while employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane division, creating a direct domain-overlap conflict.
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from accepting a private retainer to testify at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena, as the interrelationship between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement created a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8; conflict of interest provisions
At the time of accepting the private retainer and testifying at the State Y hearing
Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena.
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Engineer A DOT Airport
BER Case No. 02-8 precedent cited in the discussion as establishing the adjacent-domain conflict principle that was then applied with greater force to the present same-domain case.
Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer, was prohibited from simultaneously serving on a part-time basis seeking airport design contracts with municipalities, because the highway and airport domains were sufficiently interrelated — highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could impact decisions in another — creating a foreseeable conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.
the Board noted that it could 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
Duration of simultaneous State DOT employment and private airport consulting solicitation
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere
Dual Role Self-Review Conflict Prohibition John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
BER Case No. 67-1 foundational precedent cited in the discussion, establishing that an engineer who prepares plans in a private capacity and then recommends and votes to approve those same plans in a governmental capacity commits an unethical self-review conflict.
Dual Role Self-Review Conflict Prohibition Constraint
John Doe, as both the county engineer who recommended approval of subdivision plans and a member of the county planning board who voted to approve those same plans — which he had prepared in his private consulting capacity — was prohibited from occupying both roles simultaneously, as the self-review conflict was in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
Duration of simultaneous county engineer, planning board member, and private consulting roles
In finding that Doe's actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
BER in analyzing Engineer A's disclosure obligations
Governs whether Engineer A was obligated to volunteer his consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies when it was not directly solicited during his testimony, and whether his omission constituted an ethical violation given the materiality of that relationship to his testimony's credibility.
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Evolved Standard Non-Compliance
Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance Capability
Engineer A failed to apply the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management requiring prompt and affirmative disclosure of financial relationships with industry clients in regulatory testimony contexts, instead relying on a passive approach that concealed his industry compensation
Engineer A's conduct at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing failed to meet the evolved professional standard requiring affirmative disclosure of all financial relationships with interested parties
Failure to disclose industry compensation for hearing attendance; concealment of consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies throughout testimony
Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government Material Private Testimony Non-Use Failure
Government-Branded Material Private Consulting Non-Use Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to maintain strict separation between government-produced materials and private consulting deliverables, using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private consulting testimony
Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrated the problem of drawing a line between his activities as a government employee and a private consultant
Use of a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification during private consulting testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
Engineer A Dual Role Government Private Conflict Recognition Failure
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that his simultaneous U.S. DOE coal bed methane position and private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies created a direct domain overlap conflict that precluded ethically testifying as an industry-retained witness at regulatory hearings on coal bed methane matters
Engineer A held overlapping governmental and private roles in the same technical domain and failed to recognize the irreconcilable conflict this created
Simultaneous maintenance of DOE coal bed methane role and private coal bed methane consulting practice; acceptance of industry-paid regulatory testimony engagement
Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
Engineer A Expert Witness Credential Transparent Presentation Failure
Expert Witness Credential and Affiliation Transparent Presentation Capability
Engineer A failed to transparently present all relevant credentials and affiliations, specifically by displaying his U.S. DOE job title while concealing his industry consulting relationship, and by giving a misleading response to a direct question about the capacity in which he was testifying
Engineer A's testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing involved multiple failures of transparent credential and affiliation presentation
Display of DOE title in PowerPoint; misleading 'own behalf' response; non-disclosure of coal bed methane company compensation
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
Engineer A Expert Witness Objectivity Regulatory Testimony
Expert Witness Non-Advocate Objectivity in Regulatory Testimony Capability
Engineer A was required to exercise the capability to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing independent of the coal bed methane company's advocacy interests, but his industry-retained status and concealment of that relationship raised serious questions about whether this objectivity was maintained
Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company whose interests were directly affected by the proposed rules
Testimony at regulatory hearing while concealing industry compensation relationship, creating structural conditions that compromise objectivity
Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
Engineer A Extreme Same-Domain Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Self-Application Failure
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Self-Application Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between DOE coal bed methane employment and private coal bed methane consulting represented a qualitatively more severe conflict than the adjacent-domain scenarios in prior BER cases, requiring heightened scrutiny and abstention
The Board explicitly characterized Engineer A's situation as a 'more extreme example' than BER 67-1 and 02-8, indicating that Engineer A failed to apply the heightened scrutiny warranted by exact same-domain overlap
Proceeding with private coal bed methane consulting and regulatory testimony without recognizing the heightened severity of the same-domain conflict, which the Board characterized as a 'more extreme example'
This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
Engineer A Faithful Agent DOE Breach Self-Recognition Failure
Dual-Role Faithful Agent Breach Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that his private coal bed methane consulting activities constituted a breach of his fundamental duty to serve as a faithful agent and trustee for his governmental employer, the U.S. DOE
Engineer A's dual employment in the same technical domain as his government employer constituted a breach of faithful agent duty that the Board found clear and unambiguous
Simultaneously performing private consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed in the U.S. DOE coal bed methane division, breaching the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent
To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
Engineer A Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation Failure
Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to refrain from displaying and invoking his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and testimony while testifying in a private consulting capacity, thereby creating a false impression of official governmental endorsement
Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint while testifying as a privately retained consultant for a coal bed methane company at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Display of U.S. DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation; invocation of DOE employment at outset of testimony; resulting newspaper characterization of testimony as coming from a 'U.S. DOE researcher'
a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Dual Employment Compliance Failure
Governmental Procedure and Policy Dual Employment Compliance Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to identify and comply with applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment, including avoiding use of public resources (DOE PowerPoint) in private consulting work
The Board cautioned that Engineer A needed to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
Failure to follow applicable governmental procedures and policies governing dual employment, including use of DOE-branded materials in private testimony and failure to obtain required authorizations for private consulting activities
the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
Engineer A Negligent vs Intentional DOE PowerPoint Misconduct Equivalence Failure
Negligent vs Intentional Misconduct Ethical Equivalence Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private consulting testimony was impermissible regardless of whether the use was negligent or intentional, and failed to audit his materials accordingly
Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation with U.S. DOE representation when testifying at the State Y hearing, raising the question of whether this was careless error or intentional credibility enhancement — the Board found it impermissible in either case
Use of a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification during what appears to have been private consulting testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony. However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate
Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Disclosure Failure
Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to affirmatively disclose at the outset of his testimony that his attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company, without disclosing this financial relationship
Failure to disclose industry compensation relationship during testimony; omission only revealed later through newspaper investigation
Engineer A Regulatory Testimony Ethical Obligations Understanding Failure
Engineer A demonstrated a fundamental failure to understand his ethical obligations as a professional engineer serving as an expert witness, including obligations regarding credential presentation, affiliation disclosure, and capacity clarification
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's actions 'calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer'
Multiple simultaneous ethical failures in regulatory testimony: using DOE-branded materials, claiming to testify 'on his own behalf' while being paid by a coal bed methane company, failing to disclose State Y non-licensure, and failing to disclose financial relationship with industry client
Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
Engineer A Same-Domain DOE Coal Bed Methane Conflict Abstention Failure
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Abstention Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his simultaneous employment in the U.S. DOE coal bed methane division and private consulting for coal bed methane companies created an irreconcilable same-domain conflict requiring abstention from one role
Engineer A simultaneously held a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane division and performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies, testifying at a State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
Failure to abstain from private coal bed methane consulting while employed in the DOE coal bed methane division, resulting in a conflict the Board found 'virtually impossible' to manage
As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
Engineer A Same-Domain Dual Role Conflict Non-Abstention
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that simultaneously holding a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane arena and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies created an irreconcilable same-domain conflict requiring abstention from one role
Engineer A held a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane arena while simultaneously consulting privately for coal bed methane companies and testifying at regulatory hearings on their behalf
Simultaneous maintenance of U.S. DOE coal bed methane position and private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies, culminating in industry-paid regulatory testimony
Engineer A State DOT Airport Adjacent-Domain Conflict Abstention Failure
Engineer A (BER 02-8) failed to recognize that simultaneously serving as a State DOT traffic engineer and seeking private airport consulting contracts with the same municipalities created a foreseeable conflict of interest requiring abstention, even though the domains (highways vs. airports) were not identical
BER Case No. 02-8 — Engineer A's proposed dual role as State DOT traffic engineer and part-time airport design consultant for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT
Being approached to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities while continuing as a State DOT employee who reviewed those same municipalities' traffic signal work — an adjacent-domain conflict the Board found ethically impermissible
the Board noted that it could 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.
Engineer A Technically True Misleading Statement Own Behalf Response
Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize and avoid making a technically true but materially misleading statement when he responded 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, omitting the material fact that he was testifying as a paid consultant for a coal bed methane company
When directly asked whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A gave a technically accurate but materially misleading response that concealed his industry-retained consulting status
Response of 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to direct question about DOE affiliation, which was technically true but created false impression that no industry client was involved
Engineer A Unlicensed State Y Jurisdiction Disclosure
Expert Witness Unlicensed Jurisdiction Status Proactive Disclosure Capability
Engineer A partially exercised this capability by disclosing at the outset of testimony that he was licensed only in State X, but failed to fully exercise it by not connecting this disclosure to the broader context of his qualifications and the weight the regulatory body should assign to his testimony
Engineer A testified before the State Y Environmental Quality Council while holding a professional engineering license only in State X, and did disclose this at the outset of testimony
Disclosure of State X-only licensure at outset of testimony in State Y
In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
Engineer A's DOE employment overlaps Engineer A's private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A serves as a U.S. DOE employee working in the coal bed methane arena while also providing consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A's private consulting practice for coal bed methane companies
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation display of DOE job title during State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE [during his testimony at the hearing]
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation display of DOE job title
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Engineer A's disclosure of PE licensure and DOE employment before Engineer A's omission of consulting work during testimony
Engineer A began his testimony by stating PE licensure and DOE employment, but never stated that he works for coal bed methane companies throughout his testimony
Engineer A's disclosure of PE licensure and DOE employment
Engineer A's omission of consulting work during testimony
Engineer A's main testimony before question about testifying on behalf of DOE
When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf'
question about testifying on behalf of DOE
Engineer A's prior employment at consulting firm (BER 02-8 context) before Engineer A's employment with State DOT traffic engineering division (BER 02-8 context)
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 prior employment at consulting firm (BER 02-8 context)
Engineer A's employment with State DOT traffic engineering division (BER 02-8 context)
Engineer A's retention by coal bed methane company before State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company [prior to the hearing at which he testified]
Engineer A's retention by coal bed methane company
Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Engineer A State Y Regulatory Hearing
Engineer A's conduct as an expert witness — including concealment of his financial relationship with the coal bed methane company and use of government credentials to enhance credibility — called into serious question his understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer and his independence as an expert.
Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
Engineer A, in serving as an expert witness at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions rather than adopting the role of advocate for the private coal bed methane company whose interests were at stake in the water discharge permit regulatory proceeding.
Engineer A's actions in serving as an expert witness and Engineer A's behavior as an expert witness calls into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations as a professional engineer
Duration of expert witness testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Engineer A State Y Regulatory Testimony
Engineer A was retained by a coal bed methane company to testify at a regulatory hearing on proposed discharge permit rules — a context in which the company had a direct financial interest in the regulatory outcome — creating pressure to advocate rather than provide independent technical opinion.
Engineer A was constrained from adopting the role of an advocate for the retaining coal bed methane company in his regulatory testimony, and was required to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions rather than opinions aligned with the adversarial interests of his private retaining client.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional independence provisions; engineer non-advocate principle
Throughout testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
State X and State Y legislatures / licensing boards
State X and State Y Engineering Licensure Laws
Engineer A in his opening testimony disclosure; BER in evaluating the adequacy of his credential disclosures
Relevant to Engineer A's disclosure that he is licensed only in State X and not in State Y, establishing the jurisdictional licensure context for his testimony before a State Y regulatory body.
Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Engineer A State X Only Licensure
Engineer A did disclose his State X-only licensure status, partially satisfying this constraint, but then proceeded to display U.S. DOE credentials in a manner that may have substituted an implied authority for the missing State Y licensure.
Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was required to disclose his licensure status — licensed only in State X, not State Y — at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, and was constrained from presenting engineering credentials that implied jurisdictional licensure compliance in State Y.
State engineering practice acts; NSPE Code; regulatory and legal constraint on expert testimony licensure
In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X.
At the outset of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Irresolvable Conflict Recognition Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
The Board characterized the present case as 'a more extreme example' than the adjacent-domain conflicts in BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8, establishing that exact same-domain identity creates an irresolvable rather than merely manageable conflict.
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Irresolvable Conflict Recognition Constraint
Engineer A was required to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between his U.S. DOE coal bed methane division employment and his private coal bed methane consulting represented an extreme conflict of interest that was virtually impossible to resolve through ordinary disclosure or consent mechanisms, making the dual engagement categorically impermissible rather than merely subject to disclosure.
This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type
Duration of simultaneous DOE coal bed methane employment and private coal bed methane consulting
Virtually all, and possibly more, ethical considerations noted in BER Case Nos. 67-1 and 02-8 are clearly apparent in the present case
The concealed financial relationship becomes public knowledge; Engineer A's testimony is retrospectively recharacterized as paid advocacy; all institutional actors, PE board, DOE, State Y council, are now on notice of potential misconduct
After the hearing; subsequent to newspaper report
It was subsequently revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the State Y hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, publicly exposing the concealed financial relationship between the witness and the regulated industry.
Government Credential Conflation Private Retained Testimony Prohibition Engineer A DOE PowerPoint
Engineer A's PowerPoint listed his U.S. DOE job title and he stated his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, while never disclosing his private retainer — resulting in a newspaper article identifying him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' rather than a privately retained consultant.
Government Credential Conflation in Private Retained Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from displaying his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and invoking his DOE employment at the outset of testimony while concealing that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, as this created the materially misleading impression that he was testifying in an official government capacity rather than as a privately retained consultant.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; faithful agent provisions; conflict of interest disclosure standards
Throughout the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony
Government Employer Resource Non-Use Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Private Testimony
Engineer A used the same PowerPoint presentation — bearing U.S. DOE identification — in both his government role and his private consulting testimony, illustrating the problem of drawing a line between government and private activities.
Government Employer Resource Non-Use in Private Consulting Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification and branding in his private consulting testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, as this constituted use of government-developed or government-branded resources in the performance of private consulting work, in violation of his faithful agent duty and the prohibition on using public resources for private commercial benefit.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 02-8 (caution on public resources); BER Case No. 07-12
Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant
At the time of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
the Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Testimony
Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying at a regulatory hearing, the attendance at which was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, creating a misleading impression of official government endorsement.
Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation in Private Testimony Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from displaying his U.S. DOE job title and institutional affiliation in his PowerPoint presentation while testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on behalf of a private coal bed methane company, as this conflated his government credentials with his private consulting testimony and created a misleading impression that he was testifying in an official government capacity.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, II.3; BER Case No. 07-12
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
Engineer A held a position with the U.S. DOE working in the coal bed methane arena while simultaneously providing consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies, creating a same-domain dual employment conflict.
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from simultaneously serving as a U.S. DOE employee in the coal bed methane division and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, as the identity of subject matter between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement creates an irresolvable conflict of interest breaching faithful agency to the government employer.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 07-12; faithful agent provisions
Throughout the period of simultaneous U.S. DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting
Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies
Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Dual Employment Engineer A DOE Private Consulting
The Board cautioned in BER Case 02-8 that engineers in dual roles must carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies, a caution that applied with even greater force in the present same-domain case.
Engineer A was required to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment before engaging in any private consulting activities, including obtaining any required approvals and ensuring compliance with federal ethics rules applicable to DOE employees performing outside work.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 02-8 (caution on governmental procedures); BER Case No. 07-12
Prior to and throughout any private consulting activities concurrent with DOE employment
John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Self-Approval Conflict Abstention Failure
John Doe failed to exercise the capability to recognize that simultaneously serving as county engineer, county planning board member, and private consulting engineer — and preparing plans he would then recommend and vote to approve — created an irreconcilable conflict requiring abstention
BER Case No. 67-1 — John Doe's actions as county engineer, planning board member, and private consulting engineer in the same subdivision development project
Preparing subdivision plans as a consulting engineer, recommending approval as county engineer, and voting to approve as a planning board member — a triple-role conflict the Board found 'abundantly clear' to violate the NSPE Code
In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
John Doe preparing subdivision plans as consulting engineer (BER 67-1) before John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1)
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
John Doe preparing subdivision plans as consulting engineer (BER 67-1)
John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1)
John Doe recommending approval as county engineer (BER 67-1) before John Doe voting to approve plans as planning board member (BER 67-1)
then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans
John Doe voting to approve plans as planning board member (BER 67-1)
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf'
Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company
Engineer A (obligation bearer); BER (analytical authority)
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations to disclose his consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies, avoid deceptive conduct, and accurately represent his affiliations during regulatory testimony in State Y.
NSPE Code of Ethics (Dual Employment / Faithful Agent Context)
the Board indicated that it believed, 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
Cited as the primary normative authority establishing that Engineer A's dual role as a U.S. DOE employee and private consultant in the same technical domain (coal bed methane) constitutes a violation of the faithful agent and trustee obligation
Negligent vs. Intentional Government Credential Misuse Non-Exculpation Engineer A DOE PowerPoint
The Board explicitly addressed the negligence-vs-intent question and concluded that the ethical impropriety attached regardless of mental state, establishing a strict-liability-like standard for government credential conflation in private testimony.
Negligent vs. Intentional Government Credential Misuse Non-Exculpation Constraint
Engineer A's use of the U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation in his private consulting testimony was ethically impermissible regardless of whether the use was a negligent careless error or an intentional effort to enhance credibility — in either case the conduct was entirely inappropriate and constituted an ethical violation that could not be excused by claims of inadvertence.
An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
Misinformation enters permanent public record; the false narrative of government-endorsed testimony is now documented and disseminated to the broader public beyond the hearing room
After the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Following the hearing, a newspaper reported Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' publicly cementing the false impression that his testimony carried official government authority rather than representing privately compensated consulting advocacy.
Omitting Consulting Relationship Disclosure
Paying client's interests would be advanced under false pretense of objectivity
Regulatory body and public would be deprived of material information needed to evaluate testimony
Testimony would be received as more independent and objective than it actually was
Partial disclosure of licensure jurisdiction
Candor before regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies
Honesty and full disclosure in professional testimony
Public welfare over private client interest
Establish professional credentials while avoiding disclosure of financial relationship with industry that could undermine credibility or raise conflict of interest concerns before the regulatory body
Expert witness testimony in coal bed methane regulation
Professional ethics judgment regarding conflicts of interest
Understanding of disclosure obligations before regulatory bodies
During the opening of testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Full and honest disclosure of all material conflicts of interest to the regulatory body
Obligation not to misrepresent or omit facts material to evaluation of professional opinion
Obligation of candor and transparency as an expert witness
Obligation to protect the public interest by enabling informed regulatory decision-making
During his opening testimony, Engineer A disclosed his PE licensure in State X and his DOE employment but deliberately or negligently failed to disclose his private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies, including the company that retained and paid him to testify.
Omitting Consulting Relationship Disclosure (Action 3) → Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6) and Ethical Violation Established
During his opening testimony, Engineer A disclosed his PE licensure and DOE employment but omitted disclosure of his consulting relationship with the retaining company, which was subsequently revealed, establishing the foundation for ethical review under precedent from BER Case 67-1
Omitting Consulting Relationship Disclosure (Action 3)
Had Engineer A disclosed the retainer relationship during opening testimony, the ethical violation related to non-disclosure would not have occurred, though the underlying conflict of interest would still require scrutiny
Financial Sponsorship Revealed (Event 6) and Ethical Violation Established
Applicable professional ethics standards requiring conflict disclosure
Engineer A's active decision not to disclose the retainer relationship
Engineer A's role as a testifying expert before a public regulatory body
Existence of a material financial conflict of interest
Undisclosed financial retainer + expert testimony before regulatory body + subsequent revelation = sufficient basis for ethical violation finding under NSPE Code and BER Case 67-1 precedent
Hearing body receives partial credential picture; selective disclosure creates false impression of Engineer A as a disinterested government-affiliated expert
During testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, Engineer A disclosed his Professional Engineer licensure in State X, providing partial but selectively incomplete credentials to the hearing body.
NSPE BER precedent and regulatory hearing norms
Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
BER in framing the regulatory hearing context and Engineer A's obligations as a technical witness
Provides the procedural and normative framework for Engineer A's participation as a technical witness before the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed coal bed methane discharge permit rules, including ethical obligations applicable to engineers testifying in such proceedings.
As applied to environmental regulatory hearings
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard (Federal DOE Context)
NSPE Code of Ethics / professional ethics norms
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Applied to Engineer A's role as a U.S. DOE employee in the coal bed methane division who simultaneously performed private consulting in the same technical domain, establishing that this creates a direct and irreconcilable conflict of interest
Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described?
Did Engineer A's display of his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation — without clarifying that he was testifying as a private consultant paid by a coal bed methane company — constitute an intentional misrepresentation, or merely a negligent failure to segregate his professional identities, and does that distinction affect the ethical severity of his conduct?
Was Engineer A's response — 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — when asked whether he represented the U.S. DOE a technically true but materially misleading statement that violated his honesty obligations, given that it strategically omitted his paid retainer relationship with the coal bed methane company?
Did Engineer A's simultaneous employment as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher and private consultant for coal bed methane companies constitute a breach of his faithful agent obligation to the DOE, and should he have obtained explicit DOE authorization before accepting private consulting work in the same technical domain?
To what extent did the newspaper's subsequent identification of Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' — rather than as a paid industry consultant — demonstrate that his testimony created a foreseeable and material misimpression in the public record, thereby implicating his obligations to the public interest beyond his duties to the regulatory body?
Was it ethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances?
Does the Faithful Agent Obligation to Engineer A's DOE employer — which demands that he not engage in outside work detrimental to his government role — conflict with his Objectivity Obligation as an expert witness, given that accepting a private retainer from an industry his agency regulates simultaneously compromises both duties, and can either obligation be satisfied while the other is being violated?
Does the principle of Government Affiliation Material Accuracy — which requires that Engineer A's DOE credentials be represented truthfully — conflict with the principle of Conflict of Interest Disclosure, in that accurately presenting his DOE title without simultaneously disclosing his industry retainer creates a more misleading impression than either omission alone would produce?
Does the Licensure Disclosure principle — satisfied when Engineer A disclosed at the outset that he was licensed only in State X — create a false sense of procedural compliance that tensions with the Capacity Clarity Failure principle, in that partial transparency about one credential dimension (licensure) may have actively obscured the more ethically significant omission regarding his paid industry relationship?
Does the Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation principle — prohibiting Engineer A from leveraging his DOE identity to lend unearned credibility to private testimony — conflict with the Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work principle in a compounding way, such that using a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private testimony simultaneously violates both principles, and should the Board treat such compounding violations as categorically more serious than either violation in isolation?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of honesty when they answered 'I am testifying on my own behalf' without disclosing their financial retainer from the coal bed methane company, given that this statement was technically true but structurally designed to mislead the regulatory body about their actual capacity and interests?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the aggregate harm produced by Engineer A's testimony — including the newspaper's misidentification of a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' the distortion of the regulatory record, and the erosion of public trust in government-affiliated expert witnesses — outweigh any benefit the coal bed methane company or the regulatory process might have derived from Engineer A's technical expertise?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of integrity and objectivity when they displayed their U.S. DOE job title throughout their PowerPoint presentation while simultaneously concealing a private financial retainer from the very industry whose regulatory permits were under review, and does this pattern of conduct reflect the character of an engineer who genuinely internalizes professional ethical standards or one who strategically deploys credentials for client advantage?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A breach their duty as a faithful agent to the U.S. Department of Energy by accepting private consulting retainers in the same coal bed methane domain in which they perform their federal duties, and does this breach exist independently of whether the DOE was aware of or consented to the arrangement, given that the duty of non-exploitation of government affiliation is categorical rather than conditional on employer knowledge?
If Engineer A had affirmatively disclosed at the outset of their testimony that they were retained and compensated by the coal bed methane company, and had explicitly distinguished their personal consulting capacity from their U.S. DOE employment, would the State Y Environmental Quality Council have been able to appropriately weigh the testimony, and would the subsequent newspaper misidentification and public trust harm have been avoided?
If Engineer A had declined the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer entirely and instead testified solely in a personal technical capacity without any financial relationship to the regulated industry, would their testimony have been ethically permissible despite their U.S. DOE employment in the same domain, or does the same-domain dual-role conflict render any such testimony ethically problematic regardless of the absence of direct compensation?
If Engineer A had used a presentation that contained no U.S. DOE branding or job title identification — presenting only their personal technical credentials and explicitly noting their consulting relationship with the coal bed methane company — would the ethical violations related to government credential conflation have been resolved, and would any remaining ethical concerns about the dual-role same-domain conflict still have been sufficient to render their participation as expert witness impermissible?
If the State Y Environmental Quality Council had adopted a formal pre-testimony disclosure requirement mandating that all expert witnesses declare any financial relationships with regulated industries before testifying, would Engineer A's conduct have constituted a procedural violation in addition to an ethical one, and does the absence of such a formal requirement diminish or eliminate Engineer A's independent ethical obligation to disclose the retainer relationship under the NSPE Code?
NSPE Code of Ethics principles; regulatory hearing norms
Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
BER in evaluating Engineer A's conduct before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
Directly applicable to Engineer A's conduct in displaying his DOE title prominently while omitting his paid consulting relationship with the coal bed methane company, creating a false public impression of government-neutral expertise.
Derived from NSPE Code and BER precedent
Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard (DOE Expert Witness Context)
it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper
Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
Applied to Engineer A's use of a U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation while testifying at a hearing paid for by a private coal bed methane company, raising questions about whether he was misrepresenting his affiliation and creating a false impression of official government endorsement
State Y Environmental Quality Council Regulatory Authority
{'type': 'State regulatory/administrative body', 'function': 'Rulemaking for environmental quality, including coal bed methane discharge permits', 'jurisdiction': 'State Y'}
The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducted the administrative hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits and received Engineer A's testimony. As the regulatory body, it was the audience misled by Engineer A's incomplete disclosures regarding his retaining party and consulting relationships.
{'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness'}
{'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing before newspaper article reporting Engineer A as 'U.S. DOE researcher'
Later, a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
newspaper article reporting Engineer A as 'U.S. DOE researcher'
Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Engineer A Own Behalf Response
When asked whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A responded 'I am testifying on my own behalf' — a statement that was technically true in that he was not officially representing the DOE, but materially misleading in that it concealed his private retainer from the coal bed methane company.
Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as this technically true but materially misleading statement concealed his private retainer relationship with the coal bed methane company and exploited literal truth to evade the spirit of the disclosure question.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; duty of complete and non-misleading disclosure in regulatory proceedings
At the end of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council when directly questioned about testimony capacity
Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
Engineer A's claim to be testifying 'on his own behalf' was technically true in that he was not formally retained as a named expert, but was materially misleading because his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company with a direct financial interest in the regulatory outcome.
Engineer A was prohibited from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' in a manner that was technically true in a narrow literal sense but materially misleading by omission, given that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company — the duty of non-deception required a complete and non-misleading disclosure of all material relationships rather than exploitation of literal truth to conceal a financially interested capacity.
Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf
Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Company
Engineer A never disclosed during his testimony that he was retained and compensated by a coal bed methane company, despite providing technical testimony on proposed rules directly affecting coal bed methane discharge permits — a matter in which his private client had a direct financial interest.
Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council without affirmatively disclosing at the outset that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business, as this financial relationship was material information the regulatory body was entitled to know in order to properly evaluate the independence and potential bias of his testimony.
NSPE Code of Ethics; evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard; non-deception provisions
Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Company Payment
Engineer A's attendance at the regulatory hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, yet he testified in a manner suggesting he was appearing on his own behalf, concealing the financial retainer relationship from the regulatory body.
Engineer A was prohibited from testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council without affirmatively disclosing that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, as this financial retainer relationship was material information that the regulatory body was entitled to know in order to properly evaluate the independence and potential bias of his testimony.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, II.3, III.2; BER Case No. 07-12
Audience and press would associate testimony with official DOE position
Government imprimatur would lend unwarranted credibility to privately paid advocacy
Misrepresentation of the capacity in which Engineer A was testifying
Clear separation of public and private professional roles
Honesty and transparency in public testimony
deliberate or negligent (ambiguous per discussion)
Present technical credentials and background; potentially enhance credibility of testimony through association with U.S. DOE
Ability to prepare and present technical material accurately
Awareness of professional ethics obligations in expert testimony
Judgment to distinguish official from private capacity
Prior to and during the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Faithful agent obligation to U.S. DOE by associating its name with private advocacy
Obligation to avoid misrepresentation of professional affiliation or authority
Obligation to be honest and not mislead in professional communications
Obligation to clearly disclose the capacity in which testimony is offered
Engineer A chose to use a PowerPoint presentation displaying his U.S. DOE job title when testifying in a private consulting capacity, implicitly lending government credibility to testimony for which he was privately compensated by an industry client.
Using DOE-Branded Presentation (Action 2) → Newspaper Misidentification Published (Event 5)
Engineer A chose to use a PowerPoint presentation displaying his U.S. DOE job title when testifying, which, combined with the DOE-branded PowerPoint, led to a newspaper reporting Engineer A as a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' publicly cementing the misidentification
Using DOE-Branded Presentation (Action 2)
Had Engineer A used unbranded personal materials and clearly stated his personal capacity upfront, misidentification would have been substantially less likely
Newspaper Misidentification Published (Event 5)
Absence of clear disclaimer that testimony was personal, not official DOE position
Media presence at or reporting on the hearing
Simultaneous disclosure of DOE employment title
Use of DOE-branded presentation materials during testimony
DOE-branded materials + DOE title disclosure + no clear capacity disclaimer = reasonable basis for media to identify Engineer A as official DOE representative
Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Engineer A State Y Hearing
Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X, not State Y, yet proceeded to provide technical testimony at a State Y regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permit rules.
Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from providing engineering testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing without holding licensure in State Y, as verbal engineering input at a public regulatory hearing where a board relies on such input in its decision-making likely constitutes the practice of engineering in that jurisdiction.
State Y Engineering Practice Act; NSPE Code; BER interpretation of engineering practice in regulatory hearings
State Y Coal Bed Methane Discharge Permit Rules (Proposed)
State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regulatory framework under development; Engineer A as the technical subject of his testimony
The substantive regulatory subject matter of the hearing at which Engineer A testified, establishing the public interest context and the regulatory stakes that make Engineer A's undisclosed conflict of interest ethically significant.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The conflict is not resolved by the engineer's personal disclaimer ('on my own behalf') because the structural overlap between the governmental and private roles creates an inherent appearance of impropriety that cannot be cured by verbal disclaimer alone
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The integrity of the public regulatory record and the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately requires disclosure of financial relationships; the engineer's personal characterization of testimony ('on my own behalf') does not satisfy this obligation when the financial relationship remains undisclosed
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The regulatory body's and public's interest in knowing the financial basis of expert testimony overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship, particularly where the relationship is directly material to assessing the objectivity of the testimony
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
The accountability obligation requires affirmative separation; passive non-use is insufficient when the dual roles create structural opportunities for resource conflation
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
The engineer may legitimately disclose governmental employment as a credential, but must affirmatively counteract any misleading impression of governmental backing by clearly identifying the private consulting capacity and financial relationship at the outset of testimony
The Board found no distinction between negligent and intentional misrepresentation for purposes of ethical violation — both are 'entirely inappropriate'
No competing principle justifies the ambiguity; the Board found the overall conduct called into serious question Engineer A's understanding of his ethical obligations
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
No balancing is possible; the Board found the conflict virtually irreconcilable due to same-domain identity, distinguishing it from the airport/highway case where domains were merely linked
No balancing available; the Board characterized the breach as clear and the conflict as virtually irreconcilable
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
The Board found no justification for the conflation; the exploitation of governmental affiliation is impermissible regardless of intent
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
The Board found that the potential for conflict and appearance issues outweighed the engineer's interest in private consulting, even assuming employer awareness and non-objection
Board held that even mutual awareness does not eliminate the ethical violation arising from the structural conflict
Financial relationship disclosure obligation overrides any interest in maintaining the appearance of personal testimony independence
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
Objectivity as a professional virtue requires disclosure of conditions that compromise or appear to compromise independence; the engineer's subjective belief in his own objectivity does not satisfy the principle's requirement for structural transparency
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation does not exhaust the engineer's credential transparency obligations; accurate licensure disclosure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for honest credential presentation when other material relationships remain undisclosed
The principle requires that the regulatory body's interest in accurate credential context overrides any interest in not volunteering information about private consulting relationships when those relationships are directly material to assessing testimony objectivity
Objectivity obligation cannot be satisfied when the engineer is simultaneously employed by a government agency in the same domain and compensated by an interested private party
Transparency obligation to the regulatory body overrides any interest in maintaining confidentiality about the consulting relationship when that relationship is directly material to the regulatory proceeding
The Board found the conflict clear and unambiguous; no balancing was available given the direct identity between the preparer and the approver
newspaper article publication before revelation that coal bed methane company paid for Engineer A's attendance
Later, a newspaper article...and information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company
revelation that coal bed methane company paid for Engineer A's attendance
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
invokedby: Engineer A State DOT Airport Consultant
invokedby: Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant
invokedby: Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness
invokedby: Coal Bed Methane Company Client
invokedby: John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
Engineer A's failure to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry violated the transparency obligation owed to the State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regul
Engineer A failed to disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company — the regulated industry whose permit rules were the subject of the hearing — creatin
Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, depri
Engineer A's attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company that had a direct interest in the outcome of the proposed discharge permit rules, yet Engineer A characterized h
Engineer A, employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, simultaneously performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies — the identical technical domain — making independent judgment and faithful agency to his gove
Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane di
Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X and not in State Y, satisfying the affirmative disclosure obligation for unlicensed jurisdiction testimony, though this disclosure alone was insufficie
Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression of governmental authority and objectivity, while simultaneously testifying in a
Engineer A, simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE and consulting privately for coal bed methane companies, used DOE-branded presentation materials at a regulatory hearing while claiming to testify personally — exploiting his governmental
Engineer A's testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was ambiguous as to capacity: he claimed to testify personally, yet his attendance was paid by a private coal bed methane company and his materials bore U.S. DOE id
Engineer A's objectivity as a regulatory witness was structurally compromised by his financial relationship with the coal bed methane industry whose permit rules were under consideration, yet he presented testimony in a manner that implied
Engineer A's simultaneous employment by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane domain and private consulting for coal bed methane companies whose interests were directly implicated by the State Y hearing rules fundamentally compromised his ab
John Doe, as county engineer, recommended approval of subdivision plans he had personally prepared as a private consultant, and then as a county planning board member voted to approve those same plans — constituting a paradigmatic self-revi
By privately consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed by the U.S. DOE in the same domain, Engineer A breached his fundamental obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee of his government employer, whose interests were
Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal contracts, was approached to simultaneously perform part-time airport consulting for the same municipalities — creating a conflict through domain linkage between highways and a
In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board found that Engineer A's dual role violated the faithful agent and trustee obligation even where both the state agency and the private firm were aware of and did not object to the arrangeme
Engineer A's overall conduct — using government-branded materials while claiming personal testimony, accepting industry payment while denying organizational affiliation, and consulting privately in his government domain — collectively refle
By prominently displaying his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry, Engineer A made representations about his profe
Engineer A disclosed his State X licensure and DOE employment but omitted disclosure of his private consulting role for coal bed methane companies, creating a misleading impression that his testimony represented governmental or personally d
Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, whether through negligence or intent
In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board cautioned Engineer A to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work — recognizing that dual-role engineers face specific accountability obligations regarding the s
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his ongoing private consulting relationships with coal bed methane companies when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on proposed rules directly affecting that indus
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council at the outset of his testimony that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting busi
Engineer A was obligated to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and ethics regulations governing dual employment before engaging in private consulting while employed by the U.S. DOE.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using U.S. DOE-developed or DOE-branded presentation materials in the performance of private consulting work, including testimony paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Engineer A, as an employee of the U.S. DOE working in the coal bed methane division, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private consulting services for coal bed methane companies in the same domain.
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his non-licensure status in State Y at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, so that the regulatory body could assess the legal authority and jurisdi
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and invoking his DOE employment at the outset of testimony without affirmatively clarifying that he was testifying in a private consul
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that he provides consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies — the same industry whose discharge permits were the subject of th
Engineer A was obligated to comply with the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management by promptly disclosing his financial relationship with the coal bed methane company — including his compensation for attending the heari
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively and unambiguously clarify at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council whether he was testifying as a U.S. DOE employee in an official capacity or as a private con
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting represented a heightened ethical conflict that could not be managed through disclosure or employer conse
Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing based on independent analysis, rather than functioning as an advocate for the coal bed methane ind
John Doe, as county engineer and county planning board member, was obligated to refrain from recommending and voting to approve subdivision plans that he had personally prepared in his private consulting capacity.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from simultaneously holding a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, as the identity of domains
Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for his employer, the U.S. DOE, by refraining from private consulting activities in the same coal bed methane domain that directly conflicted with his governmental employer's i
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title and institutional affiliation in a manner that created a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacit
Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private airport design consulting for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT, recognizing that highways and airports are in
John Doe was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the county by refraining from using his governmental positions to approve plans he had personally prepared in his private consulting capacity.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, without simultaneously disclosing that his attendance was compensated by a
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification when testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing.
Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying — including affirmatively disclosing that his testimony was funded by a private coal bed methane company — and to refrain from presenting his DOE job t
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making the technically true but materially misleading statement 'I am testifying on my own behalf' in response to a direct question about his testimonial capacity, when that statement omitted the dec
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the pro
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from claiming to testify 'on his own behalf' in a manner that was technically true but structured to create a false impression by omitting the decisive context that his attendance was paid for by a privat
{'industry': 'Coal bed methane extraction', 'relationship_to_engineer': 'Retaining party and financial sponsor of testimony', 'stake_in_hearing': 'Direct regulatory interest in the proposed coal bed methane discharge permit rules'}
The coal bed methane company retained and financially compensated Engineer A to testify at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed discharge permit rules. The company's identity as the retaining party was not disclosed by Engineer A during testimony.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness'}
{'type': 'subject_to_regulation_by', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
Engineer A Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness
{'license': 'Professional Engineer, State X only (not licensed in State Y)', 'employer': 'U.S. Department of Energy', 'consulting_clients': 'Coal bed methane companies', 'retaining_party_for_testimony': 'Coal bed methane company', 'specialty': 'Coal bed methane engineering', 'disclosure_failures': ['Did not disclose consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies', 'Did not disclose financial compensation from coal bed methane company for testimony', 'Displayed DOE job title in presentation, creating impression of governmental affiliation']}
Engineer A, licensed only in State X, testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being retained and paid by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business. He displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation, disclosed his State X licensure, but never disclosed that he consults for coal bed methane companies. When asked if he was testifying on behalf of DOE, he said 'on my own behalf,' yet a newspaper later identified him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher,' indicating his presentation created a misleading impression of governmental independence.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
{'type': 'testifying_before', 'target': 'State Y Environmental Quality Council'}
Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness Engineer
Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy
a newspaper article reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified
BER 02-8 Engineer A Highway-Airport Adjacent Domain Conflict
From the time Engineer A was approached by former consulting firm to serve part-time on airport contracts while continuing State DOT employment
it could 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 DOT traffic engineer and part-time private consultant for airport design work with the same municipalities
Ethics finding that the arrangement would be unethical (conflict never formally resolved in the case facts)
there are clear ethical appearance issues that would presumably need to be addressed
Former consulting firm approached Engineer A to seek municipal airport design contracts while Engineer A remained employed as State DOT traffic engineer
Engineer A Ambiguous Testimony Capacity at Regulatory Hearing
Engineer A's testimony at the regulatory hearing where his capacity (personal, government official, or private client representative) was unclear to all parties including himself
Not resolved within the case facts; the ambiguity persisted through the hearing
On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
Engineer A testified at a regulatory hearing while simultaneously holding a DOE government role and having attendance paid by a private coal bed methane company, without clearly establishing his capacity
Engineer A Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting
{'government_employer': 'U.S. Department of Energy', 'private_consulting_domain': 'Coal bed methane companies', 'conflict_type': 'Government affiliation leveraged to lend credibility to industry-funded testimony', 'disclosure_failure': 'Failed to disclose private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies during testimony'}
Engineer A simultaneously holds a position with the U.S. Department of Energy in the coal bed methane arena and operates a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies. This dual role creates a structural conflict of interest, as his government employer identity was displayed in his regulatory testimony while he was actually being compensated by a private industry client.
{'type': 'consulting_for', 'target': 'Coal Bed Methane Company Client'}
Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting Engineer
Engineer A Out-of-State Testimony Licensure State
From the commencement of Engineer A's testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council through the conclusion of the hearing
Engineer A's licensure status relative to State Y regulatory hearing
Conclusion of testimony at State Y hearing
Engineer A's retention to testify in State Y while holding licensure only in State X
Engineer A State Y Council Membership Conflict
Ongoing during Engineer A's service on State X Environmental Quality Council concurrent with private consulting for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council
Engineer A's membership on State X Environmental Quality Council while testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company before State Y's equivalent body
Engineer A's service on State X Environmental Quality Council while simultaneously consulting for coal bed methane companies subject to environmental quality regulation
Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness
{'licensed_jurisdiction': 'State X', 'testifying_jurisdiction': 'State Y', 'disclosure_made': 'Yes — Engineer A stated at the outset that he was licensed only in State X', 'residual_concern': 'Whether performing engineering analysis and testimony in State Y without State Y licensure constitutes unlicensed practice'}
Engineer A testified before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits, but holds a professional engineering license only in State X, not in State Y where the hearing took place. He did disclose this limitation at the outset of his testimony.
Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness Engineer
John Doe County Engineer Planning Board Member
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'government_role': 'County Engineer and County Planning Board Member', 'private_role': 'Part-time consulting engineer'}
Served simultaneously as county engineer, county planning board member, and part-time private consulting engineer; prepared subdivision plans in private capacity, recommended their approval as county engineer, and voted to approve them as planning board member — found to be in violation of NSPE Code of Ethics (BER Case No. 67-1).
{'type': 'authority', 'target': 'County Planning Board'}
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Subdivision Development Client'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'County Government'}
John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board.
BER 67-1 Doe County Engineer Self-Approval Conflict
From the time Doe prepared subdivision plans in private capacity through his recommendation and vote as county engineer and planning board member
Government Role Self-Approval of Private Work State
Engineer Doe's simultaneous role as consulting engineer (plan preparer) and county engineer/planning board member (plan approver)
Ethics finding (the conflict was never properly resolved during the events)
As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans
he would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer
Doe prepared subdivision development plans as a consulting engineer while simultaneously serving as county engineer and planning board member
Engineer A Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict
Ongoing throughout Engineer A's employment at U.S. DOE and concurrent private consulting practice; specifically active during State Y hearing testimony
Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
Engineer A's simultaneous role as U.S. DOE employee and private consultant for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A's acceptance of consulting retainer from coal bed methane company while employed by U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena
Engineer A Government Credential Conflation in Testimony
During Engineer A's testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
Government Employer Credential Conflation in Retained Testimony State
Engineer A's display of U.S. DOE title in testimony materials while testifying on behalf of a private coal bed methane company
Revelation through newspaper article and subsequent disclosure that attendance was paid by coal bed methane company
Engineer A's inclusion of U.S. DOE job title in PowerPoint presentation and failure to clarify that testimony was on behalf of private client
Engineer A Shared PowerPoint Dual-Role Boundary Erosion
During and immediately surrounding the regulatory hearing at which Engineer A testified
Shared Presentation Material Dual-Role Boundary Erosion State
Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation containing U.S. DOE identification in both government and private consulting contexts
it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
Engineer A presented a PowerPoint bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying at a regulatory hearing with attendance paid by a private coal bed methane company
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'government_role': 'State DOT Traffic Engineer', 'private_role': 'Part-time airport design consultant for former firm'}
Served as a traffic engineer for the State DOT while being approached to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT on highway matters; Board found this arrangement unethical due to conflict of interest and faithful agent obligations (BER Case No. 02-8).
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'State Department of Transportation'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Private Consulting Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'prospective_client', 'target': 'Municipalities (airport improvements)'}
State DOT Engineer Concurrent Airport Consultant
Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation.
Engineer A was 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
Credential Presentation Accuracy Invoked By Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
Confidentiality of consulting relationships
Engineer A disclosed his State X licensure and DOE employment but omitted disclosure of his private consulting role for coal bed methane companies, creating a misleading impression that his testimony represented governmental or personally disinterested expertise rather than industry-retained consulting opinion
Credential presentation accuracy requires not merely disclosing credentials that exist, but ensuring the overall impression conveyed to the regulatory body accurately reflects the capacity in which the engineer is testifying; selective disclosure of governmental affiliation while omitting private consulting relationship violates this principle
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Regulatory Witness
Credential Presentation Accuracy in Testimonial Contexts
Engineer A Industry Consulting Relationship Disclosure State Y Hearing Violation
Engineer A testified before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on coal bed methane discharge permit rules without disclosing that he operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, creating a false impression of independent expert opinion.
Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his ongoing private consulting relationships with coal bed methane companies when testifying before the State Y Environmental Quality Council on proposed rules directly affecting that industry.
Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Faithful Agent Obligation — Engineer A DOT Dual Role
Engineer A's proposed part-time airport consulting while employed by State DOT
In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board found that Engineer A's dual role violated the faithful agent and trustee obligation even where both the state agency and the private firm were aware of and did not object to the arrangement
Employer awareness and non-objection do not cure a faithful agent violation when the structural conflict of interest remains; the engineer's obligation runs to the integrity of the role, not merely to avoiding employer complaint
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
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
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 indicated that it believed, 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.
Government Affiliation Material Accuracy — Engineer A PowerPoint
Engineer A's testimony at State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying in what appears to have been a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, whether through negligence or intentional effort to enhance credibility
Regardless of whether the misrepresentation was negligent or intentional, the use of government-branded materials in a private consulting context is impermissible because it misleads the regulatory body and public about the source and authority of the testimony
Government Affiliation Presentation Accuracy in Private Consulting Testimony
in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony.
However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Engineer A State Y Hearing
Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company, but never disclosed this financial relationship during his testimony.
Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council at the outset of his testimony that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, so that the regulatory body could appropriately weigh his testimony in light of his financial relationship with the regulated industry.
Capacity Clarity Failure — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony
Engineer A's testimony at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was ambiguous as to capacity: he claimed to testify personally, yet his attendance was paid by a private coal bed methane company and his materials bore U.S. DOE identification — leaving the regulatory body unable to accurately assess his independence or authority
The combination of personal testimony claim, industry payment, and government-branded materials created irreconcilable ambiguity about Engineer A's actual testifying capacity, violating the transparency obligation owed to the regulatory body
Capacity Clarity Obligation in Dual-Role Regulatory Testimony
it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company
At the same time, it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consultant
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'government_role': 'U.S. Department of Energy, Coal Bed Methane Division', 'private_role': 'Part-time consultant for private coal bed methane companies', 'testimony_context': 'Regulatory/administrative hearing on coal bed methane matters'}
Employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE while simultaneously performing private consulting for coal bed methane companies; testified at a regulatory hearing with attendance paid for by a private coal bed methane company while using a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE branding, creating false impressions of official governmental capacity; found to have seriously violated ethical obligations as a professional engineer.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Private Coal Bed Methane Company (hearing sponsor)'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy'}
{'type': 'witness', 'target': 'Regulatory Hearing Authority'}
Same-Domain Federal Government Private Consultant Engineer
it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A DOE Title Display
PowerPoint presentation at State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Loyalty to coal bed methane company client
By prominently displaying his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry, Engineer A made representations about his professional identity that were technically accurate but materially misleading in their overall effect
Honesty in professional representations extends beyond literal truthfulness to encompass the overall impression created by selective disclosure; displaying a governmental title in testimony materials while omitting the private consulting relationship constitutes a dishonest representation by omission
a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a 'U.S. DOE researcher' testified at the hearing, and information is later revealed that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
Honesty obligation requires that the overall impression conveyed be accurate, not merely that individual statements be literally true; the engineer's obligation to the regulatory body and public overrides the interest in not volunteering potentially disadvantageous information about the private consulting relationship
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
Technical testimony on coal bed methane discharge permit rules
Engineer A's objectivity as a regulatory witness was structurally compromised by his financial relationship with the coal bed methane industry whose permit rules were under consideration, yet he presented testimony in a manner that implied the disinterested objectivity of a governmental researcher
Objectivity requires not only that technical opinions be formed without bias, but that the conditions under which objectivity can be assessed by the audience are transparent; concealing the financial relationship that creates a structural incentive for non-objectivity violates the objectivity principle even if the engineer believes his opinions are technically sound
Industry-Retained Regulatory Hearing Witness Engineer
Objectivity Obligation — Engineer A Regulatory Testimony
Engineer A's expert testimony on coal bed methane discharge permit rules
Engineer A's simultaneous employment by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane domain and private consulting for coal bed methane companies whose interests were directly implicated by the State Y hearing rules fundamentally compromised his ability to offer objective testimony at the regulatory proceeding
Objectivity in regulatory testimony requires freedom from financial and institutional conflicts of interest that could bias the engineer's technical opinions; dual employment in the same domain as the subject matter of the proceeding makes objectivity unattainable
Dual-Role Public-Private Conflict — Engineer A State DOT Airport Case
Engineer A's proposed dual role as State DOT employee and airport design consultant
Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer reviewing municipal contracts, was approached to simultaneously perform part-time airport consulting for the same municipalities — creating a conflict through domain linkage between highways and airports even though the specific subject matters differed
Even where domains appear distinct, linkages between them — here, highway-airport connectivity — can compromise independent judgment in either role, making the dual engagement unethical
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
Highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
In deciding that 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
Engineer A Governmental Procedure Policy Compliance Dual Employment Failure
Engineer A engaged in private consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed by the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane division without apparent compliance with applicable governmental ethics regulations and agency policies on outside employment.
Governmental Procedure and Policy Compliance in Dual-Role Employment Obligation
The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
Prior to and throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private consulting engagement
Engineer A Public Resources Non-Use DOE PowerPoint Private Testimony
Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification when testifying in a private consulting capacity at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing, potentially using a government-developed resource in the performance of private work.
Public Resources Non-Use in Private Consulting Work Obligation
Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A State Y Non-Licensure
Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X and not in State Y, satisfying this affirmative disclosure obligation.
Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose his non-licensure status in State Y at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, so that the regulatory body could assess the legal authority and jurisdictional qualification of his expert opinion.
Faithful Agent Breach — Engineer A DOE Private Consulting
Engineer A's private consulting relationship with coal bed methane companies
By privately consulting for coal bed methane companies while employed by the U.S. DOE in the same domain, Engineer A breached his fundamental obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee of his government employer, whose interests were directly implicated by the private consulting work
The faithful agent obligation requires undivided loyalty to the employer within the scope of employment; same-domain private consulting for interests that may conflict with the government employer's regulatory mission constitutes a fundamental breach
Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony Invoked By Engineer A State Y Appearance
Engineer A disclosed at the outset of his testimony that he was licensed only in State X and not in State Y, satisfying the affirmative disclosure obligation for unlicensed jurisdiction testimony, though this disclosure alone was insufficient to address the broader credential misrepresentation issues arising from the undisclosed consulting relationship
Engineer A's disclosure of his State X-only licensure represents compliance with the licensure disclosure obligation; however, this technically compliant disclosure was embedded within a broader pattern of selective credential presentation that rendered the overall testimony misleading
Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony
Public Resources Non-Use in Private Work — Engineer A DOT Advisory
In the State DOT airport consulting case, the Board cautioned Engineer A to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work — recognizing that dual-role engineers face specific accountability obligations regarding the separation of public and private resource use
Professional accountability in dual-role contexts requires active monitoring and separation of public resources — including time, information, equipment, and relationships — from private consulting activities
to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
Engineer A failed to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry, violating the current evolved standard requiring prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to comply with the current evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management by promptly disclosing his financial relationship with the coal bed methane company — including his compensation for attending the hearing and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry — to the State Y Environmental Quality Council before or at the outset of his testimony.
Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Clarification Failure
Engineer A's testimony was ambiguous as to capacity: he claimed to testify personally, yet his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company and he used DOE-branded presentation materials, creating confusion about whether his testimony represented official governmental positions or private consulting opinions.
Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Affirmative Clarification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively and unambiguously clarify at the outset of his testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council whether he was testifying as a U.S. DOE employee in an official capacity or as a private consultant retained by the coal bed methane industry.
it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE, as was reported in the newspaper.
Engineer A Extreme Same-Domain Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Recognition Failure
Engineer A proceeded with private consulting in the coal bed methane domain despite being employed by the U.S. DOE in that exact domain, failing to recognize that this represented a more extreme ethical violation than the interrelated-domain conflicts addressed in prior BER cases.
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Conflict Heightened Ethical Scrutiny Recognition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his exact same-domain overlap between DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting represented a heightened ethical conflict that could not be managed through disclosure or employer consent alone, requiring complete non-engagement in private consulting in that domain.
At the time of accepting private consulting engagements in the coal bed methane domain
Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
Engineer A Same-Domain DOE Coal Bed Methane Private Consulting Non-Engagement Violation
Engineer A held a position in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE while simultaneously operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, testifying at a State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits with attendance paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Same-Domain Federal Government Private Consulting Non-Engagement Obligation
As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
Throughout the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private consulting engagement
Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Engineer A DOE Title PowerPoint
Engineer A displayed his DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression that his testimony carried governmental authority, when in fact he was testifying as a privately compensated consultant for the coal bed methane industry.
Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and invoking his DOE employment at the outset of testimony without affirmatively clarifying that he was testifying in a private consulting capacity compensated by a coal bed methane company, not in an official DOE capacity.
Throughout the testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council, beginning with the PowerPoint presentation
Honesty Obligation — Engineer A Dual-Role Conduct
Engineer A's testimony and conduct at State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing
Engineer A's overall conduct — using government-branded materials while claiming personal testimony, accepting industry payment while denying organizational affiliation, and consulting privately in his government domain — collectively reflected a failure of the fundamental honesty obligation owed to the regulatory body and the public
Honesty requires not merely avoiding affirmative falsehoods but ensuring that the overall impression conveyed to a regulatory body accurately reflects the engineer's actual affiliations, compensation, and testifying capacity
Honesty obligation is not overridden by loyalty to private client or desire to maintain appearance of independence
it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf.
Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Engineer A Coal Bed Methane Clients
Engineer A testified on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits while providing consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies, but never disclosed these ongoing industry consulting relationships during his testimony.
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that he provides consulting services primarily for coal bed methane companies — the same industry whose discharge permits were the subject of the hearing — so that the regulatory body could assess his objectivity and the weight to be given his testimony.
John Doe County Engineer Self-Review Planning Board Vote Violation
John Doe prepared subdivision development plans as a private consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of those plans to the county planning board, and as a planning board member voted to approve them — a direct self-review violation.
Municipal Advisory Engineer Self-Review Prohibition Design Contract Acceptance Obligation
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans.
At the time of recommending and voting to approve the subdivision plans he had personally prepared
Present Case Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Same-Domain Conflict
From the time Engineer A began performing private consulting in coal bed methane while employed in the DOE coal bed methane division, through the regulatory hearing
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Employment Conflict State
Engineer A's simultaneous role as U.S. DOE coal bed methane division employee and private consultant in coal bed methane for private clients
Not resolved within the case facts; ethics finding issued
Engineer A accepted private consulting work in coal bed methane while employed in the U.S. DOE coal bed methane division
Engineer A Faithful Agent Breach DOE Private Consulting
Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice serving coal bed methane companies whose interests were directly affected by the regulatory proceedings in which Engineer A participated.
Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for his employer, the U.S. DOE, by refraining from private consulting activities in the same coal bed methane domain that directly conflicted with his governmental employer's interests and responsibilities.
Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Engineer A Industry-Retained Regulatory Testimony
Engineer A was retained and compensated by a coal bed methane company to testify at a regulatory hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits, creating a structural conflict between his duty of objectivity and his financial relationship with the regulated industry.
Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing based on independent analysis, rather than functioning as an advocate for the coal bed methane industry that retained and compensated him to testify.
Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation — Engineer A DOE Title in Private Testimony
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing testimony on coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A, simultaneously employed by the U.S. DOE and consulting privately for coal bed methane companies, used DOE-branded presentation materials at a regulatory hearing while claiming to testify personally — exploiting his governmental affiliation to lend unwarranted authority to private consulting testimony
Whether negligent or intentional, the display of government employer identification in a private consulting context exploits the governmental affiliation to enhance the credibility of testimony that is not rendered on behalf of the government — a fundamental breach of the separation required between public and private roles
Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation Invoked By Engineer A DOE Identity
Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the impression of governmental authority and objectivity, while simultaneously testifying in a privately-retained consulting capacity paid for by the coal bed methane industry — resulting in a newspaper characterizing him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher'
The principle is violated when the cumulative effect of credential presentation — displaying governmental title, identifying governmental employment, testifying on subject matter within governmental role — creates an impression of governmental objectivity that the engineer knows to be false given the private consulting relationship
John Doe County Engineer Faithful Agent Breach Self-Approval
John Doe exploited his dual roles as county engineer and planning board member to recommend and approve his own privately-prepared subdivision plans, breaching the faithful agent duty owed to the county as his governmental employer.
At the time of recommending and voting to approve the subdivision plans
Said the Board, '(Doe) would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.'
Regulatory Hearing Financial Disclosure — Engineer A Industry Payment
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permit rules
Engineer A's attendance at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company that had a direct interest in the outcome of the proposed discharge permit rules, yet Engineer A characterized his testimony as personal rather than organizational — failing to affirmatively disclose the financial relationship
Payment of attendance costs by an interested industry party constitutes a financial relationship requiring disclosure, regardless of whether the engineer characterizes the testimony as personal; the regulatory body is entitled to assess the independence of the testimony
On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Non-Engagement Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Consulting
Engineer A simultaneously held a U.S. DOE position in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily for coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits while being compensated by a coal bed methane company.
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from simultaneously holding a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operating a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, as the identity of domains created an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest compromising objectivity in both roles.
During the period of simultaneous DOE employment and private coal bed methane consulting
Transparency Principle Invoked By Engineer A Concealed Compensation
Coal bed methane discharge permit rulemaking proceeding
Confidentiality of business arrangements
Engineer A's failure to disclose his compensation by the coal bed methane company and his ongoing consulting relationships with the industry violated the transparency obligation owed to the State Y Environmental Quality Council as the regulatory body receiving his testimony
Transparency in regulatory testimony requires affirmative disclosure of all material relationships and financial interests that bear on the engineer's independence; the regulatory body's ability to weigh testimony appropriately depends on this transparency
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition Invoked By Engineer A DOE-Consulting Overlap
Private consulting for coal bed methane companies
Engineer A simultaneously held a position with the U.S. DOE in the coal bed methane arena and operated a private consulting practice primarily serving coal bed methane companies, then testified at a regulatory hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits in a capacity that blurred the boundary between these roles
The dual-role prohibition applies with particular force when both roles concern the same subject matter domain (coal bed methane), because the governmental role's subject matter expertise and credibility directly enhances the private consulting role's commercial value and perceived authority
Engineer A DOE PowerPoint Government-Branded Material Private Testimony Non-Use Violation
Engineer A used a PowerPoint presentation bearing U.S. DOE identification while testifying at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits, creating a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacity.
Government-Branded Presentation Material Private Testimony Non-Use Obligation
Engineer A Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation DOE Title Display Violation
Engineer A displayed his U.S. DOE job title in his PowerPoint presentation and identified his DOE employment at the outset of testimony, creating the appearance that his testimony carried official governmental authority, while in fact testifying in a private consulting capacity paid for by a coal bed methane company.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from displaying his U.S. DOE job title and institutional affiliation in a manner that created a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacity.
it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony.
Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Interrelated Domain Conflict Violation
Engineer A was approached by his former consulting firm to perform part-time airport design consulting for municipalities while continuing as a State DOT traffic engineer who reviewed contracts and plans submitted by those same municipalities — an interrelated-domain conflict where highway and airport decisions are functionally linked.
Dual-Role Public-Private Engineer Interrelated Domain Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A, as a State DOT traffic engineer, was obligated to refrain from simultaneously performing private airport design consulting for municipalities that also interacted with the State DOT, recognizing that highways and airports are inextricably linked domains where decisions in one sphere could compromise objectivity in the other.
At the time of considering acceptance of the part-time airport consulting role
there are airport and highway hubs that are inextricably linked and the traffic and airport issues are often closely related.
Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Engineer A DOE Title Display
Engineer A displayed his DOE job title prominently in his PowerPoint presentation without clarifying his private consulting capacity, resulting in a newspaper characterizing him as a 'U.S. DOE researcher' who testified at the hearing.
Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to accurately represent the capacity in which he was testifying — including affirmatively disclosing that his testimony was funded by a private coal bed methane company — and to refrain from presenting his DOE job title in a manner that created a false impression of official governmental endorsement of his testimony.
Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Response
When directly asked whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A responded 'I am testifying on my own behalf,' which was technically accurate but omitted the material fact that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his consulting business.
Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from responding 'I am testifying on my own behalf' to the direct question of whether he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, without simultaneously disclosing that his attendance was compensated by a coal bed methane company — as the technically true response created a materially false impression of independent, uncompensated testimony.
At the end of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council when directly questioned about the capacity of his testimony
Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits
Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a coal bed methane company through his private consulting business, depriving the regulatory body of information necessary to assess the independence of his testimony
The obligation to disclose financial relationships to regulatory bodies is triggered whenever an engineer's compensation is sourced from a party with a direct interest in the regulatory outcome, regardless of whether the engineer frames the testimony as personal rather than organizational
Self-Review Prohibition — John Doe County Engineer Planning Board
Subdivision development plan approval process
John Doe, as county engineer, recommended approval of subdivision plans he had personally prepared as a private consultant, and then as a county planning board member voted to approve those same plans — constituting a paradigmatic self-review violation
The self-review prohibition applies at multiple levels: the county engineer role alone created a conflict by requiring recommendation of privately prepared plans, and the planning board membership compounded it by enabling a vote on those same plans
Municipal Advisory Role Self-Review Prohibition
(Doe) would be in violation of NSPE Code even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Engineer A Own Behalf Testimony Response
Engineer A's response to the direct question about his testimonial capacity was technically accurate but structured to obscure his financial relationship with the coal bed methane industry, violating the prohibition on artfully misleading statements.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from making the technically true but materially misleading statement 'I am testifying on my own behalf' in response to a direct question about his testimonial capacity, when that statement omitted the decisive context that his attendance was compensated by a private coal bed methane company.
At the conclusion of testimony before the State Y Environmental Quality Council
Engineer A Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Violation
Engineer A testified at the State Y Environmental Quality Council hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits without disclosing that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company, while claiming to testify on his own behalf.
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the proposed rules.
Engineer A Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony
From the commencement of Engineer A's testimony through the conclusion of the hearing; persisting until later public revelation
Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony State
Engineer A's concealed financial relationship with coal bed methane company during State Y regulatory hearing testimony
Later public revelation that Engineer A's attendance was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
Engineer A's acceptance of payment from coal bed methane company for hearing attendance through consulting business, without disclosure to the regulatory body
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Industry Compensation Concealment
Coal bed methane discharge permit rulemaking
Confidentiality of consulting arrangements
Engineer A failed to disclose to the State Y Environmental Quality Council that his attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company — the regulated industry whose permit rules were the subject of the hearing — creating an undisclosed financial conflict of interest that compromised the apparent objectivity of his testimony
Conflict of interest disclosure in advisory engagements extends to regulatory testimony contexts where the engineer is compensated by a party with a direct financial stake in the regulatory outcome; the regulatory body stands in the position of the party to whom disclosure is owed
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
Engineer A Technically True Misleading Capacity Claim Regulatory Testimony
Engineer A claimed to testify personally while his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company — a technically defensible but materially misleading characterization that obscured his financial relationship with the regulated industry.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from claiming to testify 'on his own behalf' in a manner that was technically true but structured to create a false impression by omitting the decisive context that his attendance was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Same-Domain Concurrent Employment Conflict — Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane
Engineer A's dual employment in coal bed methane domain
Engineer A, employed in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, simultaneously performed private consulting for coal bed methane companies — the identical technical domain — making independent judgment and faithful agency to his government employer virtually impossible
The complete identity of subject matter between the government role and the private consulting work — both in coal bed methane — represents the most extreme form of dual-role conflict, eliminating any possibility of maintaining the separation required by the faithful agent obligation
Same-Domain Concurrent Public-Private Employment Conflict Prohibition
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'retaining_party': 'Private coal bed methane company', 'presentation_used': 'U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint', 'claimed_capacity': 'Personal (not official DOE)'}
Testified at a governmental/regulatory hearing on coal bed methane matters with attendance paid for by a private coal bed methane company, while using a U.S. DOE-branded PowerPoint presentation that created a false impression of official governmental capacity and independence; failed to clearly disclose the retaining party's identity and financial relationship.
{'type': 'affiliated_with', 'target': 'U.S. Department of Energy (government employer)'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Private Coal Bed Methane Company'}
{'type': 'testifying_before', 'target': 'Regulatory Hearing Authority'}
Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf